The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated April 17, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of nursing in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse, having been issued license number PN 0914071. On October 27, 1988, the Board of Nursing (Board) issued a license to practice to Respondent and placed him on probation subject to specific terms and conditions for a period of two years. One of the conditions of Respondent's first year of probation required that he be directly supervised by a registered nurse when administering a narcotic. During the period July 15-16, 1989, Respondent worked two shifts in the oncology ward at Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in Orlando, Florida. During these shifts, Respondent administered approximately seventeen narcotic doses without being directly supervised by a registered nurse. The administration of narcotics described above were performed during Respondent's first year of probation. Policies in effect at ORMC during the period July 15-16, 1989, did not require that a licensed practical nurse be directly supervised when administering narcotics. Respondent's supervising head nurse at ORMC was unaware of the probationary condition requiring that Respondent be directly supervised during the administration of narcotics. A further condition of Respondent's probation required that he notify the Board's probation supervisor of any changes in his telephone number and/or employment within ten days of such change. On or about April 26, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board that he had been employed for Health Care of Orlando since approximately January, 1989, and for St. Cloud Hospital since approximately January 9, 1989. Such notification was not made within ten days of the change in employment. In July, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board of additional changes in employment and with his telephone number. This notification also was not made within ten days of the change. On or about May 11, 1989, the Respondent filled out an employment application with Allied Health Card Consultants, Inc. One of the questions posed on that application asked: "Have any of your professional licenses ever been under investigation?" Respondent answered the foregoing question: "no". Another question posed on the application asked: "Is there any reason you would be unable to perform the duties of your position?" In response, Respondent again answered: "no". On or about August 11, 1989, Respondent gave a copy of the final order setting forth his conditions of probation to Allied Health Care. At all times material to the allegations of this case it was the policy of ORMC not to hire any agency staffed nurse who was on probation status with the Board since all such staff are required to perform all duties without restrictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of having violated a term of his probation set forth in the prior final order enter by the Board, contrary to Section 464.018(1)(1), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and suspending the Respondent's license for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-8047 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's findings of fact begin with the paragraph numbered 9 Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the height of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 C. Michael Magruder The Monument Building 22 W. Monument Avenue Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended, revoked, or whether the Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence introduced and the testimony elicited, the following facts are found: Am administrative complaint was filed against Respondent Ponte by the Petitioner, Florida State Board of Nursing, on May 26, 1978 seeking to place on probation, suspend or revoke the LPN License No. 38103-1 held by Respondent Beverly Ceraldi Ponte. The complaint was amended at the public hearing to delete allegation number 5. "Respondent, while being searched at the women's annex of the jail, was found to be in possession of one glass vial of promethazine, a prescription drug." The complaint alleged that the Respondent, on several occasions, signed out for controlled narcotics for patients in her care and failed to properly account for the disposition of said narcotics; that Respondent converted a narcotic controlled substance to her own use and admitted to Dade County Police officers the theft of the drug; and that Respondent had in her possession at the time of her arrest a large quantity of syringes (tubex of from 50-75 milligrams of demerol) consisting of a total of 24, of which 7 were empty. The Respondent Beverly Ponte, a Licensed Practical Nurse, was employed at the Miami Heart Institute on January 16, 1978. On that date she signed out for a controlled narcotic, demerol, the generic term being meperedine, for four patients in her care. The medication sheets for the four patients failed to show that demerol or meperedine had been administered to the patients, and no disposition of the narcotics was shown by Respondent. On or about April 7, 1978 Beverly Ponte, the Respondent, was employed at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida. The evening supervisor, a Registered Nurse, was called at about 10:30 p.m. by one of the staff nurses to examine a narcotic sheet kept for patients under the care of the Respondent Ponte, the medication nurse on the shift that evening. The Vice President and Director of Nursing Service was then called and the police were notified that there was an apparent narcotic problem on the floor of the hospital. The police and the director questioned the Respondent. She was searched and on her person was found 24 syringes (tubexes or pre-loaded syringes) of the type used by the hospital. Respondent admitted that she had taken drugs that evening and could not tell the director which of the patients under her care had had medication. The Respondent was arrested and handcuffed. Thereafter an information was filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida charging Respondent with possession of a controlled substance (meperedine) and charged with a count of petit larceny. The Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendre and was found guilty of possession of controlled substance and petit theft and was placed on probation for a period of eighteen months, beginning May 2, 1978, with a special condition that the Respondent not seek employment where she personally had access to narcotic drugs and to also complete the outreach program which is a drug rehabilitation program. The proposed order of the Respondent has been considered and each proposed fact treated herein. Evidence as to the adherence to the condition of probation, the present employment of Respondent, and whether Respondent should be allowed to sit for nursing license examination is insufficient and no finding is made in regard thereto. No memorandum or proposed order was submitted by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Ponte. