The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine based on: The allegations of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 97-3363, pertaining to patient R.W., of violations of Sections 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, [failure to appropriately prescribe in the best interest of the patient]; 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, [failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances]; and Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, [failure to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient during his care of the patient]; and The allegations of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 97-3442, pertaining to patient N.W., of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, [failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances].
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida and has been licensed in Florida at all times material under license number ME0041782. Respondent is Board-certified in internal medicine, and his area of specialty is pulmonary medicine. AHCA Case No. 95-5043; DOAH Case No. 97-3442; Patient R.W. On or about November 5, 1990, Patient Mr. R.W. suffered a work-related accident resulting in a very significant injury to his back, including a complete disc herniation. On November 10, 1990, orthopedic surgeon Georges El Bahri, M.D., performed major spinal surgery, including a complete laminectomy of L4, L5, disc excision of L5, S1, and exploratory surgery in the region of S1 on R.W. at Memorial Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida. This surgery was of an emergency nature to prevent paraplegia. Prior to this surgery, R.W. was referred by Dr. El Bahri to Respondent on a pulmonary consult for surgical clearance because R.W. was suffering from chronic pulmonary disease, (CPD). R.W. experienced genitourinary dysfunction (a dysfunction of the genitalia or urinary organs) as a result of his accident, and he saw a urologist, Mohammed N. Mona, M.D., for treatment. On November 22, 1990, a second surgery was required for removal of a previously unidentified disc fragment. Dr. El Bahri recommended a spinal fusion. Evaluation by a second orthopedic surgeon indicated that R.W. had suffered a 30 percent disability of the body as a whole related to his orthopedic injuries. The second orthopedic surgeon also suggested a bone fusion. A spinal fusion operation would have exposed R.W. to a risk of loss of lower body function, and he declined the operation. Dr. El Bahri referred R.W. to Respondent to provide continuing care for R.W.'s pulmonary problem. Without surgery, R.W.'s back pain would continue to be severe and intractable. Dr. El Bahri had tried multiple alternative modalities of pain management with R.W. during the period of time that he participated in R.W.'s care, including use of a cane, weight reduction, corset, body brace, physical therapy, and a transcutaneous epidural nerve stimulator unit (TENS). Dr. El Bahri also had prescribed pain mediation for R.W. An implanted nerve stimulation device had been recommended, but R.W. declined it. Dr. El Bahri and Respondent consulted concerning efforts to control R.W.'s pain. Dr. El Bahri made Respondent aware of the various alternative pain modalities that he had tried. At some point, it was agreed between Dr. El Bahri and Respondent that where there is intractable pain requiring prescription drugs, one physician should assume primary care. Dr. El Bahri, as the orthopedic surgeon who could not get R.W. to agree to further surgery, deferred to Respondent who was treating R.W.'s chronic pulmonary problems. Dr. El Bahri and Respondent agreed that Respondent would prescribe analgesic and other medications for management of R.W.'s intractable pain. R.W.'s first office visit with Respondent was on May 3, 1991, and his last office visit was on June 16, 1993. Petitioner alleged violations by Respondent both as to level of care and the keeping of medical records because he did not perform and record a full physical for R.W. at or about the time of R.W.'s first office visit. However, Dr. Harvey, testifying on behalf of Petitioner, as well as Dr. Corral, testifying on behalf of Respondent, agreed that it would not be necessary for Respondent to repeat a complete history and physical on R.W. between the November 1990 hospital consultation and physical and the May 3, 1991, office visit. Dr. Harvey would have allowed a ten-month delay, and Dr. Corral felt no further complete physical was necessary for treatment of a chronic condition so long as there was evidence of frequent office visit evaluations. All the medical expert witnesses faulted Respondent's office records if they did not physically contain the hospital consultation sheets, and there is reason to believe that Respondent's office records did not include the consultation sheets until after R.W.'s death. Likewise, I do not find the other, later brief notes in Respondent's office records of partial examinations by Respondent or by his Physician's Assistant to constitute sufficient alternative documentation under the circumstances. See, infra. Therefore, to this degree, Respondent's records did not justify his course of treatment of R.W. R.W. presented to Respondent with multiple problems: intractable back pain secondary to his injuries, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CPD-COPD), a history of smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes every day for 25 years, impotency, back surgery, hyperlipidemia, and labile hypertension. "Hyperlipidemia" means high cholesterol and trigylcerides. "Labile hypertension" refers to erratic high blood pressure. At 205 pounds, R.W. also was overweight, but not "morbidly obese" for his height and age. While under Respondent's care, R.W. continued to suffer from intractable back pain secondary to his injury, anxiety, and situational depression. On April 10, 1992, while under Respondent's care, R.W. underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the University of Florida Health Sciences Center in Jacksonville, Florida. The psychiatrist, Ernest C. Miller, M.D., prepared a report dated June 9, 1992, in which he indicated that R.W. suffered adult situational disorder with chronic depression. He recommended "psychiatric contact." Respondent facilitated the workers' compensation insurance carrier's referral of R.W. to the psychiatrist for evaluation. Respondent's office records are deficient on this matter, but it appears most likely from the evidence as a whole that R.W. did not follow up on the psychiatrist's recommendation for psychiatric counseling because his workers' compensation employer-carrier declined to pay for any further psychiatric care. Although Dr. Harvey testified that Respondent should have tried to talk R.W. into psychiatric counseling, the evidence as a whole falls short of demonstrating that Respondent bore any professional responsibility to force R.W. into psychiatric care or counseling against R.W.'s will and at R.W.'s own expense. The psychiatrist recommended tricyclic anti- depressants. Respondent prescribed tricyclic anti-depressants as well as other drugs described infra. Respondent obtained consultations of specialists, including two orthopedic physicians and a neurosurgeon. Respondent also tried additional alternative modalities of pain management, including Marcaine (analgesic) trigger point injections, and topical anesthetics. Despite Petitioner's charge that Respondent's care of R.W. was substandard due to his failure to refer R.W. to a pain management specialist, I find that between Dr. El Bahri and Respondent, most acceptable pain management modalities were attempted with R.W, and Respondent's failure to refer R.W. to a pain management specialist did not fall below the professional standard of care. In making this finding of fact, I have given weighted consideration to Dr. Harvey's testimony that there was no other pain management besides drugs unless Respondent could talk R.W. into psychiatric counseling or surgery, or retrying a TENS unit, and to Dr. Corral's testimony that it was not necessary for Respondent to consult with a pain specialist because the patient had refused all invasive and some non- invasive pain management and that anything other than invasive pain management could be done for R.W. by the Respondent. During the period of time R.W. was under Respondent's care, Respondent prescribed to him analgesic medications for pain. He also prescribed anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, and muscle relaxant medications. It is with the quantity of these prescriptions, the inter-action of the drugs prescribed, and the failure to record these prescriptions in Respondent's office records for R.W. that the Petitioner finds fault. Between April 21, 1992, and July 6, 1993, Respondent wrote R.W. in excess of 30 prescriptions for pain management and depression. Dispensation of these prescriptions, including approved refills, exceeded 4,000 tablets. However, during this period of time, Respondent also recorded 11 office visits: 4/21/92, 5/15/92, 5/18/92, 5/20/92, 6/18/92, 8/21/92, 11/9/92, 2/1/93, 4/5/93, 5/4/93, and 6/16/93. Based on a "Pharmacy Profile," R.W. received the following medications prescribed by Respondent between April 21, 1992, and July 6, 1993. Drug Prescribed Dosage/Quantity Dates Filled Diazepam 10mg 50 06/16/93 Amitriptyline 50mg 30 07/24/92 50mg 30 08/11/92 50mg 30 09/23/92 50mg 30 10/20/92 50mg 30 11/20/92 50mg 30 12/16/92 100mg 30 02/01/93 100mg 30 03/03/93 100mg 30 04/02/93 100mg 30 05/03/93 150mg 30 05/07/93 100mg 30 06/02/93 100mg 30 06/25/93 Drug Prescribed Dosage/Quantity Dates Filled Lorcet Plus 100 06/18/92 100 07/15/92 100 08/11/92 90 09/11/92 90 10/07/92 90 11/09/92 90 12/07/92 90 12/31/92 90 01/29/93 100 03/01/93 100 04/02/93 100 05/03/93 100 05/07/93 100 06/07/93 100 07/06/93 Roxicet 5/325 40 04/05/93 Clorazepate 100 04/05/93 Xanax 1mg 100 04/22/92 100 05/26/92 100 07/09/92 100 08/11/92 100 10/07/92 100 11/09/92 100 12/07/92 100 12/31/92 100 01/29/93 100 03/01/93 100 04/02/93 100 05/03/93 100 06/07/93 100 07/06/93 Acetaminophen 500mg 100 09/11/92 100 10/20/92 100 11/20/92 100 12/05/92 100 02/10/93 Notriptyline 50mg 120 09/11/92 120 10/20/92 120 01/18/93 Carisoprodol 350mg 100 05/07/93 100 07/06/93 Xanax, Lorcet Plus, Amitriptyline, Clorazepate, Roxicet, Diazepam, and Carisoprodol are Central Nervous System (CNS) depressants and several, including Xanax and Diazepam (Valium), are benzodiazepines. When taken together, CNS depressants can produce additive CNS effects. Benzodiazepines are drugs which are in a class of structurally related compounds. They have sedative, anti- convulsant, and skeletal muscle relaxant properties and are used for the treatment of anxiety and other purposes. Using several benzodiazepines together can also be fatal, because the patient may develop a tolerance to the drug and ultimately consume toxic dosages. Xanax is a Schedule IV legend drug used to treat anxiety disorders. It produces additive CNS depressant effects when administered with other CNS depressants. Lorcet Plus is a Schedule III legend drug which contains Hydrocodone. It is used for treating moderate to moderately severe pain. If used with other CNS depressants, it can produce additive CNS depression. Amitriptyline is a legend drug and a trycyclic