The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons given in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Nursing (Board), has alleged that Respondent, Sheila Key, a licensed practical nurse, failed to conform to minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice while employed as a practical nurse at Florida Christian Health Center (FCHC), in Jacksonville, Florida, in the Fall of 1999. Respondent holds license number PN 0792331 issued by the Board. The allegations against Respondent arose as a result of a routine Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) licensure survey of the facility on October 1, 1999. On that date, an AHCA survey team found an elderly resident with a head injury whose nursing notes had not been properly charted; a resident in the recreation area with blood on her gown and requiring medical attention; and a third resident with unattended sores on his ankles. All were under the direct care of Respondent. As to the first resident, the Board charged Respondent with failing to document the resident's head injury or condition in her nursing notes. In the second case, she was charged with failing to notify a physician or other responsible party in a timely manner about the injury and applying "steri-strips without a physician's order." Finally, Respondent was charged with failing and refusing "to comply with the surveyors' request" that she "remove [the patient's] socks so the ankle area on his feet could be observed." Each of these charges will be discussed separately below. Around 5:15 p.m. on September 30, 1999, A. B., an eighty-seven-year-old male resident at FCHC, acidentally fell and sustained an injury to his head that required emergency room treatment. A. B. returned to FCHC from the emergency room sometime after 9:00 p.m. Respondent reported for duty at 7:00 p.m. that same evening. Although good nursing practice dictated that Respondent promptly perform a neurological check on A. B. after he returned from the hospital, she failed to do so and did not perform one until 7:00 a.m. the next day (October 1). Even then, she failed to document any of her findings in the resident's nursing notes. By failing to document "the fall or his condition" in the nursing notes until the morning following the injury, Respondent failed to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable prevailing nursing practice. Around 7:40 a.m. on October 1, 1999, M. C. suffered a laceration on her neck while being transferred from her bed to a wheelchair. Respondent applied steri-strips to the wound, but she did not have a physician's order to do so. Also, she failed to document the neck wound or her treatment of the wound until 10:45 a.m., or more than three hours later. Finally, M. C.'s physician was not notified about the injury until around 12:15 p.m. FCHC has a written policy entitled "Changes in a Resident's Condition Status," which requires that the nurse promptly notify the resident, the resident's physician, and the resident's family of changes in the resident's condition. Thus, a nurse must notify the resident's attending physician and family whenever the resident is involved in any accident or incident that results in an injury. If the injury is of an emergency nature, such notification is required within thirty minutes to an hour. The evidence establishes that M. C.'s injury was of a type that required notification within this short time period. By waiting for almost five hours to notify M. C.'s physician about the injury, Respondent failed to conform with minimally acceptable nursing practices. She also violated the same standard by applying steri-strips to the injury without a doctor's order. Finally, she failed to conform to minimally acceptable nursing practices by not charting the injury in the nursing notes until more than three hours had elapsed. During the October 1, 1999, inspection, a member of the survey team asked Respondent to remove the socks and dressings on J. R., a resident. The request was made since the team could see a brown discharge on the inner aspects of his socks. Respondent would not do so, and eventually an assistant director of nursing performed that task. After the socks were removed, the survey team found old dressings through which drainage had soaked. They also observed sores that had thick yellow or serosanguinous drainage. Even though the sores had been there for at least a week or so, dressings had been previously applied, and the soaked socks were clearly visible, Respondent had failed to check the resident and was therefore unaware of his condition. Despite this omission, however, Respondent was only charged with failing and refusing "to comply with the surveyors' request," and not with inappropriate conduct with respect to the care of the resident. By failing to respond to a reasonable and legitimate request to remove the resident's socks so that a suspicious area could be observed, Respondent failed to conform to minimally acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice. Respondent failed to admit responsibility for any of the foregoing violations. As to the resident with the neck wound, Respondent contended that the wound was not serious. However, it was serious enough that the resident's physician believed emergency room treatment was necessary. Respondent also contended that the assistant director of nursing (Widhalm) advised her that she (Widhalm) would call M. C.'s physician, an assertion which Widhalm credibly denied. Respondent further contended that she failed to chart A. B.'s nursing notes because the chart was in the hands of the surveyors. Under those circumstances, however, acceptable protocol requires that the nurse request the return of the notes so that essential information can be timely recorded. Finally, Respondent contended that the surveyor had told her that she could finish her "medication pass" before removing the socks and could do so whenever she had time. This assertion is not deemed to be credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the violations described in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent be fined $1,000.00, given a reprimand, and placed on probation for two years subject to such conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruth R. Stiehl, PhD., R.N., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3231A 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sheila Key 3651 Dignan Street Jacksonville, Florida 32254 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a registered nurse's license, No. RN 1992962, and has at all material times. In May of 1989, as an employee of Kimberly Nurse Travelers, an agency with whom Bay Medical Center had contracted for his services, he worked as a nurse at Bay Medical Center in Panama City, Florida. While working the night shift as the triage nurse on May 12, 1989, respondent helped himself to a Darvocet N-100, a pill he ingested 20 minutes later. At the time and at hearing under oath, he said he took the pill because he had a headache. Darvocet is a prescription drug, and respondent had no prescription for it. But petitioner's own witness conceded that Darvocet "is not considered a drug of choice for people that have a problem with drugs" (T.61) and should not, in the dosage respondent took, "impair someone's judgment and ability to perform." T.66. A co-worker reported respondent, who was in plain view when he took the pill from the cart. Later the night of May 12, 1991, at the behest of supervising personnel, respondent supplied a urine specimen, which tested positive for benzodiazepine, possibly the residue of the 15-milligram Dalmane tablet respondent took the night before, when he was off duty. Respondent's co-workers who testified found no fault with his performance as a nurse, this incident aside. But theft of the Darvocet pill, and its ingestion on duty without a prescription, violated hospital policy and fell below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, Rule 21O- 10.011(2)(j), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes penalties for infractions of Rule 21O-10.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, of reprimand, fine, probation and/or suspension. Nothing was proven in aggravation. In mitigation, it was shown that this was a first offense, apparently an isolated occurrence. It is, accordingly, recommended that petitioner reprimand respondent, and levy an administrative fine against him in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500). RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 13th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 323990-0792 Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Carol C. Murphy, Esquire Post Office Box 1084 Lakeland, FL 33802
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joann Jensen, graduated from the University of Nebraska with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing in 1972. She became licensed as a Registered Nurse in Florida, but upon moving back to the North she let the license lapse. When she returned to Florida in 1976 she was reinstated as a Registered Nurse, and she now holds license number 70429-2 issued by the Board of Nursing. Thereafter the Respondent became employed at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, and was assigned to the nursery where she became charge nurse in August of 1977. She held this position during the March-October, 1979, period which is involved in this proceeding. In October of 1979 the Respondent was transferred out of the nursery into a medical/surgical adult unit at Holy Cross Hospital, where she remained for about six months, when she left the hospital to work for a private nursing agency. Between March and October of 1979 the Respondent was observed by six nurses on several occasions when she continued to feed infants after they had begun to choke, gag and struggle for air. Specific occurrences were described with reference to infant's named Baby Mandell, Baby Saul, Baby Riccobono, Baby McDaniel, Baby Fast, Baby Davis, Baby Pierce, and Baby Fletch, although precise time frames were not uniformly established. Other instances were described generally without reference to any particular infant. The Respondent was further observed to have tube-fed an infant to the point where its abdomen became distended, to have forced liquid into an infant after it had been breast fed by the mother, and to have manipulated the nipple of a bottle in the mouth of an infant in a rough manner so as to increase the flow of fluid into the mouth. On at least one occasion an infant turned blue and required suction to clear its passages. This form of handling of infants by the Respondent continued from March of 1979 until October when she was transferred to an adult-care unit. The testimony of the six nurses presented by the Petitioner also establishes that the Respondent used what is known as the Crede Maneuver to induce newly circumcised infants to urinate. This is a procedure used by some nurses in which the bladder is massaged gently until urination occurs. However, the manner in which the Respondent performed this procedure was forceful and rough, resulting in painful screams from infants. On one occasion there was no stated medical reason for use of the Crede Maneuver on the infant except that the Respondent wanted to have the chart show that urination had occurred during her shift. The evidence further establishes that the Respondent cursed and used foul language in the nursery, and that in one instance this was directed at an infant when the mask used to protect its eyes under the bilirubin lights kept slipping off its face. Placing an infant under bilirubin lights with its eyes masked for protection is a procedure designed to break-down excessive bilirubin in the blood when this is a problem. Although the Complaint did not specifically allege that the Respondent's language in the nursery would be an issue, this evidence was received without objection, but has been accorded no weight by the Hearing Officer. The evidence presented by the Petitioner's expert witness establishes the fact that conduct such as described above, if true, is not acceptable nursing practice, and deviates from the minimum standards established for and prevailing