Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered nurse who began her employment at South Lake Memorial Hospital on August 29, 1977, and was terminated on April 23, 1980. During her employment, the Respondent received four poor evaluations and/or warnings for her nursing practice. The first warning occurred on August 1, 1979. This warning involved allegations of poor nursing performance by the Respondent. These allegations included the Respondent leaving her unit, failing to properly organize her work, failing to properly restrain a patient, wasting time by running too many EGG strips instead of performing her assigned functions, failing to take vital signs timely when coming onto shift, becoming hostile with the Director of Nursing, and failing to obey the direct order of the Director of Nursing to leave the hospital and go home after an argument on July 12, 1979. Although there was no direct evidence as to most of the allegations, the Respondent admitted to late charting, failing to timely take vital signs, spending time working with ECG strips, and failing to obey a direct order to-go home given by the Director of Nursing. The next evaluation occurred on November 26, 1979. The deficiencies in Respondent's practice as alleged by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent gave a patient whole blood instead of packed cells as ordered by the physician, failed to verify an error in transcription by the ward clerk which resulted in a patient's x-rays being delayed for a day, and improperly charting when the Respondent noted on the nursing notes that at 9:00 p.m. there was no significant change in a patient's condition, when in fact the patient had left the hospital at 8:30 p.m. The lack of direct evidence of these allegations was compensated for by the Respondent's admissions as she testified concerning the circumstances surrounding why the incidents occurred. The third warning occurred on March 19, 1980. The allegations in the warning concerned the Respondent having shouted at a supervisor, abandoning her patients, allowing two I.V.s to run dry, failing to carry out a doctor's orders, and failing to chart. Again, there was no direct evidence of the allegations, however, the Respondent admitted that she left her duty station because of sickness prior to relief arriving in the unit, failed to properly follow doctor's orders, and failed to chart for the time she was present in the unit prior to her reporting to the emergency room. The fourth and final warning, which resulted in termination, occurred on April 23, 1980. The allegations by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent hung one-fourth percent normal saline solution rather than the one- half percent normal saline solution ordered by the physician, and that the Respondent failed to administer the 5:00 p.m. medication. Again, the allegations were admitted by the Respondent as she attempted to explain why they occurred. The Director of Nursing testified that during each of these warnings, the Respondent's attitude was that she had done nothing wrong and, therefore, could not improve on her performance. The testimony of the Department's nurse investigator was to the effect that the Respondent's actions failed to meet the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The investigator also testified that, in her opinion, a nurse with Respondent's poor attitude could be extremely dangerous in a hospital setting. After many years of difficult and stressful work, many nurses suffer from what is commonly referred to as "burn out" and are no longer useful, and can be dangerous in a high stress area of nursing. Respondent testified in her own behalf and offered an explanation for each allegation presented by Petitioner. Respondent testified that relative to the first warning, even though she only had two patients, she did not have adequate time to do her charting during her shift and, therefore, had to stay two hours late. Respondent further testified that on one occasion she had not timely taken her vital signs because the Director of Nursing had delayed her with a needless confrontation. Respondent testified that she did not leave the facility as ordered on August 12, 1979, because she was afraid that she would be abandoning her patients, and could lose her vacation and sick leave benefits. With respect to the November 26, 1979 evaluation, the Respondent testified that she gave whole blood instead of packed cells because the whole blood was incorrectly labeled as packed cells. Respondent further testified that she became aware of the error after the solution had infused, and that had she looked at the solution earlier she would have been able to see that it was an incorrect blood product, and would have been able to correct the problem. As to the incorrect transcription resulting in a patient's x-rays being delayed, the Respondent stated that it was the ward clerk's responsibility, not hers, to transcribe the doctor's orders. With respect to the 9:00 p.m. nursing notes when the patient had left the facility at 8:30 p.m., the Respondent's response was that she had been aware that the patient was gone, but was summarizing the patient's condition during the entire shift up to the point the patient left. Respondent acknowledge that the nursing notes may have been misleading. As to thee warning of termination on March 19, 1980, the Respondent admitted leaving her unit prior to relief arriving. Her explanation gas that she had been attempting for one hour to get assistance, to no avail. Upon questioning, she admitted that she was-only "a little dizzy" and