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Carl L. Masztal, Esquire Suite 806 Concord Building 66 W. Flagler Street Miami, Florida Norman Malinski, Esquire 2825 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Coordinator State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Building B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Beverly A. Ceraldi Ponte 3500 S. W. 47th Avenue CASE NO. 78-1142 West Hollywood, Florida 33023 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 38103-1 /
Findings Of Fact Joanne N. Dickey is licensed by Petitioner as a licensed practical nurse and holds license number 37835-1. During the period November 24 through November 28 Respondent was so licensed and was employed by Memorial Hospital, Hollywood, Florida on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Standard procedures established by Memorial Hospital regarding the accounting for controlled substances are for the nurse withdrawing medication for administering to a patient to record the withdrawal on the Narcotic Inventory Sheet on which a running inventory for a 24-hour period is kept, and, upon administering the medication to the patient, chart the medication on the medication administration record and in the nurses notes for the patient. Standard procedures established for accounting for excess drugs withdrawn (e.g., where doctor's orders call for 50 mg. and only 100 mg. ampules are available) prescribe that the excess drug withdrawn be disposed of in the presence of another witness and so recorded on the waste record. These procedures are presented to all nurses at Memorial Hospital during their compulsory training periods before they administer to patients at Memorial Hospital. On November 26, 1978, Respondent, at 1:15 a.m., signed out on the narcotic control record for 100 mg. meperidine for patient Cohen, but this medication was not entered on either the medication administration record or on the nurses notes for this patient. At 4:30 a.m., Respondent signed out for 75 mg. meperidine for patient Cohen and the administration of this medication was not entered on the patient's medication administration record or in the nurses notes. Doctor's orders for Cohen at this time authorized the administration of 50-75 mg. meperidine presumably not given to Cohen. No entry was made on the waste record. On November 27, 1978 at 12:30 a.m., Respondent signed out for 75 mg. meperidine and at 4:00 a.m. for 100 mg. meperidine for patient Cohen on the narcotic inventory sheet, but the entry of the administering of these medications to patient Cohen was not entered on the medication administration record or in the nurses notes. Again, no waste record was made for the excess over the 50-75 mg. authorized. Further, doctor's orders in effect on November 27, 1980 for patient Cohen did not authorize administration of meperidine. At 2:15 a.m. on November 27, 1978 Respondent signed out for 75 mg. meperidine and at 5:30 a.m. 50 mg. meperidine for patient Barkoski. No record of administering these medications was entered on the patient's medical administration record or in the nurses notes. Doctor's orders authorized administration of 50 mg. meperidine as necessary. No entry of disposal of the excess 25 mg. was entered in the waste record. At 4:20 a.m. November 24, 1978 Respondent signed out for 75 mg. Demerol for patient Giles. No entry was entered on the medical administration record or in nurses notes that this medication was administered to patient Giles. At 3:30 a.m. on November 24, 1978 Respondent signed out for 25 mg. Demerol for patient Evins but no entry was made on the patient's medical administration record or in the nurses notes that this medication was administered to the patient. At 12:50 a.m. on November 24, 1978 Respondent signed out for 100 mg. Demerol and at 4:30 a.m. signed out for 50 mg. Demerol for patient Demma. No entry was made in the medication administration record or nurses notes for Demma that this drug was administered. Doctor's orders in effect authorized administration of 50-75 mg. Demerol as needed. No entry was made on waste record for the overage withdrawn. On the 11-7 shift on November 27, 1978, Respondent's supervisor noticed Respondent acting strangely with dilated pupils and glassy eyes. She suggested Respondent go home repeatedly and sent her to the lounge but Respondent soon returned to the floor. Respondent was finally told if she didn't go home the supervisor would call Security. The supervisor had checked the narcotic inventory log at 4:50 and saw no entries thereon. By the time Respondent was finally sent home at 6:00 a.m., the entries on the Narcotic Control Record at 12:30, 1:15, 2:15, 4:30 and 5:30 were entered. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics to patients does not comply with acceptable and prevailing nursing practices. No evidence regarding the administering of hydromorphone was submitted.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct. Whether her license as a registered nurse, certificate no. 8829 should be suspended or revoked or whether Respondent should be put on probation.