in the nursing profession. Based upon the observed candor and demeanor of all the witnesses, the evidence presented by the Petitioner has been accorded sufficient weight to support the findings of fact set forth herein. No evidence was presented to show that these facts were in accordance with good nursing practice; thus, the evidence warrants a finding that the Respondent's conduct failed to conform to and departed from the standards of acceptable nursing practice. The testimony of the Respondent and her witnesses, and other evidence, amounted to a denial that the occurrences took place, that the Respondent was not working on at least one date when the conduct described was observed, that the charts and records do not corroborate the facts charged, and that the Petitioner's witnesses were engaged in a conspiracy against the Respondent. However, the testimony of the three nurses on behalf of the Respondent establishes no more than that they have not observed the conduct described by the other nurses. There was no corroborative testimony relative to a conspiracy among the Petitioner's witnesses. Further, the occurrences described took place over a prolonged time period, and involved numerous infants. There is no particular significance to the failure of the charts to contain notations confirming the observations of the nurses, or that the Respondent was not shown by the records to have been on duty the particular date of only one incident. The Respondent's former supervisor related one instance when a mother complained that the Respondent had been rough with her infant. An investigation resulted, from which she concluded that the Respondent might have been rough with the baby. This witness also thought there was some merit to the complaints that nurses made of the Respondent's treatment of infants, although she continued to give the Respondent good performance evaluations. In summary, there was not sufficient evidence presented by the Respondent to support her own self-serving denial and assertion of a conspiracy against her, or to effectively rebut the clear and convincing testimony presented in support of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number 70429-2 authorizing the Respondent, Joann Jensen, to practice as a registered nurse, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 25 day of September, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 25 day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie S. Hotaling, Esquire 1523 North East 4th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue The issues under consideration here are based upon an Administrative Complaint in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0104255. Through this complaint, the Petitioner has accused the Respondent of violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida statutes related to a claim that she has acted unprofessionally in her nursing practice. The Operative paragraphs of that complaint are as follows: At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed at Methodist Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida. On or about August 15, 1988, while working the 3-11 shift, the Respondent felt ill due to her pregnancy and telephoned the nurse manager from the previous shift to obtain permission to leave. The Respondent was granted permission to leave, but she neglected to inform the nurse manager that an agency nurse had failed to report in and that another nurse had threatened to leave if the Respondent was allowed to do so. The despondent's absence left only one nurse to care for twenty patients, and she failed to convey this information to the nurse manager prior to departing.
Findings Of Fact In those times pertinent to the dispute, Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse by the State of Florida, under license number RN-1271152. On August 15, 1988, Respondent was working as a staff nurse at Methodist Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida. Her shift on that day was from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in a medical/surgical floor, which is referred to as "3 Plaza II". On that shift, she was the Charge Nurse among the four nurses who were to work that shift. The other nurses scheduled to work on that shift were Rachel Calhoun, Rizalina Chu, and a nurse to be assigned from an agency other than Methodist Hospital. The person that the referring agency intended to send to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift was Helen Lesters. In addition, Theresa Harrison was a nursing assistant assigned to that shift. The nurses were responsible for the care of 19 patients, with the expectation that an additional patient would be admitted to that floor during the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift. The shift responsibilities for the Respondent and the other nurses had been established by Juliete Williams, R.N. who had worked the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift at "3 Plaza II", and whose position at that time was one of Head Nurse or Nurse Manager. The schedule that Williams had prepared anticipated that each nurse on the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift would be responsible for five patients. The Nurse Assistant, Theresa Harrison, was not contemplated as having responsibility in this connection because she was not capable of performing nursing duties. Helen Lesters had been hired through Nurse Finders of Jacksonville through the efforts and coordination on the part of Methodist Hospital and its Staffing Coordinator Helen McGrath. When Respondent arrived at work at 3:13 p.m. on August 15, 1987, she was not feeling well, suffering moderate discomfort associated with a condition known as round ligament pain. That ailment is a sporadic condition common to pregnancy. On August 15, 1989, Respondent was five months pregnant. The round ligament pain had also been prevalent on August 5, 1987. Again, on August 14, 1988, when Respondent went to work, she was not feeling well because of that problem. When she went home that evening after her shift, she was tossing and turning and didn't feel well because