The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks (Brooks or respondent), was licensed as a practical nurse having been issued license number PN 0877941 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). She has been licensed as a practical nurse since 1987. There is no evidence that respondent has been the subject of disciplinary action prior to this occasion. When the events herein occurred, respondent was an agency nurse for Underhill Personnel Services, Inc., an agency that furnished nurses to various health care facilities, including Methodist Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida. She was employed at all times as a licensed practical nurse. On November 17, 1990, respondent was scheduled to work the 11 p.m. - 7 a.m. shift at Methodist Medical Center. Although her duty shift began at 11:00 p.m., respondent arrived a few minutes late and reported directly to the medical-surgical- orthopedic wing instead of signing in at the nursing office as required by hospital rules. After reporting to her work area, respondent went to the assignment board to review her assignment for that evening. Her specific duties that evening were to care for five patients in the medical-surgical-orthopedic wing. While respondent was at the assignment board, a registered nurse, Lynn Ivie, came to the board to ascertain her assignment. At that time, Ivie reported that she smelled a "strong odor of alcohol" on respondent's breath. However, Ivie said nothing at that time since she wanted to give respondent the benefit of the doubt. Around midnight, one of respondent's patients awoke in his room with severe chest pains. Both Ivie and respondent immediately went to the room. Although Ivie instructed Brooks to get a vital signs machine (also known as the Dynamap), Brooks ignored the instruction and "wiped the patient's face with a wet cloth". Ivie then brought the machine into the room and respondent was instructed by Ivie to take the patient's vital signs (blood pressure, temperature and pulse). This merely required her to place an attachment around the patient's arm and push a button to start the machine. The operation of the machine is considered a basic nursing skill. According to Ivie, respondent could not focus on the machine and did not seem to remember how to operate it. After waiting a few moments with no response from Brooks, Ivie finally took the patient's vital signs herself. During this encounter, Ivie again smelled alcohol on respondent's breath and concluded that her inability to assist in the care of the patient and to operate the machine was due to alcohol. Within a few moments, the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) on another floor. Before accompanying the patient to the ICU, Ivie instructed respondent to chart the incident and action taken in the nurse's notes and then meet her in the ICU with the completed notes. These notes should be completed in an expedited manner so that the nurses in the ICU wing can utilize them in providing follow-up care to the patient. However, respondent did not chart the incident nor bring the notes to the ICU. Indeed, she failed to chart the notes on any of the patients assigned to her that night. By failing to chart any notes that evening, respondent contravened the requirement that a nurse file a report or record (nursing notes). Around 1:30 a.m. on November 18, Ivie and Joyce Biddix, the nursing supervisor, went to the room of one of the patients assigned to respondent and found the patient, a confused elderly male, sitting nude in a chair with the bed stripped of all linens. He had previously been tied to the bed to prevent him from falling. The linens were soiled with urine and were lying in a heap on the floor. Although respondent had taken the patient out of the bed, disrobed him, and removed the linens, she had left him unattended in the room and had not returned. Biddix called down the hall for someone to bring fresh linens and observed respondent "floating" down the hall saying "I can't find the linens" in a "singsong" voice. When she got closer to respondent, Biddix smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. It may reasonably be inferred from the evidence that respondent's conduct with this patient was unprofessional and constituted a departure from acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. After being confronted by Biddix regarding the alcohol, respondent told her she had drunk one beer with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty that evening. However, she denied she was intoxicated or unable to perform her duties. Respondent was then told to leave work immediately. The incident was later reported to Underhill Personnel Services, Inc. and that agency contacted the Board. After an investigation was conducted by the Board, an administrative complaint was filed. At hearing, respondent did not contest or deny the assertion that by reporting to work with alcohol on her breath, she was acting in an unprofessional manner and deviated from the standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. In this regard, she acknowledged that she had drunk alcohol (which she claimed was only one tall beer) with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty. However, she contended that all of her previously scheduled shifts at the hospital had been cancel led and she assumed her shift that evening might also be cancelled. In response to the allegation that she could not operate the vital signs machine, respondent offered a different version of events and suggested that the machine in the patient's room was inoperative. Therefore, it was necessary for Ivie to bring a Dynamap into the room and Ivie took the vital signs without respondent's assistance. She justified leaving the elderly patient alone without clothes in his room on the grounds there was no clean gown, the patient was not combative, and she was only gone from the room for a few moments. Finally, she contended that she charted the notes for one of her patients but did not chart the others because the remaining patients were removed from her care by Ivie and Biddix when she was sent home at 1:30 a.m. However, these explanations are either deemed to be not credible or, if true, nonetheless do not justify her actions. Although there was no testimony concerning the specific issue of whether respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol, taken as a whole respondent's conduct on the evening of November 17, 1990, supports a finding that her capacity was impaired that evening by virtue of alcohol. Accordingly, it is found that respondent was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 464.018(1)(f), (h), and (j), Florida Statutes (1989), and that her nursing license be suspended for six months but that such suspension be stayed upon respondent's entry into and successful completion of the Intervention Program for Nurses. Respondent's failure to remain in or successfully complete the program will result in the immediate lifting of the stay and imposition of the six-month suspension. Thereafter, said license shall not be reinstated until such time as respondent appears before the Board and can demonstrate that she can engage in the safe practice of nursing. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-5033 Petitioner: Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 7-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 11-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 15-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 17-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Roberta L. Fenner, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks 1604 S.W. 40th Terrace, #A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues, Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida under license number 1262382 and was employed as a registered nurse at University Hospital of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. On the late afternoon or early evening of March 14, 1984, a female patient was brought into the emergency room at University Hospital suffering from an overdose of asthma medicine for which the prescribed treatment was dialysis to cleanse the blood of the drug. When the hospital personnel had determined that adequate dialysis had been accomplished the patient was removed from the dialysis machine. A patient is affixed to a dialysis machine through the insertion of tubes into a vein and artery which facilitates the removal and replacement of the blood being cleansed. When the catheters are removed, it is necessary that pressure be applied to the place of insertion for a period of time to allow clotting sufficient to stop bleeding from the vein or artery. Generally, the pressure is administered by a nurse physically applying pressure to the immediate area. This patient did not respond properly, however. As a result, Dr. Mendez-Vigo was called to examine her. He determined that because of her blood loss, a transfusion was appropriate, which he ordered, and then left the treatment area. Approximately ten minutes later, he was called again and advised that the patient's blood pressure was dropping and that the dialysis nurse, the nurse that was attending the patient at the time, needed him. Dr. Mendez-Vigo advised the nurse to start a saline solution and indicated he would come to the dialysis unit, where the patient was being treated, as soon as possible. The dialysis of this patient was accomplished in the dialysis room which is located contiguous to and immediately off the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) in the hospital. Ordinarily, the dialysis room, which opens onto the ICU is not manned. It is however, generally fully equipped with its own supplies and equipment and when this patient was placed on the dialysis machine, she was moved to this dialysis unit and tended by a nurse, Ms. Domingo, whose sole job was in the dialysis unit. Ms. Domingo was called to come in from off-duty to attend to the patient in question and arrived at the dialysis unit at approximately 5:15 p.m. When she arrived, she found the patient stable, and the only treatment required at the time was pressure to the groin area as described above to promote clotting until the bleeding stopped. After Dr. Mendez-Vigo started the transfusion and left, as described above, the patient became restless and started sweating, which prompted Ms. Domingo to stop the flow of blood. This took place at approximately 6:00 p.m. Once she stopped the inflow of blood, she wanted to remove the needle through which the blood was being inserted, but because she was unable to remove the pressure from the patient's groin area and because she was alone in the dialysis unit, she called for help from those nurses assigned to the ICU. At first, no one responded, but shortly thereafter, after a second call for assistance, Nurse O'Brien did come in. Ms. O'Brien was, at the time, one of several nurses assigned to duty on the ICU and had worked there just a few days. She and Respondent, the nurse in charge of the unit, were the only two registered nurses on duty, along with several licensed practical nurses (LPN's). However, at the time in question, Respondent was off the unit at dinner and Ms. O'Brien is not sure where the LPN's were. When she heard the dialysis nurse call for help, she went into that room and saw the situation. Ms. Domingo told her that the patient looked to be in shock - sweating, with a high pulse rate, very low blood pressure, and in a semi-conscious state. At this point, Ms. O'Brien immediately opened up the IV point to put in a saline solution, then went outside the dialysis room to get equipment to start another intravenous line (IV), and to page Dr. Mendez-Vigo. When she brought back the equipment she needed and tried to start the second IV, she experienced difficulty because of the patient's low blood pressure. At this point, she asked another nurse from the ICU to speed the doctor up. At this time, in her opinion, the patient was extremely unstable and near critical. It was then that Ms. O'Brien first saw the Respondent. She told him she was going into the dialysis unit to help out. Respondent did not follow, but instead went to the nurse's station on the ICU from which he could see the door to the dialysis room and called to Ms. O'Brien telling her she was not to go into the dialysis unit since it was a separately staffed unit. Ms. O'Brien responded to the effect that while this might be the case, the patient was sick and needed help and she was going to give it. In response, Respondent told her several times that she was not to be in the dialysis room. Ms. O'Brien finally told Respondent that she was going to do what she had to do regardless of what he- said. She further contends that when Dr. Mendez-Vigo finally returned her call, Respondent took the call and spoke with the doctor but refused to tell Ms. O'Brien what the doctor said until she came out of the dialysis room to talk to him. To do so, she had to leave the patient with whom she was working to go to the nurse's station and get the message from the doctor which had been given to Respondent. When Dr. Mendez-Vigo arrived at the dialysis unit, he saw the Respondent and two other nurses in the ICU area. He went into the dialysis unit and observed the dialysis nurse still applying pressure to the artery and one other nurse, subsequently identified as O'Brien. At this point, Respondent and the other nurses in the ICU were standing around in that unit not assisting in the dialysis area. When he arrived, Dr. Mendez-Vigo found the patient to be nearly unconscious with a high pulse rate and low blood pressure. He suspected a transfusion reaction and because of that, started action to counteract that situation. Because both nurses in the dialysis room were totally occupied by the patient, he needed help to get other things ready for treating the patient. For example, he needed to get additional equipment, additional IV lines had to be prepared; and solutions had to be mixed. Both Ms. Domingo and Ms. O'Brien seemed to him to be upset because it appeared Respondent had attempted to keep the other ICU nurses from helping in the dialysis room when they were needed because the patient was not an ICU patient. During the initial telephone conversation between Dr. Mendez-Vigo and Respondent, the doctor requested Respondent to secure certain supplies. When the doctor got to the dialysis unit and saw the condition of the patient, he took a blood sample, which he asked Respondent to take to the lab for identification for transfusions. Respondent failed to respond to any of the doctor's requests. Another resident, Dr. Curran, was called into the dialysis from by Dr. Mendez-Vigo when she came to the ICU that same evening. On at least one occasion, after she started to work on this particular patient, she walked out to the nursing station of the ICU and asked Respondent for help. At that point he refused, stating that he was busy and responsible for all the other patients and could not leave. As a result, Dr. Curran took the blood to the lab for what lab work was necessary. When she got back from the lab, she asked Respondent where she could get MAST trousers for the patient and if he would call the emergency room to inquire. Respondent refused to do this, requiring Dr. Curran to do it herself. When she was advised that the operating room might have them and started to place that call, at that point, Respondent did make the call to try to secure what she needed. During the course of his treatment of the patient, Dr. Mendez-Vigo had