The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent, Virginia Downey White, License No. 24571-1, should be revoked or suspended, or whether the Respondent should be placed on probation.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Virginia Downey White, holds Licensed Practical Nurse License No. 24571-1. During the time pertinent to this hearing the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at St. Catherine Laboure Manor a nursing home in Jacksonville, Florida. An Administrative Complaint was issued against the Respondent on April 20, 1979, alleging unprofessional conduct. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing. Prior to an investigation by the personnel at St. Catherine Laboure Manor, and prior to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent White, a call had been received at the nursing home stating that medications were not being properly given by the Respondent to her patients. On her own initiative, Priscilla Garske, a co-worker and licensed practical nurse who knew Respondent White, made a random selection of ten (10) patients from approximately twenty-five (25) assigned to the Respondent, listing the names of those ten (10) selected and listing their medications by their names in her nursing notes on March 25, 1979. Ms. Garske did not work on March 26, but on March 27, 1979, she returned to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. On that date, after Ms. Garske had again counted medications for the same patients listed in her nursing notes, she reported to Florence Thibault, R. N., Director of Nurses at St. Catherine Laboure Manor, that the count was identical. Ms. Garske had checked the patients' medication sheets on which medications which had been given were to be charted and found that the medications had in fact been charted for these particular patients on March 25, 26 and 27, 1979, by the Respondent. Ms. Garske gave her nursing notes to Ms. Thibault when she reported her findings. Ms. Thibault examined the list of patients in Ms. Garske's nursing notes and their list of medications and immediately directed two (2) other nurses to check the medication cards against the list. Alberta Neeley and Eva Itameri, both licensed practical nurses, went to the units and checked Ms. Garske's list against the medication cards for the numbers of medications that were left. They returned with their findings, which indicated that six (6) of the ten (10) patients on the list had the same numbers of pills on their cards on that date, March 27, as they had had on March 25, 1979. Ms. Thibault then made a list of the same patients with their medications by their names, called Respondent White and discharged her from her employment, indicating to the Respondent that she had failed to give patients their medications while improperly charting on their records that they had received such medication. Of the ten (10) patients listed in Ms. Garske's nursing notes and by Ms. Thibault, it was alleged that Respondent White had failed to give medications to six (6) of them, whose records were introduced into evidence. It was stipulated at the hearing that the remaining four (4) patients on the list had in fact received their medications from the Respondent. Respondent White was responsible for giving medications to half of some fifty-eight (58) patients on her floor, who were mainly aged and infirm people. The patients on the list had not been questioned as to whether they had in fact received medication during the time in question. Each patient on the floor had a medication card with twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) pills on it, each pill being encircled by a plastic bubble. Some patients had more than one card. Some patients had one card opened and one not opened, and some patients had two (2) cards opened, although it was the policy of the nursing home to give all the pills from one card before a new card was opened. On the medication cart there were additional stock medications, such as vitamins, which were given the patients from time to time. The counts made on the medication cards of the patients on the list who were the responsibility of the Respondent were made from one medication card only according to the testimony of Ms. Garske. Eva Itameri, a nursing supervisor at St. Catherine Laboure Manor during the time pertinent to this hearing, and who had been instructed by Ms. Thibault to accompany Alberta Neeley to the floor on which Respondent White worked and to make an examination of the medication cards of the ten (10) patients on the list, pulled the cards from the patients' files, and Ms. Neeley wrote down their names and the numbers of medications on their cards. Ms. Itameri did not question the patients at the time she was making her investigation, stating that the patients on the floor whore the Respondent worked were very confused and disoriented. Ms. Itameri stated that it normally took about an hour to pass out medications each morning, and that sometimes the stock medications from the medication cart were also dispensed to the patients. Alberta Neeley, the licensed practical nurse who accompanied Ms. Itameri as instructed by Ms. Thibault at the time pertinent to this hearing, stated she talked in general with the patients at that time, but that she did not make a list of those to whom she had talked and did not specifically ask whether they had received their medications. Ms. Neeley also stated that the situation at St. Catherine Laboure' Manor was subject to "a turn- over in staff." At the hearing, Ms. Garske stated that all ten (10) patients listed in her nursing notes had had the same numbers of medications on their cards when counted by her on March 27, 1979, as they had had on March 25, but that each of those patients had been charted by Respondent White as having been given their medications each day as required. It can not be reliably ascertained from the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing whether the medications for the six (6) patients, whose records were introduced into evidence, had in fact been given to them as indicated on their charts. Whether Respondent White gave them medications from a different card than previously used, whether some medications were given from the stock medications, or whether some of the six (6) patients were not medicated is unknown. The patients were not questioned, and if they had been questioned would not have remembered. Respondent White stated she gave the medications as required. There was ill feeling between Respondent White and Ms. Garske, her co- worker, who made the initial count of the medications and reported that the Respondent had not given medications to the patients. Alberta Neeley, one of the witnesses for the Petitioner Board, was in doubt as to whether the count she and Ms. Itameri made as instructed by Ms. Thibault would conclusively indicate that medications had not been given patients. From time to time during her employment at St. Catherine Laboure Manor, Respondent White misplaced medications for patients and required assistance from other nurses to locate such medications. She finished giving her patients medications in less time than did the two (2) other nurses, although each nurse had approximately the same number of patients to medicate. Both Eva Itameri and Alberta Neeley, as witnesses for the Petitioner Board, stated they felt Respondent White to be a good nurse, but they had some reservations as to her general nursing performance. No proposed findings of fact or memoranda of law were submitted to the Hearing Officer by the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petition in this matter be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William J. Sheppard, Esquire 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing Ill Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Ferman Barrett committed unprofessional conduct and departed from minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes by abandoning his shift.