of round ligament pain. The scheduling that had been arranged by Ms. Williams was to meet an acuity level related to the patients in a setting which three nurses and an aide was allowed as a staff component. An extra nurse had been placed on that shift. The beginning of the 3:00 pm. - 11:00 pm. shift was somewhat hectic. Somewhere along the way, it was noted that Ms. Lesters had not shown up for her shift. Under those circumstances, there was a discussion between the Respondent and Ms. Calhoun about going home in view of the fact that Ms. Lesters had not come in. 9 The situation of a missing nurse was not uncommon in the hospital and Respondent and Ms. Calhoun had commented on the problems of working with a shortage in nursing staff on other occasions. Throughout the time that Respondent remained at the hospital on August 15, 1988, she was experiencing discomfort in her pregnancy associated with round ligament pain. That condition intensified while she was there. Theresa Harrison called Frona Montgomery to advise Ms. Montgomery that the agency nurse, Ms. Lesters, had not arrived. That call took place sometime before 3:30 p.m. Ms. Montgomery was the Clinical Coordinator at Methodist Hospital on the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift and as such was responsible for nurses on five floors to include "3 Plaza II". This made her Respondent's immediate supervisor on that date. Under these circumstances, Ms. Montgomery called Helen McGrath, Staffing Coordinator for Methodist Hospital who attempted to find out from Nurse Finders, the agency, why Ms. Lesters had not come in for her shift. She was told that Ms.. Lesters was having babysitting problems and that no substitute nurses were available from that agency. Ms. McGrath's attempts to find replacement nurses from other referral agencies was unsuccessful. The call from Ms. Montgomery to Ms. McGrath to explain the problem took place around 3:15 p.m. Ms. McGrath also tried to call in 8 or 10 nurses on the Methodist Hospital staff, but without success. McGrath became aware of a message from Respondent which had been left around 3:00 p.m. McGrath returned that call around 4:00 p.m. and spoke to Ms. Calhoun and told Ms. Calhoun that the agency nurse was not going to show but an attempt was being made to replace her. Ms. Calhoun told Mrs. McGrath that Respondent was going home and if she went home, Ms. Calhoun would also go home. Around 3:30 p.m., Respondent called Ms. Montgomery and told Ms. Montgomery that if the hospital did not get an agency nurse, a replacement, that Respondent was going home because she was sick. Ms. Montgomery responded that that floor was allocated another nurse and that Ms. Montgomery was working to get one and that she thought they should be able to get one. Ms. Montgomery had in mind calling persons such as Sylvia Brooks and Helen Brown, nurses from the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift and others as well. Ms. Montgomery had had success in the past with getting Sylvia Brooks to come in. Ms. Montgomery did not give the Respondent permission to leave her floor. Respondent's circumstance was not such a dire emergency that she would have been justified in leaving without being relieved. Not long after Respondent called Ms. Montgomery, Ms. Montgomery received a call from Ms. Calhoun who stated that, "if Respondent goes home, I'm going home too." Although Respondent had heard Ms. Calhoun express her intention to leave if Respondent left, she did not communicate this information to Ms. Montgomery nor did the Respondent describe to Ms. Montgomery the fact of the non- appearance of Ms. Lester or a replacement for her. Nonetheless, Ms. Montgomery was aware of the missing agency nurse and stated intentions of Ms. Calhoun to leave if Respondent did. Around 4:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned Ms. Williams and told Ms. Williams that she was ill and had to leave. Ms. Williams asked Respondent if she had spoken to Ms. Montgomery and Respondent stated that she had. Ms. Williams then replied "O.K.". The impression that Ms. Williams was given out of this conversation was that Ms. Montgomery had allowed the Respondent to leave. Moreover at that time, Ms. Williams did not realize that the situation on the floor would be something other than three nurses remaining and a Nursing Assistant. Respondent without revealing the true nature of the circumstance to Ms. Williams, understood Ms. Williams' statement of "O.K" to mean that Respondent had permission to leave. In not telling Ms. Williams of the fact of the missing agency nurse and Ms. Calhoun's protestations about staying if Respondent left, she mislead Ms. Williams and any implicit permission to leave given by Ms. Williams was without value. Sometime past 4:00 p.m., nurse Chu called Ms. Montgomery because Respondent said she had called Ms. Williams and that she, Respondent, was going home. In addition, Ms. Calhoun was carrying her pocketbook as if to leave. In the conversation with Ms. Montgomery, Ms. Chu asked Ms. Montgomery if she was aware that Ms. Brown and Ms. Calhoun were going home and that Ms. Chu would be by herself. Ms. Montgomery replied that she wasn't aware and that Ms. Chu should not let Respondent and Ms. Calhoun leave because Ms. Montgomery was trying to get help. Ms. Chu then told the Respondent and Ms. Calhoun not to go home. In the conversation between Ms. Chu and Ms. Montgomery, Ms. Montgomery told Ms. Chu to explain to the Respondent and Ms. Calhoun not to leave because Ms. Montgomery believed that Lisa would come in. This refers to Lisa Jenkins who works as a nurse and who is normally on the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift with the Respondent and Ms. Calhoun. When Ms. Chu told the Respondent that Ms. Montgomery was calling Lisa Jenkins, Respondent said that she did not believe that. When it was apparent to Ms. Chu that the Respondent and Ms. Calhoun were leaving, she attempted to call Ms. Montgomery again and the line was busy. As a consequence, she called Ms. Williams and in that conversation she stated to Ms. Williams that she wanted Ms. Williams to be