Findings Of Fact The Agency issued three (3) Notices of Intent to Impose Fine stating the intent to impose an administrative fine in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) against the Respondent, Senior Home Care, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent"), a home health agency, for each license identified in the Notices of Intent for a total assessment against Respondent in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00). The Notices of Intent to Impose Fine charged that Respondent failed to timely submit a quarterly report for its identified licenses for the quarter ending December 31, 2008, violating Section 400.474(6)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). The cause was properly referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for proceedings according to law, See, Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2009). By Order dated November 17, 2009, the Division of Administrative Hearings determined that no material issue of fact remained in dispute and relinquished jurisdiction to the Agency for Health Care Administration, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 2). The facts, as alleged and found, establish that Respondent failed to timely submit quarterly reports for the quarter ending December 31, 2008 for the identified licenses, violating Section 400.474(6)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). The fine imposed is five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each cause for the aggregate sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00).
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notices of Intent to Impose Fine dated March 10, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Comp. Ex. 1), and all other Filed February 12, 2010 12:48 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter "Agency") finds and concludes as follows:
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the deficiency alleged as a result of a Complaint Survey conducted on June 18, 2002, is appropriately classified as a Class I deficiency; (2) whether a fine in the amount of $10,000 is appropriate; (3) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, issued October 29, 2002, is warranted; and (4) whether the alleged violation constitutes grounds for a six-month survey requirement and $6,000 survey fee.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to conduct a complaint evaluation of nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA's evaluation of Florida nursing homes requires an assignment of a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. Carrollwood Care Center is a nursing home located at 15002 Hutchinson Road, Tampa, Florida, and is duly-licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. On June 18, 2002, a complaint investigation survey was conducted at Carrollwood by Pamela Mraz, a surveyor for AHCA, who visited the Carrollwood facility to inquire into the death of Resident 1 that occurred on May 5, 2002. Ms. Mraz is a registered nurse (RN) with over 20 years of nursing experience, including having served as a director of nursing and having completed more than 100 surveys of long-term care facilities. She has been a surveyor for AHCA since September 2001. During the course of her complaint survey of the facility, Ms. Mraz examined the facility's records pertaining to Resident 1's death. Her review indicated that the death of Resident 1 constituted failure to meet the standards set-up under Tag F324, as identified on the Form 2567-L of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Health Care Financing Administration. The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number. Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Carrollwood and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to the resident by a number (i.e., Resident 1) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The rating reflects the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There is one tag, Tag F324, at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the complaint survey of June 18, 2002, AHCA assigned Tag F324 a Class I deficiency rating. Tag F324, reflecting the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Chapter 483.25(h)(2), requires a facility to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. AHCA's witness, Ms. Mraz, was asked her opinion only regarding the facility's compliance with the requirements of Tag F324. She opined that Carrollwood did not provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent the accidental death of Resident 1. Resident 1's first admission to Carrollwood was on March 27, 2002. He was 89 years of age at the time of his admission, weighted 118 pounds and was 5'3" in height. He did not speak English. His initial screening assessment form reflected that he suffered with both short-term and long-term memory impairment, incontinency, decubitus ulcer, prostate cancer, malnutrition, heart problems, and was determined by Carrollwood's staff to be "bedfast" (in bed not less than 22 hours per day). Resident 1's range of motion was limited to his hands, arms and legs. Even though he could make occasional slight changes in body or extremity positions, he was unable to make frequent or significant body changes independently. Resident 1 was incapable of getting out of bed on his own, had no involuntary body movements, and required two persons to physically assist him in bed mobility. He could not use a wheel chair and experienced short periods of restlessness demonstrated by crying out in Spanish, his native language. Carrollwood's Fall Risk Assessment observation indicated that Resident 1 was virtually immobile and was, therefore, a minimum risk for falls. His assessment and care plan were adequate for his condition and comfort. Resident 1 was placed in a semi-private room with his wife. A curtain between the beds separated them. Viewed from the foot of Resident 1's bed, his wife's bed would be to the left of his bed. On the right side of his bed, an upper half side rail was placed as an enabler. On April 17, 2002, three weeks after his admission, Resident 1 was discharged to the hospital due to an increase in his temperature and congestion. On April 30, 2002, he returned from the hospital and was readmitted to Carrollwood. At this time, his second admission, he