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christine Richter, who holds license no. 88294-2 was employed as a registered nurse at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida, during the month of February, 1977. She worked as a certified nurse and anesthetist under Ann Marie Connors, the chief nurse anesthetist. The chief nurse anesthetist reported to the Associate Executive Director April 11, 1977, that there were gross discrepancies in the narcotics record kept by the Respondent and at that time she presented him with some of the records. On April 12, 1977, Respondent was requested by the Associate Executive Director to report to his office for a conference. Nurse Connors, the chief nurse anesthetist, was also called to be present at that conference. At the conference the Associate Executive Director asked Respondent for an explanation as to the discrepancies between the narcotic and barbiturate administration record and the patient records. In reply the Respondent stated that she needed a hysterectomy and could not afford it. Upon the insistance of the Associate Executive Director that she give an explanation for the discrepancy in the hospital records, she indicated that she needed to improve her charting. She gave no explanation for discrepancies in the narcotics chart which she signed, and indicated that she would resign. The Director stated that he would accept her resignation and she left the conference. The Respondent mailed her written resignation to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital the following day. The Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, 1976 edition, published by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals "Anesthesia Services" pages 59 through 64 is used as the standard for anesthetic procedure. A department standard book approved by the American Hospital Association and the joint commission on the accreditation of hospitals is required to be read by each employee of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital as it pertains to the department in which the work is to be performed. The instructions in the department standards book are the same as in the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals as far as anesthesia services is concerned. Medical records of eight patients were introduced into evidence together with Narcotic and Barbiturate Record no. 081291. This shows the date, time, patient's name, room number, doseage, attending physician and administering nurse. The doseage of drugs secured by and signed for by the Respondent, Christine Richter, was more than the records show was administered to the various patients. No accounting was made for the difference between the amounts of drugs secured and the amounts, if any, administered to the patients, although it is the duty of the nurse checking out drugs to account for its use in writing on a form provided for that purpose. The Respondent offered no verbal explanation for the missing drugs when given the opportunity to explain her actions by the Associate Executive Director at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and her immediate supervisor, Ann Marie Connors, chief nurse anesthetist.
Recommendation Revoke the license of Christine Richter. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1005 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 647 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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 At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, Erin Gayle McCormick, was a registered nurse and licensed as such by the State of Florida under License No. 101652-2. On June 24, 1981, Respondent's nursing license was suspended because of charges relating to drug use and the forging of prescriptions and their subsequent issue while she was employed at Leesburg Nursing Center during August and September, 1980. Thereafter, on October 12, 1982, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated on one year's probation, subject to certain conditions, one of which was that she not violate any federal or state laws, or rules or orders of the Board of Nursing. Another condition of probation was that she not consume or otherwise self-medicate with any unprescribed controlled substances. Respondent has been a long-term patient of Dr. Paul F. Tumlin, her family physician for many years and who, during the period August through October, 1982, treated her several times for two separate types of headaches, cluster headaches and migraine headaches. Both generate great pain when an attack is ongoing. During the period in question, he treated Respondent with several types of pain killers, some of which are controlled and some of which are not. Among the drugs he used to treat Respondent are: Florinal, Zomax, Phenergan, Inderal, Ludiomil, Talwin and Nubain. Each of these drugs has some side effect. However, over prolonged use, a tolerance may develop in the patient so that the magnitude of the side effect is reduced. Several of them produce such side effects as drowsiness and blurred vision (Ludiomil and Talwin). Another (Inderal) produces depression and weakness. Phenergan is a drug which used in conjunction with others tends to accentuate or extend the effect of that drug. The side effects are of varying duration, and a nurse should not practice her profession when those side effects, such as drowsiness, unclear vision, unsteadiness and weakness, interfere with the full effective control of her facilities and the safe performance of her duties. However, reasonable use of any drug, consistent with a medically indicated purpose, does not constitute drug abuse. Dr. Tumlin cannot recall from memory or from his records any instance where Respondent abused medications prescribed for her by him. All of the drugs Dr. Tumlin prescribed for Respondent during this period are listed in her medical records. These records reflect that on October 14, 1982, Dr. Tumlin prescribed for the Respondent 36 tablets of Florinal #3, a pain killer which contains codeine, which he directed be taken either one or two at a time every four hours for pain. This prescription was authorized one refill. Pursuant to the terms of the October 12, 1982, Order, on October 18, 1982, less than one week after the reinstatement of Respondent's license, Nita Edington, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), contacted Respondent and requested she provide a urine sample for testing. This was not done because of any report of drug abuse by Respondent and was less than a week after the Board of Nursing, in its October 12, 1982, Order, indicated receipt of good reports on her rehabilitation. This urine sample provided by Respondent was subsequently tested by DPR's contract laboratory and determined to be positive for codeine. However, this