The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of Section 464.21(1)(b) and 464.21(1)(f), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint in this matter charged the Respondent with ten statutory violations. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner also withdrew Paragraphs 3, 4, 8 & 9 of the Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, License No. RN-41209-2. During the period August 31 - September 1, 1975, Respondent was charge nurse of an 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. shift at Mercy Hospital, Orlando, Florida. A hospital Narcotic and Hypnotic Disposition Record, dated August 28, 1975, Number 13580, for Seconal capsules, 100 mg., reflects that on August 31, 1975 at 12:00 A.M., Respondent signed out for a Seconal capsule for patient John Marks. Hospital records, including Nurse Medication Record, Nurses' Supplementary Medication Record, and Nurses Notes do not reflect that the patient received the aforesaid medication. Hospital policy requires that all controlled drugs such as Seconal be "charted", i.e., shown in the appropriate medical record that the drug was administered to the patient by the nurse. Respondent admits that she failed to "chart" the medication that she gave to patient Marks. A similar Seconal charting omission by another nurse as to patient Marks occurred on September 3, 1975. (Testimony of Werner, Cahill, Mincevich, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3) A hospital Narcotic and Hypnotic Disposition Record for "Meperidine Amp., 75 mg." dated August 28, 1975, Number 46620, reflects that at 1:15 A.M., August 31, 1975, Respondent signed out 75 mg. of the drug for patient Jesse Elfrud. Meperidine is a controlled drug known as "Demerol" and is used for the relief of pain. Hospital records, including Nurse Medication Record, Nurses' Supplementary Medication Record, and Nurses Notes for the patient on that date fail to show administration of the drug. Respondent admits that she neglected to make the required entry on the appropriate record. (Testimony of Mincevich, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4) A hospital Narcotic and Hypnotic Disposition Record for "Meperidine Amp. 100 mg." dated August 16, 1975, Number 47653, reflects that on September 1, 1975 at 1:30 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. Respondent signed out for 100 mg. of the drug for patient Eugene Catalina. Although the Nurses' Supplementary Medication Record shows that "Demerol, 100 mg." was administered to the patient at 1:30 A.M., hospital records do not reflect that the patient received the drug at 6:00 A.M. on September 1st. A hospital supervisor interviewed Catalina later that day and he informed her that he had had an injection about 5:30 A.M. when he awakened. Respondent admits that she neglected to "chart" the Demerol that she had signed out for at 6:00 A.M., September 1, 1975. (Testimony of Mincevich, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, supplemented by testimony of Reynolds.) On October 14, 1975, Respondent was employed at the Barrington Terrace Nursing Home, Orlando, Florida, assigned to the 4:00 P.M. - 12:00 A.M. shift as nurse in charge. At approximately 3:45 P.M., she arrived for duty and was observed by three licensed practical nurses. She was disheveled, uncoordinated, staggering, and bumping into things as she came down the corridor. Her speech was slurred and her breath smelled of alcohol. She entered the medicine room and had difficulty placing her key in the lock of the narcotics cabinet. She was not in a fit condition to carry out her duties and appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. One of the nurses reported the matter to the hospital Administrator who had the Assistant Administrator meet her in the office of the Director of Nursing and inform her that her employment was terminated. The Respondent had been involved in a similar incident at the nursing home on October 2, at which time she manifested the same appearance, but did not have the odor of alcohol on her breath. At that time, inquiries established that her condition had been brought about by a prior injection of Demerol and Compazine from her physician for the relief of a migraine headache. In spite of the circumstances surrounding the prior incident and the Administrator's knowledge that Respondent suffered from a disease called diabetes insipidus, he did not inquire into the possibility that Respondent might have been ill on October 14th, because of the reports from other employees that she was intoxicated. (Testimony of Cole, Stonecipher, Smith). Respondent testified that she suffers from diabetes insipidus. The illness is controlled by the use of Diaped nasal spray. Occasionally, she takes a shot of Pitressin to restore her hormone balance. The disease manifests itself by dizziness, slurred speech and the presence of a sweetish smelling breath from acidosis. The general appearance of an individual with the disease during an attack is similar to that of intoxication. It is also possible that an observer might mistake the breath odor for that of alcohol if unfamiliar with the disease. Prior to going to work on October 14, Respondent felt herself in the early stages of dehydration from the disease and administered nasal spray to herself. She does not recall the events of that day after arriving at the hospital. Although Respondent's credibility was impaired to some degree by a showing that she had falsified an application for employment at the Barrington Terrace Nursing Home by omitting the fact that she had previously been employed at