was assessed by Carrollwood's staff to be in a much weaker condition than at his initial admission, with additional diagnoses of sepsis, pneumonia, psychosis, anemia, depression and malnutrition. Upon his second admission to Carrollwood, his assessment determination changed, and Resident 1 was classified as "bed-bound," as opposed to the prior assessment of bedfast, and he required extensive assistance, at least two persons to physically assist in transferring and dressing him with use of the upper bed side rail as enablers. The doctors' notes made in conjunction with the second admission did not include the use of upper side rails as in-bed enablers. The Nurse Evaluation Assessment, dated May 1, 2002, reported that Resident 1 was completely dependent on staff for all his daily living activities, i.e., bathing, grooming, dressing, feeding, and toileting, because he could not do these functions for himself. His Resident Care Plan reflected that he had a "potential for falls due to decreased cognition and physical mobility." His bed was lowered, the head of his bed was elevated, a second mattress was added, and a pneumatic call bell was attached. With knowledge of his updated medical history and further weakened condition, the nursing staff made an independent decision to use one upper bed side rail on Resident 1's bed. The staff had received a Food and Drug Administration alert regarding potential dangers resulting from the use of side rails as recently as February 2002, and had participated in in- service training sessions concerning the use of side rails. AHCA presented no evidence of authoritative directives for "the care giver's use of side rails" in long-term care facilities. There was no evidence of statutory proscriptions, rules or accepted industry standards relating to the use of side rails in long-term care facilities. Therefore, each long-term care facility, including Carrollwood, may independently determine when, where, how and under what circumstances bed side rails will be used. Thus, AHCA's evidence of record affords no substantial basis to support its allegation that Carrollwood's decision to use an upper side rail on Resident 1's bed demonstrated a lack of adequate supervision that would cause or tend to cause immediate harm and/or death to Resident 1. Marie Gianan, RN and MDS Coordinator for Carrollwood, which included coordination of assessments and care planning since July 2000, determined that Resident 1's April 17, 2002, transfer to the hospital was a "complete discharge" from Carrollwood. According to Ms. Gianan, Carrollwood's policy, as she understands it, is that once a resident is completely discharged, his or her medical records go to medical storage. Thus, Resident 1's return on April 30, 2002, was considered and treated as a new admission requiring an original initial assessment, a new care plan and 30 days thereafter, preparation of a new MDS. The procedure, as understood by Ms. Gianan, was to not consider Resident 1's old medical records, old care plans, and old MDS, but rather to start anew based upon staff's observations, inquiries, and a check and review of current medical records and, thereafter, formulate an assessment and initial care plan within 24 hours of admission. The MDS would follow within 30 days after completion of the initial care plan. Resident 1's April 2, 2002, care plan and fall risk assessment, indicated the following: skin problems that required repositioning him in bed every two hours; bath to be given on shower day or twice weekly; dehydration requiring liquids every night; placing his bed in a low position to prevent falls due to his decreased physical mobility; providing a pneumatic call bell; and using one upper side rail as an enabler placed on his bed. The care plan for Resident 1 met all requirements and does not indicate nor support an allegation of lack of supervision or inadequate care. Ms. Gianan was adamant that Resident 1, although maybe weaker in body strength than before his discharge on May 8, 2002, was "mobile," per her interpretation of the word on his April 2, 2002, admission. She disagreed with the March 27, 2002, assessment of Resident 1 as being "immobile." Ms. Gianan has opined that, "immobile means you do not move in bed--you just stay in the position that you are put in--I do not agree with that evaluation." Carrollwood's policy permits its MDS Coordinator to independently evaluate, assess, interview and otherwise determine the status and condition of each resident. On May 5, 2002, the date of Resident 1's death, at approximately 6:45 a.m., Ann Nickerson, certified nursing assistant (CNA), entered Resident 1's room to empty his catheter. During this process, Resident 1 cried out in Spanish. His wife, awaken by the activity and Resident 1's cry, said to Ms. Nickerson "he is alright," and Ms. Nickerson completed her task and departed the room. An hour and one-half later, at approximately 8:15 a.m., Jermaine Martinez, CNA, entered Resident 1's room with his breakfast tray. Mr. Martinez found Resident 1 on the floor with his clothing pulled upward around his torso. His head was wedged between the bed's upper side rail and the mattress, with his chin resting upward against the upper side rail, thereby hyperextending his neck. Resident 1 had no pulse or respiration when found by Mr. Martinez. The Hillsborough County Medical Examiner, in an amended1 death certificate, listed Resident 1's cause of death as positional asphyxiation; the result of a lack of oxygen due to the position of his head wedged between the bed mattress and the upper side rail and hyperextension of his neck. Within a few minutes of the discovery of Resident 1 on the floor by the Mr. Martinez, Resident 1's family entered the facility for a visit and was stopped in the hall by the duty nurse who informed them of his death. During that brief period, and following the instructions given by the duty nurse, Mr. Martinez and Ms. Nickerson moved the body of Resident 1 from the floor and placed him back in his bed, pulling the cover up to his chin. Thereafter, staff contacted Carla Russo, director of nursing, for further instructions. Following instructions, staff called and released Resident 1's body to the funeral home without first notifying the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner. Because of this action, in