aware that Ms. Chu was by herself and that the Respondent and Ms. Calhoun were going. Respondent and Ms. Calhoun were at the elevator door at that moment. During this conversation, Ms. Calhoun and Respondent left the floor. Ms. Williams told Ms. Chu to tell them that they could not do that. Ms. Chu replied, "Well, they're gone". Ms. Williams said that she would then come in. Respondent and Ms. Calhoun left the floor around 4:35 p.m. Ms. Montgomery came to help Ms. Chu around 4:45 p.m. In the interim, Ms. Chu was left alone to serve the needs of the 19 patients. Ms. Montgomery is a nurse and could offer assistance as a nurse. Fortunately, no problems occurred with the patients in the absence of an adequate nursing staff. Ms. Williams arrived on the floor around 5:20 p.m. and Ms. Brooks thereafter. According to Ms. Williams whose opinion is accepted, it was necessary to have at least two nurses on duty on "3 Plaza II" on the date in question. The patients who were on the floor were regular medical patients with one or two recovering from surgery. The person responsible for the Respondent in a supervisory capacity on a shift 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. on August 15, 1988 was Ms. Montgomery. Respondent did not receive her permission to leave and should have not have left with Ms. Calhoun before relief help arrived. In doing so, Respondent left Ms. Chu to contend with a situation in which the patient acuity demanded more of a response in nursing staff. While it is recognized that the Respondent was experiencing some discomfort due to her pregnancy, the more prudent course of conduct would have been to advise the hospital of her illness before coming to work so that some attempt might be made to gain a replacement. Having determined to attend her duties, it was incumbent upon her to remain in her place of employment until a replacement nurse could be found.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered which finds the Respondent in violation of Section 464.018(1) (f), Florida Statutes for reasons described and places the Respondent on probationary for a period of one year commensurate with terms which the Board feels would be advantageous to the rehabilitation of despondent. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings 1550 CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Hearings 1989. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 19th day of October, APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following discussion is made of the proposed facts of the parties: PETITIONER'S FACTS 1.-18. subordinate to facts found. 19.-20. The facts in which it is suggested that Respondent had not informed Ms. Montgomery that Ms. Calhoun might also appear are Ms. leave or the failure of the agency nurse to not significant under the circumstance in which Montgomery knew those facts. 21.-22. Subordinate to facts found. 23. Contrary to the facts found. 24.-27. Subordinate to facts found. The initial sentence within paragraph 28 is contrary to facts found. The latter sentence in that paragraph is a correct statement but not necessary. Subordinate to facts found. Not proven. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts found. 33.-34. Not significant in that Ms. Montgomery knew of the from proposed the Ms. circumstances without reference to information Respondent. Additionally, these references in fact finding as well as previous references in proposed fact findings as to the duty to disclose Montgomery do not track the Administrative Complaint in which the allegation is the failure to disclose to Ms. means Williams and may not be properly considered as a of discipline against Respondent. 35.-36. Subordinate to facts found. 37. Is relevant. RESPONDENT'S FACTS 1. Is a reiteration of the statement of the Issues. Subordinate to the facts found. 7. Correct as far as it is stated. What it neglects to receive shift. do, is to indicate that the Respondent did not permission from Ms. Montgomery to leave her COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth E. Easley Department of Professional Regulation General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Courtney Johnson, Esquire The Law Exchange Building 24 North Market Street Suite 400 Jacksonville, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint dated March 14, 1989; 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, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, Respondent has been licensed as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) in the State of Florida, license no. PN 35080-1. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of nursing within the State of Florida. During the month of September, 1988, Respondent was employed as a night-shift LPN at Parkside, a residential treatment facility for psychiatric patients. On or about September 25, 1988, Respondent attempted to administer the morning medication to a resident patient, J.L. The patient refused the applesauce (which contained the medicine) and struck the Respondent across the wrist with great force. J.L. had been scheduled for a pass (an opportunity to leave the grounds) that day, but following the incident described in paragraph 3, Respondent decided to revoke J.L.'s privilege. When Respondent informed J.L. that the pass was revoked, J.L. became very agitated. Respondent summoned a fellow worker, Pressoir Berrouet, to assist and to restrain J.L. At some point in time between the activities described in paragraphs 3 and 4, Respondent went to her personal automobile and retrieved a stunning apparatus which she owns for her self-protection. Respondent took the "zapper" or "stun gun" to the patio area of the facility where Mr. Berrouet had secured J.L. in a chair. While J.L. was not restrained by bonds (physical restraints are impermissible at this type of facility), Mr. Berrouet had his hands on the patient's arms so that she was effectively pinned and unable to exit the chair. By this time, Lilli McCain, a day-shift employee at Parkside, had arrived at the facility. She observed Respondent approach J.L. who was still pinned in the chair on the