Mercy Hospital, it is found that, under the circumstances, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Respondent was in an intoxicated condition by reason of alcohol at the time she reported for duty on October 14, 1975. (Testimony of Moore, Morris, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 1). In extenuation of her admitted "charting" errors, Respondent testified that a nurse had difficulty maintaining proper records during the night shift because of the scarcity of support personnel during that period. The Director of Nursing at Medic-home Health Center, Winter Garden, Florida, where Respondent has been employed for the past year, and her present supervisor at that institution, testified that charting errors are common and that such omissions happen more frequently on a night shift due to the heavier patient load. However, Respondent and these witnesses acknowledged that such omissions can have serious consequences if the nurse on the next shift is not aware that medication previously had been given to a patient. Respondent has done an excellent job at her present place of employment under close scrutiny, even though she lost her son in an automobile accident during the period of employment. (Testimony of Moore, Morris, Blackmer).
Recommendation That Respondent Jacqueline Carroll Moore, R.N., License Number RN-41209-2, be issued a written reprimand and that her license to practice nursing be suspended for unprofessional conduct in violation of Section 464.21(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold John T. O'Shea 1130 American Heritage MURRAH, DOYLE and O'SHEA, P.A. Building Morse Boulevard Professional Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Center 800 West Morse Boulevard P.O. Box 1328 Winter Park, Florida 32789 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent was a licensed practical nurse holding license number 11005-1. On April 8th and 9th 1975, respondent was employed at St. Vincent's Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida. As required by federal law and the normal course of the business of pharmacy, the pharmacist of the Center maintains and retains narcotic control records which chart the withdrawal and disposition, of controlled substances. The narcotic control records introduced into evidence as Exhibit 2 record the disposition of various dosages of meperidine ampuls. Demerol is the trademark name of the generic drug meperidine, which is a controlled substance under Ch. 893 of the Florida Statutes. St. Vincent's Medical Center has specific procedures to be followed when withdrawing and administering narcotic drugs. When a nurse withdraws a narcotic drug for a patient, it is her duty to fill out the narcotic control record showing the date, the time, the dosage, the patient to whom the drug is to be administered, the treating physician and the signature of the person withdrawing and administering the substance. The substance should then be administered to the patient within minutes of the withdrawal time, and the time of administration and dosage should immediately be noted or charted on that portion of the patient's medical record entitled "Nurses Notes." From the testimony adduced at the hearing, and by comparing the narcotic control records with the "Nurses Notes" on several patients; it is clear that on April 8th and 9th, 1975, respondent did not chart or note as having administered a substantial quantity of the drugs withdrawn by her. Furthermore, many that she did chart were not specific as to the time administered or the time charted was a half hour or more from the time listed on the narcotic control record. There was no evidence that respondent was using these drugs for her own purposes or that the patients, in fact, did not receive their medication after it was withdrawn by respondent. It was respondent's testimony that the discrepancies existing between the narcotic control sheets and the "Nurse's Notes" resulted from either errors in charting on another patient's chart or mistakenly forgetting to chart the administration due to being so busy or short-staffed. Respondent denied taking any of the narcotic drugs herself.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing find respondent guilty as charged in the administrative complaint and suspend respondent's license for a period of six (6) months. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Geraldine Johnson Florida State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Mr. Juluis Finegold 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Dorothy M. Hall Cobb 1720 West 13th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since August 17, 1987, licensed to practice practical nursing in the State of Florida. She holds license number 0876721. Respondent was employed for more than a year as a nurse at Martin Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "hospital"), a private nonprofit community hospital located in Stuart, Florida. She was suspended from her position for three days on October 25, 1988, for suspected diversion of drugs and falsification of medical records. Upon the expiration of her suspension, she was terminated. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was assigned to the hospital's sixth floor oncology unit and she worked the day shift (7:00 a.m. to 3:00 pm). Among the patients for whom Respondent cared was S.H. S.H., who is now deceased, had lung cancer. The first five days of S.H.'s stay at the hospital were spent in a room on the hospital's fifth floor. On October 15, 1988, she was moved to the sixth floor oncology unit, where she remained until her discharge at 3:35 p.m. on October 22, 1988. When a patient is admitted to the hospital, the admitting physician provides the nursing staff with written orders regarding the care that is to be given the patient. These written orders, which are updated on a daily basis, include instructions concerning any medications that are to be administered to the patient. The hospital's pharmacy department provides each patient with a twenty- four hour supply of the medications prescribed in the physician's written orders. The supply is replenished daily. In October, 1988, the medications that the pharmacy department dispensed were stored in unlocked drawers that were kept in designated "medication rooms" to which the nursing staff and other hospital personnel had ready access. The hospital's nursing staff is responsible for caring for the hospital's patients in accordance with the written orders given by the patients' physicians. Furthermore, if a nurse administers medication to a patient, (s)he must indicate that (s)he has done so by making an appropriate, initialed entry on the patient's MAR (Medication Administration Record). 1/ In addition, (s)he must note in the nursing chart kept on the patient that such medication was administered. Moreover, if the physician's written orders provide that the medication should be given to the patient on an "as needed" basis, the nursing chart must contain information reflecting that the patient's condition warranted the administration of the medication. The foregoing standards of practice that nurses at the hospital are expected to follow are the prevailing standards in the nursing profession. On October 13, 1988, S.H.'s physician indicated in his written orders that S.H. could be administered Darvocet N-100 for pain control on an "as needed" basis, but that in no event should she be given more than one tablet every six hours. S.H.'s MAR reflects that at 9:00 a.m. on October 18, 1988, the first day that Respondent was assigned to care for S.H., Respondent gave S.H. a Darvocet N-100 tablet. The entry was made by Respondent. Respondent did not indicate on S.H.'s nursing chart that she gave S.H. such medication on October 18, 1988. Moreover, there is no indication from the nursing chart that S.H. was experiencing any pain and that therefore she needed to take pain medication while she was under Respondent's care on that date. S.H.'s MAR reflects that at 10:00 a.m. on October 21, 1988, the day Respondent was next assigned to care for S.H., Respondent gave S.H. a Darvocet N-100 tablet. The entry was made by Respondent. Respondent did not indicate on S.H.'s nursing chart that she gave S.H. such medication on October 21, 1988. Moreover, there is no indication from the nursing chart that S.H. was experiencing any pain and that therefore she needed to take pain medication while she was under Respondent's care on that date. At some time toward the end of her stay in the hospital, S.H. told one of the charge nurses who worked in the sixth floor oncology unit that she had taken very few Darvocet N- 100 tablets during her stay at the hospital and that she had not taken any recently. S.H.'s physician did not prescribe Darvocet N-100 or any other similar pain medication for S.H. upon her discharge from the hospital. Notwithstanding the entries she made on S.H.'s MAR, Respondent did not give Darvocet N-100 to S.H. on either October 18, 1988, or October 21, 1988. Respondent made these entries knowing that they were false. She did so as part of a scheme to misappropriate and divert the medication to her own use.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 464.018(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the instant administrative complaint and disciplining Respondent by taking the action proposed by the Department, which is described in paragraph 9 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Mary Karen Fasolka at all times here involved was licensed by the Florida Board of Nursing as a Registered Nurse and was employed by Broward General Medical Center in that capacity. On April 21, 1978, Respondent signed on the narcotic records for 50 mg. Demerol at 10:15 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 12:15 p.m. and thereon indicated the medication was for patient Pustelnick. At 10:30 a.m. on the same date Respondent signed out for 30 mg/ml of Codeine to be administered to Ms. Pustelnick. Doctor's orders in effect at this time authorized the administration of Demerol every four hours to Ms. Pustelnick as necessary for pain. There were no orders in effect authorizing administration of Codeine to Ms. Pustelnick. Neither the patient's medication administration record nor the nurses' notes showed either medication had been administered to Ms. Pustelnick to Ms. Pustelnick at or about the time they were signed out by Respondent. On April 19, 1978, Respondent signed two entries on the narcotic record. The first entry was 10:45 a.m., Demerol withdrawn for patient Dominico and marked "wasted". The following entry also signed by Respondent showed a time of 9:00 a.m. for the withdrawal of Demerol for Dominico. Dominico was admitted to the hospital at 2:55 p.m. on April 19, 1978, and doctor's orders authorizing administration of Demerol every four hours as needed were entered at 4:40 p.m. Neither of these signouts appeared on patients' medication administration record or in nurses' notes. On April 21, 1978, Respondent signed out for Demerol at 10:30 a.m. to be administered to patient Davis. No physician's orders were in effect for such medication, and the medication was charted on neither the patient's