violation of policy, no autopsy was performed on the body. It is undisputed that the facility's failure to immediately notify the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner of Resident 1's death constituted a violation of the facility's own policy and procedures regarding the death of residents at the facility. AHCA did not cite the facility for this particular facility policy violation. Therefore, there is no evidence to support an allegation of lack of supervision or inadequate care for this policy violation. Based upon the care plan, nurse's notes, and medical records, it is undisputed that staff visited Resident 1's room an average of every two and one-half hours, if not more often, to provide medications and to attend the personal needs for both Resident 1 and his wife, during each 24-hour period from April 2, 2002, to May 5, 2002. During those staff visits, while attending one occupant, staff would, could and did observe the other occupant. During those frequent room visits during the 24-hour period preceding Resident 1's demise, staff had not observed him to be restless or to independently move his body about in his bed. There is no evidence that Resident 1 was not under staff's observation, and, by implication, not under staff's supervision for any overly long period or an extended period of time of more than two and one-half hours during the April 2, 2002, through May 5, 2002, time period. The evidence does not indicate or support an allegation of lack of supervision or inadequate care by the facility. From all medical records in evidence, it is clear that during his residency in the facility, Resident 1 never exhibited the type of behaviors that would indicate to staff he was a risk for falls; he had no recorded prior history of falls at home, at the hospital or at Carrollwood, he did not use a wheelchair and he could not independently ambulate. He was never observed by staff attempting to get out of bed, and his only infrequent and occasional expressions of restlessness were "crying out" in Spanish. The evidence of record does not indicate or support an allegation of lack of supervision or inadequate care by the facility. AHCA presented no evidence of sufficient reliability to provide a plausible foundation upon which to conclude that the cause of Resident 1 moving from his bed-bound prone position to a sitting position on the floor with his neck wedged between the upper side rail and the bed mattress was due to a lack of supervision or inadequate care by the facility's staff. The evidence supports a plausible conclusion that Resident 1's demise, although inexplicable from the evidence of record, was nonetheless accidental.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing in its entirety the Administrative Complaints filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 27th day of March, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed deficient practices as alleged in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b) and 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288; and if so, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 and issue a conditional license to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida under state and federal statutes. Petitioner is charged with evaluating nursing homes facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for concluding federally-mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." Respondent is a 98-bed nursing home located at 1024 Willow Springs Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, and is licensed as a skilled nursing facility. On May 30, 2003, Petitioner's staff conducted an inspection, also known as a survey, at Respondent's facility. Upon completion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document entitled, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS Form 2567L, also known as a "2567," which contains a statement of the alleged violations of regulatory requirements, also referred to as "deficiencies," titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The evaluation or survey of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of a record, reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on the 2567 Form, and if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Petitioner's surveyors use the "State Operations Manual," a document prepared by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 C.F.R. Chapter 483. Count I In Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent's staff subjected three residents (Resident Nos. 6, 13, and 18) to verbal and mental abuse in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), which provides that a nursing home resident has the right to be free from verbal and mental abuse. As to Resident No. 6, Petitioner contends that this resident stated to a surveyor that the resident had "overheard" a certified nursing assistant (CNA) loudly tell another staff member that the resident was "going to the bathroom 25 times a day." Petitioner believes the CNA's statement, which was allegedly "overheard," occurred sometime during the month of March 2003, based upon nurses' notes which indicate Resident No. 6 had an episode of diarrhea during this time. However, the nurses notes also reveal that during this time Resident No. 6 was subject to confusion and nonsensical outbursts. Petitioner's belief that Resident No. 6 was a reliable historian is based on Petitioner's mistaken belief that Resident No. 6 was admitted about March 30, 2003, and was alert and oriented and not confused upon admission. Petitioner's staff exhibited a lack of understanding of the timing and significance of the Multiple Data Set (MDS) forms describing Resident No. 6's mental condition upon which they relied. In fact, Resident No. 6 was admitted in mid-February 2003 and exhibited confused and eccentric behavior. The "overheard" comment was not reported to Respondent until the survey. Therefore, the evidence that this incident occurred as described by Petitioner is unreliable hearsay. Surveyors reviewed Respondent's records, which contained a complaint from a family member of Resident No. 6 that the same CNA had noticed that the resident had a physical anomaly. The CNA called other CNAs to view this anomaly, which was located in Resident No. 6's genital area. Respondent learned of the