codeine residue was from the ingestion of Florinal #3, which had been previously prescribed for Respondent by her physician. Respondent was employed in a full-time position as a nurse at the Leesburg Nursing Center, Leesburg, Florida, during August and September, 1980. When she had indication her license was to be reinstated, on August 12, 1982, she applied for a position at the Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center (LVT). The application form filled out, signed and submitted by Respondent calls for "Former Employers and Experience (References)" and reflects that the position desired by the applicant was "sitter." Respondent, in listing former employers, listed the following: Shoe-Biz III 10/81-2/82 Belks 1/81-6/81 Tampa Critical Care 9/79-6/80 Nursing Pool Leesburg General-Hospital 6/78-11/78 11/78-7/78 This total period covered includes the months of August and September, 1980, but the application form fails to reflect the August and September, 1980, employment at Leesburg Nursing Center. On November 11, 1952, Respondent applied for a position as a registered nurse at Lake Community Hospital, Leesburg, Florida, and filled out and submitted an application form which called for the applicant to list the last four employers, starting with the last one first. On this form, Respondent listed: Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center 5/82-10/82 Tampa Med. Pool 11/79-10/80 Waterman Memorial Hospital 11/78-7/79 Leesburg General Hospital 6/78-11/78 Again, she failed to list her employment at Leesburg Nursing Center during August and September, 1980, including that period in the employment period at Tampa Med. Pool, which was untrue, nor did she reveal this employment when she was interviewed for the position. Had she done either, the reference would have been checked, and the information provided by this reference would have had a definite bearing on the decision to hire Respondent or not. Respondent was hired by Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center as a sitter on August 24, 1982, and her position was converted to that of a registered nurse on August 30, 1982, when a vacancy came about. On several occasions from that date until she resigned from employment on October 29, 1982, Charles W. Dick, at that time a food supervisor at the facility, now head baker and a former Baptist minister who, he says, has counseled 100 drug addicts over a 35-year ministry, observed Respondent when she came to the kitchen to pick up food for a resident/patient. On three particular occasions, he saw that her eyes were glassy; her speech was unclear, though understandable; and she appeared unsteady on her feet. Mr. Dick did not, however, report these incidents or discuss them with anyone other than his wife, also an employee of the facility. These symptoms, which are often indicative of drug ingestion, are, according to Dr. Tumlin, also consistent with the effects of severe migraine headaches. Laura Burley, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), worked with Respondent at Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center during August through October, 1982. Ms. Burley has had 10 years' experience with drug abuse patients and is familiar with the symptoms of drug abuse. In her opinion, she saw similar conduct on the part of Respondent during this period. She saw, for example, the Respondent frequently ingest white tablets while on duty, though she does not know what they were. She has heard Respondent complain of the cold and put on a lab coat when the witness, herself, was not cold. She has observed Respondent clutching her stomach and holding her head and has heard Respondent say she did not know if she would make it through the day. She observed Respondent to have radical mood shifts and to eat a lot of sugar or foods with heavy sugar content. She has seen Respondent frequently try to get into the drug carts or get the keys to the drug cart. Ms. Burley also keeps a notebook in which she records what she perceives as unusual conduct on the part of her coworkers. She does this because of her interpretation of a request by the facility administrator for her to report to him any significant occurrences. Doris Draper was also an LPN at LVT while Respondent worked there. A part of Ms. Draper's duties was to dispense drugs. On one occasion, while she was doing so, Respondent came to her and asked for the keys to the medication cart, as she needed to get some Tylenol for another nurse, Mrs. Dick. On a later discussion, Mrs. Dick denied having asked Respondent to get her Tylenol, but said she had wanted some other medicine for a patient. On the basis of this, the two nurses concluded that Respondent intended to substitute regular Tylenol for a patient's Tylenol #3 so as to convert the latter codeine-included medication to her own use. However, though Ms. Draper heard other nurses say they suspected Respondent was taking drugs, she never saw her do so. Nurse Donna Devoe also worked with Respondent at LVT during the period in question. At one point during Respondent's employment, at the request of Ms. Burley and Ms. Draper, she reviewed the charts on a patient, Mrs. Testerman, who, by her recollection, rarely received pain medication. Her review of these patient records revealed that the patient was recently being given pain medicine more frequently than usual by Respondent, whom she counseled about the situation. Ms. Devoe also discussed the situation with the Center administrator, but, because there was no evidence of drug diversion, nothing further was done about it. Her review of the records also revealed that all medications given to patients by the Respondent were given in accordance with a physician's orders, and there was no evidence that Respondent violated these orders. Based on all the above, if Respondent was under the influence of any medication, it was the medication prescribed for her by Dr. Tumlin and not non- prescribed substances. The symptoms described by Mr. Dick, certainly not a trained drug therapist, are equally pertinent to migraine headaches. The innuendos of Ms. Burley, Ms. Draper and Mrs. Dick are just that--innuendos--and not probative of any improper drug usage. Not one witness could conclusively state there was any instance where Respondent failed to properly treat patients or was