anti- depressant. It can enhance the effects of alcohol, barbiturates, and CNS depressants. It can aggravate heart conditions. Clorazepate is a Schedule IV benzodiazepine legend drug indicated for the treatment of anxiety disorders. It has a CNS effect. Clorazepate should not be administered to patients with indications of drug dependencies. Roxicet is a Schedule II legend drug which has a high potential for abuse and has a currently accepted, but severely restricted, medical use. It can produce dependency of the morphine type. Diazepam is a Schedule IV drug indicated for the treatment of anxiety disorder. It is a form of Valium and is a CNS depressant. Nortriptyline is a legend drug that is a tricyclic anti-depressant. Carisoprodol is a legend drug that is indicated as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. It is a CNS depressant. R.W. died unexpectedly at his home on July 9, 1993. Petitioner contends that because the prescribed medications were not listed in R.W.'s chart at the material times, the prescriptions and renewals were given by Respondent without any reference to a medical record which would allow Respondent or any physician to provide R.W. with sufficient warnings or information regarding the combined use of these drugs and/or to appropriately monitor or limit R.W.'s simultaneous intake of the CNS depressants, and that, whether one concludes that R.W. died due to multiple drug toxicity or as a result of a myocardial infarction is not critical, but that Respondent's care and treatment was so careless as to create an environment in which R.W. was an "accident waiting to happen." All the testifying medical experts agreed that Respondent should have given R.W. medication overdose and interaction warnings. Respondent claims to have orally warned R.W. and R.W.'s wife concerning R.W.'s prescriptions, but it is not disputed that prior to R.W.'s death, R.W.'s chart/medical records in Respondent's office did not contain adequate notations of oral medication overdose and interaction warnings. Dr. Corral testified that not all such warnings must be recorded. It is also undisputed that prior to R.W.'s death, his chart/records in Respondent's office did not contain adequate notes on the drugs prescribed by Respondent. In his office practice, Respondent had established a system whereby requests for refills of medications previously prescribed to patients would be documented on a separate IO9 drug tally sheet or "day sheet" by Respondent's staff. Sometime during each work day, Respondent would review the list of requested refills, and approve or deny each by making a written notation on the "day sheet." Respondent's staff would then telephonically authorize the pharmacy to refill only those prescriptions that Respondent had authorized in writing. By making a written notation approving requested refills, Respondent was creating a record of drugs he prescribed. Under Respondent's system, his staff members were then supposed to transpose the refill information from the "day sheet" onto each patient's individual medical record chart. The aforementioned system for approval of requested refills and documentation thereof is an acceptable means of documenting refill information on medications for individual patient charts, but it was not followed in this instance. Vickie Browning, as receptionist and "front office" staff member, was primarily responsible for the transfer of the medication information from the day sheets to individual patient charts. Periodically, when she got backed up with telephone calls or otherwise behind in her work, Ms. Browning simply threw away piled-up day sheets without transferring the prescription information to individual patient charts. In making this finding of fact, I have noted the clear testimony of another staff member, Angie McKenzie, who saw Ms. Browning throw away a pile of prescription day sheets, but who admittedly did not advise Respondent of what was going on. I also have considered Linda Eady Turner's testimony that Ms. Turner saw a pile of day sheets in the trash can on a single occasion. I also have carefully scrutinized Ms. Browning's testimony, which by candor and demeanor, internal inconsistencies, and motivation to fabricate, I find to be unreliable and incredible. Despite R.W.'s 11 office visits during the material period of time, during each of which Respondent presumably reviewed R.W.'s chart, Respondent did not become aware that prescription refill information was not being recorded in R.W.'s chart. Likewise, Respondent did not become aware that prescription refill information was not being recorded in any patient charts until he reviewed R.W.'s medical chart after R.W.'s death. As the medical professional ultimately responsible for accuracy of medical records and treatment of his patients, Respondent should have noted the gaps on R.W.'s and other patients' charts before he did. For the same reasons, he should have known, prior to R.W.'s death, that his system was not being followed. After R.W.'s death, the Duval County Medical Examiner confiscated drugs from R.W.'s home and created a Medication Log containing the following drugs: Xanax 1 mg, 1-1/2 pills remaining; Amitriptyline 150 mg, 1 remaining; Amitriptyline 100 mg, 8 remaining; Ketoproten 75 mg, 61 remaining, Zantac 150 mg, 1 remaining; Amoxicillin 500 mg, 1 remaining; Helotestin 10 mg, 9 remaining; Lorcet Plus tablets, 88 remaining; Carisoprodol 350 mg, 54 remaining; Xanax 1 mg, 88-1/2 remaining; Carisoprodol 350 mg, 97 remaining; and Hydrocodone, 27 remaining. All of these drugs were prescribed by Respondent. Laboratory tests performed on R.W. revealed the presence of Amitriptyline, Hydrocodone, Nordiazepam (which is from Diazepam), Carisoprodol, and Xanax. Respondent was quickly embroiled in legal actions arising out of R.W.'s death. Upon discovering that prescription refill information relating to R.W. had not been recorded by his staff on R.W.'s chart, Respondent instructed members of his staff to obtain prescription information from the pharmacy, and recreate a medication list for R.W.'s chart. He further advised his staff to record any recollections they had which related to interactions of any staff members and R.W. or R.W.'s wife. Once his staff had completed the prescription information recreation, Respondent placed a note on the recreated records, identifying them as recreations and not contemporaneous notes. He also advised his attorney and the attorney representing the estate of R.W. of the recreated records. This would logically show no intent to, or conspiracy by, Respondent to fabricate or falsify patient records, but merely an intent and effort to recreate prescription information for his defense at trial. In making this finding of fact, I have again discounted Ms. Browning's testimony for the reasons previously cited. All testifying medical experts agreed that it is professionally acceptable for a medical physician to add notes as an addendum, provided the physician indicates the date of additional notes and clearly shows that they are not contemporaneous. At the request of one of R.W.'s relatives employed in the Sheriff's Office, the Assistant Medical Examiner for Duval County, Dr. Bonafacio Floro, performed an autopsy on R.W.'s corpse. He opined that the immediate cause of R.W.'s death was "multiple drug toxicity," although he noted "arteriosclerotic disease" as a secondary, or contributing, cause of death. He also speculated that one or more prescription drugs could have caused a myocardial infarction. In formulating his opinion on the proximate cause of R.W.'s death, Dr. Floro relied almost exclusively on laboratory tests performed by the Duval County Medical Examiner's Office and by an outside laboratory revealing the presence of several drugs in R.W.'s blood. The results of the drug tests performed by the Duval County Medical Examiner's Office and the outside laboratory are inconsistent, but this is largely a difference without a distinction. By either test, R.W.'s blood level of Hydrocodone would be "lethal" as established by a generally accepted medical text, and his blood level of Xanax would be "toxic" as established by the same generally accepted medical text. This medical text, however, is basically only a catalogue of drug toxicity levels in persons already dead. According to Dr. Venard Adams, however, all of the drugs in R.W.'s blood at the time of his death were at therapeutic levels, except for Hydrocodone, which was at the low end of the generally accepted lethal range, and this level might not be lethal for one who had developed a tolerance for several drugs. Dr. Adams's opinion on this score was shared by Dr. Thomas F. Hegert. Each of these physicians are also Florida Medical Examiners. Dr. Floro's conclusion that multiple drug toxicity was the proximate cause of R.W.'s death also was not shared by the other medical experts, and Dr. Floro conceded that he had no opinion on where the line is crossed between achieving therapeutic levels and toxic or lethal levels in living patients with increased medicinal tolerance. Except for Dr. Floro, all of the other medical experts testified that the Respondent's prescriptions for R.W. continued to be mostly the same types and amount of each drug from R.W.'s first visit to his last; that Respondent's prescriptions did not exceed reasonable amounts of each individual medication; that in some cases the amounts Respondent prescribed were less than the maximum amounts permissible for individual medications; and that the prescriptions, if taken as prescribed, should not have exceeded reasonable amounts for their purpose. Dr. Corral considered Respondent's use of all the drugs together to be common practice. Dr. Hegert considered the combination of drugs selected by Respondent to be appropriate within current chronic pain management therapy and effective, in that because of the combination and amounts Respondent used, Respondent would not have had to prescribe even stronger pain medications which have a greater potential for addiction than those Respondent actually used. Dr. Hegert also found no indication that the drug levels in R.W.'s blood at death, as indicated by the laboratory reports, were any different than the probable levels R.W. had experienced over a considerable period of time. Although Dr. Floro reviewed some cut sections of the deceased's heart, Dr. Floro did not clearly acknowledge evidence of an acute myocardial infarction. Cut sections of R.W.'s heart were prepared with a special stain by Dr. Hegert and microscopically viewed. These sections revealed myocardial injury, "clear evidence" of an acute myocardial infarction. Dr. Hegert concluded that R.W. died of acute myocardial infarction secondary to severe coronary artery disease. There are a few pills from R.W.'s last prescriptions which are unaccounted for, but this is insufficient under the facts of this case to assume that R.W. consumed more pills than the labels prescribed or that excessive use of a single prescription drug or several prescription drugs triggered his myocardial infarction. In light of the testimony of a borderline nature for R.W. of the Hydrocodone level and the probable therapeutic level of the other drugs, there is no clear and convincing evidence that R.W. exceeded the labeled dosage. There is certainly no clear evidence that if R.W. exceeded the labeled