allegations relating to Resident No. 6's physical anomaly on April 21, 2003, from a family member of Resident No. 6. Respondent immediately began an investigation, including an interview with and physical examination of Resident No. 6 and an interview with the CNA. The resident only stated that she did not want this CNA taking care of her any longer. The CNA denied the allegations. The CNA was suspended pending investigation and later terminated based upon directions from Respondent's corporate office based on additional, unrelated information. The incident was reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hot Line on April 22, 2003. Although Resident No. 6 and her family member had frequent contact and conversation with Respondent's director of nursing (DON), neither had ever complained about the CNA's conduct. Respondent's DON observed no mental distress on the part of Resident No. 6 after Respondent's DON learned of the allegations. Petitioner alleges that this CNA had observed the physical anomaly for the first time. If that is true, it would be expected that the CNA would consult other nursing staff to address potential nursing issues. As to Resident No. 13, Petitioner alleges verbal abuse based upon the allegation that Resident No. 13 reported to a surveyor that she found a male resident sitting on her bed in her room. When this was reported by Resident No. 13 to one of the Respondent's nurses, the resident alleged that the nurse "laughed at" the resident. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON shortly after it happened. Respondent's DON interviewed the resident and the two nurses who were on duty at the time. The nurses reported that they assured Resident No. 13 that everything was okay, escorted the male resident to his room, and Resident No. 13 went to bed with no complaint or distress. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON in a joking manner, as an event and not as a complaint. Although Respondent's DON was concerned that the nurses should respond appropriately and was also concerned that the wandering resident be identified, Respondent's DON did not believe that the incident constituted any form of abuse. Respondent's DON did not observe this incident to have any adverse impact on Resident No. 13. During the survey, Petitioner's surveyor advised Respondent that the incident should have been investigated and reported to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON completed a written report and called the DCF Abuse Hot Line and related the incident. The incident did not meet the DCF guidelines for the reporting of abuse. On or about March 30, 2003, two surveyors observed Resident No. 18 in her wheelchair as she approached the nurse's station. One of Respondent's nursing staff spoke in a "curt, loud voice" to Resident No. 18. The resident had approached the nurses' station to ask for her medication, to which the nurse replied: "I told you I will give you your medicine." Resident No. 18 was hearing-impaired and was documented in her medical record as one to whom staff "must speak loudly." This resident did not wear any hearing assistance devices. Respondent's staff credibly described this resident as one to whom staff had to speak loudly and in clipped words for the resident to understand. Petitioner's surveyors did not speak to this resident after the alleged incident. There is no evidence that this incident had any effect on the resident or even that the resident heard the staff member. The incident does not rise to the level of verbal abuse of the resident. Count II Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), which provides that a nursing home must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse; and that the nursing home must not employ individuals who have been found guilty of abuse or neglect or are listed in the state nursing aide registry with a finding of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Count II is based on the allegation that Respondent failed to report to Petitioner (the appropriate "state agency") the incidents involving Resident No. 13 and 18 and other allegations of abuse or neglect, which the surveyor allegedly identified in Respondent's log of grievances. Respondent has in place written policies and procedures regarding abuse and neglect and its staff receive regular training regarding these policies and procedures. Petitioner has offered no evidence that these written policies and procedures or the staff's knowledge of these policies and procedures is inadequate. With regard to Resident No. 13, when Respondent's DON learned of the incident from the resident, Respondent's DON made inquiries of nursing staff who were on duty at the time, in addition to interviewing the resident. Respondent's DON did not consider any aspect of the incident to constitute abuse or neglect. Later, after Petitioner alleged, during the survey, that the incident should have been reported to DCF, Respondent's DON prepared a written report of the incident and called and related the incident to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON was advised by DCF that the incident did not meet DCF's requirements for reporting. Respondent is required to report all allegations of abuse and neglect to the DCF's Abuse Hot Line. Petitioner does not dispute this fact. Instead, Petitioner contends that Respondent is also required to report allegations of abuse and neglect to the "state agency" and that Respondent failed to do so. The "state agency" for the purpose of federal regulations is Petitioner. Petitioner's allegations are based upon its review of Respondent's grievance log, which Petitioner's surveyors say allegedly records 18 incidents of alleged abuse, none of which was reported to the state agency. At the time of the survey, Respondent was a part of the Mariner Corporation. It has since disassociated from that corporation and changed its name to Tuskawilla Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, effective October 1, 2003. At the time of the survey, all reporting of abuse allegations were done by the corporate regional risk management department, and it is not known if they reported any of the incidents cited by the surveyors to Petitioner. However, the document received in evidence, which has many more than 18 entries in summary style, is almost completely illegible. Petitioner's witness was unable to identify any entries on this document which could be identified as alleged abuse and which had not been properly reported. Understanding this document requires substantial explanation, which was never provided. Standing alone, this document is not probative of any fact. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent employed any individuals who had been found guilty of or who had been listed on the nurse aide registry of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating residents. Even if it is assumed that Respondent should have reported but did not report to Petitioner the 18 alleged incidents or the incident regarding Resident No. 13, Petitioner offered no evidence that reporting this information to DCF, but not to Petitioner, had any impact on any resident or prevented a resident from maintaining or achieving the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. Count III Since there is no proof of Class II deficiencies, there is no basis for imposing a conditional license status on Respondent for the period May 30, 2003, until July 8, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioner was in violation of 42CFR 483.25(l)(1), 42CFR 483.60(d), Rules 59A-4.112(5) and 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of its annual survey in July 2000, and, if so, whether those violations were uncorrected at the time of resurvey in September 2000, in order to justify the issuance of a Conditional licensure rating.
Findings Of Fact Tampa Health Care Center (Petitioner) is a licensed nursing home in Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, Respondent surveys Petitioner to determine whether it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If there are deficiencies, it determines the level of deficiency. When Respondent conducts a survey of a nursing home, it issues a survey report, commonly called by its form number, a "2567." The particular regulation, and the allegedly deficient practices which constitute a violation of that regulation, are cited in a column on the left side of the paper. After receiving the 2567, the facility is required to develop a plan of correction which is put in the right hand column corresponding to the alleged deficiency. The facility is required to develop this plan regardless of whether it agrees that it is in violation of any regulations, and it is prohibited from being argumentative. Respondent conducted its annual survey of Petitioner, ending July 27, 2000, and issued a 2567 survey report noting certain deficiencies. The deficiencies are designated as tag numbers. Among those noted were Tag F329, which is the shorthand reference to 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.25 (1)(1), and Tag F431, which incorporates 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d). Respondent rated these deficiencies as Class III deficiencies. Respondent conducted a follow-up survey on September 5, 2000, and determined that the deficiencies under tags F329 and F431 were uncorrected, and, as a result, issued a Conditional rating to the facility. On December 2000, Respondent conducted another follow- up survey and determined that all deficiencies had been corrected and therefore issued a Standard license to Petitioner effective that date. The 2567 constitutes the charging document for purposes of issuing a Conditional license. No other document was offered to describe the offenses, or deficiencies, which resulted in imposition of the Conditional license. The parties stipulated at the hearing that Tags F329 and F431 were the only ones at issue in this proceeding. In conducting its survey, Respondent uses a document developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), called the State Operations Manual. It indicates guidance on how are to interpret regulations. TAG F 329 The 2567 from the July survey asserts, under Tag F 329, that the facility "failed to monitor psychotropic medications for 5 of 5 sampled residents." The regulation states that residents are to be "free from unnecessary drugs," and elaborates that a drug given without adequate monitoring is considered unnecessary. The guidelines establish that monitoring is expected only for residents on psychotropic medications. Therefore, for a violation to occur, there must first be a resident who is receiving psychotropic medications, and secondly, a lack of monitoring of the use of that drug. Respondent alleged and put on evidence that certain residents (numbers 1, 9, 19, and 21) identified in the July survey did not have "behavior monitoring records" in their files. Specific forms are not mandatory, and evidence of monitoring can be documented elsewhere in a resident's clinical record. Monitoring can be documented in nurses' notes, and those notes were not thoroughly reviewed, as Respondent's surveyors only had limited time for the survey. Respondent presented no evidence that Residents 9, 19, or 21 were receiving psychotropic medications. Petitioner presented evidence of numerous systems in place to monitor residents, including those receiving psychotropic medications. Residents are given a complete clinical assessment within 24 hours of admission; there is then a 14-day more thorough observation and assessment process, culminating in the development of care plans which address particular issues and direct staff to care for residents in particular ways. Nurses regularly document issues or concerns in nurses notes; a physician visits the residents at least once a month, which, as all drugs are ordered by the physician, includes review of the resident's medication. If necessary, a psychiatric evaluation is completed. Once a week a transdisciplinary team meets to discuss any residents "at risk," which includes those receiving psychotropic medications. Additionally, a consultant pharmacist reviews all residents' medications once a month. This review is to determine how well the resident is doing on the drug regimen. It includes reviewing nurses' notes, physicians' notes, the medication administration record, the record of dosages taken on an "as needed" basis, and discussions with nursing staff. The pharmacist reviews whether there are medications administered in excessive doses, in excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, or in the presence of adverse consequences. With regard to the September survey, Respondent alleged in the Form 2567 that "Residents numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 lacked Behavior Monitoring Forms in their records" and that all were on psychotropic medications which required monitoring. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara Bearden who stated that Residents 3 and 4 were on psychotropic medications, and that there were no behavior monitoring forms. With regard to Resident 4, Respondent asserted that there was no assessment of behaviors in any records after August 14. Bearden acknowledged that both Residents 3 and 4 received reasonable doses, and that there was no reason to believe the level of medication was too high. Respondent's witness also asserted that there was no "AIMS" assessments, no initial assessment, and no indication of the reason for or effectiveness of the medications. These matters were not alleged in the charging document, which only asserted the lack of behavior monitoring forms. During her testimony, Respondent's witness acknowledged that there was no standard to determine how often there should be behavior monitoring. Marie Maisel testified for Respondent regarding Residents 9, 11, and 13. With regard to Resident 9, she testified that the resident received Restoril, a sleeping medication, and also Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and that there was no "systematic behavior monitoring." Sleeping medications do not require behavior monitoring, according to the State Operations Manual, and at deposition, the surveyor indicated that the only medication the resident received was Restoril. Petitioner therefore had no notice of the additional allegation regarding Zoloft and this fact cannot be considered. With regard to Resident 11, Maisel testified that the resident received Risperdal, a psychotropic medication, and that, in her opinion, the behavior monitoring was not adequate. At hearing the surveyor testified that Resident 13 was receiving Haldol and there was no systemic behavior monitoring. However, the witness acknowledged that when her deposition was taken, she did not know why Resident 13 had been cited. Petitioner therefore had no notice of these allegations regarding Resident 13. Petitioner presented evidence, including excerpts from the resident's clinical record, that Resident 3 had been assessed for drug use, and that behaviors were monitored. The resident had been admitted less than three weeks before the September survey, which means that an initial assessment had been performed, as well as the complete 14-day assessment, just prior to survey. Respondent admitted that it would be inappropriate to reduce medication soon after admission. There was a care plan which addressed the resident's use of Risperdal, and another which addressed the resident's ability to function with the activities of daily living. These care plans directed staff to monitor the resident's condition and behavior. Numerous nursing notes documented the resident's condition and behaviors. Resident 3 was not noted in the pharmacist's monthly report, meaning the review revealed no problems with medications. Furthermore, the resident's medications were significantly reduced while in Petitioner's care, and her condition improved dramatically, from being nearly comatose, to being alert and oriented, and needing only limited assistance with mobility. Resident 4 had been admitted just a month before the survey and had also just undergone an extensive assessment process. Her medications were also reduced from those she had been receiving on admission, and nurses notes clearly documented her condition and behaviors throughout the period up to the survey. These notes document not only the monitoring of behaviors, but the reason and need for the medication, as she exhibited combative behaviors. Resident 4 also did not appear on the pharmacist's report. With regard to Resident 9, Petitioner presented evidence that there was a care plan specifically addressing the resident's use of Zoloft, that there were other care plans which addressed behaviors and condition which required that the resident be monitored, and that there was periodic consideration of reductions. Resident 9 did appear on the pharmacist's report, suggesting consideration of a reduction in dosage; thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the system. Resident 11 had a care plan addressing her use of Risperdal, which required monitoring and other interventions. Monthly nursing summaries reflected that she was monitored, as did nursing notes. Generally, nurses notes indicate when there are problems or unusual occurrences, not when everything is routine. Petitioner also presented evidence with regard to Resident 13's use of Haldol, which showed the reason for its use (wandering, verbal abusiveness), numerous efforts to reduce the dosage, review by the pharmacist, a care plan to address its use, which required monitoring, and monthly summaries summarizing her condition and behaviors. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to show that Residents 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13, cited in the September survey, were appropriately monitored and were not receiving unnecessary drugs. TAG F431 Respondent charged in the September 2000 survey that several insulin vials in the medication room were not marked with the date they were opened. The regulation under Tag F431, 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d), requires that drugs be labeled "in accordance with currently accepted professional principles" and "the expiration date when applicable." The surveyor guidelines indicate that the critical elements of labeling are the name of the drug and its strength. Additionally, the guidelines advise that drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration (F.D.A.) must have expiration dates on the manufacturer's container. Respondent's witness acknowledged that all insulin had the manufacturer's expiration date. Although there is a chance of contamination after opening a vial of insulin, it was acknowledged that it is customary to have a policy allowing use for six months after opening. Petitioner has a policy of discarding insulin 60 days after opening. While it is customary to write the opening date on the vial, a failure to do so will only reduce the amount of time it can be used, because of other systems in place. The pharmacy which dispenses the insulin puts a dispensing date on it, and the pharmacist reviews, monthly, stored medications. Within every three months, all medications are checked, and if there is no date of opening, the pharmacist looks to the dispensing date. If the vial was dispensed more than 60 days prior, it is given to the nurse for discarding. Instead of being able to be used for six months beyond the date opened, the medication is discarded sixty days, or at most ninety days, after it was dispensed. Writing the date opened on the vial is not an item encompassed by the regulation as explicated in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is no potential for harm, as there are redundant systems in place.