Findings Of Fact At all times material Ferman Barrett was licensed as a practical nurse, with State of Florida license number PN0628671. He was originally licensed by examination on December 14, 1981, and has regularly renewed' his license since then. Mr. Barrett was employed as a practical nurse at Westlake Hospital, in Longwood, Florida, from July 1987 until January 1988. Westlake is a psychiatric hospital serving individuals of all ages with complex psychiatric problems. On January 2, 1988, Mr. Barrett was assigned to the children's unit, consisting of 12-13 children with conduct disorders. He was given charge of three patients whose medication he was to maintain and whose activities he was to supervise. The children could have been combative and [illegible]. Barrett was scheduled to work a double shift on January 2, 1988 from 7:00 A.M. until 3:00 P.M., and from 3:00 P.M. until 11:00 P.M. At approximately 8:05 A.M., Barrett told Denise McCall, the charge nurse for that shift, that he "couldn't take it anymore" and was leaving. She asked him to wait until she could contact a supervisor to properly relieve him, but he left without permission. He was subsequently discharged by the hospital for abandoning his job. Diana Eftoda was qualified as an expert in the practice of nursing. She has been licensed as a registered nurse in Florida since 1978. She has 20 years experience in nursing, including beginning her nursing career as a licensed practical nurse. She has administered nursing staff of an entire hospital and has served in a policy making position with the Board of Nursing. Mrs. Eftoda established that abandonment of a shift without notice or permission is a breach of professional responsibility and constitutes misconduct. Ferman Barrett's action jeopardized the safety and well being of his patients and his license should be disciplined.
The Issue Is Petitioner guilty of violating Section 455.227(1)(c) Florida Statutes, justifying imposition of conditional licensure as two years probation with terms listed in the Order filed September 20, 1996? The charge of violating Section 464.018(1)(b) Florida Statutes has been dropped by the Board.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a first degree misdemeanor count of passing a worthless bank check in violation of Section 832.05(2)(a) Florida Statutes. Section 832.05(2)(a) Florida Statutes provides, in pertinent part, as follows: It is unlawful for any person, . . . to draw, make, utter, issue, or deliver to another any check, . . . knowing at the time of the drawing, making, uttering, issuing, or delivery such check or draft, . . . that the maker . . . has not sufficient funds on deposit . . . with such bank . . . with which to pay the same on presentation . . . nor does this section apply to any postdated check. As part of a court diversion program, adjudication was withheld and Petitioner was assigned to take the Florida Association for Corrective Training, Inc. (FACT) course on the criminal consequences of dishonored checks and how to avoid them. Petitioner completed the FACT course, and also paid restitution, diversion fees and court costs. This course was completed on September 12, 1995. A plea of nolo contendere is neither an admission of guilt nor a denial of charges. A plea of nolo contendere with adjudication of guilt withheld does not constitute a conviction. Petitioner made her plea as a matter of convenience. Petitioner has never been found guilty or convicted of passing a worthless bank check. The check which gave rise to Petitioner's April 25, 1995 plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor under Section 832.05(2)(a) Florida Statutes was written to Florida State University (FSU) on September 2, 1994 for tuition fees for courses in which Petitioner had enrolled as a nursing student. Petitioner made an error in the calculations of her check register. The check was returned to FSU as "without sufficient funds". FSU redeposited the check, which was then returned a second time to FSU as "without sufficient funds". Upon learning that the check had been returned, Petitioner contacted the FSU registrar's office. She was told that she had contacted FSU soon enough, so that she could withdraw from classes without penalty, and therefore she need not be concerned about the check. Petitioner did withdraw from classes and thought the problem was solved. However, FSU subsequently pressed criminal charges for the check with the Leon County State Attorney's Office. On March 28, 1996, Petitioner applied for a practical nursing license (L.P.N.). On her application, Petitioner answered in the affirmative the question as to whether she had ever been convicted or entered a nolo contendere or guilty plea regardless of adjudication, for any offense other than a minor traffic violation. She also provided a written explanation for the April 25, 1995 nolo contendere misdemeanor plea. Additionally, in an effort to be candid and forthcoming, Petitioner provided a written explanation for each of five other charges for passing worthless bank checks brought against her. As a result, Petitioner was invited to appear, and chose to appear, before the Board of Nursing's Credentials Committee to explain the circumstances surrounding her April 25, 1995 nolo contendere plea and the other worthless check charges she had disclosed. According to Petitioner, this meeting lasted less than five minutes and she was asked no questions. Pursuant to Section 464.002 Florida Statutes, the Board of Nursing voted to grant Petitioner an L.P.N. license subject to two years' probation with terms described in its September 20, 1996 Order based upon the Board's "finding of fact" that Petitioner "was found guilty or pled nolo contendere on various charges of passing worthless bank checks" and that there were aggravating circumstances surrounding the plea. The Board's Order concluded that Petitioner is guilty of violating Section 455.227(1)(c) Florida Statutes. Section 455.227(1)(c) Florida Statutes provides that a license may be disciplined for: Being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction which relates to the practice of, or the ability to practice, a licensee's profession. The Board of Nursing does not have a disciplinary guideline, a range of penalties, or a rule addressing mitigating circumstances for a misdemeanor violation of Section 832.05(2)(a) as a violation of Section 455.227(1)(c) Florida Statutes.1 The Board of Nursing issued license number 1250541 to Petitioner effective October 9, 1996 and subject to two years' probation, as described in its September 20, 1996 Order. Petitioner had an opportunity at formal hearing to present evidence concerning her nolo contendere plea and the five other charges she voluntarily reported to the Board. A "no information" is the method of dismissing a misdemeanor criminal charge. A "nolle prosequi" is the method of dismissing a felony criminal charge. The first charge occurred in 1991 or 1992. It involved a dishonored check for a mere $5.64 to Winn-Dixie. The court diversion program at that time was not very elaborate, but Petitioner attended a single