occasion to attempt to use the cardiac monitor that was a part of the equipment in the dialysis room. It is unclear whether the doctor did not know how to operate the equipment or whether it did not work. In any event, the doctor requested the Respondent to get a portable monitor that was a part of the ICU's equipment. Respondent refused this request initially on the basis that the patient was a dialysis patient rather than an ICU patient, and that his instructions were that ICU equipment could not be used for dialysis patients. Notwithstanding his initial refusal, Respondent ultimately did provide the requested monitor, however. Dr. Mendez-Vigo's recollection of the incident was that the Respondent's total response was that since the patient was not an ICU patient, he could not help out and do what was necessary since he was assigned to ICU, not dialysis. He reportedly stated that he could get into trouble if he did. According to the doctor, however, none of the other patients in the ICU needed immediate attention so that, in his opinion, Respondent or some other member of his staff could have assisted in the treatment of this critically ill patient. What was unknown to Respondent at the time was that the patient had been identified for admission to the ICU, and orders to that effect had been written by Dr. Mendez-Vigo though the formal process of admission had not taken place. As was stated, this information regarding proposed admission had not been communicated to Respondent or the other ICU nurses even though the information was contained on the patient's chart which was with her in the dialysis room during this period of time. If Respondent had gone in to help as requested and looked at the chart, he would have seen this. According to Ms. O'Brien, through all the period of requests for help prior to the arrival of the doctor, and even through the period of requests for assistance and equipment after the arrival of the doctors, Respondent did not come into the dialysis room to see the patient's condition for himself. It was only after Dr. Mendez-Vigo started the neck IV line that the Respondent came into the dialysis room, and when he saw the patient he said something to the effect of, "Oh, I didn't know she was so sick." This was 20 to 25 minutes after the original call for help. Sometime after the incident, Respondent went to Ms. O'Brien and apologized to her for not responding more quickly and for trying to get her out of the dialysis room when he returned from dinner. At that time, he said his resistance was based on the fact that he did not want her to get into trouble. He also told her that if she intended to report the incident, he would just go ahead and submit his resignation because he had been in trouble previously and this would hurt him. Respondent's demands to Ms. O'Brien to come out of the room when she was in assisting Ms. Domingo, prior to the arrival of the doctor, were heard clearly by Ms. Domingo. Ms. Domingo also overheard the doctor ask Respondent to help hook the patient up to the monitor and overheard Respondent's initial refusal. What was most puzzling to Ms. Domingo was that though she had never dealt with Respondent prior to this time, whenever she had asked for help from the ICU nurses previously, she had always gotten it. According to another nurse on the ICU that evening, Ms. Bowers, who was on her break at the time of O'Brien's first confrontation with Respondent, emergency situations requiring help from the ICU personnel were not frequent and this was the first emergency situation she knew of involving Respondent. In this case, she was not aware of any "code" being announced, nor overheard the argument between Respondent and Ms. O'Brien. She had been in the ICU for an hour prior to this time and during that entire period, had received no request from Ms. Domingo for help. She had not previously been asked for assistance and until she became aware of the problem by overhearing the dispute referenced above, she had no idea there was an emergency situation in the dialysis room. Frank B. Bellamy works as a nurse manager at University Hospital for the ICU. As a part of his job, he oversees and evaluates nursing services in the ICU and was doing so at the time of the incident in question. To his knowledge, at that time, there was no written policy on support of the dialysis unit by the ICU. However, the oral instructions given to ICU personnel were that ICU equipment and supplies were not be used in routine cases in the dialysis unit - only in emergency cases. In an emergency case, anything could be used. The job description drafted for registered nurses in University Hospital does not delineate any separation for jobs between ICU and the dialysis unit, but it was generally followed at the time in question that ICU nurses did not help out in the dialysis room in routine situations. However, in an emergency situation, ICU nurses could and should help--out. In Mr. Bellamy's opinion, in the instant case, as the fact situation existed, extra help was needed and the ICU nurses, including Respondent, could have and should have helped out if this assistance could be provided without jeopardizing the patients in the ICU. In such a case, the ICU nurse would have called the nursing supervisor, reported the situation, and requested help. In his opinion, Respondent's conduct in this case was unprofessional misconduct. It was not negligence but willful misconduct in that the Respondent refused to render assistance in an emergency situation and attempted to prevent Ms. O'Brien from doing so as well. Both of these are evidence of willful misconduct. In addition, in an emergency situation, the Respondent's failure to provide the portable monitor in a timely fashion was both unprofessional and unsafe in that the ability of the physician to determine cardiac rhythm is crucial. Nurses are obliged to acknowledge physician's orders and, if considered safe, to follow them. In emergency situations, according to Mr. Bellamy, it is negligence and unprofessional conduct not to provide assistance and equipment to a doctor upon request. Here, in the professional opinion of Mr. Bellamy, the Respondent's failure to provide the requested assistance to the doctor was critical and constituted negligence and unprofessional misconduct. The mere fact that the Respondent delayed responding is negligence because in an emergency situation, as here, time can be and was of the essence. Respondent made much of the need for the charge nurse to oversee the patients on the ICU. In fact, these checks by the charge nurse, the job which Respondent was filling at the time, were done only every 10 or 15 minutes, and assuming that this was necessary and critical on a routine schedule, there was still ample time between the checks for the Respondent to respond to the dialysis unit. Here it is clear that Respondent was asked for help and either refused to give it all, or failed to respond in a timely fashion. It is also clear that Respondent refused to provide equipment and other supplies, even though under the guidelines in place at the time, and which, though oral, had been briefed to the ICU nurses, this situation was one where he could have properly done so. With regard to Respondent's contention that he had been told that he was not to go into the dialysis unit to help, Ms. Kamienski, the Director of Nursing who helped to interview Respondent when he was hired, advised him that the dialysis section was responsible for routine care but that it was placed where it was, contiguous to the ICU, so that ICU nurses could help out in an emergency. She categorically denies ever telling Respondent that dialysis was to get no help, nor that he was never to go in there. As Director of Nursing, Ms. Kamienski received the complaint