Recommendation Based of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 27 and September 5, 2000, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F329 and F431, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 22nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact The Agency issued a Notice of Intent to Impose Fine stating the intent to impose an administrative fine in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) against the Respondent, Diplomat Home Care, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent"), a home health agency. The Notice of Intent to Impose Fine charged that Respondent failed to timely submit a quarterly report for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, violating Section 400.474(6)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). The cause was properly referred to the Division of Administrative Filed February 12, 2010 12:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Hearings for proceedings according to law, See, Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2009). By Orders dated December 21, 2009, the Division of Administrative Hearings determined that no material issue of fact remained in dispute and relinquished jurisdiction to the Agency for Health Care Administration, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein (Comp. Ex. 2). The facts, as alleged and found, establish that Respondent failed to timely submit a quarterly report for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, violating Section 400.474(6)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). The fine imposed is five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine dated September 17, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter "Agency") finds and concludes as follows:
Findings Of Fact Suburban Nursing and Mobile Homes, Inc., of Ohio, at all material times, wholly owned the stock of G & J, an owner of land, buildings and equipment of two nursing homes, Krestview Nursing Home and Towne House Convalescent Center located in Miami, Florida. Suburban was a holding company which owned the stock of numerous subsidiary corporations engaged in the nursing home or mobile home park business. Among its subsidiaries was B & K Investments, Inc. (hereafter "B & K") a Florida corporation. All of the stock of Suburban was controlled by Gerald D. Keller. On May 5, 1977, at the request of the Department, B & K became the licensed provider for Krestview and Towne House and G & J became the landlord. Both landlord and tenant were wholly owned by the same parent corporation. Since Medicaid rules and regulations prohibited the payment of rent by a provider to a related-party landlord, Keller arranged in May of 1977, for the sale of the stock of B & K to unrelated parties in an arm's-length transaction. Petitioner's assignor, B & K, entered into written provider agreements with the Department for the operation of the two nursing homes. That provider agreement states, in pertinent part, that: In instances of non-payment or underpayment conditions due to error(s) not attributable to provider who has furnished nursing home services and care to persons properly certified and eligible, the single state agency (HRS) shall make payment to the provider upon receipt of properly completed claims documents. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, 13a.) (Emphasis added.) During 1978 and 1979, the Department set reimbursement rates for B & K inconsistently. During this period of time, B & K experienced at least eight different retroactive increases or decreases in a period of less than twelve months. Additionally, the relationship between the parties was increasingly strained during 1978, as evidenced by Petitioners Exhibit 18, in which a medicaid audit evaluation and review analyst, in considering cost factors at Krestview, speculated that the "Ohio group would get out of the business in Florida." In August, 1979, the independently owned B & K d/b/a Krestview Nursing Home and Towne House Convalescent Center, filed a petition in bankruptcy. Among its creditors were G & J, the landlord, which filed a secured claim in excess of $300,000 for unpaid rents. At that time B & K had not yet filed cost reports for its fiscal year ending May 31, 1979, and had filed no cost reports for the period May 31 through August 31, 1979. The trustee made a determination to file those cost reports on behalf of the bankrupt if the cost reports could be prepared. The trustee requested B & K's former accountant to prepare the cost reports. When it became apparent that the accountant was unwilling to prepare the reports without a substantial advance payment and that no funds were available to pay for such services, the trustee looked elsewhere. Keller's holding company, Suburban, owned the stock of Nursing Home Consultants, Inc., an Ohio corporation engaged in the business of providing accounting services to health care organizations. Keller had an obvious interest in offering the services of his corporation on a contingent basis since he had a $300,000 secured claim against the bankrupt whose only visible asset was the monies it asserted were due from the Department as a result of reimbursable expenses. The proposal advanced by Keller was accepted by the trustee in bankruptcy, Jennette E. Tavormina, and Judge, Thomas C. Brutton, bankruptcy judge. The court entered an order appointing Nursing Home Consultants to prepare the cost reports. Nursing Home Consultants attempted to obtain the accountant's work papers to