had diarrhea. On that day she did not chart any nursing care given by her while on duty. The Respondent was caring for twelve patients at that time. With respect to the April 23, 1980 termination, Respondent admitted that she hung the incorrect percentage saline solution, but that she did so because a prior nurse obtained the incorrect solution from a supply room. The Respondent then also admitted failing to give out the 5:00 p.m. medication as ordered, but stated the reason for her failure to administer the medication was her inability to obtain help from her supervisor which was necessary because she was overworked. Respondent also testified that during this time period, she went on rounds with a doctor, and also went to dinner. The Respondent testified that she felt she was a good and qualified nurse. Respondent also testified that she had been fired previously from Leesburg General Hospital. The Respondent believes her attitude to be good and indicated that the hospital was overreacting to a few isolated incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice nursing in the State of Florida, license number 39108-2, be suspended indefinitely. If the Respondent seeks reinstatement, it will be her responsibility to undergo counseling with a psychologist or psychiatrist, for an in-depth evaluation and treatment, the results of which shall be submitted to the Board of Nursing if and when the Respondent wishes to apply for reinstatement of her nursing license. If the Respondent applies for reinstatement of her license, it shall be her responsibility to demonstrate to the Board that she is able to engage in the practice of nursing in a safe, professional, proficient and legal manner. This demonstration shall include but not be limited to a report by her psychologist or psychiatrist, along with a recommendation from him that she be reinstated to the practice of nursing. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 8th day of January, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Avante was licensed by Petitioner as a skilled nursing facility. Avante operates a 116-bed nursing home located in Leesburg, Florida. On or about March 28, 2002, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. On or about May 13, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the May 13, 2002, survey, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. Resident E.S. was admitted to Avante on March 11, 2002, with diagnoses including e. coli sepsis, anemia, and schizophrenia with an order for serum albumin levels to be performed "now and yearly." Resident E.S.'s resident chart failed to reflect that a serum albumin test had been performed for Resident E.S. at any time from the date of his admission on March 11, 2002, until March 28, 2002. Avante failed to follow the orders of Resident E.S.'s physician due to its failure to perform a serum albumin test on Resident E.S. at any time between March 11, 2002, and March 28, 2002. Resident R.L. was admitted to Respondent's facility on May 6, 2002 with diagnoses including gastrointestinal hemorrhage, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, A-fib, pneumonia, diverticulitis, gout, fracture of right arm, and cancer of the prostate. Resident R.L.'s resident chart reflects that Resident R.L. was neither offered or administered Tylenol by Avante's staff at any time between May 9, 2002, and May 13, 2002. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record The correction date given to Respondent for the deficiency cited, Tag F281(D), as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation was April 28, 2002. Respondent does not dispute the deficiency cited by AHCA as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation. Thus, facts and circumstances surrounding the May 13, 2002, survey visit to Avante is the source of this dispute. The purpose of the May 13, 2002 survey visit to Avante by AHCA was for annual certification or licensure. In an annual license survey, a group of surveyors goes to a facility to determine if the facility is in compliance with state and federal requirements and regulations. Part of the process is to tour the facility, meet residents, record reviews, and talk to families and friends of the residents. During the licensure visit on May 13, 2002, the records of 21 residents were reviewed. Stephen Burgin is a registered nurse and is employed by AHCA as a registered nurse specialist. He has been employed by AHCA for three years and has been licensed as a nurse for six years. He also has experience working in a hospital ER staging unit and in a hospital cardiology unit. Nurse Burgin has never worked in a nursing home. Nurse Burgin conducted the complaint investigation on March 28, 2002, and was team leader for the licensure survey visit on May 13, 2002, at Avante. He was accompanied on the May 13, 2002, visit by Selena Beckett, who is employed by AHCA as a social worker. Both Nurse Burgin and Ms. Beckett are Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT) certified. During the course of the May 13, 2002, licensure survey visit, Ms. Beckett interviewed Resident R.L. As a result of this interview, Ms. Beckett examined Resident R.L.'s medication administration record (MAR) to determine whether he was receiving pain medication for his injured left elbow. As a result of reviewing Resident R.L.'s record, Ms. Beckett became aware of a fax cover sheet which related to Resident R.L. The fax cover sheet was dated May 8, 2002, from Nancy Starke, who is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse, to Dr. Sarmiento, Resident R.L.'s attending