patio. Ms. McCain observed a "black something" in Respondent's hand and witnessed Respondent touch J.L. with the instrument. She then heard J.L. scream out, "you pinched me." Respondent had purportedly "zapped" J.L. Moments later, Ms. McCain observed a red mark on J.L.'s chest. Mr. Berrouet had his back to Respondent through out the time of the incident described in paragraph 6. Consequently, he did not see the Respondent touch the resident, J.L. He did, however, hear a click noise which immediately preceded the scream from J.L. Respondent was upset at having been struck by J.L. Subsequent to the events described above, she resigned from her employment at Parkside. Respondent admitted to Laurie Shifrel, the nursing supervisor at Parkside, that she had used a "zapper" on the resident, J.L. Respondent also told Deborah Moon, the residential program coordinator for the Henderson Mental Health Center (a company which owns Parkside), that she had used a "zapper" on the resident, J.L. At hearing, Respondent testified that she did not use the stunning apparatus on J.L. but admitted she had taken the instrument onto the property to frighten J.L. The more compelling proof demonstrates, however, that Respondent did use the stunning apparatus on J.L. Parkside policy did not require residents to take medications against their will. If a resident refused medication, the proper procedure was to note that information on the patient chart so that the physician could be informed. Restraints were not used at Parkside to control resident behavior. In the event a resident were to become uncontrollable, the operating procedures required that the nursing supervisor be called to the facility or 911 for Baker Act referral depending on the severity of the resident's misconduct. J.L. did not have a history of becoming physically abusive at Parkside. It is not acceptable nursing practice to strike a psychiatric patient or to use a shocking device to curb undesirable behavior. Such conduct falls below the minimal acceptable standard for nursing care. Further, given J.L.'s history, it would be inappropriate to attempt to scare J.L. by a threatened use of such a device. Respondent was sincerely remorseful that she had brought the device onto the Parkside property. Evidence regarding a proper penalty, in the event a violation were found to have occurred, was not offered at the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the violation alleged, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of one year, requiring the Respondent to attend and complete such CE courses as may be appropriate, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalache Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-2944 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The portion of paragraph 2 which is addressed in finding of fact paragraph 3, is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 6 through the first four sentences of paragraph 9 are accepted. The fifth sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The last sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted. The remainder of paragraph 11 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 12 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. To the extent the facts are set forth in findings of fact paragraphs 3 through 8, paragraphs 13 through 22 are accepted; otherwise rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. The first two sentences of paragraph 23 are accepted. The remainder is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 30 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Jane Frances O'Leary 5295 15th Terrace, N.E. Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF NURSING DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. DPR CASE NO.: 0106973 DOAH CASE NO.: 89-2944 JANE F. O'LEARY, Respondent. /
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 The issue is whether Ms. Battaglia is guilty of violations of the Nursing Practice Act by being unable to account for controlled substances at the close of her shift at a nursing home and by being under the influence of controlled substances during her shift.
Findings Of Fact All findings have been adopted except proposed findings 27 through 33, which are generally rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith V. Battaglia 7819 Blairwood Circle North Lake Worth, Florida 38087 Lisa M. Bassett, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that: Ms. Battaglia be found guilty of the charges of unprofessional conduct in the delivery of nursing services, unlawful possession of controlled substances and impairment; She be fined $250, that she be required to participate in the treatment program for impaired nurses, that her licensure be suspended until she successfully completes that program, and demonstrates the ability to practice nursing with safety, and that she be placed on probation for a period of five years. DONE and ENTERED this 11 day of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 11 day of October, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Avante was licensed by Petitioner as a skilled nursing facility. Avante operates a 116-bed nursing home located in Leesburg, Florida. On or about March 28, 2002, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. On or about May 13, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the May 13, 2002, survey, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. Resident E.S. was admitted to Avante on March 11, 2002, with diagnoses including e. coli sepsis, anemia, and schizophrenia with an order for serum albumin levels to be performed "now and yearly." Resident E.S.'s resident chart failed to reflect that a serum albumin test had been performed for Resident E.S. at any time from the date of his admission on March 11, 2002, until March 28, 2002. Avante failed to follow the orders of Resident E.S.'s physician due to its failure to perform a serum albumin test on Resident E.S. at any time between March 11, 2002, and March 28, 2002. Resident R.L. was admitted to Respondent's facility on May 6, 2002 with diagnoses including gastrointestinal hemorrhage, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, A-fib, pneumonia, diverticulitis, gout, fracture of right arm, and cancer of the prostate. Resident R.L.'s resident chart reflects that Resident R.L. was neither offered or administered Tylenol by Avante's staff at any time between May 9, 2002, and May 13, 2002. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record The correction date given to Respondent for the deficiency cited, Tag F281(D), as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation was April 28, 2002. Respondent does not dispute the deficiency cited by AHCA as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation. Thus, facts and circumstances surrounding the May 13, 2002, survey visit to Avante is the source of this dispute. The purpose of the May 13, 2002 survey visit to Avante by AHCA was for annual certification or licensure. In an annual license survey, a group of surveyors goes to a facility to determine if the facility is in compliance with state and federal requirements and regulations. Part of the process is to tour the facility, meet residents, record reviews, and talk to families and friends of the residents. During the licensure visit on May 13, 2002, the records of 21 residents were reviewed. Stephen Burgin is a registered nurse and is employed by AHCA as a registered nurse specialist. He has been employed by AHCA for three years and has been licensed as a nurse for six years. He also has experience working in a hospital ER staging unit and in a hospital cardiology unit. Nurse Burgin has never worked in a nursing home. Nurse Burgin conducted the complaint investigation on March 28, 2002, and was team leader for the licensure survey visit on May 13, 2002, at Avante. He was accompanied on the May 13, 2002, visit by Selena Beckett, who is employed by AHCA as a social worker. Both Nurse Burgin and Ms. Beckett are Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT) certified. During the course of the May 13, 2002, licensure survey visit, Ms. Beckett interviewed Resident R.L. As a result of this interview, Ms. Beckett examined Resident R.L.'s medication administration record (MAR) to determine whether he was receiving pain medication for his injured left elbow. As a result of reviewing Resident R.L.'s record, Ms. Beckett became aware of a fax cover sheet which related to Resident R.L. The fax cover sheet was dated May 8, 2002, from Nancy Starke, who is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse, to Dr. Sarmiento, Resident R.L.'s attending physician. The box labeled "Please comment" was checked and the following was hand written in the section entitled "comments": "Pt refused Augmentin 500 mg BID today states it causes him to have hallucinations would like tyl for pain L elbow." According to Nurse Starke, the fax to Dr. Sarmiento addressed two concerns: Resident R.L.'s refusal to take Augmentin and a request for Tylenol for pain for Resident R.L.'s left elbow. She faxed the cover sheet to Dr. Sarmiento during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on May 8, 2002. Despite her fax to Dr. Sarmiento, which mentioned pain in R.L.'s left elbow, her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002, reflect that Resident R.L. was alert, easygoing, and happy. He was verbal on that day meaning that he was able to make his needs known to her. Her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002 contain the notation: "Pt refused augmentin today. Dr. Sarmiento faxed." According to Nurse Starke, she personally observed Resident R.L. and did not observe any expression of pain on May 8, 2002, nor did Resident R.L. request pain medication after she sent the fax to Dr. Sarmiento. The fax cover sheet also contained the hand written notation: "Document refused by PT. OK 5/9/02" with initials which was recognized by nurses at Avante as that of Dr. Sarmiento. The fax sheet has a transmission line which indicates that it was faxed back to Avante the evening of May 9, 2002. Nurse Starke also provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11, 2002. According to Nurse Starke, Resident R.L. did not complain of pain on May 11, 2002. Theresa Miller is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Miller provided care to Resident R.L. on May 9 and 10, 2002, during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Nurse Miller's nurses notes for May 9 and 10, 2002, reflect that she observed Resident R.L. to be alert, easygoing, and happy. Her notes also reflect that Resident R.L. was verbal on those dates, meaning that he was able to tell her if he needed anything. She did not observe Resident R.L. to have any expression of pain on those dates, nor did Resident R.L. express to her that he was in any pain. Vicki Cannon is a licensed practical nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Cannon has been a licensed practical nurse and has worked in nursing homes since 1998. Nurse Cannon provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11 and 12, 2002, on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Her nurse's notes for May 11, 2002 reflect that Resident R.L. was sullen but alert and verbal. Resident R.L. had blood in his urine and some discomfort. Nurse Cannon contacted Dr. Sarmiento by telephone on May 11, 2002, to inform him of Resident R.L.'s symptoms that day. Nurse Cannon noted on Resident R.L.'s physician order sheet that she received a telephone order from Dr. Sarmiento to give Resident R.L. Ultram PRN and Levaquin, discontinue Augmentin, order BMP and CBC blood work, and a urology consult. Ultram is an anti-inflammatory and a pain medication. Ultram is stronger than Tylenol. The notation "PRN" means as requested by the patient for pain. Levaquin is an antibiotic. Nurse Cannon faxed the order to the pharmacy at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. By the time Nurse Cannon left Avante for the day on May 11, 2002, the Ultram had not arrived from the pharmacy. On May 12, 2002, Resident R.L. had edema of the legs and blood in his urine. Nurse Cannon notified Dr. Sarmiento of Resident R.L.'s symptoms. Resident R.L. was sent to the emergency room for evaluation based on Dr. Sarmiento's orders. Additionally, Nurse Cannon called the pharmacy on May 12, 2002, to inquire about the Ultram as it had not yet arrived at the facility. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002. Alice Markham is a registered nurse and is the Director of Nursing at Avante. She has been a nurse for more than 20 years and has been employed at Avante for a little over two years. She also has worked in acute care at a hospital. Nurse Markham is familiar with Resident R.L. She described Resident R.L. as alert until the period of time before he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. She was not aware of any expressions of pain by Resident R.L. between May 9, 2002 until he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. Nurse Markham meets frequently with her nursing staff regarding the facility's residents. During the licensure survey, Nurse Markham became aware of Ms. Beckett's concerns regarding Resident R.L. and whether he had received Tylenol. She called Dr. Sarmiento to request an order for Tylenol for R.L. The physician order sheet for R.L. contains a notation for a telephone order for Tylenol "PRN" on May 14, 2002, for joint pain and the notation, "try Tylenol before Ultram." The medical administration record for R.L. indicates that Resident R.L. received Ultram on May 13 and and began receiving Tylenol on May 15, 2002. AHCA 's charge of failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement physician orders is based on the "OK" notation by Dr. Sarmiento on the above-described fax and what AHCA perceives to be Avante's failure to follow and implement that "order" for Tylenol for Resident R.L. AHCA nurse and surveyor Burgin acknowledged that the "OK" on the fax cover sheet was not an order as it did not specify dosage or frequency. He also acknowledged that the nursing home could not administer Tylenol based on Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" on the fax cover sheet, that it would not be appropriate to forward the "OK" to the pharmacy, that it should not have been placed on the resident's medication administration record, and that it should not have been administered to the resident. However, Nurse Burgin is of the opinion that the standard practice of nursing is to clarify such an "order" and once clarified, administer the medication as ordered. He was of the opinion that Avante should have clarified Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" for Tylenol on May 9, 2002, rather than on May 14, 2002. Nurse Burgin also was of the opinion that it should have been reflected on the resident's medication administration record and treatment record or TAR. In Nurse Markham's opinion, "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet does not constitute a physician's order for medication as it does not contain dosage or frequency of administration. Nurse Markham is also of the opinion that it should not have been forwarded to the pharmacy, transcribed to the medication administration record, or transcribed on the treatment administration record. According to Nurse Markham, doctor's orders are not recorded on the treatment administration record of a resident. Nurse Markham is of the opinion that the nursing staff at Avante did not deviate from the community standard for nursing in their care of Resident R.L. from May 8, 2002 to May 14, 2002. Nurse Cannon also is of the opinion that the "OK" by Dr. Sarmiento does not constitute a physician's order for medication. The Administrative Complaints cited Avante for failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement a physician's order. Having considered the opinions of Nurses Burgin, Markham, and Cannon, it is clear that the "OK" notation of Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet did not constitute a physician's order. Without Dr. Sarmiento's testimony, it is not entirely clear from a review of the fax cover sheet that the "OK" relates to the reference to Tylenol or the reference to Resident R.L.'s refusal of Augmentin. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to follow a physician's order in May 2002. As to AHCA's assertion that Avante failed to meet professional standards by not clarifying the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento, this constitutes a different reason or ground than stated in the Administrative Complaints. Failure to clarify an order is not the equivalent of failure to follow an order. There is insufficient nexus between the deficiency cited on March 28, 2002 and the deficiency cited on May 13, 2002. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to correct a Class III deficiency within the time established by the agency or commit a repeat Class III violation. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff responded to the needs of Resident R.L. Resident R.L. expressed pain in his left elbow to Nurse Starke on May 8, 2002. Resident R.L. was alert and could make his needs known. He did not express pain or a need for pain medication to Nurse Miller on May 9 or 10, 2002 or to Nurse Cannon on May 11 or 12, 2002. Rather, Nurse Cannon noted a change in his condition, notified Dr. Sarmiento which resulted in Resident R.L. being sent to the emergency room. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002, and received Ultram for pain on May 13, 2002, when the medication reached Avante from the pharmacy. The evidence presented does not establish that Avante deviated from the community standard for nursing in its actions surrounding the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento. In weighing the respective opinions of Nurses Burgin and Markham in relation to whether the community standard for nursing was met by the actions of Respondent, Nurse Markham's opinion is more persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued against Respondent, Avante at Leesburg. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jodi C. Page, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis 2180 Park Avenue North, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valinda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