begin preparing the cost reports, however, it was not until December, 1980, when faced with possible action from the court, that the accountant made his papers available and the time-consuming tasks of matching checks to invoices, verifying patient records and documenting expenses began. In July of 1981, Nursing Home Consultants completed the first of the cost reports and forwarded it to the trustee. The trustee in turn filed the cost report with the Department. It was returned to Nursing Home Consultants because the person who had certified the reports was not a certified public accountant in Ohio. Nursing Home Consultants had the returned cost report recertified by an independent firm of certified public accountants in Ohio. Considerable time elapsed and as of July, 1982, the cost reports for the second facility had not been completed. Both the trustee and the bankruptcy judge desired to close the estate and ascertain what, if any, assets were present. G & J made a written offer to the trustee to purchase the trustee's right, title and interest and claims, if any, in and to the Medicare/Medicaid cost reports of the bankrupt. In consideration, G & J offered the sum of $5,000 together with the waiver of its claim for rents due and owing from B & K and any and all claims against the estate for the costs and expenses incurred in the preparation of the cost reports. A hearing was held on September 23, 1982, after notice to all creditors, concerning whether G & J's offer should be accepted. The Department appeared at the hearing and opposed the sale. The offer was accepted by the trustee and ratified and approved by the court on September 24, 1982. The objection entered by the Department to the sale was specifically denied. No appeal of the court's order was taken by the Department. On February 7, 1983, G & J, as assignee, under the bankruptcy court's order, filed the cost reports with the Department for review and audit. The Department returned the cost reports outlining its reasons by letter dated March 25, 1983, and set forth above. The cost reports for the period May 5, 1977 through May 31, 1978, were initially submitted by B & K and accepted by the Department on November 1, 1978. The final audit of those reports was not completed until December 26, 1979, for Krestview, and February 15, 1980, for Towne House, after B & K had filed for bankruptcy. While the audit was being conducted, B & K was granted extensions of time for the filing of the 1978-1979 cost reports. After the trustee in bankruptcy was appointed and began the process of attempting to prepare the cost reports, the Department conducted a final audit of the 1977-1978 cost reports. The Department failed to provide either B & K or the trustee with a copy of any proposed audit adjustments. No evidence was presented that B & K or the trustee was given an exit conference where the audit findings were discussed and explained. Instead, the Department distributed the final audit but failed at that time to advise B & K, the trustee or the Bankruptcy Court of any right to challenge the audit pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order accepting for audit the cost reports submitted by the Petitioner G & J Investments Corporation, Inc., for B & K Investments, Inc., for the periods May, 1977 through August 1979. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6 day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Peoples, Esquire R. Stuart Huff, Esquire 330 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether Respondent, a licensed family day care home, failed to have an operable pool alarm for its backyard swimming pool, as Petitioner alleges. If Respondent is found guilty of this disciplinable offense, then it will be necessary to determine the appropriate penalties for such violation.
Findings Of Fact Wayne and Cristina Worthley hold a Certificate of License, numbered F11MD0165, which authorizes them to operate a family day care home1/ in Homestead, Florida, for one year, from January 6, 2015, through January 6, 2016. They do business under the name Cristina Worthley Family Day Care Home. As a licensed day-care provider, the Worthleys' business falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of Respondent Department of Children and Families ("DCF"). On December 17, 2014, a DCF employee named Yessenia Plata inspected the Worthley home. Ms. Plata observed (and it is undisputed) that the Worthleys' backyard swimming pool was not surrounded on all four sides by a fence.2/ She noticed, as well, that there was no pool alarm in the pool. In a telephone conversation later that day, Ms. Plata informed Mrs. Worthley that the licensee would be cited for the violation of a Class I standard, namely the failure to have a fence enclosure around the pool or, alternatively, a pool alarm. Mrs. Worthley told Ms. Plata that she would talk to her husband about purchasing a pool alarm.3/ Ms. Plata asked Mrs. Worthley to let her know when the pool alarm was in place so that a reinspection could be conducted. By email dated December 21, 2014, Mr. Worthley notified Ms. Plata that his wife and he had "the pool alarm installed and [we]re ready . . . for the re-inspection."4/ Ms. Plata performed another inspection of the Worthley home on December 23, 2014. She confirmed that a pool alarm in good working order was floating in the pool. Ultimate Factual Determinations The undersigned determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the Worthleys did not have a pool alarm in their backyard swimming pool on December 17, 2014. The failure to have an operable pool alarm, coupled with the undisputed fact that the Worthleys' pool fence did not completely surround the pool, constituted a Class I Violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.010(1)(i), which mandates that a family day-care licensee having a pool shall install an operable pool alarm if it lacks a fence enclosure around the pool.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding the Worthley Family Day Care Home guilty of the offense charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that DCF impose a fine against the Worthleys in the amount of $100 and terminate the licensee's Gold Seal designation. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2015.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003.