February 25, 1992 lecture on the passing of bad checks, and paid restitution plus $20.00 in costs. A nolle prosequi was entered. Petitioner's check to FSU on September 2, 1994 for $199.79 resulted in two service charges being imposed on her checking account by her bank. (See Finding of Fact 5) These unilateral debits by the bank resulted in a check written September 15, 1994 by Petitioner for $56.59 to Winn-Dixie being dishonored for insufficient funds. Petitioner wrote a letter of explanation, paid restitution, and a "no information" was filed. A $49.19 check written to Wal-Mart on March 31, 1995 and a $150.48 check written to Winn-Dixie on April 5, 1995 were dishonored because Petitioner relied upon her ex-fiancé to deposit money he owed her directly into her checking account instead of Petitioner receiving payment from him in person. Petitioner did not see her ex-fiancé in person or return to their joint residence to pick up her bank statements because he had been abusive and she was fearful of him. He did not, in fact, make the deposit to her account. Petitioner paid restitution and costs for both cases. The Wal-Mart check situation resulted in a "no information." The Winn-Dixie check situation resulted in a nolle prosequi. A $99.20 check Petitioner had written to Publix on September 4, 1995 was dishonored because a car repair shop which had repaired her car did not honor an oral agreement Petitioner understood would prevent her check to the repair shop from being presented to the bank until after she had made a sufficient deposit from an insurance claim for the car repairs. This resulted in a "no information." Due to the uncertainty of the State Attorney's computer records (TR 96-98) and Petitioner's clear testimony, it is found that Petitioner was not required to undergo the diversion program for the September 15, 1994, March 31, 1995, April 5, 1995, and September 4, 1995 checks. However, it is abundantly clear she has now had two courses concerning this subject: one in 1992 and one in 1995. (See Findings of Fact 3 and 16) It is also clear she wrote her last bad check before completing the second FACT course on September 12, 1995. Two of Petitioner's bank check problems arose while she was a nursing student. Petitioner was employed as a patient care technician at Vivra Renal Care from July 1995 through October 1996. One of Petitioner's bank check problems arose while she was employed in the care of critically ill people. Dr. Evelyn Singer, Dean of the School of Nursing at FSU testified as an expert in nursing education and the practice of nursing. She opined that practical nurses are responsible for observing and documenting vital patient information and routine patient care. Other health care professionals rely upon the accuracy of practical nurses' observations and documentation. Nursing instructors stress the importance of accuracy and honesty when a practical nurse handles vital patient information. A documentation mistake by a practical nurse has the potential for resulting in a patient's death. Dr. Singer further opined that passing worthless bank checks is a crime related to the practice of nursing because the skills called into question for passing worthless bank checks are the same skills required to be an effective nurse, ie., making accurate observations, accurately recording observations and events, making accurate calculations, accurately measuring medication doses, accurately measuring and noting blood pressure and temperature of patients, appropriately changing dressings, accurately measuring and reporting patient observations, being cognizant of details, and addressing errors or omissions honestly and promptly. However, Dr. Singer further testified that if those things are accurately performed, then a nurse's ability is not affected by even a felony bad check arrest and plea. Dr. Singer believes that an inaccurate nurse is an untrustworthy nurse. In Dr. Singer's expert opinion, practical nurses should notify their nursing units if they have been arrested and convicted of writing worthless checks so as to constitute a felony (TR 124-126), so that the registered nurse under whose license they practice can be on the alert for documentation mistakes. What significance a felony arrest or conviction has as opposed to a misdemeanor arrest or conviction was not explained by Dr. Singer, but she viewed the probation imposed on Petitioner not as a judgment of personal guilt or dishonesty but as an opportunity for Petitioner's employer to be on the lookout for inaccuracies. At Petitioner's request, Judith G. Hankin, Director, School of Practical Nursing, Lively Technical Center, wrote a letter dated March 15, 1996 to the Board of Nursing. She wrote, [Petitioner] entered the Practical Nursing Program on August 23, 1993. On March 14, 1996 [Petitioner] informed me that she had an arrest record for series of worthless bank checks. . . . Her overall behavior during the time she was enrolled in school was acceptable. I feel that [Petitioner] is capable of assuming the responsibilities of a graduate practical nurse. Petitioner has worked as a licensed practical nurse at Vivra Renal Care, Tallahassee, Florida since her licensure on October 9, 1996. Her duties include assisting patients receiving kidney dialysis by setting up dialysis machines, preparation of dializers, assisting patients, and initiating treatment and discharge of patients. Charles E. Brown, R.N., is the head nurse at Vivra Renal Care. He has supervised and been involved in the evaluation of Petitioner since she began work at Vivra Renal Care in July 1995. (See Findings of Fact 22 and 29) Nurse Brown also was accepted as an expert in clinical nursing. He opined that inadvertently writing a worthless check or pleading nolo contendere does not relate to the practice of nursing or the ability to practice nursing. Mr. Brown has consistently observed, over a period of approximately 18 months, that Petitioner accurately measures medication doses, accurately measures and notes blood pressure and temperature of patients, appropriately changes dressings, accurately measures and reports patient observations and is cognizant of details. Nurse Brown described Petitioner's nursing abilities as "good" and the opposite of careless to the point that she is more than meticulous.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing rescind its September 20, 1996 Order and enter a Final Order granting Petitioner an unrestricted L.P.N. license, without any probationary period. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of MAY, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jean L. Hammer, was at all times material hereto a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0588011. In October 1986, respondent was employed by Pinewood Lodge, a treatment center for alcohol and drug rehabilitation, as a staff nurse on the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift. Respondent was the only employee on duty during her shift, and was responsible for monitoring the patients for signs of distress, noting their progress on the medical records, and administering prescribed medications. For such services, respondent was paid $27,000 per annum; a salary consistent with that paid a registered nurse (R.N.) at the facility. In January 1987, respondent was offered and accepted the position of Supervisor of Nurses at Pinewood Lodge. The staffing of this position required the services of and provided an annual salary of $25,000 and other benefits. Respondent occupied this position until July 1987 when it was discovered that she was not a registered nurse and was discharged. The respondent's personnel file at Pinewood Lodge demonstrates that in seeking and gaining employment at the facility respondent represented herself to be a licensed registered nurse, the recipient of a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh, and the recipient of an Associate in Science Nursing degree from Broward Community College. Such representations were false, and the documents submitted to support such representations were forgeries. The proof further demonstrates that respondent assumed the title of R.N., routinely signed documents in a manner that identified her as an R.N., and otherwise led the public and associates to believe that she was licensed as a registered nurse; all for pecuniary gain. While there was no showing that anything untoward occurred during the course of her tenure at Pinewood Lodge, respondent knew her actions were improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending respondent's license for one year, that following such suspension respondent be placed on probation for two years subject to such terms and conditions as the board may specify, and imposing an administrative fine against respondent in the sum of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 4. 3-4. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraph 4. 7-8. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 5. 9. Addressed in paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Raymond Shope, Esquire John S. Cobb Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard Smith, Esquire 1258 South State Road 7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33317-5989 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Professional Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the State Agency charged with the regulation of the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapters 20,456 (formerly Chapter 455, Part II; see Chapter 2000-160, Laws of Florida) and 464, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils or boards, as appropriate, including the issuance of emergency orders of suspension or restriction. Respondent is Cynthia Chance. Respondent is a Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. PN 0855441. On or between March 1997-May 1997, Respondent was employed by Health Force, a nurse-staffing agency. In or about March 1997, Respondent was assigned to work various shifts at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 18, 1997. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time-slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 21, 1997. Findings of fact based on the evidence of record Missing Drugs On May 13, 1997, Health Force received a "late call" from Cathedral Gerontology Center (Cathedral) needing a "stat" nurse because one of their nurses had not come to work. Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), administrator for Health Force, called Respondent who reported to Cathedral at 6:50 p.m. Kim Harrell, R.N., a supervisor at Cathedral, was the nurse who stayed until Respondent arrived. Also at 6:50 p.m. on May 13, 1997, Barbara Kelley, R.N., received and signed for a delivery of medications for residents from American Pharmaceutical Services. Included in that delivery was an order of Alprazolam (Xanax) and an order of Diazepam (Valium) for two residents on the floor where Respondent was working that evening. The delivery came with a separate medication or narcotics card for each medication. There were two floors of residents at Cathedral. Each floor had its own medication cart and its own nurse assigned to the floor. Controlled medications have a separate box in the medication cart with a separate key. The nurse on each floor had a key to her own medication cart but did not have a key to the medication cart of the other floor. The Director of Nursing (DON) also had a key to both medication carts in the event of an emergency such as a lost key. After receiving and signing for these drugs, Nurse Kelley locked the medications that belonged to her medication cart in it and inserted the narcotic cards for those medications into the notebook that corresponded to her cart. She then gave the medications and control sheets that belonged to Respondent's medication cart to Respondent, placing them in Respondent's hand. Nurse Kelley told Respondent that these were controlled drugs and instructed Respondent to lock up the medications in Respondent's medicine cart. There is conflicting testimony as to what happened next. Respondent admits to receiving the medications and the control cards. However, Respondent maintains that she placed the medications in the locked drawer of the medication cart and inserted the cards into the notebook in front of Nurse Kelley, whereas Nurse Kelley maintains that she walked away immediately after giving the drugs and cards to Respondent and did not see her place the drugs in the controlled drug lock box or the cards in the notebook. It was a policy at Cathedral for the out-going nurse to count controlled drugs with the on-coming nurse. When Respondent arrived on the night in question, she counted the controlled medications with Nurse Harrell. The narcotics count for both narcotics cards and actual doses was 16. At the end of her shift, Respondent counted the controlled medications with the on- coming nurse, Pamela Schiesser. The number of narcotics cards and tablets or doses was 16, the same as when Respondent came on duty. Nurse Schiesser was scheduled to work a double shift, 11 to 7 and 7 to 3. During the 11 to 7 shift, Nurse Schiesser was the only nurse for both floors of residents and she, therefore, had the key to both medication carts. Sometime during the 7 to 3 shift on May 14, 1997, Nurse Schiesser called the pharmacy to find out about a medication order she had placed for two residents so they would not run out. She was informed by the pharmacy that the drugs had been delivered the evening before and that they had been signed for by Nurse Kelley. She checked the delivery sheets and confirmed that Nurse Kelley had signed for the medications. After determining that there were no cards for the missing drugs and the drugs were not in the cart, she then reported to her supervisor, Kim Harrell, that the medication had been delivered but could not be located. Nurse Schiesser and Nurse Harrell checked the entire medication cart, the medication cart for the other floor and the medication room but did not find the missing medications. Nurse Harrell then notified the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Lu Apostol, and the Director of Nursing (DON), Fely Cunanan, regarding the missing medications. The ADON began an investigation and secured written statements from all of the nurses on her staff who had access to the drugs: Nurses Kelley, Harrell, and Schiesser. She called Nurse Kelley to confirm that she had received the medications from the pharmacy and confirmed that the two missing medications, Alprazolam (Xanax) and Diazepam (Valium), were given by Nurse Kelley to Respondent. The ADON also called Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), the administrator of Health Force for whom Respondent worked to notify her of the missing medications. On May 14, 1997, Ms. Streeter (Calfee) called Respondent and informed her about the missing drugs. On May 15,2000, Ms. Streeter and Respondent went to Cathedral for a meeting. They were informed that the two missing drugs had not been located and they were shown the written statements of the other nurses. Respondent admitted that the