incapable of doing so because of drugs, alcohol, or illness. Mr. Speener, to whom Ms. Devoe and Ms. Burley both admittedly reported, stated that he had no reports of poor or improper treatment. By his own admission, due to her prior involvement, for which she had been disciplined, Respondent was the subject of "preconceived concerns and misinformation, rumors, and etc.," and she found it difficult to function. In his letter to Ms. Keefe, Mr. Speener said that if there was any conclusive, provable evidence of incompetence, or if there was any substantiation of drug involvement, Respondent would be immediately terminated. Mr. Speener could find no evidence of such and neither can I. In fact, he found her to be a highly professional nurse. During the period of her employment, Respondent had responsibility for the care of, inter alia, Clifford Bryant and Arthur Everett. Arthur Everett was an elderly, paralyzed individual who, on the occasion in question, was administered treatment by Respondent for an impacted bowel. This procedure was inordinately messy and resulted in fecal material getting on both Mr. Everett's clothing and the bed clothes. Both had to be changed. When Respondent came to the patient's room to perform this procedure, she failed to bring a clean gown with her. As a result, by her own admission, Mr. Everett was left totally undressed and uncovered without the screen drawn for the period of time it took her to go get him a clean gown. While this was going on, Mr. Everett was one of two patients in a semiprivate room. The other was a blind, stroke patient. No one else was in the room at the time, but Ms. Burley came in for one brief period while Mr. Everett was unclothed. With regard to Mr. Bryant, at the time in question, he had just arrived at the facility by ambulance and was in wrist restraints because he had previously tried to pull out his catheter. Respondent was in the midst of completing an admission examination of the patient when Ms. Burley entered the patient's private room to find out what was taking so long. She observed the patient to be fully unclothed with the bed clothes pulled down to the foot of the bed. This was also observed by Mrs. Dick, who, when she entered the room, saw the patient nude and the Respondent there with a stethoscope in her hand. While Ms. Burley does not consider this to be patient abuse, she does consider it to be an abuse of his privacy, poor practice and a violation of the standards of LVT. This opinion is shared by several others employed there, such as Nurse Warren and Mary Willis, a registered nurse of long standing and vast experience who is currently Supervisor of Investigative Services for DPR. Respondent denies that Mr. Bryant was totally unclothed at any time she was with him. When he arrived at the facility, he was in pajamas, and she helped him from the wheelchair to the bed before she began the examination. In order to complete the examination, it was necessary for her to unbutton his pajama top to listen to his chest sounds and to observe his chest movement. She also had to lower his bottoms to examine that part of his body as well, but in each case, she asserts she replaced the clothing when she was finished. In light of the nature of Ms. Burley's and Mrs. Dick's testimony on other aspects of this case, nebulous and devoid of specifics as it was, the fact that both were in the room only briefly and the apparent animosity felt by these witnesses toward the Respondent, the evidence shows that Mr. Bryant was not left totally unclothed at any time. On October 29, 1982, Mrs. Catherine Devore was visiting her husband, Henry, in his private room at LVT when Respondent entered the room to give him his medication. Mr. Devore is blind and has had a stroke and generally is uncommunicative. Because of his resistance to taking his medicine, it is concealed in ice cream which is fed to him. Mrs. Devore indicates that at the time in question, her husband's head was forward with his chin on his chest, and Respondent lifted it up for the medicine by entwining her fingers in the hair at the top of his head and pulling it up. Respondent did not yank his head up, but lifted and held the head up by the hair while she administered the medication. When Respondent released the head, the hair where Respondent had been holding remained standing up. Mrs. Devore did not consider this to be abuse, nor did she feel her husband was hurt by this action. She did, however, consider it unusual and unnecessary and felt that if the Respondent would treat her husband that way with her there, she was uncertain of the treatment he would get if she were not there. As a result, when she got home, she called one of the owners of LVT, to whom she reported the incident and who suggested she report it to the administrator, Mr. Speener, which she did. Respondent indicates a somewhat different story. When she went in to give Mr. Devore his medicine, Mrs. Devore stated, "He's not going to like that," at which point Mr. Devore put his head on his chest. Respondent then put one hand on his head and began to rub it while at the same time placing her other hand on his chin. With this, Mr. Devore voluntarily raised his head. When Respondent moved the hand on top of the head, the hair where she had been rubbing remained standing. In light of the basic improbability that a nurse would, without provocation, grab a patient by the hair and pull his head up with the patient's wife standing by and the fact that the actions described by Respondent could readily be mistaken for pulling, it is clear that Respondent did not pull Mr. Devore's hair on October 29, 1982, and, therefore, her actions did not constitute abuse. No report of abuse was ever filed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services regarding this incident. Because of Mrs. Devore's report, however, Respondent was shortly called to the office of Mr. Eugene K. Speener, administrator of the 20-bed skilled nursing facility at LVT. After some discussion of the incident and of some other discussions they had had relating to Respondent's alleged rigidity of personality, he suggested, and she agreed, that her immediate resignation would be appropriate and accepted. Respondent was not discharged from employment, and her departure had nothing to do with drugs. Unfortunately, however, because of