medication administration record nor the nurses notes. On April 15, 1978, Respondent signed out for Demerol at 10:00 a.m., at 11:00 a.m., at 2:00 p.m. and at 2:30 p.m. for patient Surless. Doctor's orders authorized Demerol every four hours as needed for pain. Patient's medication administration record does not show this medication was administered and nurses' notes signed by Respondent show patient resting quietly at 10:00 a.m. with no entries respecting administration of Demerol. A 2:40 p.m. entry stated "IV and PO sedation given as ordered". Acceptable nursing practice requires the charting of medication given a patient in order that other nurses and doctors can ascertain what the patient has received in case an emergency arises after the nurse who administered the medication has gone off duty. Not knowing that narcotics had recently been administered to the patient could lead to the administering of an overdose by another doctor or nurse. Administering medication not included on doctors' orders or on standing orders is not an accepted medical practice. Taking or using narcotics that have not been prescribed, by a nurse on duty entrusted with the care of seriously ill patients, is also an unacceptable nursing practice. Testifying in her own behalf Respondent averred that she was not addicted to Demerol and never tried to sell Demerol or to take same from the hospital. She acknowledged that failure to chart medications and failure to follow doctors' orders respecting the administration of narcotics were grave errors which could lead to serious consequences and harm to the patient. No evidence in mitigation of the offenses alleged was submitted. Supervisors of Respondent had no particular problems with Respondent's performances of duty during the two and one-half years she had worked at Broward General other than the incidents leading to the charges here considered.
Findings Of Fact Because the Respondent Marjorie Sue Fancher, L.P.N., was not present at the Hearing, although commencement of the Hearing was delayed for thirty minutes, careful inquiry into the correct address of Marjorie Sue Fancher was made. From the personnel records of Community General Hospital, it was determined that Marjorie Sue Fancher had resided at 551 Emerald Avenue, Lake Wales, Florida, 33856, with her mother. Notice in this cause was sent to Marjorie Sue Fancher at 551 Emerald Avenue, Lake Wales, Florida, 33856, by first-class mail. Notice of the Hearing sent Marjorie Sue Fancher was not returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the United States Postal Service. Marjorie Sue Fancher is a licensed practical nurse holding license number, LPN 37287-1. Marjorie Sue Fancher was employed by Community General Hospital in Dade City, Florida on approximately February 9, 1976. After undergoing an orientation at the hospital, she was moved from the day shift to the night shift. On February 22, 1976 Marjorie Sue Fancher was medication nurse on the eleven to seven shift at Community General Hospital. As medication nurse, Marjorie Sue Fancher was responsible for the administration and charting of the administration of medications to patients in Rooms 101 through 114 in the East Wing of Community General Hospital. As medication nurse, Marjorie Sue Fancher was responsible for the medication cart which contained the narcotics safe which had only one key. The procedure of the hospital called for the oncoming medication nurse to inventory the narcotics with the medication nurse being relieved. When the oncoming medication nurse was satisfied with the inventory, the oncoming nurse would relieve the nurse going off duty and the key would be turned over to the nurse coming on duty. This key was on a long ribbon and worn around the neck of the medication nurse. The hospital medical records for patients of the hospital in Rooms 101 to 114 on the East Wing were identified by Marian Newell, a registered records administrator and Records Administrator for Community General Hospital. The narcotic control records were identified by William Connors, Registered Pharmacist and Pharmacist for Community General Hospital. Elizabeth Kutsch, L.P.N., was the medication nurse who relieved Marjorie Sue Fancher on the morning of February 23, 1976. Kutsch found that the narcotic control sheets had not been filled out, chartings for the patients not been done, and nurse's notes on the patients had not been made by Fancher when Kutsch relieved her on the morning of February 23, 1976. Because the narcotics on hand did not agree with the narcotics control records, Kutsch refused to relieve Fancher and assume responsibility for the narcotics safe and its contents. Kutsch called Dawn Bell, Registered Nurse, Acting Director of Nurses at Community General Hospital, who initiated an investigation. Bell immediately interviewed Marjorie Sue Fancher. Fancher at that time appeared to Bell, a nurse with twenty-one (21) years of experience, to be under the influence of drugs. Fancher was unable to respond coherently to questions, could not remember what she had done during her shift, was somnolent and staggered when she walked. Bell's review of the patient records, their narcotics control records, and nurse's notes revealed many discrepancies. These records conflicted on whether Fancher had administered preop medications to a patient, Elmer Wile. Although the narcotics control sheet indicated that Fancher had withdrawn 10 mgs of morphine sulphate at 7:30 a.m., the drug administration records and nurse's notes had not been filled out indicating administration of the drug to the patient. Fancher had