drugs had been given to her the night before by Nurse Kelley, but stated that she had locked the drugs in her cart. She denied any further knowledge about the drugs. At Ms. Streeter's suggestion, Respondent took a blood test on May 15, 2000.1 The drug test result was negative thus indicating that the drugs were not in her blood at the time of the test, which was two days after the drugs were missing. No competent evidence was presented as to how long it takes for these drugs to leave the bloodstream. Cathedral had a policy that required that all controlled substances be properly accounted for and secured by each nurse responsible for the drugs. This policy was verbally communicated from the off-going nurse to the oncoming nurse. When Nurse Kelley gave the drugs and drug cards in question to Respondent, she specifically instructed Respondent to lock up the drugs in the narcotics drawer. Respondent maintains that other people had keys to her medication cart and could have taken the drugs after she put them in the locked narcotics box. This testimony is not persuasive. Every witness from Cathedral testified unequivocally that there was only one key in the facility for each medication cart and that key was in the possession of the nurse assigned to that cart. The only other key, which was in the possession of the Director of Nursing, was not requested or given to anyone at anytime material to these events. The persuasive testimony is that Respondent was the only person during her shift with a key to her medication cart. That key was passed to Nurse Schiesser who discovered that the drugs and narcotics cards were not in the medication cart or notebook. The count of the drugs and the cards on hand did not show that anything was missing at the change of shift from Respondent to Nurse Schiesser as the count was 16, the same as when Respondent came on the shift. If Respondent had put the drugs and corresponding cards in the medication cart, the count should have been 18. The only logical inference is that Respondent did not put the drugs or cards in the cart. In the opinion of the two witnesses accepted as experts in nursing and nursing standards, Respondent's failure to properly secure the narcotics and to document the receipt of these controlled drugs constitutes practice below the minimal acceptable standards of nursing practice. Time-Slips While employed by Health Force as an agency nurse, Respondent was assigned at various times to work at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches (Beaches). Respondent submitted time cards or slips for each shift she worked to Health Force so that she would be paid for the work. Respondent submitted time-slips for working at Beaches on March 18 and 21, 1997. When Health Force billed Beaches for these two dates, Anne Hollander, the Executive Director of Patient Services, the person responsible for all operations at Beaches since 1989, determined that Respondent had not worked on either March 18 or 21, 1997. Ms. Hollander faxed the time-slips back to Health Force for verification. She advised Health Force that Respondent was not on the schedule as having worked on either of those dates. She also advised Health Force that the supervisor's signatures on the two time-slips did not match anyone who worked at Beaches. Ms. Hollander is intimately familiar with the signatures of all the supervisors who are authorized to sign time-slips at Beaches and none of them have a signature like the signatures on the two time-slips. Health Force did an investigation and ended up paying Respondent for the two days, but did not further invoice Beaches. Health Force was never able to determine whose signatures were on the time-slips. Health Force did have Respondent scheduled to work at Beaches on March 21, 1997, but not on March 18, 1997. Beaches keeps a staffing sheet for every day and every shift. The supervisors are responsible for completion of the staffing schedules to ensure that the necessary staff is scheduled to work on each shift. These staffing sheets are used for both scheduling and doing the payroll. According to Ms. Hollander, it is not possible that Respondent's name was just left off the staffing sheets. The staffing sheets are the working sheets. If a person works who is not originally on the staffing sheet, the supervisor writes that person's name into the correct column at the time they come to work. Ms. Hollander has been familiar with these staffing sheets for 12 years and does not recall any time when someone's name has been left off the staffing sheet when he or she had worked. The two supervisors who testified, Erlinda Serna and Carol Lee, are equally clear that in their many years of experience as supervisors at Beaches, no one has worked and not been on the staff schedules. Anybody who worked would show up on the schedule. Every shift and every day should be on the staffing schedules. Ms. Serna is unaware of any time in her 10 years at Beaches that someone's name was left completely off the schedules, but that person actually worked. Respondent's name was on the staffing schedule for March 21, 1997, but it was crossed out and marked as cancelled. When agency nurses are scheduled at Beaches, but are not needed, they are cancelled with the agency. If the agency fails to timely notify the nurse and the nurse shows up for work, the agency must pay her for two hours. If the hospital fails to notify the agency timely and the nurse shows up for work, then the hospital must pay the nurse for two hours. In no event is a nurse who is cancelled paid for more than two hours. There are times when a nurse is cancelled and shows up for work, but the hospital has a need for the nurse either as a nurse or in another capacity such as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). If that happens, the nurse's name is again written into the nursing unit staffing schedule. For March 18, 1997, Respondent's name is not on the schedule for Beaches. She did not work in any capacity on March 18, 1997. For March 21, 1997, Respondent's name was on the schedule, but she was cancelled. Even if she had not been timely notified that she was cancelled and she showed up for work, the most she could have billed for was two hours. If she had stayed and worked in a different capacity, her name would have been rewritten into the staffing schedule. Beaches is very strict and follows a specific protocol. No one except the supervisors is allowed to sign time cards. The signatures on these two time cards do not belong to any supervisor at Beaches. Therefore, it can only be concluded that Respondent did not work on March 18 or 21, 1997, at Beaches and that she submitted false time-slips for work she did not do on March 18 and 21, 1997. In June 1997, Respondent was also working as an agency nurse for Maxim Healthcare Services (Maxim). On June 8, 1997, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim and to Beaches indicating that she had worked eight-hour shifts at Beaches on June 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1997. All four days were on the same time ticket and purported to bear the initials and signature of Carol Lee. This time ticket was brought to Ms. Hollander's attention because Beaches had a strict policy that only one shift could appear on each time slip. Even if a nurse worked a double shift, she would have to complete two separate time tickets, one for each shift. Under Beaches policy, no time ticket would ever have more than one shift on it. The time tickets are submitted to Ms. Hollander's office daily with the staffing schedules