the knowledge of her former difficulty and the continued gossip and insinuations by coworkers, there was always present the spectre of her earlier problem, and Mr. Speener admits telling Respondent he felt it was difficult for her to function as a nurse at that facility because of it. He also included these sentiments in a letter he sent to Ms. Keefe of the Board of Nursing, sometime between October 15 and October 29, 1982. When it was determined that Respondent would resign effective immediately, Mr., Speener called Ms. Burley, who was off duty at the time, and requested that she come in and replace Respondent at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Burley agreed. In the interim, Respondent remained in another office until her departure from LVT sometime between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on October 29, 1982. When Ms. Burley got to the ward that day, she discovered that Respondent had already made entries in various patients' records showing procedures taken, medications given, vital signs taken and patient condition noted, all as of 8:00 p.m., October 29, 1982. Respondent admitted to Ms. Burley before she left that day that she had advance-charted the 8:00 p.m. medications that had not been given, and at the hearing admitted the other advanced chartings. She contends, however, that she did so partially upon the previous written advice of Ms. Burley, who, early in Respondent's tenure at LVT, suggested to her that she lump together three hours' medication at one time. It is also common practice to chart activities at a time other than when the actual function is accomplished. To do otherwise would make it impossible for a person to do what was required and at the same time accomplish the attendant paperwork. It is, however, unacceptable practice within the nursing profession, according to Ms. Willis, to chart substantially in advance. This is because things may change which alter the patient's condition, so that a particular precharted drug, for example, is not actually given, or some procedure is not followed. Generally, a leeway of one half hour on each side of the procedure or drug is acceptable. Somewhat after the submission of her application to Lake Community Hospital, she was employed by that facility as a nurse and is still employed there. According to two former coworkers, Respondent has performed in an excellent manner and has been recommended for promotion. Respondent's drug therapist for the last few years is of the opinion that Respondent is not now, nor was she during the August through October, 1982, period, abusing medications. Respondent is involved in nursing and has continued to improve. In fact, her supervision was terminated as unneeded in March, 1982. It was only because supervision was made a part of the Order of Probation that she is back with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the above, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be reprimanded and that probation be continued one additional year until October 11, 1984. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George L. Waas, Esquire Slepin, Slepin, Lambert & Waas 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504 111 Coastline Drive, East Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the profession of nursing pursuant to Chapters 455 and 464, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been licensed by the Department, license nos. RN 1672492 and 167249A. Respondent holds dual licensure since he is listed as a registered nurse (RN) and an advanced practice RN with specialty (ARNP). In Respondent's case, the advanced specialty practice is in the area of anesthesia. To become licensed as an ARNP, Respondent submitted an application, a fee, and copies of a certification from the Council on Recertification of Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) which included an identification card specifying Respondent's CRNA number to be 24936. Respondent represented, under oath, that the copies were true and correct duplicates of the originals. Based upon this documentation, the Department issued the ARNP license. On or about March 25, 1986, Respondent was employed by the Hialeah Anesthesia Group (HAG). Respondent's supervisor was Manuel B. Torres, M. D., president of HAG. On or about November 30, 1987, Dr. Torres notified Respondent that his employment and privileges at Hialeah Hospital were being suspended. According to Dr. Torres, this suspension was to continue until confirmation was given by the Impaired Nurse Program at South Miami Hospital that Respondent's problem had been corrected. At the same time, Dr. Torres notified the CRNA that Respondent had voluntarily entered an impaired nurse program. Subsequently, Dr. Torres received a letter from Susan Caulk, staff secretary for CRNA, which notified him that, according to CRNA files, Respondent had not passed the certification examination, was not a member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, and that Respondent's CRNA recertification number was not valid. Dr. Torres then notified the Department regarding the certification issue. Later, after Respondent had completed a controlled substance addiction program at Mount Sinai Medical Center, Dr. Torres advised him that, if he could prove his CRNA certification, he could be rehired at Hialeah Hospital. Respondent never returned to demonstrate his certification. An individual who represents himself to be certified as an ARNP when he has not qualified to be so certified has exhibited conduct which falls below the standard of care of the nursing practice. Further, such an individual, by practicing as an advanced practitioner without the educational background, compromises the safety of patient care.