physician. The box labeled "Please comment" was checked and the following was hand written in the section entitled "comments": "Pt refused Augmentin 500 mg BID today states it causes him to have hallucinations would like tyl for pain L elbow." According to Nurse Starke, the fax to Dr. Sarmiento addressed two concerns: Resident R.L.'s refusal to take Augmentin and a request for Tylenol for pain for Resident R.L.'s left elbow. She faxed the cover sheet to Dr. Sarmiento during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on May 8, 2002. Despite her fax to Dr. Sarmiento, which mentioned pain in R.L.'s left elbow, her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002, reflect that Resident R.L. was alert, easygoing, and happy. He was verbal on that day meaning that he was able to make his needs known to her. Her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002 contain the notation: "Pt refused augmentin today. Dr. Sarmiento faxed." According to Nurse Starke, she personally observed Resident R.L. and did not observe any expression of pain on May 8, 2002, nor did Resident R.L. request pain medication after she sent the fax to Dr. Sarmiento. The fax cover sheet also contained the hand written notation: "Document refused by PT. OK 5/9/02" with initials which was recognized by nurses at Avante as that of Dr. Sarmiento. The fax sheet has a transmission line which indicates that it was faxed back to Avante the evening of May 9, 2002. Nurse Starke also provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11, 2002. According to Nurse Starke, Resident R.L. did not complain of pain on May 11, 2002. Theresa Miller is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Miller provided care to Resident R.L. on May 9 and 10, 2002, during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Nurse Miller's nurses notes for May 9 and 10, 2002, reflect that she observed Resident R.L. to be alert, easygoing, and happy. Her notes also reflect that Resident R.L. was verbal on those dates, meaning that he was able to tell her if he needed anything. She did not observe Resident R.L. to have any expression of pain on those dates, nor did Resident R.L. express to her that he was in any pain. Vicki Cannon is a licensed practical nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Cannon has been a licensed practical nurse and has worked in nursing homes since 1998. Nurse Cannon provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11 and 12, 2002, on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Her nurse's notes for May 11, 2002 reflect that Resident R.L. was sullen but alert and verbal. Resident R.L. had blood in his urine and some discomfort. Nurse Cannon contacted Dr. Sarmiento by telephone on May 11, 2002, to inform him of Resident R.L.'s symptoms that day. Nurse Cannon noted on Resident R.L.'s physician order sheet that she received a telephone order from Dr. Sarmiento to give Resident R.L. Ultram PRN and Levaquin, discontinue Augmentin, order BMP and CBC blood work, and a urology consult. Ultram is an anti-inflammatory and a pain medication. Ultram is stronger than Tylenol. The notation "PRN" means as requested by the patient for pain. Levaquin is an antibiotic. Nurse Cannon faxed the order to the pharmacy at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. By the time Nurse Cannon left Avante for the day on May 11, 2002, the Ultram had not arrived from the pharmacy. On May 12, 2002, Resident R.L. had edema of the legs and blood in his urine. Nurse Cannon notified Dr. Sarmiento of Resident R.L.'s symptoms. Resident R.L. was sent to the emergency room for evaluation based on Dr. Sarmiento's orders. Additionally, Nurse Cannon called the pharmacy on May 12, 2002, to inquire about the Ultram as it had not yet arrived at the facility. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002. Alice Markham is a registered nurse and is the Director of Nursing at Avante. She has been a nurse for more than 20 years and has been employed at Avante for a little over two years. She also has worked in acute care at a hospital. Nurse Markham is familiar with Resident R.L. She described Resident R.L. as alert until the period of time before he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. She was not aware of any expressions of pain by Resident R.L. between May 9, 2002 until he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. Nurse Markham meets frequently with her nursing staff regarding the facility's residents. During the licensure survey, Nurse Markham became aware of Ms. Beckett's concerns regarding Resident R.L. and whether he had received Tylenol. She called Dr. Sarmiento to request an order for Tylenol for R.L. The physician order sheet for R.L. contains a notation for a telephone order for Tylenol "PRN" on May 14, 2002, for joint pain and the notation, "try Tylenol before Ultram." The medical administration record for R.L. indicates that Resident R.L. received Ultram on May 13 and and began receiving Tylenol on May 15, 2002. AHCA 's charge of failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement physician orders is based on the "OK" notation by Dr. Sarmiento on the above-described fax and what AHCA perceives to be Avante's failure to follow and implement that "order" for Tylenol for Resident R.L. AHCA nurse and surveyor Burgin acknowledged that the "OK" on the fax cover sheet was not an order as it did not specify dosage or frequency. He also acknowledged that the nursing home could not administer Tylenol based on Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" on the fax cover sheet, that it