that correspond. Therefore, a time ticket for a person who is not on the staffing schedule would immediately stand out. When Ms. Hollander was given the time ticket for June 2-5, 1997, she investigated and reviewed the staffing sheets for those days. Respondent was not listed on any of the staffing schedules. Ms. Hollander then showed the time ticket to Erlinda Serna, who was the nursing supervisor on the 3 to 11 shift. Nurse Serna verified that Respondent had not worked on the shift any of those days. Ms. Hollander then showed the time-slip to Carol Lee, the 11 to 7 nursing supervisor. Carol Lee verified that she had not initialed or signed the time ticket and that the initials and signature were a forgery. Nurse Lee would not have signed a time ticket with more than one shift per time ticket because she was well aware of the policy prohibiting more than one shift per time ticket. Nurse Lee verified that Respondent had not been scheduled to work any of those days and that Respondent had not worked on June 3, 4, or 5, 1997. These inquiries to Nurse Serna and Nurse Lee took place within a few days after the dates for which Respondent had submitted this time ticket. Therefore, the matter was fresh in the minds of both nursing supervisors. Both are certain that Respondent was neither scheduled nor worked on June 2-5, 1997. Only nursing supervisors at Beaches are authorized to sign time tickets. Maxim Healthcare has a policy of never working a nurse in excess of 40 hours in one week. The same policy was in effect in 1997. Susan Ranson, the records custodian who also staffs for Maxim on the weekends and assists in their billing, indicated that Respondent was paid by Maxim for working at another facility the same week as June 2-5, 1997. June 2-5, 1997, are a Monday through Thursday. Specifically, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim for another facility showing that she worked 12 hours on Saturday, June 7, 1997, and 13 hours on Sunday, June 8, 1997. Maxim pays from Monday through Sunday. If Respondent had worked 32 hours at Beaches on Monday through Thursday and then 25 hours at another facility on Saturday and Sunday, she would have worked more than 40 hours in one week, which would have violated their policy and would have required Maxim to pay overtime. When Maxim gets a request for a nurse and has no one to send who would not exceed 40 hours in one week, rather than exceed 40 hours, the agency does not staff the job. In the disciplinary document from Health Force dated June 18, 1997, Health Force advised Respondent that it would not be scheduling her based on the complaints they received regarding false billing, the missing drugs at Cathedral, and another incident at Beaches that occurred during this same time. Taken in its totality, the testimony of Respondent is not credible. Respondent's explanation of the discrepancy in the count of drugs and corresponding cards is that during her shift "there was [sic] one or two cards that only had one or two pills on them, so you just throw them away. And that's what made it back to 16." This explanation is unpersuasive. If there had been any pills left in the drawer from cards that Respondent threw away, the count would have been off at the change of shift. Moreover, several witnesses testified as to the care that is taken to carefully account for all narcotics. Respondent's assertion that narcotic pills were simply thrown away is not credible. Nurse Schiesser clearly remembered that there were no cards for the medications in question and there were no medications from this delivery in the medication cart. Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Board of Nursing in the Board's case No. 98-20122.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by failing to secure and document receipt of the drugs at Cathedral Gerontology Center; That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and of violating Rule 64B9-8.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, by falsifying employment and time records on multiple occasions; and That a penalty be imposed consisting of a fine of $1000 and payment of costs associated with probation, together with a reprimand and a three-year suspension of license to be followed by a two-year probation with conditions as deemed appropriate by the Board of Nursing. Reinstatement of Respondent's license after the term of the suspension shall require compliance with all terms and conditions of the previous Board Order and her appearance before the Board to demonstrate her present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing, which shall include a demonstration of at least three years of documented compliance with the Intervention Project for Nurses. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 29th day of December, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed practical nurse licensed in the State of Florida and holding license number 0504051. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida and is charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes (1981), related to regulating and enforcing the licensure and professional practice standards for nurses of various categories enumerated therein in the State of Florida. During times pertinent to the allegations of the amended administrative complaint, the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc. On September 16, 1982, the Respondent was the "float nurse" at Ocala Geriatric Center, meaning that she was a nurse assigned to various portions of the Geriatrics Center on an impromptu basis, which assignments to the various wings of the facility would be communicated to her by notations on her timecard which she would receive when she reported to duty for a particular shift. On September 16, 1982, she was previously scheduled by her supervisor to work on the north wing of the Ocala Geriatric Center. When Respondent reported to work for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift for September 16 - September 17, 1982, she was told by her supervisor, Deloris Jamison, to work instead on the east wing of the facility. Respondent, upon learning this, became engaged in a dispute with Mrs. Jamison regarding this assignment, refused to fulfill the assignment and indicated that she preferred to report herself as sick and return home rather than work at her assigned location on the east wing that evening. The Respondent was told to shift her duties from her customary station on the north wing to the east wing that evening due to a shortage of nurses on duty on that shift. The director of nurses of the Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, had already arranged for nurse Phyllis Shepard to work half of the 11:00 to 7:00 shift on the north wing of the facility. When nurse Shepard duly reported for duty at the north wing she found the Respondent present at the north wing even though the Respondent had previously been informed that she was to work on the east wing. At this time the Respondent announced her intentions to nurse Shepard to remain on duty at the north wing and not to report to duty on the east wing, contrary to her supervisor's direction. At this point nurse Shepard went to the south wing of the facility and conferred with nurse Jamison regarding the Respondent's assignment and her own assignment, and had the instructions confirmed by supervisor Jamison. Upon nurse Shepard's return to the north wing, the Respondent indicated to her also that she intended to report herself sick and go home rather than work on the east wing. Only upon calling the Director