dosage, he did so because of Respondent's failure to warn him. Finally, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's prescription practice rendered R.W. chemically dependent on prescription drugs. AHCA Case No. 95-01594; DOAH Case No. 97-3363; Patient N.W. Mrs. N.W. had been a patient of Respondent since April 17, 1992. Approximately a year before April 6, 1994, N.W. had required hospitalization due to severe gastroenteritis. At that time, she was hospitalized for re-hydration and attendant care. Thereafter, until April 6, 1994, N.W. enjoyed reasonably good health, except that she suffered from systemic lupus and erythema. On Wednesday, April 6, 1994, N.W. presented to Respondent's office with complaints of having eaten bad ham at a picnic, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea for several days. These were similar symptoms to those at her hospitalization the year before. Long-term nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can cause severe dehydration. Respondent recommended that N.W. be hospitalized for re-hydration. N.W. and her husband refused, accepting instead a prescription for antibiotics. On Friday, April 8, 1994, N.W. was not improved and either she or her husband contacted Respondent's office. Respondent's office was advised that N.W. had continued to suffer from nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea since her Wednesday office visit. N.W. then accepted Respondent's recommendation, and directions were given for her to be directly admitted to Memorial Medical Center (hospital) in Jacksonville, Florida, without first being seen at Respondent's office. N.W. was admitted to the hospital at approximately 4:30 p.m. Patients suffering from dehydration can develop hypovolemia (low blood volume) and can appear very ill and develop low blood pressure (hypotension); high or low heart rate (tachycardia or bradycardia); and become cold and clammy. These symptoms are also consistent with a myocardial infarction, although high heart rate is more common than bradycardia with a myocardial infarction. Appropriate treatment of hypovolemia is re-hydration through the administration of intravenous (IV) fluids. N.W. ultimately died four days later on April 12, 1994, from congestive heart failure initiated by a myocardial infarction which had most probably occurred sometime around noon on April 8, 1994, prior to her admission to the hospital. All witnesses concur that the only period of time that is material to the charges against Respondent is approximately 4:00 p.m. April 8, 1994 to 8:00 a.m. April 9, 1994. The thrust of the Administrative Complaint is that the information of an abnormal EKG and abnormal cardiac enzymes were repeatedly relayed to Respondent by telephone and that he failed to timely take aggressive action. Sometime subsequent to April 9, 1994, the nursing progress notes covering the period of time from approximately 8:00 p.m. April 8, 1994, until approximately 7:00 a.m. April 9, 1994, were found to be missing. Subsequently, the hospital's Risk Management staff directed that the nursing notes be recreated. The recreated notes were reviewed by the Risk Management staff and the hospital attorney. They were dissatisfied with them as being too subjective. At their instruction, a second set of nursing notes was recreated. However, Risk Management and the hospital attorney ultimately included the first set of recreated notes in N.W.'s hospital chart, believing that the first set of recreated notes would be more accurate because they were closer in time to the events charted. The copy of a 7:32 p.m. April 8, 1994, electrocardiogram (EKG) report currently in the hospital chart, which indicates an acute myocardial infarction, was not the copy of the EKG interpretation that was originally placed in N.W.'s hospital chart during the period of time that N.W. was hospitalized on April 8, 1994. The EKG copy in the hospital chart is a copy that has been interpreted by a cardiologist, Benjamin C. Olive, M.D. The undersigned has had the benefit of considering both sets of recreated notes, the witnesses' testimony, and all other exhibits admitted in evidence. In making the following Findings of Fact, the undersigned has compared, considered credibility, and weighed all elements of the record. After initial evaluation by hospital nursing staff, N.W. was evaluated at approximately 7:30 p.m., by Earl Manion, Respondent's Physician's Assistant. Mr. Manion noted, among other things, that because N.W.'s abdominal pain was very high up into the sternum, cardiac involvement should be investigated. Mr. Manion gave appropriate orders for initial laboratory and radiological evaluation of N.W. A CPK test is part of a standard chemistry panel done for all admittees, but the initial tests ordered by Mr. Manion included the performance of an EKG and blood chemical studies including cardiac enzyme testing (CPK-MB). At Memorial Medical Center, as in many facilities, EKGs are initially interpreted by a computer program, which provides a printed verbal interpretation of the EKG. Hospital nurses are not expected to interpret the line configurations on EKGs. Standard procedure is for them to notify the admitting physician of the computer's printed verbal interpretation. Mr. Manion did not remain on the cardiopulmonary floor to which N.W. was initially assigned (Three South Tower) to read the results of the tests he had ordered. He anticipated that Respondent would shortly be making rounds and would see the test results for himself. He did not relay his cardiac concerns to Respondent or tell Respondent that he had ordered a CPK-MB instead of a CPK test. In fact, Respondent did not make rounds that evening, and there was no requirement that he should do so. Lay persons normally refer to a myocardial infarction as a "heart attack." Persons can suffer from a myocardial infarction and, dependent upon its severity, they may not even be aware it has occurred. A myocardial infarction may be classified as "acute," meaning "recent" or "on-going," or it may be classified as "chronic," meaning "old" or "in the past." If it is an old infarction, no immediate physician response is necessary. The first EKG performed on N.W. printed out the verbal interpretation of "consider inferior infarct, age undetermined." This result is not an acute myocardial infarction alert. This result was reported telephonically to Respondent by Donna Hughes, R.N. Nurse Hughes was the first nurse significantly involved in N.W.'s care, and was the responsible nurse between admission and midnight on April 8, 1994. The CPK-MB test results came in subsequent to Ms. Hughes' first telephone call to Respondent, so she made a second telephone call to Respondent about 10:30 p.m. on April 8, 1994. She subsequently recreated notes to the effect that she related to Respondent that N.W. showed "elevated cardiac enzymes," but in her testimony, Ms. Hughes confirmed that she recalled telling Respondent only that the "CPK" was elevated. Despite reports by N.W.'s husband that his wife's face "was turning colors," neither nurse Hughes nor Physician's Assistant Manion observed such a phenomenon. In fact, to them, N.W. denied any chest pain or chest tightness. Nurse Hughes did not believe that N.W. was having a myocardial infarction during her shift. Chemical tests can be performed on a patient's blood for various enzymes that are released into the bloodstream as a result of stress on muscle systems. Various enzymes and "bands" of enzymes reflect stress or damage to different muscle systems. A CPK is an enzyme test that may indicate damage to muscles in the body generally, or more specifically, damage to skeletal muscles. It may also reflect systems' reactions to injected anti-vomiting medications, which N.W. had received. A CPK-MB (or CK-MB) band is a more specific enzyme test that is indicative of stress or damage to the heart muscle. The CPK-MB (or CK-MB) band is appropriately referred to as a "cardiac enzyme test." The CPK is not appropriately referred to as a "cardiac enzyme test." There is no clear and convincing evidence that Nurse Hughes advised Respondent that the CPK-MB or CK-MB was elevated. It is more likely that she only correctly identified that the test was a "cardiac enzyme test" in her recreated notes. Because Respondent was aware of N.W.'s past history of gastroenteritis and that N.W. had been suffering from vomiting, including retching, and had received intra-muscular injections of anti-nausea medication, and because retching and intra-muscular injections can result in an elevated CPK, it would be reasonable for him to discount the results of a CPK, which he did during the second phone call from Nurse Hughes. He ordered an increase in the potassium IV. Jennifer Stephenson, R.N., was a graduate nurse (G.N.) performing nursing care for N.W. on Three South Tower after midnight on April 8, 1994. She involved the charge nurse and the nurse coordinator due to her G.N. status and due to her concern for N.W.'s condition. She placed a telephone call to Respondent's "service" but did not speak to him. When Respondent returned the telephone call, his call was received by Tess Bunal, R.N. He denied that any clear information about the CPK-MB or about a new EKG was given to him in this phone call. During this phone call, Respondent authorized the transfer of N.W. to the Telemetry Unit (Three Central) for closer monitoring. The Telemetry Unit is a monitored unit with heart pattern displayed at each bedside and at a monitor bank. It provides one staff nurse for every three to four patients. It is only one step down from an intensive care floor. Upon N.W.'s arrival at the Telemetry Unit, Kevin Murphy, R.N. became the nurse involved in her care. Mr. Murphy spoke with Respondent at or about 1:40 a.m. on April 9, 1994, regarding N.W.'s EKG, low blood pressure, and increased heart rate. At that time, Nurse Murphy relied on another nurse's oral report that Respondent had already been informed of the elevated heart enzymes and also had been informed of the results of an abnormal EKG. Nurse Murphy recommended that N.W. be transferred to an intensive care unit, also known as a "cardiac care unit" (CCU). However, Mr. Murphy testified that he did not advise Respondent of the result of the EKG or any specific enzyme results, because he believed Respondent already had that information. The Respondent rejected Nurse Murphy's recommendation to transfer N.W. to CCU. Instead, he gave orders to increase the IV. Nurse Murphy was uncomfortable with Respondent's response to his recommendation. He closely monitored N.W. N.W.'s vital signs did not change markedly, but she continued to complain of nausea and even some chest tightness. Nurse Murphy ordered another EKG, which showed an "acute myocardial infarction." He again spoke with Respondent by telephone at approximately 3:40 a.m. on April 9, 1994, and again requested that N.W. be transferred to the intensive care unit. He did not inform Respondent of an EKG showing "acute myocardial infarction" or that the MB band was elevated. His testimony does not clarify whether he did or did not relay to Respondent any complaint of chest tightness. However, at Nurse Murphy's insistence, Respondent ordered N.W. transferred to CCU. At no time on any of the three units (cardiopulmonary, telemetry, or cardiac care) did any nurse become