failed to administer insulin and pronestyl, a heart medication, as directed in the medication administration records for Hush Walker, a patient. Fancher had failed to administer inderal to Rena Bell at 6:00 a.m. as prescribed and had indicated this by circling the time on the medication administration record but no explanation of why the drug was not administered was entered in the nurse's notes by Fancher. Fancher had failed to administer kafsol to Florence Profe, as prescribed at 6:00 a.m. No entry was made on the medication administration records and no explanation was made in the nurse's notes by Fancher. Fancher failed to administer ampicillin and phenobarbital to Tonya Harnage at 6:00 a.m. as prescribed. The medication administration record shows no entry and no explanation was made in nurse's notes. Fancher administered talwin intramuscularily to Martha Jackson, a patient, instead of talwin compound prescribed to be administered per oz. Fancher signed out for 15 mgs of morphine sulphate on the narcotics control record for administration to the patient, Catherine Dolan, but no indication of administration of the drug was made in the medication administration record or in the nurse's notes for the patient Dolan. Fancher withdrew 10 mgs of morphine sulphate for administration to patient, Bessie Wolf, who had a preoperative order for the administration of 5 mgs of morphine sulphate and .2 mg of atrophine. The narcotics control record did not indicate the wastage of 5 mgs of morphine sulphate. The medication administration record indicated the administration of .2 mg of atrophine while the Nurse's notes indicated that .6 mgs of atrophine had been administered. The patient Wolf had been prescribed demerol PRN. The narcotics control record for demerol indicated that an entry showing 25 mgs had been withdrawn by Fancher for administration to the patient, Bessie Wolf, had been lined out. Inventory of demerol on hand in the narcotics safe for which Fancher was responsible, indicated an overage of one ampule of demerol. Fancher had failed to have the narcotics control record corrected by the pharmacist as required in accordance with hospital operating procedure when an erroneous entry was made. Patients who were scheduled for laboratory workups on the morning of the twenty-third and who were to receive no medications after twelve, midnight, had had medications administered to them by Fancher contrary to direction. Patients who were to receive preoperation medication did not have these medications administered. The records of the shift which Marjorie Sue Fancher had worked were so confused and incomplete that it was impossible to determine what medications had been administered to what patients. Marjorie Sue Fancher's physical condition was such that she could not remember what she had done during the shift to include what medications she had administered to what patients.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recommends that the Florida State Board of Nursing revoke the license to practice nursing of Marjorie Sue Fancher. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Marjorie Sue Fancher 551 Emerald Avenue Lake Wales, Florida 33856 Mrs. Geraldine Johnson State Board of Nursing Suite 201 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent , Michael Barlow, L. P. N., who holds License No. 38497-1.
Findings Of Fact The aforementioned stipulation dated March 6, 1980, provides: The Respondent does not deny the authenticity of the records at the Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, Pensacola, Florida, and hereby agrees that in each and every incident contained in the administrative complaint if the records show that he did not in fact chart said medications, he does not contest the fact that he did not chart the medication as contained in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 thereof. Further, the licensee maintains that he will appear at the hearing and present testimony to the effect that his failure to properly chart was due to a lack of proper orientation at the time that he was employed by the Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center. The administrative complaint contained fourteen (14) counts seven (7) of which, Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, were allegations of misconduct by failure to chart medications and the remainder, Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 14, were allegations that the foregoing respectively numbered allegations were in violation of various sections of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. The following exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection: True copies of the patient records pertaining to the factual allegations of the administrative complaint, petitioner's Exhibit 2; Pertinent parts of the Policies and Procedures Manual of Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3; An employer/employee agreement between Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center and Respondent Barlow, petitioner's Exhibit 4; An orientation check sheet for new employees signed by respondent on December 13, 1979, affirming that respondent was instructed as to the policy of the employer on medication protocol Petitioner's Exhibit 5; A summary of patient profiles of the amounts of Valium and Tylenol No. 3 that were signed out but not charted on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) as alleged in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of the administrative complaint, petitioner's Exhibit 6(a) and (b); A document entitled "Charted on MAR" indicating medications