of Nurses, Ellen Cain, at her home and again receiving instructions to work on the east wing that evening, did the Respondent ultimately elect to proceed to her assigned duty station. Patients Whitehurst and Rubright were classified on September 16, 1952 and September 17, 1982, "as critical geriatric patients" inasmuch as they were nasal-gastric or "tube-fed" patients and both had "indwelling" catheters for elimination of urine. On or about September 16, 1982, the Respondent charted a "dash" on the fluid intake and output record of patient Whitehurst, rather than specifying actual fluid, if any, taken in by the patient. This is an improper method of notation of fluid intake and output for such a patient, since this does not accurately reflect any information one way or the other regarding fluid intake or output for that patient for that shift. At best it might lead to a presumption that that patient had received no fluid, which is a potentially serious problem with such a patient since if a catheterized patient does not receive adequate fluid from time to time during the day, then the catheter is at risk of being blocked, with potentially serious health consequences to the patient. On that same date Respondent also failed to chart any information in her nurses' notes for patient Whitehurst. Both nurses Shepard and the Director of Nursing at Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, were accepted as expert witnesses in the field of nursing and specifically with regard to minimal standards of professional nursing practice in Florida. It was thus established that the failure to chart in her nurses' notes any information for patient Whitehurst was conduct not comporting with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially in view of the fact that the patient Whitehurst was a naso-gastric tube patient who was also catheterized. It is imperative to note any reason why such a patient does not receive fluid during a single shift or alternatively, when a patient does receive fluid, to note on the chart the amount and type of fluids received. Further, the use of a dash on the nursing chart makes it even more imperative that the nursing notes explain what occurred on that shift regarding the patient's fluid intake, so that the nurse charged with the responsibility of that patient on the ensuing shift would be aware of the patient's fluid status and aware of any abnormality that may have occurred on the previous shift. Although the Respondent may have, in fact, administered the proper fluids to patient Whitehurst on that shift, she failed to record whether or not that duty was performed. On September 16, 1952, the Respondent also charted a for fluid intake on patient Rubright, but again failed to make any notation on the nurses' notes as to why this patient actually received no fluids. This failure to properly chart and make notes regarding the patient's fluid intake and failure to administer fluids without explanation does not comport with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially inasmuch as patient Rubright was also a naso- gastric tube-fed and catheterized patient. The Respondent also failed to chart or record any nurses' notes with regard to patient Lesimby on September 16, 1982. Failure to chart was established to be a violation of federal medicare regulations and a violation of this particular facility's policies with regard to such medicare patients. Although daily charting and notes from each shift for such critical care patients as patients Whitehurst and Rubright is required by minimal standards of professional nursing practice, failure to chart nurses notes for other patients, simply because they are medicare patients, does not necessarily depart from proper standards of nursing practice, although federal regulations require that medicare patients be the subject of daily charting, including recording of vital signs. Compliance with such federal standards is of course, not the subject of the administrative complaint in this proceeding, however. Respondent's failure to properly record fluid intake and output for patients Whitehurst and Rubright, and her failure to properly chart nursing notes for those patients on the above dates, as well as her failure to order medications for patients as required by her position at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc., could have resulted in serious harm to the oat' ants. It was not established that the Respondent has committed acts or omissions that could have jeopardized safety in the past, however, and it was not shown that any other violations of the nursing practice act or failures to comport with minimal standards of nursing practice have ever been charged or proven with regard to the Respondent's licensure status and nursing practice in the past.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Nursing finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged with respect to Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1981), with the exception of the violation charged with regard to patient Lesimby, and that the penalty of a reprimand and 90-day suspension of her licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th May of July, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Sears Gibson 2003 Southwest Seventh Street Ocala, Florida Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Agency is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been since June 18, 1993, licensed as a practical nurse in the State of Florida. Her license number is PN 1113121. Respondent trained to be a practical nurse at the Sheridan Vocational School (hereinafter referred to as "Sheridan") in Hollywood, Florida. She graduated from Sheridan in January of 1993, the recipient of the Jeanette Lindsey Shirley Nursing Service Award. Respondent was employed by Aventura Hospital and Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as "Aventura") from approximately March of 1993, to January of 1994, when she was terminated as a result of the incident which led to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint that is the subject of the instant case. For the first three months of her employment at Aventura Respondent worked as a GPN (Graduate Practical Nurse). After receiving her nursing license in June of 1993, Respondent was promoted to an LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) position. She held this LPN position until her termination in January of 1994. Throughout the period of her employment, Respondent was assigned to the hospital's mental health unit. Respondent was a dedicated and loyal employee who, as general rule, got along well with the patients under her care, as well as her coworkers. Not infrequently, she would voluntarily remain on the unit after the end of her shift to make sure that her patients received the care and attention their physicians had ordered. Prior to the incident that resulted in the termination of her employment, Respondent had an unblemished employment record at Aventura. The incident in question occurred on or about January 17, 1994. On the day of the incident Respondent was working the 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift at the hospital. One of the patients under her care that day was B.H. B.H. was an elderly woman receiving treatment for depression. She required the nursing staff's assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), including dressing. B.H. was a "very difficult" patient. She was generally uncooperative and frequently resisted, with physical force and violence, the nursing staff's