about the Respondent in the incident in question, and on the basis of the complaint did some investigation. She determined from her interview of the physicians and nurses involved, that the allegations were true and Respondent's conduct was inappropriate. In her opinion, any registered nurse who has the knowledge and skills (and, as here, the resources) to render aid and assistance in a need situation, who does do so and who, as here, attempts to hinder aid, is guilty of negligence and should not practice nursing in the State of Florida. Ms. Kamienski is satisfied that Respondent used poor judgment in this assistance. He should have either helped out himself or assigned someone on the unit to assist and he did neither. Also, he could have contacted the house supervisor to get help either for his unit or for the dialysis unit and failed to do that. In her opinion, his conduct was unprofessional and insubordinate. He had the responsibility to help out in a life threatening situation and failed to do so. Admittedly, the dialysis unit had been requested to use its own equipment and supplies, but in a life threatening situation, they were to get anything they needed. This is now, and was the policy at University Hospital, and to the knowledge of Ms. Kamienski, a similar policy is found in almost any hospital. It is a general standard of practice in nursing to use whatever is needed from wherever located in an emergency situation. Here, Respondent's delaying tactics in making the telephone calls at the request of physicians, was unprofessional conduct because of the life threatening situation. Death to the patient could be imminent in a situation such as this, and Respondent had a duty to respond in a timely fashion. Respondent also makes much of the fact that none of the other nurses in the ICU offered assistance and that nothing was done to them. The fact is that none of the other nurses were asked for help, nor were they asked for supplies and equipment by physicians, nor did they interfere to tell Ms. O'Brien to come out. As to the monitor, Ms. Kamienski feels that while admittedly it is not Respondent's responsibility to ensure that the dialysis monitor was working, under the circumstances of this incident, when he was asked for a portable monitor in an emergency situation, he should have provided it and not argued about whether the dialysis monitor was working or not. In the opinion of Ms. Cayer, a professor of nursing at Jacksonville University, a registered nurse should respond to an emergency and provide whatever assistance is necessary in the situation in the geographical area of the nurse, even if the patient is not the nurse's patient. Having had an opportunity to review the extensive documentation which outlines the situation here and what Respondent did and failed to do, and which fairly reflects the facts in evidence, she concluded that the patient here was unstable and rapidly declining; this was very near or actually was a severe emergency, and there was a need for help. Ms. Cayer was made aware of a hypothetical situation which very closely parallels the factual situation in this case. Based on this hypothetical situation, she concludes that the Respondent in that case was negligent because: (1) when the nurse in question arrived on the scene, he should have gone into the dialysis unit, assessed the situation, and made staffing changes to help out and meet the situation, all of which he failed to do (he needed to gain the knowledge of what the needs were and to take action to meet those needs); (2) he improperly attempted to get the nurse (Ms. O'Brien) to come out of the dialysis room without assessing the situation and its needs (by the time he knew that the blood pressure was low and communicated this information to Dr. Mendez-Vigo, he surely must have known there was a problem); (3) while it would not have been proper for him to leave the floor to go to the blood bank himself, it was unprofessional of him not to arrange for someone else to go in light of the fact that he could have done so; (4) as to the monitor situation, he should have followed up on the request for an additional monitor to see why the request was made (If he had done so, it would have shown that the monitor was not working and he would have provided a replacement sooner. His failure to follow up on the request and his rejection of it without further inquiry was unprofessional); (5) his failure to communicate effectively in all these respects hindered the staff in their treatment of the patient and was unprofessional conduct. Much the same approach is taken by Dr. Eileen K. Austin, also an expert in the field of nursing, who indicated that nursing education generally teaches that first and foremost the interest of the patient takes precedence over policies and regulations which may be ignored if necessary. Also, the nurse must assess the situation and either provide the needed service or get someone else who can provide it. Emergency procedures care is taught as a part of several courses in nursing education. Nurses are also taught generally that if the need is there, the nurse acts regardless of where the patient is assigned and once in the picture, retains treatment status until relieved. As to the response to physicians, nurses are taught they are to respond promptly unless they suspect it is an improper order which would endanger the patient. Nursing assessment includes observing the patient for signs and condition, to take vital signs, to ensure there is an airway for breathing, and once having made an assessment, either provide or secure help. These basic concepts are universal to nursing training. The course title may vary among nursing schools and among nursing programs, but the subject matter is basically the same and these subjects are, in substance, on the nursing licensing examination. The primary difference between the two-year associate of arts program in nursing and the four-year bachelor program is in the other primarily non-nursing, non-scientific curriculum. Basic nursing material is the same in both. The requirements for the registered nursing license requires certain basic information be taught, and it does not matter through which program these requirements are met. Respondent's reputation is good among the people with whom he currently works. For example, Respondent has worked for JoAnn Hahn at Methodist Hospital as a staff nurse for one year and she has observed his work in both routine and emergency situations in the accomplishment of his duties which are equivalent to being the charge nurse on a particular shift. She finds Respondent to have a very good knowledge of critical care situations and to her knowledge, he has never mis-diagnosed a case. He anticipates medications correctly and has them ready, and he also knows what lines are needed and has them ready. In critical care his performance is above the standards she has observed in other hospitals. In responding to requests from supervisors or doctors, if he agrees with the request, he speaks out, somewhat abruptly sometimes, but this is what she wants her nurses to do. Above all, however, Respondent never lets the patient down, and Ms. Hahn has no reservations whatsoever about his training, ability or performance. When he is on duty, she feels quite safe. Ms. Hahn is aware of the incident in question here, having reviewed the statements regarding it and her knowledge is consistent with the facts in evidence. She has also reviewed the hypothetical situation and based on this, she feels that Respondent's actions in question were not a violation of the Nursing Practices Act. In Ms. Hahn's opinion, Respondent was not incorrect in calling Ms. O'Brien out of the dialysis room because the ICU was, in her opinion, under-manned in light of the serious