would not be appropriate to forward the "OK" to the pharmacy, that it should not have been placed on the resident's medication administration record, and that it should not have been administered to the resident. However, Nurse Burgin is of the opinion that the standard practice of nursing is to clarify such an "order" and once clarified, administer the medication as ordered. He was of the opinion that Avante should have clarified Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" for Tylenol on May 9, 2002, rather than on May 14, 2002. Nurse Burgin also was of the opinion that it should have been reflected on the resident's medication administration record and treatment record or TAR. In Nurse Markham's opinion, "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet does not constitute a physician's order for medication as it does not contain dosage or frequency of administration. Nurse Markham is also of the opinion that it should not have been forwarded to the pharmacy, transcribed to the medication administration record, or transcribed on the treatment administration record. According to Nurse Markham, doctor's orders are not recorded on the treatment administration record of a resident. Nurse Markham is of the opinion that the nursing staff at Avante did not deviate from the community standard for nursing in their care of Resident R.L. from May 8, 2002 to May 14, 2002. Nurse Cannon also is of the opinion that the "OK" by Dr. Sarmiento does not constitute a physician's order for medication. The Administrative Complaints cited Avante for failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement a physician's order. Having considered the opinions of Nurses Burgin, Markham, and Cannon, it is clear that the "OK" notation of Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet did not constitute a physician's order. Without Dr. Sarmiento's testimony, it is not entirely clear from a review of the fax cover sheet that the "OK" relates to the reference to Tylenol or the reference to Resident R.L.'s refusal of Augmentin. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to follow a physician's order in May 2002. As to AHCA's assertion that Avante failed to meet professional standards by not clarifying the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento, this constitutes a different reason or ground than stated in the Administrative Complaints. Failure to clarify an order is not the equivalent of failure to follow an order. There is insufficient nexus between the deficiency cited on March 28, 2002 and the deficiency cited on May 13, 2002. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to correct a Class III deficiency within the time established by the agency or commit a repeat Class III violation. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff responded to the needs of Resident R.L. Resident R.L. expressed pain in his left elbow to Nurse Starke on May 8, 2002. Resident R.L. was alert and could make his needs known. He did not express pain or a need for pain medication to Nurse Miller on May 9 or 10, 2002 or to Nurse Cannon on May 11 or 12, 2002. Rather, Nurse Cannon noted a change in his condition, notified Dr. Sarmiento which resulted in Resident R.L. being sent to the emergency room. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002, and received Ultram for pain on May 13, 2002, when the medication reached Avante from the pharmacy. The evidence presented does not establish that Avante deviated from the community standard for nursing in its actions surrounding the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento. In weighing the respective opinions of Nurses Burgin and Markham in relation to whether the community standard for nursing was met by the actions of Respondent, Nurse Markham's opinion is more persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued against Respondent, Avante at Leesburg. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2002, 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 13th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jodi C. Page, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis 2180 Park Avenue North, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valinda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The parties stipulated to the following facts: 2/ Respondent prescribed drugs for M. M. at the times and in the strength and quantities as alleged in paragraph three of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent wrote at least one of the aforesaid prescriptions for M. M. during the time that she was being treated as an inpatient at the hospital. Dilaudid, Brompton Mixture, Morphine Sulfate, Sublimaze, Valium, Demerol, and Talwin are brand names for drugs containing scheduled controlled substances listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Respondent administered approximately 5cc's Sublimaze and/or 5mg Morphine Sulfate to M. M. by I.V. on or about January 26, 1984, prior to her surgery. Between at lest January 30, 1984 and February 15, 1984, Respondent kept bottles of injectable narcotics, including Morphine, Dilaudid, and Fentanyl in his motor home and administered these narcotics to M. M. The aforesaid drugs were discovered by the Volusia County Sheriff's Officers acting pursuant to a search warrant issued upon an affidavit stating that Respondent had maintained injectable narcotics in his motor home for the purpose of administering them to M. M., that he had inserted a permanent I.V. line into M. M. after her discharge from the hospital for the purpose of administering I.V. medication, and