efforts to provide her the help and assistance she needed with her ADLs. On the day in question B.H. had a scheduled, early morning appointment to see her attending physician, Dr. Greener. Dr. Greener had given explicit instructions to the nursing staff that B.H. be awakened and dressed before the scheduled appointment. Toward the end of her shift, Respondent went into B.H.'s room to get her ready for Dr. Greener. Respondent was able to awaken B.H., but B.H. refused to get out of bed. Respondent decided to leave B.H. and take care of the other tasks she needed to complete before the end of her shift. When Respondent returned to B.H.'s room it was after 8:00 a.m. Although her shift had ended, Respondent felt an obligation to remain at the hospital and follow through with her efforts to fully comply with the instructions that Dr. Greener had given concerning B.H. Dr. Greener had already arrived at the hospital and was ready to see Respondent. Respondent pleaded with B.H. to cooperate with her. B.H., however, ignored Respondent's pleas and remained in bed. Dr. Greener was a demanding physician who expected the nursing staff to timely comply with his every instruction. He expressed, in no uncertain terms, his disappointment when these expectations were not met. Respondent did not want to disappoint Dr. Greener. She therefore attempted to dress B.H. even though B.H. would not get out of bed. B.H. responded to Respondent's efforts to dress her by kicking, swinging her arms and spitting at Respondent. Despite receiving such resistance, Respondent continued to try to dress B.H. She did call for assistance, however. Todd Sussman, who was employed as a Mental Health Technician at the hospital, was on the unit that morning and responded to Respondent's call for help. When Sussman discovered the nature of the assistance Respondent required, he left B.H.'s room to obtain surgical gloves. Shortly thereafter, he returned to the room wearing such gloves. As Sussman walked back into the room, he saw Respondent, who was still struggling with B.H., slap B.H. in the face and pinch B.H.'s lips together in an effort to prevent B.H. from spitting at her. Sussman helped Respondent attempt to dress B.H. by holding B.H. by the arm. At one point, he let go of B.H. to allow Respondent to remove B.H.'s night shirt. Once her arm was free, B.H. swung it in Respondent's direction and hit Respondent in the face. Respondent reacted by slapping B.H. "fairly hard" on or slightly above the wrist, a reaction that was witnessed by Sussman, as well as another employee of the hospital, Barry Butler, an LPN who had entered the room shortly before B.H. had struck Respondent in the face. Both Sussman and Butler reported to their supervisor what they had observed take place in B.H.'s room that morning. Respondent's employment with the hospital was subsequently terminated based on the information Sussman and Butler had provided. At no time while struggling to dress B.H. on or about January 17, 1994, did Respondent intend to, nor did she actually, harm or injure B.H. Nonetheless, during the struggle (specifically when she purposefully slapped B.H. in the face and on or slightly above the wrist and pinched B.H.'s lips together), 2/ Respondent acted in an unprofessional manner that did not conform with the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. 3/ The use of such physical force against B.H. was unnecessary and therefore inappropriate. 4/ There were other, safer (and therefore more appropriate) options (of which Respondent should have been aware in light of her training) that were available to Respondent to deal with the difficult situation she faced.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation of subsection (1)(h) of Section 464.018, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining her for having committed this violation by fining her $250.00 and placing her on probation (of the type specified in subsection (1)(g) of Rule 59S-8.006, Florida Administrative Code: "[p]robation with specified continuing education courses in addition to the minimum conditions") for a period of eighteen months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of January, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 4th day of January, 1996.
Findings Of Fact On 22 June 1982 DHRS, Office of Licensure and Certification, conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility known as Regency Oaks at Gainesville, Florida. During this inspection the nurses' schedule was not produced and the inspector, with the assistance of Respondent's staff, attempted to reconstruct the nurses' schedule for the month of June, 1982, up to the date of the inspection. From the data received it was determined that on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift on June 5, 1982, Respondent was staffed with one registered nurse (RN) and three licensed practical nurses (LPN) on June 6 there were two RN's and two LPNs; on June 12 there were three RNs and one LPN; and on June 19 there were three RNs and one LPN. Staffing requirements for nursing homes are determined by the shift and census of the nursing home. All of the shortages here involved the day shift. On each of the days of 5, 6, 12, and 19 June the regulations required two RNs and three LPNs on the day shift. The regulations also permit the substitution of an RN for an LPN. Accordingly, from the evidence gathered bv Petitioner's evaluation at the June 22 inspection, Respondent was short one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6, 12, and 19. Respondent presented time cards for the periods here involved. These time cards, which were accepted in evidence as business records of Respondent, show that on June 12 Respondent had two RNs and three LPNs on duty on the day shift. Respondent's one witness admitted the nursing home was understaffed one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6 and 19.
Findings Of Fact Bonnie Isaac, R.N., held License No. 52845-2 as a Registered Nurse. Said license having been suspended for a period of ninety (90) days pursuant to the lawful order of the Board signed February 18, 1976. Said order of suspension was transmitted to and received by Bonnie Isaac on February 27, 1976. Subsequent to the receipt of said order, Bonnie Isaac continued to perform duties which can only be performed by licensed nurses in the course of her employment at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Dade City, Florida. Bonnie Isaac did not return her certificate of licensure and renewal certificate to the Board, but said renewal expired on March 31, 1976 pursuant to law. The license of Bonnie Isaac was not reinstated at the end of ninety (90) days although she requested that her license be returned to her by her letter of June 25, 1976 to the Florida State Board of Nursing. The license of Bonnie Isaac, suspended by lawful order of the Board effective February 27, 1976, had not been reinstated as of the date of hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the probation of Bonnie Isaac expressed in Board's order dated February 18, 1976 for nine (9) months following the ninety (90) day suspension of Respondent's license be set aside and the license of Respondent be suspended for one year from the initial date of suspension, February 27, 1976, said license to be reinstated with the full benefits and privileges thereof on February 26, 1977. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 218 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Bonnie C. Isaac, R.N. Route 11, Box 735 A Lakeland, Florida 33801