condition of the patients on the floor, and Respondent did not have a report on the condition of the patient in the dialysis room. As to the monitor situation, she feels the patient should not have been put on the dialysis machine in this case without being put on a monitor as well from the very beginning. Also, the needed IV lines should have already been started prior to the dialysis in case of need. As to Dr. Mendez-Vigo's telephone request to the Respondent to start an IV line, since Ms. O'Brien was already trying to get it started and Respondent could see this, it was not necessary for him to go in and attempt the same thing. The fact that Ms. O'Brien could not accomplish the start and it was necessary for the doctor to start a sub-clavian line is immaterial since a registered nurse would not do that procedure anyway. In short, in light of the condition of the patients on the ICU, Ms. Hahn feels Respondent could not have properly left the unit. He also could not have gotten the blood because he did not have the patient's proper plates or bands as required by the lab. As for the portable monitor, he could have asked why they did not use the monitor they had, but, Ms. Hahn feels the delay based on his understanding of the monitor being in there was "just common sense." Cathy Carvery has known Respondent from the time she hired him at University Hospital. She observed him in his work there in the handling of patients and feels that his competence, training, and other skills are very good. He handled crisis situations very well and knew what he was doing. She, too, has reviewed all the background information on the situation and is familiar with the dialysis room and equipment at University Hospital. In light of the staffing in the ICU at the time, in her opinion, it was not at all improper for the Respondent to have refused to send any more of his staff to the dialysis room. Also, in her opinion, though he could have tried to get the blood as requested, he would not have been able to do so without more information on the patient, which was not available to him. In addition, even if he had tried to insert the IV line as requested by the doctor, the likelihood is great he would not have been able to get it started. What is overlooked by both Ms. Hahn and Ms. Carvery in their exulpatory comments regarding Respondent's failure to assist, failure to go for blood, and failure to attempt to start the IV line as requested, is that though what they say may well be true and that Respondent could not have accomplished anything, the fact is he did not even try. With regard to assisting or providing more help, a telephone call to the supervisor of nursing would have resolved that situation without either he or any more of his people being required. Though he called Ms. Lee, he did so to report what he considered to be Ms. O'Brien's improprieties and at no time requested any help. Though he most likely could not have accomplished getting the blood as requested because of the lack of plates, the fact is that though asked to do so, he did not even try and the same is true with regard to the IV line. It does not matter that the sub-clavian insertion was done by the doctor. Respondent was not asked to insert a sub-clavian catheter. He was asked to attempt an intravenous line and did not even try. It is impossible to say what he would have done if he had attempted to assess the situation and find out what the condition of the patient was as he should have done. He did not, and it this particular especially, he was deficient. With regard to the incident in question, when Respondent came back from dinner he was told by one of the LPN's on staff that Ms. O'Brien was in the dialysis room because a patient was bleeding from an arterial line. In his experience, this was not too serious and in light of the fact that Ms. O'Brien was off the ward, one nurse was out to dinner, another was on duty, and he did not know here the fourth was, he was miffed. As a result of this, he called Ms. O'Brien out of the dialysis room to talk to her and she did not respond to his request. This made him angry. He did not have any responsibility for dialysis patients and his understanding of support to be furnished to the dialysis unit was that he was not to take any equipment in there. In light of his previous chastisement for doing so, he was upset. Though he denies refusing to convey Dr. Mendez-Vigo's message to Ms. O'Brien unless she came out of the dialysis room to get it, it is clear that in light of his admittedly poor frame of mind at the time, he did just that. He also admits to first suggesting, when requested to get another monitor, that they use the one in the dialysis room. Nonetheless, he says he went and got the portable within just a few minutes and hooked the patient up to it. Since Dr. Mendez-Vigo did not ask for any further assistance or give him any additional orders thereafter, he went back to work. When Dr. Curran asked him for the blood from the lab, he asked for a charge plate and was told it was in the dialysis room. He found, however, that the patient had not been admitted and did not have a charge plate, and he would therefore be unable to get the blood requested. He then started the admission process because he felt that when that was accomplished, within a 30-minute period or so, he could then get the blood as requested. As for the MAST trousers, when asked by Dr. Curran to get them, he, because of other duties, could not respond immediately, but did so several minutes later, at which time the request was refused. Dr. Curran, parenthetically, also was refused when she requested the trousers. When, as stated before, Respondent called Ms. Lee, the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. supervisor, to report Ms. O'Brien, he was told to let her stay there. No request for assistance, equipment or supplies was made. On the basis of the investigation by Ms. Kamienski and after consultation with Mr. Bellamy, a recommendation of termination was prepared and delivered to the Respondent. In accordance with the procedures that were in effect at the time, he requested a hearing and one was afforded him. Respondent contends that the hearing was a farce and he was not given the opportunity to confront any of the witnesses or evidence against him. After the hearing was over, he was offered the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination and did so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED, that Respondent's license as a registered nurse in the State of Florida be suspended for one year and that upon completion of the period of suspension, he be reinstated and placed on probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Board of Nursing. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. Haldane Taylor, Esq. 