The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Wellington Specialty Care and Rehab Center sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Wellington is a nursing home located in Tampa, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On September 10, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Wellington in a matter unrelated to the issues that are the subject of this proceeding. On that same date, the Agency also conducted an appraisal survey that focused on six areas of care for which Wellington had been cited as deficient in past surveys. After the investigation and survey were completed, the Agency determined that there was no basis for the complaint, and further determined that Wellington was not deficient in any of the six areas of care which were the subject of the appraisal survey. Notwithstanding its findings that the complaint against Wellington was unfounded and that there were no deficiencies in the targeted areas of care being reviewed, the Agency determined that Wellington was deficient in an area not initially the subject of the September 1998 survey. Specifically, the Agency found that Wellington had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to two residents at the facility in violation of the regulatory standard contained in 42 C.F.R. s. 483.25(h)(2). Based on its findings and conclusions, the Agency issued a survey report in which this deficiency was identified and described under a "Tag F324." The basis for the Agency’s findings were related to observations and investigations of two residents at the facility, Resident 6 and Resident 8. During the September 1998 survey and complaint investigation, the surveyors observed that Resident 6 had a bruise on her forehead and that Resident 8 had bruises on the backs of both of her hands. Resident 6 suffered a stroke in May 1998 and had left-side neglect, a condition that caused her to be unaware of her left side and placed her at risk for falls. Moreover, Resident 6's ability to recall events was impaired. The Agency's investigation revealed that Resident 6 sustained the bruise on her forehead when she fell from the toilet on August 31, 1998. The Agency determined that Resident 6 fell because she was left alone by the staff of the facility and further concluded that Wellington was responsible for causing this fall. The Agency believed that given Resident 6's left-side neglect, the facility staff should have known not to leave the resident unattended during her trips to the toilet. The Agency suggested that Wellington should have provided constant supervision to Resident 6, although it acknowledged that such supervision may have created privacy violations. In making its determination and reaching its conclusions, the Agency relied exclusively on an interview with Resident 6, notwithstanding the fact that her ability to recall events was impaired. Since Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in May 1998, Wellington appropriately and adequately addressed her susceptibility to falls, including falls from her toilet. After Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility in May 1998, she received occupational therapy to improve her balance. In late June 1998, following several weeks of occupational therapy, Wellington’s occupational therapist evaluated Resident 6’s ability to sit and to control the balance in the trunk of her body and determined that the resident was capable of sitting upright without support for up to 40 minutes. Based upon that assessment, Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy on June 25, 1998, and her caregivers were provided with instructions on how to maintain her balance. At the time Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy, a care plan was devised for her which provided that the facility staff would give her assistance in all of her activities of daily living, but would only provide stand-by assistance to Resident 6 while she was on the toilet, if such assistance was requested. In light of the occupational therapist's June 1998 assessment of Resident 6, this care plan was adequate to address her risk for falls, including her risk for falls while on the toilet. Wellington also provided Resident 6 with appropriate assistance devices. In Resident 6's bathroom, Wellington provided her with a right-side handrail and an armrest by her toilet to use for support and balance, and also gave her a call light to alert staff if she felt unsteady. These measures were effective as demonstrated by the absence of any falls from the toilet by Resident 6 over the course of June, July, and August 1998. The Agency's surveyor who reviewed Resident 6’s medical records was not aware of and did not consider the June 1998 Occupational Therapy Assessment of Resident 6 before citing the facility for the deficiency. Resident 8 was admitted to Wellington in February 1998 with a history of bruising and existing bruises on her body. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Resident 8 was taking Ticlid, a medication which could cause bruising and also had osteopenia, a degenerative bone condition that could increase Resident 8's risk for bruising, making it possible for her to bruise herself with only a slight bump. After observing the bruising on the backs of both of Resident 8's hands during the September 1998 survey, the Agency asked facility staff about the bruising and also reviewed the resident’s medical records. Based on her interviews and record review, the Agency surveyor found that these bruises had not been ignored by Wellington. Rather, the Agency found that when facility staff initially observed these bruises on Resident 8's hands, (1) staff had immediately notified Resident 8's physician of the bruises; and (2) the physician then ordered an X-ray of Resident 8 to determine whether there was a fracture. The X-ray determined that there was not a fracture but that there was evidence of a bone loss or osteopenia, which indicated that Resident 8 had an underlying structural problem which could increase the resident's risk for bruising. The Agency surveyor found nothing in Resident 8's medical record to indicate that the facility had investigated the bruising on the resident’s