that he had administered and/or ordered administration of injectable narcotics inappropriately or in excessive or inappropriate quantities. Respondent failed to keep sufficient records to justify his course of treatment of M. M. Respondent had a patient-physician relationship with M. M. M. M. became dependent upon scheduled controlled substances during the time that Respondent prescribed and/or administered medications to her. Respondent was licensed at all times material to the allegations in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and is currently licensed at this time, possessing license number ME 0011798. Respondent is a medical doctor trained in the field of anesthesiology. Respondent did not have a private practice at the time he treated M. M. and his practice as a physician had been limited to the practice of anesthesiology. Respondent met M. M., a registered nurse (RN) at the Ormond Beach Hospital. at the end of July, 1983 and had been socially involved with M. M. before her accident in November 1983 when she requested the officer at the scene of the accident to call Respondent who then drove her to Ormond Beach Hospital for medical treatment. At the time of the accident in November, 1983, when Respondent began to treat M. M., she was not presently under the constant care of another physician but had been prior to that time when needing pain medication. As a result of the accident, Respondent referred M. M. to the appropriate specialist for her particular problem. Since Respondent was M. M.'s primary physician and already prescribing pain medications it was each specialist's decision to allow Respondent to continue prescribing pain medication as he saw fit. In January, 1984, M. M. was hospitalized for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel. Her admitting physician at that time was Dr. Mason and Dr. Parikh was the surgeon. Respondent supervised the administration of the anesthesia for surgery and it was understood that Respondent and Dr. Parikh would supply pain medication. Prior to the surgery, Respondent administered, at different times, Sublimaze and Morphine Sulfate to M. M. Because of her physical dependency on drugs due to her prior medical condition Respondent did not want any drug withdrawal to occur prior to surgery and create other medical problems. Dr. Mason had prescribed medication for M. M. prior to surgery but Respondent was not aware of this prior to administering Sublimaze and Morphine Sulphate. Respondent failed to check M. M.'s chart prior to administering the Sublimaze and Morphine Sulfate and failed to tell Dr. Mason or the nurse or note in M. M.'s chart that he had administered those drugs. Dr. Mason or the nurse would not have known what medication Respondent had administered to M. M. had they checked her chart but Respondent did record the medication in the anesthesia records of drug administration in surgery. Respondent wrote an order in M. M.'s chart which the nurse refused to follow even after Respondent instructed her to follow the order. Subsequently, Respondent learned that Dr. Mason had cancelled Respondent's order for medication but this was after Respondent had administered the Sublimaze and Morphine Sulfate. Following the operation, Respondent continued to provide postoperative medication with the approval of Dr. Parikh and Dr. Newfield. Respondent gave M. M. Morphine but changed to Sublimaze (Fentanyl) 3/ when M. M. developed a sensitivity to Morphine. Brompton mixture is a combination of Morphine Sulfate and cocaine in a cherry 4/ base and had been administered to M. M. by Respondent prior to morphine and Sublimaze being administered in an attempt to minimize the need for parenteral medication but her pain was too severe for appropriate amounts of Brompton mixture to work. Respondent had no experience in treating a patient with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease but did have experience in administering medication for pain associated with these diseases as an anesthesiologist. Respondent's experience with drug dependency problems was with patients who had overdosed and he had administered medication to bring them out of the overdose. After the carpel tunnel surgery in January, 1984, M. M. continued to have an unusual amount of pain. The pain was in the wrist, neck, chest and shoulders. M. M. also had problems with spondylolisthesis and scoliosis. M. M. suffered more pain after her surgery than anticipated by Respondent which baffled Respondent; however, he encouraged M. M. to take less medication. At times when Respondent was not available, Respondent allowed M. M. to self-administer the medication. There was no separate type resuscitation machine at M. M.'s apartment, however, Respondent did have a larynoscope and tubes available which are forms of resuscitation equipment for treating either drug or allergic reaction or drug overdose. There was evidence that in most instances when these drugs are administered in the home there is no separate resuscitation type machine available nor would it be in a hospital room, however, it would be available at nurses' stations. Narcan, which is used to treat drug overdose, was kept at M. M.'s apartment along with other medication as was medication to treat allergic reaction. In February, 1984, after taking narcan and nubain to eliminate any residual narcotics form her system, M. M. was concerned that she might be suffering withdrawal and checked herself into Halifax Hospital. A few months later, M. M. was diagnosed as having cancer (Hodgkin's Lymphoma) which has been treated by radiation and chemotherapy