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the nursing license of Connie Sue Ward Reeves should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the charges, Connie Sue Ward Reeves has been licensed in Florida as a practical nurse, holding license number 0739211. In April 1990 Ms. Reeves was employed as a practical nurse at the Silvercrest Manor Nursing Home in Crestview, Florida. On April 18, 1990, Ms. Reeves worked the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. shift. Her duties included administering and charting medication. Ms. Reeves punched out on the time clock at 7:30 p.m. The Director of Nurses, Helene Metts, came on the floor when Ms. Reeves left because there was a staffing shortage. In determining what needed to be done, Ms. Metts examined the charts for the patients for whom Ms. Reeves had been responsible. Ms. Metts found that some 8:00 p.m. medications and one 10:00 p.m. medication were already charted as having been administered by Ms. Reeves. It is not the accepted practice at Silvercrest for the nurse on the prior shift to give the next shift's medications. In fact, the policy and procedure manual of Silvercrest requires that medications be given at the right time and that the medication be charted immediately after it is given. It is permissible according to policy to give medications up to one hour on either side of the prescribed time unless the prescribed time falls in the next shift. These practices also are required by principles of good nursing practice. Ms. Reeves was given the policy and procedure manual as part of an orientation which she attended prior to beginning at Silvercrest. Because Ms. Reeves had already left the premises, Ms. Metts never was able to determine the night of April 18, 1990, whether the medications had actually been given or whether they had just been pre-charted. If Ms. Reeves did administer the medications which she had charted, then she gave them in contravention of the policies and procedures. The way these medications were charted was negligent in that the medications either were administered at the wrong time, by the wrong shift, or were pre-charted before the medications were actually administered. Further, by signing the medication charts of the patients involved, Ms. Reeves was making a record that she administered the medications at the time stated on the charts. This cannot be so since Ms. Reeves left work up to two and one-half hours before the medications were to be given. Additionally, if Ms. Reeves pre-charted the medications, but did not administer them, the act of charting something that was not actually done would constitute negligence and the creation of a false record. Ms. Reeves' negligence resulted in a situation where patients could either receive no medication or double medication. In either case, the patients were put at risk.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, enter a Final Order and therein: Find Connie Sue Ward Reeves guilty of violating Sections 464.018(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes. Place Ms. Reeves on probation for a period of one (1) year. Require Ms. Reeves to attend continuing education classes in an amount and subject area to be established by the Board. Impose a fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0266 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-8(1-12). COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Connie Sue Ward Reeves Rt. 1 , Box 390 Laurel Hill, FL 32567 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner became a Registered Nurse in 1965 and has been engaged in the nursing profession since that time. She was awarded a Bachelor of Science in nursing in 1975 from Florida International University and is presently enrolled in the masters of nursing degree program at the University of Miami. In 1973 Petitioner enrolled in the Primary Care Nurse Practitioner program at the University of Miami and successfully completed the six months program in December 1973. During this program she received 1,000 hours training. Upon completion of this training, Petitioner was eligible for licensure as an Advanced Nurse Practitioner but did not apply for registration at that time although she worked as a Nurse Practitioner immediately upon completion of the training. From January 1974 to March 1977 Petitioner worked at Jackson Memorial Hospital at Miami as an Advanced Family Nurse Practitioner. During this period she received actual instruction of approximately one hour per day for a total of some 710 hours in duties of Nurse Practitioner in addition to the daily experience gained working as a Nurse Practitioner. In 1977 Petitioner moved to Colorado where she worked as a Nurse Practitioner from October 1977 until April 1978 for the Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood organization and the Mountain Community Medical Clinic. In the latter position she manned a clinic that was some 30 to 40 miles from the nearest doctor and communicated with the doctor by telephone in diagnosing and treating patients. She worked some 348 hours in this position. Additionally, Petitioner taught in the Nurse Practitioner program at the University of Colorado one to three days per week from January until May 1978. Upon Petitioner's return to Florida in May 1978 she applied for licensure as an Advanced Nurse Practitioner and was denied licensure because the regulations were changed effective March 31, 1978, to require a one-year educational training program in lieu of the six months program completed by Petitioner. The current approved program at the University of Miami provides some 1,105 hours of training similar to the training Petitioner obtained at the earlier course.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons given in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Nursing (Board), has alleged that Respondent, Sheila Key, a licensed practical nurse, failed to conform to minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice while employed as a practical nurse at Florida Christian Health Center (FCHC), in Jacksonville, Florida, in the Fall of 1999. Respondent holds license number PN 0792331 issued by the Board. The allegations against Respondent arose as a result of a routine Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) licensure survey of the facility on October 1, 1999. On that date, an AHCA survey team found an elderly resident with a head injury whose nursing notes had not been properly charted; a resident in the recreation area with blood on her gown and requiring medical attention; and a third resident with unattended sores on his ankles. All were under the direct care of Respondent. As to the first resident, the Board charged Respondent with failing to document the resident's head injury or condition in her nursing notes. In the second case, she was charged with failing to notify a physician or other responsible party in a timely manner about the injury and applying "steri-strips without a physician's order." Finally, Respondent was charged with failing and refusing "to comply with the surveyors' request" that she "remove [the patient's] socks so the ankle area on his feet could be observed." Each of these charges will be discussed separately below. Around 5:15 p.m. on September 30, 1999, A. B., an eighty-seven-year-old male resident at FCHC, acidentally fell and sustained an injury to his head that required emergency room treatment. A. B. returned to FCHC from the emergency room sometime after 9:00 p.m. Respondent reported for duty at 7:00 p.m. that same evening. Although good nursing practice dictated that Respondent promptly perform a neurological check on A. B. after he returned from the hospital, she failed to do so and did not perform one until 7:00 a.m. the next day (October 1). Even then, she failed to document any of her findings in the resident's nursing notes. By failing to document "the fall or his condition" in the nursing notes until the morning following the injury, Respondent failed to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable prevailing nursing practice. Around 7:40 a.m. on October 1, 1999, M. C. suffered a laceration on her neck while being transferred from her bed to a wheelchair. Respondent applied steri-strips to the wound, but she did not have a physician's order to do so. Also, she failed to document the neck wound or her treatment of the wound until 10:45 a.m., or more than three hours later. Finally, M. C.'s physician was not notified about the injury until around 12:15 p.m. FCHC has a written policy entitled "Changes in a Resident's Condition Status," which requires that the nurse promptly notify the resident, the resident's physician, and the resident's family of changes in the resident's condition. Thus, a nurse must