sufficiently concerned about N.W.'s condition or about Respondent's responses so as to call on the hospital's "fail safe" procedures which included the opportunity to involve an on-call "intensivist." At approximately 7:00 a.m. on April 9, 1994, a new nurse, Nurse Waples, began her shift on CCU. She contacted Respondent by telephone at 7:20 a.m. and advised Respondent clearly that N.W. was complaining of chest tightness, and of the results of the latest EKG. She also clearly stated that N.W. had an elevated CK-MB. Respondent immediately gave appropriate orders for evaluation and treatment of a possible cardiac problem, including EKG, cardiac medication, oxygen, arterial blood gases, pulse oxymeter, and a cardiac consultation, and he proceeded directly to the hospital. The Respondent saw N.W. in the hospital for the first time at 7:55 a.m. on April 9, 1994. At that time, he and a cardiologist correctly diagnosed her as having had an acute myocardial infarction and going into cardiogenic shock. Respondent timely requested the participation of a cardiologist and provided appropriate orders for N.W.'s cardiac condition. He also appropriately monitored her status. Nonetheless, N.W. ultimately went into congestive heart failure. After several unsuccessful treatment attempts, she died on April 12, 1994, at 5:33 p.m. Petitioner's medical physician expert, Dr. Patel, testified that Respondent, in response to the several nurses' telephone calls concerning "elevated cardiac enzymes" and an abnormal EKG, should have either been in immediate personal attendance at N.W.'s bedside, or should have obtained a proper consultation with a cardiologist, and/or should have called on the intensivist provided by the hospital, and that Respondent's failure to take at least one of these courses of action constituted his failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent's experts agreed that if Respondent had received clear notification of an "acute" condition by EKG, of an elevated CPK-MB or CK-MB, or of clear symptomatology such as chest pain, these were "red flags" telling Respondent that he should aggressively address a cardiac problem. However, all experts, even Dr. Patel, concurred that if the EKG had showed only "consider inferior infarct, age undetermined," that, alone, would not be sufficient to trigger an immediate response from Respondent. Based on all he reviewed, which was not all of the evidence in this case, Dr. Patel acknowledged that if the information relayed by Nurse Waples had been given Respondent earlier he could have met the standard of care by merely requesting that the nurse call a cardiologist for a consultation or call the hospital's intensivist to see N.W. Under these circumstances, Respondent would not even have had to come into the hospital, and therefore his failure to respond could not be attributed to "laziness." Because Respondent acted knowledgeably and appropriately when clearly informed of N.W.'s condition by Nurse Waples, Dr. Patel would not attribute Respondent's lack of response to lack of knowledge or ability. Dr. Patel ultimately opined that because the first set of recreated notes showed repeated notifications to Respondent that N.W.'s blood pressure was falling while her heart rate was rising; this, with all the other information, including notification of chest tightness, should have resulted in a more aggressive response from Respondent, but he conceded that these symptoms occasionally are consistent with hypovolemia, and the undersigned notes that in testimony, only Nurse Murphy clearly testified that he notified Respondent of the disparity in blood pressure and heart rate, and did not specifically state that he mentioned chest tightness. No witness clearly suggested that Respondent had an affirmative duty to inquire whether a CPK or CPK-MB had been administered to N.W., or to inquire if a second EKG had been performed after the first one, or to personally order a subsequent EKG based on the several phone calls as related by the testifying nurses. No one testified that repeated phone calls from nursing staff by itself should have alerted Respondent to a myocardial infarction. Respondent's experts concurred that absent clear notification of an elevated CPK-MB, the information that N.W.'s EKG showed an old myocardial infarction did not require any response beyond the responses Respondent made.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order that Finds Respondent not guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t) in DOAH Case No. 97-3363 with regard to Patient N.W. Finds Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(q) and (t), in DOAH Case No. 97-3442 with regard to Patient R.W. Finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(m) Florida Statutes, in DOAH Case No. 97-3442 with regard to Patient R.W., and imposes a penalty of two months suspension of license followed by probation of Respondent's license for six months upon such terms and conditions as the Board may impose to correct his record-keeping, and imposes a $1,000.00 fine. See Rule 21M-20.001(2)(m), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Lamb, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Albert Peacock, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Department of Health Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue These two consolidated cases are both license discipline cases in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against an individual pharmacist and a community pharmacy for various statutory violations which are alleged in separate Administrative Complaints. At the hearing the Respondents admitted some of the allegations of the Administrative Complaints. Thereafter both the Petitioner and the Respondents presented testimony and exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties decided not to order a transcript of the hearing. The parties were allowed until November 25, 1987, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed timely proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorpor- ated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on stipulations and admissions Respondent Gus Goldstein is, and has been at all times material hereto, a pharmacist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PS 0005354. Respondent's last known address is 110 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. Respondent Gus Goldstein is and has been at all times material hereto, designated as the prescription department manager of Center Pharmacy, a community pharmacy in the State of Florida, having been issued permit number PH 0002430 and located at 110 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. On or about December 23, 1986, a pharmacy medication audit was conducted at Center Pharmacy for the period between approximately June 1, 1986, and December 23, 1986. That audit revealed that the Respondents' records for the period of June 1, 1986, through December 23, 1986, failed to account for the following: Description Bought Dispensed Unaccounted For Tylenol #3 w/codeine 4200 2102 2098 Tylenol #4 w/codeine 5000 2600 2400 Fiorinal #3 1900 1810 90 Valium 5mg. 900 380 520 (Diazepam 5mg.) Valium 10mg. 2200 1600 600 (Diazepam 10mg.) Tylenol #3 with Codeine and APAP with Codeine 30mg are "medicinal drugs" as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contain codeine, a controlled substance, in such quantity that they are included in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Tylenol #4 with Codeine and APAP with Codeine 60mg are "medicinal drugs" as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contain codeine, a controlled substance, in such quantity that they are included in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Fiorinal #3 with Codeine is a "medicinal drug" as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains codeine, a controlled substance, in such quantity as to be included in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Valium is a brand name of a "medicinal drug" as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains diazepam, a controlled substance, which is listed in Schedule IV of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Tylenol #3 with Codeine is a brand name of a "medicinal drug" as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains a sufficient quantity of codeine, a controlled substance, to be listed in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Respondent Center Pharmacy is, and has been at all times material hereto, the permittee of Center Pharmacy, a community pharmacy, located in the State of Florida at 110 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, having been issued permit number PH 0002430. Respondent Center Pharmacy has, and had at all times material hereto, Gus Goldstein, a pharmacist in the State of Florida having been issued license number PS 0005354, designated as its prescription department manager. Respondent Center Pharmacy is, and has been at all times material hereto, registered with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. Respondent has been issued certificate of Registration Number AC 5050719. Findings based on the evidence adduced at the hearing On or about October 27, 1986, Respondent Gus Goldstein created a record which purported to be a telephone prescription (#116-450) for F.W. for Tylenol #3 with Codeine, purportedly prescribed by Dr. Samuel J. Alford, M.D. The prescription (#116-450) for F.W. for Tylenol #3 with Codeine was not authorized by Dr. Samuel J. Alford, M.D. Respondent Gus Goldstein dispensed Tylenol #3 with Codeine to F.W. without first being furnished with a prescription. Respondent Gus Goldstein knew that the purported telephone prescription (#116-450) for F.W. was a false record. During the process of dispensing drugs, normally there will be small errors in the counting of the drugs. These small errors will result in shortages in the drug inventory which cannot be accounted for. If proper record-keeping and dispensing practices are followed, the shortages resulting from these small errors normally will be in the range of from 1 percent to 2 percent of drugs dispensed; certainly no more than 3 percent of drugs dispensed. Shortages greater than 3 percent of drugs dispensed are indicative of a failure to follow proper record- keeping and dispensing practices.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order in these consolidated cases to the following effect: Finding the Respondent Gus Goldstein guilty of the violations charged in Counts One, Two, and Three of the Administrative Complaint in Case Number 87-3151; Dismissing the violation charged against Gus Goldstein in Count Four of the Administrative Complaint in Case Number 87- 3151; Imposing an administrative fine against Gus Goldstein in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each of the violations of which he is found guilty; i.e., administrative fines totaling fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500.00); Revoking Gus Goldstein's license to practice pharmacy; Finding the Respondent Center Pharmacy guilty of the violation charged in the Administrative Complaint in Case Number 87-3913; Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Center Pharmacy in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00); and Revoking the permit of Center Pharmacy. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3151 AND 87-3913 The following are my specific rulings on all of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. In the rulings which follow I have rejected much of what both parties offered as proposed findings of fact due to the form of the proposals. The most frequent defect in the form is the commencement of a statement with the words "So-and-so testified," followed by a summary of the testimony. Testimony is, of course, one of the raw materials from which findings of fact are made, but (with the exception of perjury trials) summarization or quotation of testimony is hardly ever an appropriate finding of fact. Rather than summarize or quote the testimony, the parties should refine from the testimony the essential material and relevant facts and submit that refined product as their proposed findings. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected for the following reasons: First, it is a summary of testimony, rather than proposed findings of fact; second, parts of it are inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence; and, third, most of it consists of subordinate, irrelevant, or unnecessary details. First unnumbered paragraph following Par. 2: Rejected for the first and third reasons noted immediately above. Second unnumbered paragraph following Par. 2: Rejected as a commentary on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Further, the portion following the comma is inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 3: Rejected for the same reasons as rejection of Paragraph 2. Unnumbered paragraph following Par. 3: Rejected for the following reasons: First it is a summary of the testimony, rather than proposed findings of fact, and, second, most of it consists of subordinate, irrelevant, or unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Last unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as constituting argument or conclusions of law rather than proposed findings of fact. Findings proposed by Respondents: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Covered in part by stipulated facts. Most of the remainder rejected as subordinate or unnecessary details or as not supported by competent substantial evidence. First unnumbered paragraph following Par. 2: First three sentences rejected as summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Second and third sentences also rejected as not being supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as consisting of subordinate, irrelevant, or unnecessary details. Second unnumbered paragraph following Par 2: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact and because it constitutes subordinate, irrelevant, or unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. First unnumbered paragraph following Par. 3: Rejected as constituting argument or legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Second unnumbered paragraph following Par. 3: Rejected as constituting argument or legal conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, portions of the arguments and conclusions are based on inferences which are not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 4: Rejected as summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact and as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. First unnumbered paragraph following Par. 4: Rejected for the same reasons as rejection of Paragraph 4. Second unnumbered paragraph following Par. 4: First sentence rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Second sentence accepted in substance. Last sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Rod Presnell Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael A. Atter, Esquire 333-1 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner is liable to Respondent for Medicaid reimbursement overpayments, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in Florida pursuant to Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. Petitioner provides services to Medicaid beneficiaries under provider No. 1000098-00 pursuant to a contract with Respondent. Under the provider agreement dated March 31, 1997, Petitioner agreed to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks, and statements of policy. The contract also sets forth Petitioner's responsibilities to keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid-related records, and to make them available for state and federal audits for five years. Heritage Information Systems, Inc. (Heritage) is and has been a pharmacy audit company since 1980. In 1999, Respondent contracted with Heritage to perform audits of pharmacies enrolled in the Florida Medicaid program. Respondent and Heritage subsequently created a list of violations to be investigated during an audit. The list is based upon provisions in the Florida Statutes and federal Medicaid policies and regulations. The purpose of the list is to guide Heritage in performing its duty during an audit. Heritage conducts its audits based on a standard methodology and protocol. During the course of an audit, Heritage examines a provider's records to determine whether a pharmacy is compliant with all rules and regulations that apply to the pharmacy. Heritage uses an established set of neutral criteria to select pharmacies for participation in an audit. Using these criteria, Heritage selected Petitioner as a candidate for audit. By letter dated January 17, 2000, Heritage advised Petitioner that it would be audited on January 26, 2000. The letter stated as follows in relevant part: The auditor(s) will require access to original hard-copy prescription records, third party signature logs, and, in some cases, pharmacy computer screens relating to a sample of prescription claims billed by your pharmacy between 12/25/1998 and 12/24/1999. Please note that the sample claim may actually be a refill of a prescription originally dispensed prior to the audit period. Because of this, we recommend that you also have the prior twelve months of prescription records available the day of the audit. For your reference, the audit terms are defined in your participating provider agreement and the prescribed drug services handbook. If you have any additional questions prior to the audit, please call Heritage Information Systems, Inc. . . . Between December 25, 1998, and December 24, 1999, Petitioner submitted claims and received payments from the Medicaid program for 7,065 claims. Using an industry standard software application, Heritage selected a random sample of 101 of Petitioner's claims to be analyzed during the audit. In performing the audit, Heritage utilized a methodology similar to that used by auditing agencies who examined Medicaid providers in previous years. During the audit, Heritage identified four areas of noncompliance for Petitioner. First, Heritage requested Petitioner's staff to produce hard-copy prescription records for the 101 sampled claims. Hard-copy prescriptions include those ordered and signed by a physician on a handwritten form and the records created by the pharmacists immediately after receiving verbal authorization from a physician by telephone. In this case, Petitioner could not produce hard-copy prescriptions for five claims. The second area of noncompliance involved unauthorized refills. In seven instances, Petitioner refilled prescriptions more times than the number authorized on the documented prescription. There were no notations on the hard-copy prescriptions or in the pharmacy computer to indicate that the doctors or someone from their office called to increase the number of authorized refills. The third area of noncompliance involved one instance in which Petitioner claimed payment for a "days supply value" that was inconsistent with the quantity and directions on the prescription. The prescription at issue was for sixty tablets with directions for the patient to take the drug once a day, constituting a sixty-day supply of medicine. Petitioner filled this prescription as a thirty-day supply and claimed Medicaid payment accordingly. Respondent did not include this violation in the calculation of overpayment. The fourth area of noncompliance involved a prescription that was refilled 30 days earlier than appropriate with respect to the quantity and directions for use that appeared on the prescription. This was the same prescription referenced above in paragraph twelve. After completing the audit, Heritage completed a final audit report. Said report documents the following: (a) 7,310 claims submitted by Petitioner; (b) $350,639.95 paid by Respondent for all claims; (c) 101 claims in total random sample; (d) $3,839.33 paid by Respondent for claims in total random sample; (e) 13 discrepant claims in random sample; $778.09 paid by Respondent for discrepant claims; 13 documented sanctions in random sample; (h) $724.91 paid by Respondent for documented sanctions in random sample; (i) $52,466.25 as the total calculated overpayment; and (j) $13,798.70 as the amount of the overpayment based on a 95 percent one-sided lower confidence limit. The final audit report also contained a listing of the violations discovered during the audit. The final audit report contained the following comments/notes in relevant part: Five prescriptions could not be found by auditors and could not be found by pharmacist Geiger and technician Daniels either. Many unauthorized refills were noticed. Pharmacy staff stated some information may be on the old computer system that was not functioning because of Y2K problems. Any authorization or documentation that was found on the computer system was accepted. Under cover of a letter dated March 2, 2000, Petitioner furnished Respondent with statements relative to the discrepant claims/documented sanctions signed by several physicians. All of the statements included the following: (a) statements that the doctors had prescribed the medication(s) for their patients; (b) the patient name; (c) the prescription number; (d) a print-out of a computer screen; and (e) opinions that Petitioner would not fill or refill prescriptions without authority and approval. None of these physicians testified at the hearing. By letter dated August 16, 2000, Respondent notified Petitioner of the determination of a Medicaid overpayment in the amount of $13,798.70. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner received an overpayment in that amount or more.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner must timely pay Respondent $13,798.70 for Medicaid reimbursement overpayments from December 25, 1998, through December 24, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 30th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Melvin H. Fletcher, R.Ph. Corporate Representative Mayhugh Drugs, Inc. 200 South Orange Avenue Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 L. William Porter, II, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Carol Petrovey, L.P.N., Respondent, is a Licensed Practical Nurse who holds license No. 39258-1. On February 13, 1977, while employed as a Licensed Practical Nurse at Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, Respondent administered an oral medication to a patient, Israel Schwartz, who was assigned to her care and left the patient's bedside without ensuring that the patient had consumed the medication. The medication involved was 12.5 milligrams of Antivert, which is a medication used to control nausea and vomiting. An incident report was issued to Respondent on February 13, 1977, and she was further counselled respecting this problem on February 18, 1977. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) In said report, the Respondent was reminded of the importance and policy of medication administration, of not leaving medication at patient's bed side but, instead, of remaining with patients until medications are in fact swallowed by the patient. Approximately two months later, on April 8, 1977, the Respondent admitted that while employed as above she committed a pre-op medication error with respect to a patient in her care. During the following month, on or about May 2, 1977, Respondent, while employed by the Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, signed out for the wrong narcotic which resulted in an inaccurate narcotic inventory balance at the change of her shift. The discrepancy centered around a discrepancy in a 50 milligram and a 25 milligram dosage of Demerol, a controlled substance. According to the Hospital records, the narcotic records and inventory are perpetually maintained. The patient who was involved in this incident was Golda White. An incident and counseling report was issued to the Respondent respecting this incident. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) On or about August 28, 1977, R.M. McDonald, R.N., Assistant Director of Nursing, and Mary Oglia, an R.N. at the Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, jointly determined that there were three Darvoset N-100 tablets missing from the medication drawer of a patient named Madelyn Lynch, to whom the Respondent was assigned to administer medication. After repeated questioning of this incident, the Respondent acknowledged that she had taken the three missing Darvoset N-100 tablets from Lynch's medication drawer, removed them from her purse and handed them over to the Assistant Director of Nursing. It was at this juncture that the Respondent was told by the nursing director that she had the alternative of resigning from the Hospital or being discharged, with a report of the incident being filed simultaneously with the Petitioner. Audrey Renwick, an R.N. employed at the subject hospital since approximately June of 1976 and who is presently a head nurse, witnessed the questioning and the surrender of the three Darvoset tablets by the Respondent. Thereafter, following the surrender of the Darvoset tablets, the Respondent resigned and was employed by the Medicana Medical Center in Lake Worth during September of 1977, where she has been employed to date. As stated above, the Respondent does not dispute the substance of the testimony given by the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Petitioner, Florida State Board of Nursing. She acknowledges that she made a mistake and testified that she has put those incidents behind her. She further testified that since her resignation from the Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches and her re-employment with the Medicana Medical Center at Lake Worth, she has not been involved in any incidents or any drug-related matters. Additionally, it was noted, that the Respondent had not been involved in any incidents prior to or subsequent to the filing of this Administrative Complaint. Several coworkers of the Respondent testified on her behalf and, generally, gave their opinions of the credible job that she is now fulfilling in her present position. Included among such was Lewis Becks, a Registered Pharmacist and a supervisor and consultant for other area hospitals, including several alcoholic and drug abuse centers in the area. He testified that since the Respondent has taken her most recent position at the center in Lake Worth, she is running a model nursing station and that this is a complete turnaround from the situation which existed at the Center when the Respondent began her employment there in Lake Worth. He testified that the narcotic shortages are negligible and that stringent controls are maintained for all narcotics at the center, whether the drugs are Class 2 or Class 5.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. This recommendation is based on the credible testimony which indicates that subsequent to the above incidents, the Respondent is leading a life which is indicative of the type of conduct which is professional in nature and that, in so doing, she is a credit to her profession. Finally, in view of the testimony that no similar incidents have occurred in the more than one year which has passed following these incidents, it is the considered opinion of this Hearing Officer that the placement of the Respondent under probation for a period of two (2) years is more in keeping with the proven offenses. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Building "B" Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Ms. Carol Petrovey 1887 Breezy Lane West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Carolann A. Lubinski Petrovey 1887 Breezy Lane CASE NO. 78-1380 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 39258-1 /
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to chapters 429 and 408, Part II, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Kipling Manor was licensed by AHCA as an assisted living facility. Kipling Manor is located in Pensacola, Florida, and operates a 65-bed facility, license number 7285, and holds a specialty limited health license. Norma Endress is a registered nurse employed by AHCA. She conducts surveys of nursing homes and assisted living facilities for compliance. Ms. Endress is supervised by Patricia McIntire, a nurse consultant supervisor for AHCA. Ms. McIntyre has been with AHCA for 13 years. Belie Williams is the administrator of Kipling Manor. He has been involved with health care services for approximately 35 years, and has been an administrator of ALFs for approximately 15 years. He has been involved with the Florida Assisted Living Association (FALA) and served on its board. Mr. Williams helped implement training sessions for ALFs in conjunction with FALA for the past eight years. Kipling Manor has two nurses who visit the facility to provide care to the residents. Elizabeth McCormick is an advanced nurse practitioner (ARNP) in family, psychiatric and mental health. She has been a nurse since 1983 and has extensive experience dealing with inpatient and outpatient psychiatric residents in long-term facilities. Nurse McCormick works with a VA facility providing inpatient and outpatient care on a high intensity psychiatric unit. She was also an assistant professor at the University of West Florida in the Mental Health Nursing Program. Nurse McCormick provides medical and mental healthcare for residents at several ALFs in Pensacola, including Kipling Manor. She sees patients at Kipling Manor several times a month. She manages the healthcare of residents, diagnoses illnesses, and writes prescriptions as needed. She describes Kipling Manor as not being a typical setting because her patients there are seriously mentally ill, which presents huge challenges. Angela Lavigne is a registered nurse certified by Medicare to provide psychiatric care to patients. She is employed by a company called Senior Care. Among other things, she works with assisted living facilities providing therapeutic counseling, assisting doctors with adjusting medication, and providing in-service training to staff of these facilities in regard to psychiatric care. Nurse Lavigne has been seeing patients at Kipling Manor for almost three years. She visits Kipling Manor approximately four times a week. At the time of the survey, she visited the facility once or twice a week. She provides patient care as well as in-service training to the staff regarding psychiatric issues. She also runs group sessions with the residents to make them feel more independent and feel more like they are in their homes. On July 12 through 14, 2011, Nurse Endress conducted an unannounced complaint survey of Kipling Manor that gave rise to the Amended Administrative Complaint and to this proceeding. Count I--Resident 8 Count I alleges that Kipling Manor failed to provide incontinent care for Resident 8 and failed to provide nail and facial care for Resident 6. Ms. Endress observed Resident 8 walking with a "med tech" to the "med room" to receive her medications. Ms. Endress observed wetness on Resident 8's clothes, and noticed the smell of urine. The med tech gave Resident 8 her medications, then assisted her to an open area where Resident 8 sat down. Ms. Endress observed Resident 8 for about two hours. Ms. Endress approached a personal care assistant (PCA), who was a new employee, and inquired of the PCA as to whether the resident was incontinent. As a result of this inquiry, Ms. Endress believed that this resident was incontinent. After approximately two hours had passed, Ms. Endress called this to the attention of the PCA, who then changed Resident 8 immediately. Ms. Endress determined that Respondent was "not providing care for this lady, incontinent care. They were not monitoring her." This determination was based in large part on her belief that Resident 8 was incontinent. However, Resident 8's health assessment indicates that Resident 8 needed supervision while toileting, but did not carry a diagnosis of incontinence. Ms. Endress acknowledged at hearing that supervision with toileting is not the same thing as being diagnosed with incontinence. Resident 8's health assessment also reflects diagnoses of personality disorder, dementia, and Alzheimer's among other conditions. Ms. McCormick provided health care services to Resident 8. She quite frequently is involved with residents who have toileting issues. Had Resident 8 developed skin problems because of toileting issues, she would have been aware of it. Ms. McCormick noted that the records indicated that Resident 8 received a skin cream three times a day to prevent such skin problems. Both Ms. Endress and Ms. McCormick are of the opinion that, while it is better to change a resident as soon as possible, a two-hour check is appropriate for someone with toileting issues. According to Ms. McCormick, if she were looking to determine whether there existed a direct physical threat to Resident 8, there would be monitoring for skin breakdown, redness or irritation, or a possible urinary tract infection (UTI). Neither Ms. McCormick nor Ms. Lavigne were notified or saw any signs of a skin infection, other skin problems, or a UTI regarding Resident 8. There was no evidence presented that Resident had any skin problems or UTI as a result of this incident or her toileting issues. Erica Crenshaw is a "med tech" and a supervisor employed by Kipling Manor. She provided care for Resident 8 and was on duty the days of the survey in question. Ms. Crenshaw verified that Resident 8 was on a two-hour check at the time of the survey. This involved checking to see if Resident 8 was wet or dry. If she were found to be wet, staff would take off the resident's brief, change and wipe the resident, put on a new brief noting the date and time, as well as recording the staff person's initials. When changing Resident 8, staff would apply a barrier cream, and check to see if any bed sores developed. Ms. Endress determined that this was a Class II violation because