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice nursing in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Teresa Iva Smith Lobato (Lobato) was licensed as a Registered Nurse in the state of Florida, holding license number RN-1655102, and was employed by the Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront) located in St. Petersburg, Florida as a Registered Nurse. On May 13, 1990 Lobato was to work the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, and upon arriving for work was told that she was being "floated" from the Coronary Care Unit (CCU) where she regularly worked to the Progressive Care Unit (PCU) where she had never worked. Bayfront had a policy whereby nurses were "floated" from one unit to another, and at the time Lobato was employed by Bayfront she was made aware of this "floating" policy. Floating means that a nurse is assigned temporarily to a unit other than the nurse's regularly assigned unit. On May 12, 1990 Lobato was aware that she was to be "floated" on May 13, 1990, but had informed the Acting Director of CCU that she would rather cancel her work assignment than be "floated". However, upon arriving for work on May 13, 1990, and being told that she was being "floated" to PCU she accepted the assignment on PCU although she was not pleased about the situation. Bayfront has a policy that requires the outgoing nurse to audiotape a report for the oncoming nurse regarding the condition of the patients and any events occurring during the outgoing nurse's shift or if no tape is made to give report verbally to oncoming nurse. Upon arriving at PCU Lobato, along with PCU Charge Nurse (CN), listened to the audiotaped reports from the outgoing nurse on the following patients D. L. L., A. S., E. H., C. L. S., and H. K. As the morning progressed, Lobato became more and more displeased with her assignment, and let her displeasure be known to the PCU Charge Nurse. However, Lobato did not ask to be relieved from her assignment, although there was testimony that she indicated to the CN that she wanted to go home. Although the record is not clear as to the time the following events occurred, the sequence of those events are as follows: Around 9:00 a.m. Lobato was offered help by the CN but declined; Around 9:30 Lobato went on break, and again was offered help but declined; While on break Lobato talked to the Assis- tant Director of Nursing (ADON) about her under- standing of not being required to "float", and became upset with the ADON's response; After returning from break Lobato was again offered help by the CN which she accepted. The CN brought Michelle Nance, Medical Surgical Technician, and two RNs whose first names were Jessica and Melinda to the unit to assist Lobato. Around 10:30 a.m. Lobato and the CN dis- cussed Lobato's patient assignments, and Lobato advised the CN that everything was done, in- cluding all a.m. medication, other than the missing vasotec doses, and that she had some charting to do. Also, the patient's baths had been completed. Shortly after Lobato and the CN discussed her patients' assignments, the ADON came to the unit to determine what was troubling Lobato. The ADON and Lobato met and there was a confrontation wherein Lobato advised the ADON that she was quitting and the ADON advised Lobato that she was fired. After Lobato's confrontation with the ADON, Lobato left the unit and Bayfront without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes, and without giving the CN a report of the patients even though the CN requested her to do so. Lobato's reasons for not giving the CN a report was that she had discussed the patients with the CN throughout the morning, and that the CN knew as much about the patients as did Lobato at that time, and therefore, she had made a verbal report. Lobato's reasons for not completing the charting of her patients' notes was that when the ADON fired her on the spot the ADON accepted full responsibility for the patients, and Lobato's responsibility to both Bayfront and to the patients assigned to her ceased at that time, notwithstanding her understanding of the importance of charting so that appropriate care could be given to the patients on the next shift. By her own admission, Lobato left Bayfront around 10:30 a.m. on May 13, 1991 before the end of her shift without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes and without giving a report to the CN, other than the ongoing report given during the morning. Earlier while Lobato was still on the unit working the CN had obtained two registered nurses (RN) and a medical surgical technician to assist Lobato. One of the nurses whose first name was Jessica (last name not given) was the RN assigned to Lobato's patients by the ADON when Lobato left and she received a report on the patients from Janice Ritchie, CN. (See Respondent's exhibit 1, and Petitioner's exhibit 1 and Janice Ritchies' rebuttal testimony.) Although Lobato's failure to chart the balance of her patients' notes and make a report to the CN before she left may have caused some problems, there was no showing that any patient failed to receive proper care or suffered any harm as a result of Lobato leaving. While some of the patients may not have received all their medication before Lobato left, the record is not clear as to whether the medication was made available to Lobato to administer or that she was shown where the medication was located in the floor stock. The patient is the nurse's primary responsibility, and the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires the nurse, even if fired (unless prevented by the employer from performing her duties), to perform those duties that will assure the patient adequate care provided for after her absence. In this case, the failure of Lobato to compete the charting of her patients' notes and the failure to make a report to the CN, notwithstanding her comments to the CN upon leaving, was unprofessional conduct in that such conduct was a departure from and a failure to conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and that she be given a reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7828 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. 3.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4, respectively. 5.-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 and 5. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 11.-12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 18.-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 and 12, as modified. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Findings of Fact 10, 11, 13 and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 25.-27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 15 and 15, respectively. Paragraph 28 is ambiguous and, therefore, no response. Rejected as not being Finding of Fact but what weight is to be given to that testimony. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Rejected as being argument rather than a Finding of Fact, but if considered a Finding of Fact since there was other evidence presented by other witnesses. The first sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence. The balance of paragraph 3 is neither material nor relevant. Neither material nor relevant, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Neither material nor relevant since the Respondent assisted in selecting those items to be included in Respondent's exhibit 1. First sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 8. The balance of paragraph 7 is argument more so than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 12 and 14. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(c), 12 and 14. 9.-11. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 7(d) and 13. More of a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 8 and 9. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(e) and 9. Not necessary to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. 17.-19. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 20. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. 21.-23. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Teresa Iva Smith Lobato 6870 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastliinne Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Anthony Martin, Respondent, has been a licensed practical nurse with license number PN 0727851 whose last known address is 4041C N.W. 16th Street, Apartment 109, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33313. Respondent was contacted at said address by an investigator employed by Petitioner in May, 1984 and he has not notified Petitioner of any change of address. Although notice of the final hearing was duly sent to Respondent at his last known address, he did not appear. Respondent was employed at St. John's Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a licensed practical nurse from November 30, 1983 until March 8, 1984. During the course of his employment on January 9, 1984 Respondent received a warning notice and a one-day suspension from the Director of Nursing due to a complaint by a coworker who smelled alcohol on his breath while on duty. Respondent's supervisor also smelled alcohol on his breath on that date. Respondent was interviewed by the Director of Nursing who testified that he admitted to having a drinking problem. She referred him to an impaired nurse program for assistance with his drinking problem but he never attended the program. It is contrary to good nursing practice, and is also contrary to the employment policies and standards of St. John's Nursing and Rehabilitation Center to report for duty as a nurse after having consumed alcohol to the extent that it can be smelled on one's breath. Nancy Cox an expert in nursing education testified that such conduct was unprofessional and below minimum nursing standards since the use of alcohol impairs a nurse's ability to respond to nursing care emergencies and to exercise sound nursing judgment. Cox also testified that an indication of an alcohol problem was a belligerent and uncaring attitude in dealing with patients. Respondent's employment records contain complaints from patients about his hostile and uncaring attitude while on duty. On February 7, 1984 Respondent received a second warning notice concerning his lack of proper care to a tracheostomy patient which resulted in a medical emergency. Respondent was on the 3:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m. shift at the time. During his shift, a nurse's aide asked Respondent to assist a tracheostomy patient on two occasions. Respondent looked in on the patient but did not administer suction or any other care. On a third occasion the aide asked Respondent to care for the patient and he did not even look in on the patient. Before leaving the floor at 11:30 p.m. after her shift, the same aide again looked in on the tracheostomy patient and saw that the patient was in distress and in immediate need of care. The aide got her supervisor who found that the patient was blue. Attempts to clear the air passage with suction were unsuccessful, and the patient had to be transferred to a hospital for emergency care. The expert in nursing education, Nancy Cox, testified that Respondent's actions in dealing with this patient were unprofessional and below minimum standards. Cox explained that a tracheostomy patient cannot verbalize his need for care so extra attention must be paid to patient needs by the nurse on duty, particularly for blockages of the airway. Each occasion when Respondent simply looked in on the patient but failed to administer suction, and the one occasion when he totally ignored this patient's needs constituted unprofessional conduct, in Cox's opinion. Petitioner presented evidence of a third incident on February 25, 1984 involving a diabetic-patient and the care rendered to said patient by Respondent which resulted in a third warning notice against Respondent. The diabetic patient vomited around 7:30 p.m. and lapsed into a coma at 9:10 p.m. Respondent did not check this patient's blood sugar level after the vomiting, which he should have according to Cox, nor did he call this to his supervisor's attention. The parties were allowed to submit proposed findings of fact after the hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S., and a ruling on each proposed finding that was submitted has been made in this Recommended Order, either directly or indirectly, except where proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, immaterial, unnecessary, irrelevant or unduly repetitious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued revoking Respondent's license but providing that he may apply for reinstatement if, within one (1) year from the issuance of the Final Order Respondent submits to, and successfully completes an impaired nurse program to be designated by the Department of Professional Regulation and Hoard of Nursing at his own expense. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 24th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony Martin 4041C NW 16th Street Apartment 109 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33313 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville Florida 32202 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301