notify the resident's attending physician and family whenever the resident is involved in any accident or incident that results in an injury. If the injury is of an emergency nature, such notification is required within thirty minutes to an hour. The evidence establishes that M. C.'s injury was of a type that required notification within this short time period. By waiting for almost five hours to notify M. C.'s physician about the injury, Respondent failed to conform with minimally acceptable nursing practices. She also violated the same standard by applying steri-strips to the injury without a doctor's order. Finally, she failed to conform to minimally acceptable nursing practices by not charting the injury in the nursing notes until more than three hours had elapsed. During the October 1, 1999, inspection, a member of the survey team asked Respondent to remove the socks and dressings on J. R., a resident. The request was made since the team could see a brown discharge on the inner aspects of his socks. Respondent would not do so, and eventually an assistant director of nursing performed that task. After the socks were removed, the survey team found old dressings through which drainage had soaked. They also observed sores that had thick yellow or serosanguinous drainage. Even though the sores had been there for at least a week or so, dressings had been previously applied, and the soaked socks were clearly visible, Respondent had failed to check the resident and was therefore unaware of his condition. Despite this omission, however, Respondent was only charged with failing and refusing "to comply with the surveyors' request," and not with inappropriate conduct with respect to the care of the resident. By failing to respond to a reasonable and legitimate request to remove the resident's socks so that a suspicious area could be observed, Respondent failed to conform to minimally acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice. Respondent failed to admit responsibility for any of the foregoing violations. As to the resident with the neck wound, Respondent contended that the wound was not serious. However, it was serious enough that the resident's physician believed emergency room treatment was necessary. Respondent also contended that the assistant director of nursing (Widhalm) advised her that she (Widhalm) would call M. C.'s physician, an assertion which Widhalm credibly denied. Respondent further contended that she failed to chart A. B.'s nursing notes because the chart was in the hands of the surveyors. Under those circumstances, however, acceptable protocol requires that the nurse request the return of the notes so that essential information can be timely recorded. Finally, Respondent contended that the surveyor had told her that she could finish her "medication pass" before removing the socks and could do so whenever she had time. This assertion is not deemed to be credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the violations described in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent be fined $1,000.00, given a reprimand, and placed on probation for two years subject to such conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruth R. Stiehl, PhD., R.N., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3231A 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sheila Key 3651 Dignan Street Jacksonville, Florida 32254 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joann Jensen, graduated from the University of Nebraska with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing in 1972. She became licensed as a Registered Nurse in Florida, but upon moving back to the North she let the license lapse. When she returned to Florida in 1976 she was reinstated as a Registered Nurse, and she now holds license number 70429-2 issued by the Board of Nursing. Thereafter the Respondent became employed at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, and was assigned to the nursery where she became charge nurse in August of 1977. She held this position during the March-October, 1979, period which is involved in this proceeding. In October of 1979 the Respondent was transferred out of the nursery into a medical/surgical adult unit at Holy Cross Hospital, where she remained for about six months, when she left the hospital to work for a private nursing agency. Between March and October of 1979 the Respondent was observed by six nurses on several occasions when she continued to feed infants after they had begun to choke, gag and struggle for air. Specific occurrences were described with reference to infant's named Baby Mandell, Baby Saul, Baby Riccobono, Baby McDaniel, Baby Fast, Baby Davis, Baby Pierce, and Baby Fletch, although precise time frames were not uniformly established. Other instances were described generally without reference to any particular infant. The Respondent was further observed to have tube-fed an infant to the point where its abdomen became distended, to have forced liquid into an infant after it had been breast fed by the mother, and to have manipulated the nipple of a bottle in the mouth of an infant in a rough manner so as to increase the flow of fluid into the mouth. On at least one occasion an infant turned blue and required suction to clear its passages. This form of handling of infants by the Respondent continued from March of 1979 until October when she was transferred to an adult-care unit. The testimony of the six nurses presented by the Petitioner also establishes that the Respondent used what is known as the Crede Maneuver to induce newly circumcised infants to urinate. This is a procedure used by some nurses in which the bladder is massaged gently until urination occurs. However, the manner in which the Respondent performed this procedure was forceful and rough, resulting in painful screams from infants. On one occasion there was no stated medical reason for use of the Crede Maneuver on the infant except that the Respondent wanted to have the chart show that urination had occurred during her shift. The evidence further establishes that the Respondent cursed and used foul language in the nursery, and that in one instance this was directed at an infant when the mask used to protect its eyes under the bilirubin lights kept slipping off its face. Placing an infant under bilirubin lights with its eyes masked for protection is a procedure designed to break-down excessive bilirubin in the blood when this is a problem. Although the Complaint did not specifically allege that the Respondent's language in the nursery would be an issue, this evidence was received without objection, but has been accorded no weight by the Hearing Officer. The evidence presented by the Petitioner's expert witness establishes the fact that conduct such as described above, if true, is not acceptable nursing practice, and deviates from the minimum standards established for and prevailing in the nursing profession. Based upon the observed candor and demeanor of all the witnesses, the evidence presented by the Petitioner has been accorded sufficient weight to support the findings of fact set forth herein. No evidence was presented to show that these facts were in accordance with good nursing practice; thus, the evidence warrants a finding that the Respondent's conduct failed to conform to and departed from the standards of acceptable nursing practice. The testimony of the Respondent and her witnesses, and other evidence, amounted to a denial that the occurrences took place, that the Respondent was not working on at least one date when the conduct described was observed, that the charts and records do not corroborate the facts charged, and that the Petitioner's witnesses were engaged in a conspiracy against the Respondent. However, the testimony of the three nurses on