other than Valium and Tylenol No. 3 administered by respondent to the same patients named in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of the administrative complaint, petitioner's Exhibit 7; A drug order form showing that a patient had been authorized to take Valium 5 mg. by a Dr. Augustus. The handwriting on the order form was identified by a handwriting authority as that of Respondent Barlow rather than Dr. Augustus, petitioner's Exhibit 8. The current director of nursing at Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center placed or had placed the policies and procedures manual at the nursing stations on each floor of the center and gave or had given an orientation program to each nurse, including Respondent Barlow, at the time of employment at the center. The director of nursing did not know why respondent charted drugs for the patients with the exception of the Valium and Tylenol No. 3. At the hearing Respondent Barlow admitted he had read the documents submitted into evidence but stated that he did not know he was supposed to chart the controlled substances. He had previously worked at a Baptist hospital and in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where it was not required that the licensed practical nurse sign out for Valium on the Medication Administration Record inasmuch as the pharmacy dispensed the medication. He said that he administered to the patients all medications checked out for them; that he was not supervised by a registered nurse as he now feels that he should have been; and that he had not been given proper orientation at Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center as to what was considered a controlled drug. The respondent further stated that there was a shortage of nurses in relation to the number of patients in the center and that he was extremely busy administering to the patients during his employment. He pointed out that the medications he properly charted were noted on the front of the form and that he was supposed to chart the Valium and Tylenol No. 3 on the back, but that he had not been required to chart said drugs in his former employment and that he did not know to turn the form over and chart the Valium and Tylenol No. 3 on the back. He said he was never instructed as to how to fill out the form. After consideration of the testimony of the parties and the witnesses and examination of the evidence, the hearing officer finds that Respondent Barlow was guilty of negligence in failing to carefully read and study the policies and procedures manual provided by Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center and in failing to learn the policies, procedures and protocol in use at his place of employment. The hearing officer finds that respondent failed to chart the controlled substances as required, but that his failure was unintentional and due to his negligence, crowded conditions and a heavy demanding workload.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the hearing officer recommends that the respondent, Michael Barlow, be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months from the date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Michael C. Barlow 6111 Lebanon Lane Pensacola, Florida 32504 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF NURSING In Re: Michael C. Barlow, L.P.N. NO. FSBN 79-MIS-1 License No. 38497-1 CASE NO. 80-255 / This cause came to be heard by the Florida Board of Nursing of the Department of Professional Regulation on June 24, 1980 in Jacksonville, Florida for the purpose of determining whether disciplinary action should be taken against the licensee pursuant to Sections 464.018(1)(f) and (g), F.S. A formal hearing, conducted at the licensee's election pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., resulted in the rendering of a recommended order from the Division of Administrative Hearings. Exceptions were filed to the Recommended Order by the Attorney representing the Board of Nursing at the administrative hearing. The licensee filed no exceptions. The Board has reviewed the complete record and each Board member has certified that she has reviewed it. Based upon such review of the complete record, the Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order are accepted by the Board as its own Findings with the additional Finding that the licensee was completely unaware that Valium was a controlled substance but thought that it was a legend drug. This fact is clear and undisputed from the record of the hearing at which the licensee admitted not knowing the drug's status. The Conclusions of Law contained in the Recommended Order are adopted by the Board as its own and are incorporated herein in their entirety by reference. Based upon its review of the complete record, the Board does not feel that the recommended penalty of six months probation is appropriate under the circumstances. Given the seriousness of the undisputed facts, the Board hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the licensee be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, that during said probationary period, the licensee shall successfully complete a course in charting the administration of medications to patients and further that during the probationary period the licensee assure that quarterly evaluation reports are submitted to the board by his employer. By order of the Florida Board of Nursing, this 11th day of July, 1980. Mary F. Henry, Chairman Florida Board of Nursing cc: Michael Barlow 308 West Gregory Street, No. 3 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Mike Schwartz, Esquire