of the potential for skin breakdown and infection as well as potential for emotional harm, in that she perceived this as a dignity issue for Resident 8. Ms. Endress based this opinion in large part on her mistaken belief that Resident 8 was incontinent. Her supervisor, Ms. McIntyre, reviewed the classification recommended by Ms. Endress and concurred that Class II was appropriate because "[r]esidents, in particular elderly residents, left sitting in urine, there is a great potential for them to experience skin breakdowns, which would certainly have a severe negative impact on their physical health." Mr. Williams saw Resident 8 while Ms. Endress was conducting her inspection. He saw that she was wet from urine on the back of her clothes. He did not detect any strong odor of urine although he was close to her. Count I--Resident 6 Count I also includes allegations regarding Resident Ms. Endress observed Resident 6 with long facial hair (Resident 6 is female) and long, dirty fingernails. Ms. Endress interviewed Resident 6 regarding these observations. Based upon this interview, Ms. Endress believed that staff did not cut her facial hair or trim her nails, despite Resident 6 wanting them to do so. Ms. Endress estimated Resident 6's nails to be approximately one-quarter inch long but could not recall the length of her facial hair. Resident 6's health assessment reflects a diagnosis of dementia with poor short term memory, and that she needs assistance bathing, dressing, and grooming. Erica Crenshaw described Resident 6 as "a little difficult to work with." Staff works on nails, hands and feet, two days a week. If at first Resident 6 was resistant to having her nails trimmed, they would "give her space" then approach her again later. She described Resident 6's nails as "pretty decent." Resident 6 received health care from both Ms. Lavigne and Ms. McCormick. Both nurses are of the opinion that staff worked with Resident 6 to keep her nails in good shape. As a resident of an ALF, Ms. McCormick noted that Resident 6 had the right to refuse nail care and decide whether her nails needed to be trimmed. Ms. Lavigne informed staff that they needed to work with Resident 6 at her own pace, and to be careful not to make her combative. Ms. Lavigne treated Resident 6 for a wrist problem in mid-summer of 2011, when Resident 6 was in a splint for approximately six weeks, and received physical therapy. She described Resident 6's nails as "nice, round, nothing broken, nothing chipped. Every once in a while she's actually let staff put nail polish on them but as far as cutting them down, it's like an act of Congress to get her to sit down enough to trim them." There is no evidence as to what could have been under Resident 6's nails when Ms. Endress saw her. However, the evidence establishes that Resident 6's nails were tended to by staff on a regular basis, and that her treating nurse was not aware of any problem with them. Regarding facial hair, Ms. Lavigne never noticed any facial hair on Resident 6 other than having "a couple little whiskers here and there." Ms. Lavigne was Resident 6's treating nurse in the general time-period around the survey in question, and was never informed about any problems with Resident 6 regarding nails or facial hair, nor noticed any. Ms. Endress classified the findings she made regarding Resident 6's nails and hair as a Class II violation because she perceived it as a "dignity issue because women do not like facial hair on them." Ms. McIntyre confirmed the class determined by Ms. Endress, although the record is not clear why. Count II--cleanliness and maintenance Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Kipling Manor failed to honor the rights of residents by not providing a safe and decent living environment to prevent the spread of disease for all residents. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows: In an interview resident #3 on 7/12/11 at 9:00 am stated this place was not clean. He stated the cook will have gloves on his hands when he leaves the kitchen. The cook continues rolling the food down the hallway to the dining room while simultaneously rolling the open garbage container which is soiled. Without changing his gloves he will serve the food to the residents.1/ An observation of lunch on 7/12/11 at 12:00 pm revealed the cook serving turkey with gloved hands not using a utensil. Without changing his gloves he handled silver ware, moved a gallon of milk and was touching the dining room table. He was using the same gloved hand to serve corn bread. While serving food he never changed his gloves between clean and dirty. Other staff wearing gloves were serving lunch to residents and cleaning tables and pouring beverages without changing gloves. They were serving beverages touching the rims of glasses without changing clothes [sic]. During the survey, the following was seen: Bathroom floor for room 9 on wing 1 was dirty with build-up of dirt in the corners. Lounge area at the end of wing 1 had a broken recliner that was being used by a resident. The floor and furniture were soiled. Room and bathroom #3 on wing 1 had dirty floors with build-up of dirt along baseboards and the toilet lid was too small for the tank. Vents were clogged with dust. The door was too short for the opening; wood was missing on door frame and the threshold had broken tile. Dining room bathroom at the end of wing 2 had dirty floors with build-up of dirt along baseboards; around bottom of the toilet was black and the seal was cracked. Dining room floors were dirty and walls had dried food on them. Room 27 had filthy floors with build up along baseboards; dried spills were noted and the drywall had a hole in it. Wing 2 had drywall that was pulling away from ceiling and the ceiling had brown water spots: soiled dirty walls; dirty baseboards with build up of dust; spills on walls and vents dusty. Wing 2 had no baseboard near the shower; the cabinet had mildew on the outside surface; the wood was warped and peeling. The sink was soiled with dried brown substance. The door to the cabinet would not close. The baseboard wood near sink was split and the drywall had an indentation of the door knob. Room 21 floors were filthy and smelled of urine. Soiled clothes laid on the floor with soiled underwear which were observed while medication technician was assisting resident. No action was taken by the medication technician. Laundry room floors were filthy. There was no division between clean clothes and dirty clothes. Clothes were lying on the floor.2/ Based upon this complaint, Ms. Endress observed the dining room during a meal and toured the building. At hearing, Ms. Endress acknowledged that she did not see the cook touch the garbage pail or garbage and then touch food. She maintained, however, that she observed the cook while wearing gloves, touch food then touch "dirty surfaces," then go back and touch food on plates and touch the rims on glasses. Ms. Endress did not specify at hearing what she meant by "dirty surfaces," but in her report which was the basis for the Amended Administrative Complaint, she noted that the cook would touch food and then touch surfaces such as moving a gallon of milk, touching the dining room table, and handling silver ware. She also testified that she saw other staff wearing gloves who were serving residents, cleaning tables, and serving beverages without changing their gloves. Deborah Jackson is a personal care assistant (PCA), food server, and laundry worker at Kipling Manor. Ms. Jackson and one other PCA serve meals for about 60 residents. She received training in food service. She was working at Kipling Manor the days Ms. Endress was there for the survey. Ms. Jackson always wears gloves when serving the residents. If she touches anything besides food she changes gloves. For example, if she moves chairs, she changes gloves before resuming food service. She has never seen the other PCA touch other items then serve food. She was trained never to touch the rims of the glasses but to pick up glasses and cups from the side. She goes through "probably a whole box" of gloves in a day. According to Ms. Jackson, the cook stands behind the area and puts the food on the plates, preparing two plates at a time. She watches him prepare the plates of food. She and the other PCA then serve the food to the residents. The garbage can is kept in the back, not where food is being served. She has never seen the cook touch the garbage can then prepare plates of food. When he has finished, he takes all "his stuff" out on a cart, while the PCAs clean up. If a resident spilled food, the PCAs, not the cook, would clean it up. L.N. was the cook at the time of the survey inspection. L.N. was hired in April 2011 and received training in infectious control and food service sanitation. L.N. no longer works for Kipling Manor.3/ Billie Williams, as administrator of Kipling Manor, confirmed Ms. Jackson's description of the cook's role in serving dinner. That is, that the cook prepared plates of food and the PCAs then served the residents. At hearing, Ms. Endress essentially reiterated her findings regarding the other allegations in count II dealing with the cleanliness and condition of the facility. No further proof was offered regarding these or any other allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Mr. Williams' testimony contradicted much of what Ms. Endress described regarding the cleanliness and condition of the facility. Specifically, Mr. Williams noted that on the day of the survey inspection, maintenance men were repairing a ceiling leak. The ceiling leak was the cause of the "drywall pulling away from the ceiling" and the "brown water spots" on the ceiling cited in the Amended Administrative Complaint. These conditions were the result of the water leak and were in the process of being repaired at the time of the survey. The workers arrived early in the morning and cut drywall from the ceiling where the water dripped down on it. They necessarily used a ladder to do the ceiling repair work. A maintenance man stood at the bottom of the ladder and, if a resident approached, would escort the resident around the ladder. Regarding the issues of cleanliness, Mr. Williams has two housekeepers, a person who does the laundry, and two maintenance men. Mr. Williams acknowledged that there may be a small wax buildup along baseboards or on the inside corner of a door. However, the two maintenance men wax, strip, and buff the floors throughout the building. The floors are swept and buffed every day. The baseboards (wall to floor) are dust mopped twice a day. Regarding the allegation that there was black around the bottom of the toilet and the seal was cracked in the bathroom off the dining room area, Mr. Williams went to that room with the maintenance men to personally inspect it. He observed some discoloration on the floor where the toilet may have overflowed at some time and got underneath the tile. The maintenance men cleaned this immediately and replaced the tile. Regarding the allegation that there was mildew on a bathroom cabinet, Mr. Williams inspected the black mark and found it to be a tire mark from a wheelchair. He found no mold or mildew. The black mark was removed. There is a separate laundry room where washers and dryers are located. Any clothes on the floor are for sorting or separating by color or