and substantially relieved. This condition was not known at the time Respondent was treating M. M., however, it was established as the cause of the extreme pain suffered by M. M. during this period. M. M. was struck by an automobile at age six (6) and suffered head injuries and is an epileptic. Presently M. M. is on Tylenol 4, as needed for pain control, as well as phenobarbitol and valium and has been taking the same or similar drug since she was involved in the accident at age six (6). Prior to, and during the patient-physician relationship that existed between Respondent and M. M. between November, 1983 and up until approximately the middle of February, 1984, there was no sexual relationship between them; however, during the patient-physician relationship there existed a close personal relationship but it was always professional. Subsequent to Respondent terminating his treatment of M. M. in February, 1984, sometime around June, 1984, Respondent and M. M. began a sexual relationship. This sexual relationship started before Respondent prescribed medication for M. M. while traveling together, when her regular physician was not available. The reasons for drugs being in Respondent's mobile home, which were found there by the Sheriff's Deputy, was due to Respondent being required to remove his personal stock of medication out of the hospital after a hospital employee overdosed. The drugs used by the hospital employee were not Respondent's drugs. With the exception of this matter, Respondent is an anesthesiologist with an unblemished record. Respondent has never personally abused narcotics or personally used narcotics of the kind here involved or has he been questioned in this regard by any county, state or federal authority. M. M. was an R.N. during the time Respondent was treating her and is now employed as an R.N. by Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. M. M. has never been charged with any offense relating to narcotics. Respondent is presently employed with the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and his license as a physician is an absolute requirement for employment in this job. Respondent did not prescribe, dispense or administer medication, including controlled substances, to M. M. other than in the course of his professional practice. Respondent in prescribing, dispensing, and administering medication, including controlled substances, to M. M. did not fail to perform his statutory or legal obligation in good faith and in the course of his professional practice only. There was no showing that Respondent had committed gross or repeated malpractice or failed to practice medicine with that level of care and skill as recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances while treating M. M. There was no showing that Respondent had made deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representation in the practice of medicine or employed a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine when such scheme or trick fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community while treating M. M. The evidence was insufficient to show that Respondent had exercised influence within a patient-physician relationship for purposes of engaging a patient in sexual activity.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 458.331(1)(n) Florida Statutes (1983). For such violation, considering the circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of Reprimand and impose an administrative fine of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 25th day of June, 1986.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiences at Petitioner's nursing home sufficient to support issuance of a conditional license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tampa Health Care Center, is a nursing home in Tampa, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the AHCA pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The AHCA conducted a relicensure survey of the Tampa Health Care Center on March 25-28, 1996. During the survey, the agency reviewed twenty-four randomly selected care plans maintained at the Tampa Health Care Center. A care plan is an individualized document which describes how the facility will provide for the needs of a resident. The care plan is the result of a cooperative effort of various health care professionals who may work with the resident. Those providing input for the care plan include the following: nurse, dietician, physical therapist, and mental health and social service professionals. A care plan, along with doctor's orders and treatment sheets, serve as a workable tool in delivering services to a resident. As a result of the March 1996 survey, the AHCA determined that nine of the twenty-four care plans reviewed were deficient. Despite the problems cited in the March 1996 survey, the AHCA made no finding that the well-being of any of the residents was in jeoparady because of the cited deficiencies. Consistent with its practice and policy, the AHCA gave Tampa Health Care Center until April 28, 1996, to correct the care plan deficiencies found in March 1996. The AHCA returned to the facility on May 29, 1996, and conducted a follow-up survey to determine whether previously cited care plan deficiencies had been corrected. During the follow-up survey, the AHCA reviewed fourteen randomly selected care plans. Of the fourteen care plans reviewed, one was found to be deficient. The care plans reviewed during the follow-up survey on May 29, 1996, were not the same care plans reviewed during the March 1996 survey. Based on the May 29, 1996 follow-up