behalf of the Respondent establishes no more than that they have not observed the conduct described by the other nurses. There was no corroborative testimony relative to a conspiracy among the Petitioner's witnesses. Further, the occurrences described took place over a prolonged time period, and involved numerous infants. There is no particular significance to the failure of the charts to contain notations confirming the observations of the nurses, or that the Respondent was not shown by the records to have been on duty the particular date of only one incident. The Respondent's former supervisor related one instance when a mother complained that the Respondent had been rough with her infant. An investigation resulted, from which she concluded that the Respondent might have been rough with the baby. This witness also thought there was some merit to the complaints that nurses made of the Respondent's treatment of infants, although she continued to give the Respondent good performance evaluations. In summary, there was not sufficient evidence presented by the Respondent to support her own self-serving denial and assertion of a conspiracy against her, or to effectively rebut the clear and convincing testimony presented in support of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 70429-2 authorizing the Respondent, Joann Jensen, to practice as a registered nurse, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 25 day of September, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25 day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie S. Hotaling, Esquire 1523 North East 4th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a registered nurse's license, No. RN 1992962, and has at all material times. In May of 1989, as an employee of Kimberly Nurse Travelers, an agency with whom Bay Medical Center had contracted for his services, he worked as a nurse at Bay Medical Center in Panama City, Florida. While working the night shift as the triage nurse on May 12, 1989, respondent helped himself to a Darvocet N-100, a pill he ingested 20 minutes later. At the time and at hearing under oath, he said he took the pill because he had a headache. Darvocet is a prescription drug, and respondent had no prescription for it. But petitioner's own witness conceded that Darvocet "is not considered a drug of choice for people that have a problem with drugs" (T.61) and should not, in the dosage respondent took, "impair someone's judgment and ability to perform." T.66. A co-worker reported respondent, who was in plain view when he took the pill from the cart. Later the night of May 12, 1991, at the behest of supervising personnel, respondent supplied a urine specimen, which tested positive for benzodiazepine, possibly the residue of the 15-milligram Dalmane tablet respondent took the night before, when he was off duty. Respondent's co-workers who testified found no fault with his performance as a nurse, this incident aside. But theft of the Darvocet pill, and its ingestion on duty without a prescription, violated hospital policy and fell below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, Rule 21O- 10.011(2)(j), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes penalties for infractions of Rule 21O-10.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, of reprimand, fine, probation and/or suspension. Nothing was proven in aggravation. In mitigation, it was shown that this was a first offense, apparently an isolated occurrence. It is, accordingly, recommended that petitioner reprimand respondent, and levy an administrative fine against him in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500). RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 323990-0792 Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Carol C. Murphy, Esquire Post Office Box 1084 Lakeland, FL 33802
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether the Respondent's license as registered nurse in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters herein, the Petitioner, Board of Nursing, (Board), was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of the nursing profession in Florida. The Respondent, Karen Louise Davis, was a registered nurse in this state except that her license, during the period August 2, 1987 through June 12, 1989 had lapsed. It was subsequently reissued on July 1, 1989 and was scheduled to expire on March 31, 1991. On April 11, 1989, C.S. was a patient on the obstetrical service at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Respondent was assigned as one of her nurses. On this date, the Respondent informed Tina Maultsby, also a staff nurse on the obstetrical service at that hospital at the time, that she had reduced the ordered dosage of a particular medication, Retodrine, without the order of the patient's physician or any other doctor. At this time, the patient, who had been admitted for a pre-term labor, was receiving the medication by order of her physician that date and was to receive it according to a pre-printed protocol in an attempt to stop the labor. According to the doctor's orders, if the medication controlled the contractions, the patient was to get further treatment. These orders were acknowledged by the Respondent. The patient's hospital records reflect she was toreceive the medication at a certain dosage which , before Respondent came on duty that day, was increased from .2 to .225 mg. When this was done, the contractions stopped. However, when Respondent came on duty, without authority, she reduced the dosage to .175 mg, and the contractions started again. When Ms. Maultsby came on duty and noticed this, she notified the patient's physician who instructed her to increase the dosage to .300 mg. but this did not stop the contractions. He finally instructed her to change medications. The doctor was not aware, until told by Ms. Maultsby, that the Respondent had reduced the dosage. The hospital's protocol for this medication calls for preliminary tests to insure the patient is having premature labor. Once that is determined, it calls for starting Retodrine at a certain level and increasing it to a certain point. Under the terms of the protocol, the attending physician is to be notified if the contraction s stop, but there is no provision therein for reducing the dosage without physician orders. When Ms. Maultsby found out what had happened, she notified Ms. Graber- Helmuth, the Head Nurse of the obstetrics service who asked Respondent about the situation. Respondent readily admitted she had reduced the dosage but claimed she did so because the patient's pulse rate had gone up and she was nauseous. She claimed she did not call the physician because it was night and she didn't want to wake him. Ms. Graber-Helmuth has worked in the labor and delivery end of obstetrics all her career of over 20 years innursing. She has been qualified as an expert in labor and delivery in either court or in a hearing of this nature at least three times. In her opinion, the care the patient received here from Respondent was less than optimum. She believes the Respondent's conduct failed to conform to acceptable standards and by failing to conform to the requirements of the protocol in place at the time, jeopardized her patient. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, therefore: it is, recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent, Karen Louise Davis' license in Florida as a registered nurse for a period of one year, to be followed by a period of probation for an additional two years, under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Board of Nursing. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 17th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Karen Lousie Davis 1136 Van Buren Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