other reason prior to washing. Once clothes are washed, they are taken back to the residents' rooms immediately. Clean sheets, towels, and wash cloths are placed on wooden shelves that were built for that purpose. There is no evidence that establishes that clean and dirty clothes were mixed on the floor. Mr. Williams also inspected the recliner. The recliner has snap-on armrests and one had been snapped off. The maintenance men snapped the armrest back on the chair, and it was easily repaired. Regarding the allegation that the drywall in a bathroom had an indentation of the door knob, Mr. Williams inspected that and found that the doorstop on the bottom had broken off. There was an indentation in the wall the size of a doorknob where the door had been opened hard. This was repaired by the maintenance men. Regarding the allegation of vents being clogged with dust in a room and bathroom, Mr. Williams found "a little" dust on a vent which was cleaned immediately by staff. He then instructed staff to check the vents daily for dust build-up. Mr. Williams could not find a door that was too short for the opening, and noted that this would be a fire code violation. Kipling Manor is current on fire and health safety inspections. In general response to the allegations regarding cleanliness and maintenance and to a question asking whether he keeps a well-maintained building, Mr. Williams stated: We try our best. I mean, I have--you know, when you have incontinent residents who are demented, who are bipolar or suffering from depression, they will do things. And, yes, they do. And like, I think in one of the reports she wrote up, there was wet clothes on the floor. Well, if a resident, some of them are semi-independent, too. I mean, they take care of their own needs. If they had an incontinent issue that morning, and they took their clothes off and left it there on the floor, you know, they expect the staff to pick it up and take it to a laundry room when they come through. You know, we do, I think, we do a darn good job given the -- a lot of my residents have been homeless, have never had any structured living. Nobody else in town takes them, but I have. Ms. Endress classified the alleged violations in Count II as Class II "because of the potential for harm to residents which could occur from an unsafe environment and potential spread of infection." Ms. McIntyre agreed with Ms. Endress that "the totality of all the findings are what drove the deficiency to be considered a Class II." Count III--Resident 4 medications Count III alleges that Kipling Manor failed to administer medications according to the medication observation record (MOR) for 1 out of 9 sampled residents (Resident 4). During lunch, Ms. Endress observed Resident 4 become agitated, rub his face, and complain loudly in the dining room. Following an observation of this resident and a conversation with him, Ms. Endress reviewed Resident 4's medication observation record (MOR) and health assessment. Ms. Endress determined that Resident 4 had not been given one of his medications, Interferon, when scheduled. The MOR shows a time for administration as 8 a.m. According to Ms. Endress, on the date this took place, July 12, 2011, the MOR was blank in the box that should be initialed when the medication was administered. The MOR in evidence, however, reflects initials in that box (i.e., it is not blank). When a drug is self-administered, the staff member initials the box for that day. Erica Crenshaw recognized and identified the initials in the box for that day as those of former unit manager Tekara Levine, who trained Ms. Crenshaw. According to Mr. Williams, Ms. Levine, was certified in the self- administration of medications and was a trustworthy employee. Ms. Endress observed Resident 4 wheel himself from the dining room to the medication room and self-administer his medication. This occurred around noon that day. Ms. Endress determined this to be a Class II violation as she believed it directly threatened the resident emotionally. She based this in part on the resident's demeanor before the medication and afterwards, and the comments the resident made to her. Resident 4 is one of Nurse Lavigne's patients. Resident 4 has a diagnosis of MS, major depression, post traumatic stress disorder, a paranoid psychosis, and anxiety and affective disorder. He receives Interferon for his MS. It is injectable and he self-administers it every other day. According to Nurse Lavigne, there is no doctor's order stating that the Interferon must be given at 8 a.m. or any other particular time. The injection can be administered at any time during the day. Resident 4 sometimes gets confused about his medications. He gets extremely upset if he thinks he has not gotten his medications. He will sometimes tell her (Nurse Lavigne) that he did not receive a particular medication when he, in fact, did receive it. Once he is shown the MOR indicating that he has received his medication, he visibly calms down. He does not like to leave his room because he thinks somebody is changing stations on his TV. Regarding his once-a- day medications, staff will wait until he is ready to come out of his room because he can get agitated. He sometimes gets upset if there are a lot of people around him, such as in the dining room. Nurse Lavigne does a full assessment when she sees Resident 4. She was not aware of any problems with Resident 4 during that time period regarding his medications. While the record is unclear as to why Resident 4's MOR shows an administration time of 8 a.m., the evidence established, through Nurse Levine, his treating nurse, that there is no doctor's order requiring that the drug be administered at that particular time. The evidence also established that Resident 4 self-administered his medication at noon on July 14, and that this was initialed by a staff member on his MOR. Count IV--Resident 1 medications As a result of a complaint received, Ms. Endress interviewed residents about their medications and spoke to a new staff member. Based upon these interviews, Ms. Endress determined that one of Resident 1's medications (Flexeril) had not been available for one dose on July 13, 2011, and another of this resident's medications (Visteril) had not been available from June 23 until July 12, 2011). Ms. Endress classified this alleged violation as a Class II because she determined that that it directly affected the resident psychologically and physically. Resident 1 had a diagnosis of COPD and has an anxiety disorder. She is alert and oriented. Resident 1 was prescribed Flexeril to be administered every evening, and Vistaril and Ativan for anxiety. She is to receive Ativan twice a day and PRN (as needed) and Visteril before bed and PRN. Each day a medication is administered, the residents' MORs are initialed by staff in a box indicating each day of the month. However, if the resident runs out of a drug, the staff member will put a circle in the box representing that day and makes a note on the back of the MOR. No circles or notes appear on Resident 1's MOR indicating that either drug was not available. Resident 1 is a patient of Nurse McCormick. Resident 1 becomes anxious or agitated if she does not receive her medication for her anxiety disorder. Nurse McCormick considered Resident 1's anxiety disorder well controlled by the medications. Resident 1's MOR reflects that she received Visteral from June 1 through 30 at night as ordered and received it PRN several times prior to June 23, 2011, but did not receive it PRN the rest of the month of June or July 1 through 14. She also received Ativan twice a day routinely in June and July and five times PRN during the period June 23 through 30, 2011, and four times during the period July 1 through 14. According to Nurse McCormick, either medication was appropriate for controlling Resident 1's anxiety disorder. Resident 1's MOR reflects that she received Flexeril on June 30, 2011. Nurse McCormick was not made aware at any time that Resident 1 was not receiving any of her medications. As the treating and prescribing nurse, missed or unavailable medications would have come to Nurse McCormick's attention. Resident 1 was not anxious, nervous or agitated when interviewed by Ms. Endress on July 12, 2011. There is no competent evidence that Resident 1 displayed any signs of anxiety, nervousness or agitation during the survey or during the times that the Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that she did not receive her medication. Nurse McCormick found the staff of Kipling Manor to be careful with all residents. She has been to the facility at various times of the day from early in the morning to late into the evening. Nurse McCormick is of the opinion that the staff takes care of all its residents and provides them with dignity. Despite Kipling Manor's resident population of seriously mentally ill residents, Nurse McCormick is of the opinion that the facility manages its residents with dignity and care. Count V--Background Check The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that one staff member of Kipling Manor, the cook, had not been background screened. Based upon record review and staff interview, Ms. Endress determined that the facility did not complete a level 2 background check for 1 out of 8 sampled staff members. A record review revealed that this employee had been hired in April 2011. On April 26, 2011, the employee in question signed an Affidavit of Compliance with Background Screening Requirements, using AHCA form #3100-0008. By signing this form, the employee attested to never having been arrested for, pled nolo contendere to, or convicted of certain disqualifying offenses. Mr. Williams did not complete a background check on the cook because he did not think the cook was covered under the law. That is, he did not think the law applied to the cook because of the lack of personal contact with the residents. The cook is present during meal times serving plates of food to the dining workers who then directly serve the residents. The living areas are accessible to the cook. This employee no longer works at Kipling Manor. The record is not clear as to when he stopped working there. Ms. Endress determined that this constituted a Class II deficiency as she believed that it could potentially lead to harm to residents of the facility. According to Ms. McIntyre, AHCA always imposes a Level II deficiency for failure to have a level 2 background screening for employees. Both Ms. Endress and Ms. McIntyre testified at hearing regarding what constitutes Class II and Class III deficiencies. In several instances, Ms. Endress classified a violation or deficiency that could potentially result in harm to a resident as a Class II. Ms. McIntyre testified that "a potential harm to a resident could be a class II deficiency." She described a Class III as one that "indirectly threatens the physical, emotional health or safety of a resident. . . . indirectly or potentially." The Agency provided a mandatory correction date of August 1, 2011, for all five counts in the Administrative Complaint.
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 imposing a fine of $2,000, imposing a survey fee of $500, and dismissing the remaining allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Kipling Manor. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2012.