survey, the AHCA concluded that the care plan of Resident 5-A had not been reviewed, revised, and updated to address current problems. Furthermore, the AHCA had determined that the care plan included an "unrealistic goal." As a result of its perceived deficiencies with the care plan, the AHCA concluded that Resident 5-A, the resident for whom the care was prepared, did not receive the necessary care and services to attain or maintain her highest practical level of physical functioning. The AHCA initially designated the care plan deficiency as a Class II deficiency. However, pursuant to an informal dispute process, the AHCA changed its classification of the care plan deficiency to a Class III deficiency. The care plan deficiency found by the AHCA involved four areas of concerns relative to Resident 5-A: (1) pressure ulcers, (2) weight, (3) mobility, and (4) perceived eating and swallowing difficulties. Resident 5-A developed a pressure ulcer on or about April 15, 1996. By May 2, 1996, the resident had developed three more pressure ulcers. An evaluation of the pressure ulcers, conducted on May 2, 1996, determined that the ulcers were "unavoidable" due to the medical condition and medical history of the resident. Treatment of the pressure ulcers was addressed and carried out pursuant to doctor's orders, nurse's notes, treatment sheets, and the complete pressure ulcer records of Resident 5-A. Moreover, the care plan of the resident, revised on May 16, 1996, adequately addressed treatment of the resident's pressure ulcers. The AHCA requires that care plans be revised every three months, unless there is a significant change in the resident's condition in the interim. The care plan for Resident 5-A was revised within the three month interval as required by the AHCA. In light of this resident's medical condition and medical history, the occurrence of the pressure ulcers did not represent a significant change requiring a revision of the care plan prior to the scheduled revision date. The AHCA also found that there was a deficiency in the rendering of treatment and care for the resident's pressure ulcers by failing to use a pressure relieving mattress. The undisputed evidence is that the Tampa Health Care Center provided the resident with this device. However, the special mattress was absent during part of the follow-up survey because the resident's bed was being repaired. Apparently the AHCA surveyor was unaware, and facility staff did not notify her, that the bed with the pressure relieving mattress had been replaced the afternoon of May 29, 1996, and prior to the conclusion of the survey. A second concern of the AHCA involved the surveyor's assumption that because the resident was receiving her food in the form of thickened liquids, the resident had difficulty swallowing. Based on this assumption, the AHCA determined that the care plan approach, to have plain water at the resident's bedside, because of her risk for urinary tract infections, was inappropriate and put the resident at risk of choking. Notwithstanding the AHCA's assumption to the contrary, it was undisputed that a speech evaluation of the resident performed on April 23, 1996, concluded that the resident had no difficulty in swallowing. Moreover, the undisputed evidence was that the resident received thickened liquids at her own request. A third area of concern regarding the care plan involved Resident 5-A's mobility and the goals and approach related thereto. From observing Resident 5-A sleeping, the AHCA surveyor concluded that the resident had contractures of the upper extremities which would prevent the resident from moving herself any distance in a wheelchair. Thus, the AHCA determined the care plan had an unrealistic goal in that it stated that the resident would be able to move herself in wheelchair to dayroom for socialization by next review date. The AHCA misread and improperly characterized the statement. First, the statement was not a goal, but an approach to be utilized to assist the Resident 5-A in achieving established goals. The two goals were that: (1) the resident would be able to tolerate being out of bed and in the wheel chair by the next review and (2) the resident would be able to move herself a short distance in the wheelchair. The approach was that staff, not the resident, would wheel the resident to the day room for socialization. Second, contrary to the AHCA conclusion regarding the resident's mobility, unrebutted evidence established that the resident did not have contractures of the hands. Thus, the established goal was realistic in that it was possible for Resident 5-A to manipulate the wheelchair a short distance, although not the distance required to get to the dayroom. Finally, the AHCA noted as a deficiency that the care plan for Resident 5-A failed to include the dietitian's recommendation of May 10, 1996, that the resident be weighed weekly. Tampa Health Care Center's policy in this regard is to weigh residents once a month unless more frequent weights are ordered by the resident's doctor. Weekly weights had not been ordered by Resident 5-A's physician. Also, there appeared to be no need to perform weekly weights since the resident's weight was stable according to federal guidelines recognized by the AHCA and applicable to nursing homes. Furthermore, the AHCA was concerned that the goal on the care plan, that the resident will have no significant weight loss by next review, was not measurable. This concern is unfounded because federal guidelines, applicable to nursing homes, including Tampa Health Care Center, define what constitutes a significant weight loss by a specified percentage. By applying this percentage to Resident 5-A's consecutive monthly weights, a determination can be made as to whether the resident has experienced any significant weight loss. Therefore, the goal, that there will be no significant weight loss, is measurable. The AHCA failed to establish that Resident 5-A did not have a care plan which was reviewed, revised, and updated as appropriate to describe the necessary care and services to attain or maintain her highest practicable level of physical function. No evidence was presented by the AHCA of any alleged violation related to staffing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing a standard rating to the Tampa Health Care Center and rescinding the conditional rating. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel Suite 400 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building Three 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration before the Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency”), which finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency issued the Petitioner a letter denying her application for exemption from disqualification from employment. (Exhibit 1) 2. The Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). 3. Subsequently, the Petitioner and the Agency filed a Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice. The Administrative Law Judge issued an order closing file with leave to re-open the matter and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Agency. (Exhibit 2) 4. The denial of the Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification from employment is UPHELD without prejudice to the Petitioner reapplying for an exemption from disqualification from employment in the future. ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this £75 day wo Phawh 2015. CBee Agency for Health Care Administration Filed March 19, 2015 9:19 AM Division of Administrative Hearings
Other Judicial Opinions A party that is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek judicial review which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the agency clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 along with filing fee as prescribed by law, days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I] HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy named persons/entities by the method designated on this _/ ay of Lfare& is Final Order was served on the below- Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Taylor Haddock, Supervisor Background Screening Unit Bureau of Long Term Care Services Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Lindsay Granger, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Lorenzo Palomares, Esquire Palomares-Starbuck and Associates 2333 Brickell Ave., Suite A-1 Miami, FL 33129 (U.S. Mail) John G. Van Laningham Administrative Law Judge The Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact Mark Hegedus, Respondent, is registered with the Florida State Board of Nursing and holds license No. 85729-2. He worked at the Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) for approximately three years immediately preceding May 15, 1978. During the period between April 1, 1978 and May 15, 1978 Respondent was working on the cancer ward at SMH and was Charge Team Leader at the hospital. An audit conducted of the narcotics and barbiturates administration records at SMH for the period 1 April through 15 May 1978 disclosed that of 14 patients records selected who had been administered Demerol by Respondent, evidence of irregularity was discovered in 30 entries on 9 of the 14 patient medical records audited. These errors included signing out for 50 mg ampules of Demerol 11 times, for 75 mg ampules 11 times, and for 100 mg ampules 8 times in the narcotic record with no entry made on the Nurses Notes or on Medication and Treatment record. These errors involved patients Daryl C. Iverson, Edna Jurgenson, Clinton Jelmberg, John Lally, Genevieve Belt, Arleigh Updike, Michael Wujtowicz, Joan Slater, and Arda Miller. Hospital procedures and accepted nursing practice require the nurse administering narcotics to sign for the narcotic when it is removed from the narcotics locker and then make an entry in the Nurse Notes and patient Medication and Treatment record when the narcotic is administered to the patient. Medication and Treatment records are used by the doctors to see how frequently patients need narcotics prescribed on an as needed basis, whether the drugs prescribed have been administered, and by other medical personnel to ascertain when the patient last received and how much medication so as to preclude giving the patient an overdose. Respondent was discharged from his position at the hospital on 15 May 1978 because of the narcotics irregularities. At the time of his discharge, Respondent acknowledged that he had taken Demerol and had disposed of the ampules but that he did not use them himself or sell them. The audit disclosed a few errors in charting narcotics were committed by other nurses as well as Respondent. During the three years Respondent worked at SMH and, up until about 1 April 1978, he was a capable and competent registered nurse, well-liked by both patients and co-workers. He was promoted to First Team Leader after about one year at SMH and to Charge Team Leader approximately one year thereafter. These promotions were more rapid than the time required by the average nurse. All witnesses who had worked with Respondent spoke highly of his qualifications and dedication as a registered nurse.