hands, identified the cause of the bruising, or identified any means to prevent the bruising from reoccurring. Based on the absence of this information in Resident 8's records, the Agency cited the facility for a deficiency under "Tag F324." The Agency's surveyor made no determination and reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruising. However, she considered that the bruising on Resident 8 may have been caused by the underlying structural damage, medication, or external forces. With regard to external forces, the surveyor speculated that the bruising may have occurred when Resident 8 bumped her hands against objects such as her chair or bed siderails. During the September 1998 survey, when the Agency surveyor expressed her concerns about the cause of the bruising on Resident 8's hands, Wellington’s Director of Nursing suggested to the surveyor that the bruising could have been the result of the use of improper transfer techniques by either Resident 8’s family or the facility staff, or Resident 8’s medications. Despite the surveyor's speculation and suggestions by the facility's Director of Nursing, the Agency surveyor saw nothing that would indicate how the bruising occurred. In fact, the Agency surveyor's observation of a staff member transferring Resident 8 indicated that the staff member was using a proper transfer technique that would not cause bruising to the resident’s hands. The Agency surveyor made no other observations and conducted no investigation of the potential causes of the bruising on Resident 8's hands. During the September 1998 survey, after the Agency surveyor inquired as to the cause of the bruises on Resident 8's hands, the facility conducted an investigation to try to identify the potential causes for the bruising. The investigation was conducted by the facility’s Care Plan Coordinator, a licensed practical nurse who was also the Unit Manager for the unit on which Resident 8 was located. Included in the Care Plan Coordinator's investigation was a thorough examination of the potential causes suggested by the Agency's surveyor. The Agency surveyor’s speculation that the bruising was caused when Resident 8 hit her hands against her chair or bed siderails was ruled out as a cause for the bruises because Resident 8 was unable to move around in her bed or chair. More importantly, there were no bedrails on Resident 8's bed and her chair was a heavily padded recliner. Also, as a part of her investigation, the Care Plan Coordinator observed the transfer techniques employed by both Resident 8's family members and facility staff. During these observations, she did not see any indication that the techniques used were improper or would otherwise cause Resident 8 to bruise her hands. Based upon her thorough investigation, the Case Plan Coordinator determined that there were no identifiable causes of the bruising and, thus, there were no care plan interventions that the facility could have implemented then or in September 1998 to prevent the bruising suffered by Resident 8. Instead, the Care Plan Coordinator reasonably concluded that the bruising was most likely an unavoidable result of Resident 8's medications and her osteopenia. The Agency is required to rate the severity of any deficiency identified during a survey with two types of ratings. One of these is "scope and severity" rating which is defined by federal law, and the other rating is a state classification rating which is defined by state law and rules promulgated thereunder. As a result of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Tag F324 deficiency a scope and severity rating of "G" which, under federal regulations, is a determination that the deficient practice was isolated. The Tag F324 deficiency was also given a state classification rating of "II" which, under the Agency’s rule, is a determination that the deficiency presented "an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of the residents." Because the Agency determined that there was a Class II deficiency at Wellington after the September 1998 survey, it changed Wellington’s Standard licensure rating to Conditional, effective September 10, 1998. At the completion of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Class II rating to the deficiency although the surveyors failed to determine and did not believe that there was an immediate threat of accidents to other residents at Wellington. In fact, at the time of the September 1998 survey, the number of falls at Wellington had declined since the last survey. The Agency returned to Wellington on November 6, 1998, to determine if the facility had corrected the Tag F324 deficiency cited in the September 1998 survey report. After completing that survey, the Agency determined that the deficiency had been corrected and issued Wellington a Standard License effective November 6, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing a Standard rating to Wellington and rescinding the Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 6800 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's operation of its nursing home was deficient and, if so, whether Petitioner should have imposed an already-lifted admissions moratorium, pursuant to Section 400.121(5)(a), Florida Statutes; and should impose a conditional license, pursuant to Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes; administrative fines of $95,000, pursuant to Section 400.19(8), Florida Statutes; a survey fee of $6000, pursuant to Section 400.19(3), Florida Statutes; and costs, pursuant to Section 400.121(10), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates Hallandale Rehabilitation Center (Hallandale), which is a 141-bed nursing home located at 2400 East Hallandale Beach in Hallandale. Licensed as a skilled nursing facility, Hallandale holds license number SNF11920961, effective April 25, 2001, through December 31, 2001. Petitioner's surveyors conducted an inspection of Hallandale on December 3 and 4, 2001. The inspection lasted four to five hours on the first day and twelve and one-half hours on the second day. As a result of the inspection, Petitioner found numerous deficiencies in resident care, as discussed below. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #1 was 84 years old. She had been admitted to Hallandale on September 11, 2001, having suffered a stroke with aphasia, hemiplagia, hypertension, and cardiac arrhythmia. She was totally dependent upon staff for all of her needs, which she was unable to communicate. On October 25, 2001, one of Respondent's staff discovered a large reddened area on the right anterior thigh of Resident #1. The area measured 14 cm by 8 cm and was raised and hard. A licensed practical nurse and registered nurse, both employed by Respondent, examined the wound. The registered nurse spoke to the certified nursing assistants to learn what she could about the wound, but no one was aware of its cause. Without delay, the nurse on duty contacted the advanced registered nurse practitioner, who was employed by the physician who supervised Resident #1's care. After listening to an accurate description of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner opined that the reddened area might be cellulitis, possibly due to a bug bite. At 6:45 a.m., the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered the application of warm compresses to the wound several times a day. Respondent's staff promptly implemented these orders. Respondent's staff also contacted Resident #1's husband and informed him of the situation. The wound quickly deteriorated. When Respondent's staff informed the advanced registered nurse practitioner later the same day that the reddened area had begun to blister and opened blisters had begun to seep clear fluids, the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered that staff discontinue the warm compresses and clean the wound with saline solution, apply triple antibiotic ointment, and cover the wound with Telfa. Respondent's staff promptly implemented these orders. Respondent's staff initiated an investigation into the cause of Resident #1's wound and completed adverse incident reports. In retrospect, the most plausible explanation is that a heated metal plate warmer, which is under the food plate on which residents are served their food, may have somehow slipped out of its protective enclosure and burned Resident #1. But this explanation appears to have emerged later, partly due to the fact that the facility had never previously had a resident burned by a plate warmer and partly due to the belated identification of the wound as a burn. The day after the discovery of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner visited the facility and intended to examine Resident #1's wound. However, Resident #1 was out of the facility at a neurologist's appointment, and the advanced registered nurse practitioner did not see her on that day. Four days after the discovery of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered the discontinuation of the triple antibiotic ointment and the application of Silvadene. It is unclear what prompted this change in orders. Six days after the discovery of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner visited the facility and examined the wound, but was unable to conclude the source of the injury. Satisfied with the present treatment, the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered the continuation of the Silvadene and a follow-up visit in one week. On November 2, which was eight days after the discovery of the wound, Respondent's staff notified the advanced registered nurse practitioner that the wound was not progressing. The advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered a consultation with a wound care physician, with whom an appointment was made for November 6. In the meantime, Respondent's staff continued to implement the orders of the advanced registered nurse practitioner. On November 4, the advanced registered nurse practitioner re-examined the wound and did not change the treatment order. Two days later, the wound care physician, who is a dermatologist, examined the wound and ordered Santal ointment, which is a debriding agent, and an outpatient debridement, but Resident #1's husband declined the surgical procedure on behalf of his wife. Eight days later, on November 14, a plastic surgeon examined Resident #1's wound. Testifying that he did not know who summoned him to the facility, the physician visited the facility and found that Resident #1's wound was actually a third-degree burn, which was now 16 cm by 9 cm and exhibiting areas of necrosis. Continuing the order for Santal, the plastic surgeon ordered a surgical debridement to remove the nonviable tissue that were impeding healing. Based on the plastic surgeon's testimony, the application of warm compresses, although contraindicated for a burn wound, did not exacerbate the injury because all of the damage was done at the moment of the initial incident. Also, the Silvadene, triple antibiotic, and Santal were appropriate treatments. From the moment of the initial incident, Resident #1 would have required surgical treatment regardless of the diagnosis and nonsurgical treatment of the wound. However, the passage of six days before a physician (or presumably an advanced registered nurse practitioner) examined the wound was unreasonable; at most, two days would be reasonable. On November 18, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for an unrelated condition. During this admission, on November 23, the plastic surgeon performed the debridement. The wound healed nicely after the procedure. The three allegations concerning Resident #1 involve mistreatment and neglect, the failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality, and the failure to provide the services necessary for Resident #1 to attain her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing. Petitioner has focused on Respondent's acts and omissions after discovering the wound and not on any acts or omissions possibly resulting in the wound. These issues turn on the failure of the physician or at least advanced registered nurse practitioner to examine the wound for six days. Ultimately, it is unimportant that the advanced registered nurse practitioner was at the facility the next day, but was unable to examine the injury due to the absence of the resident. The fact remains that Resident #1 was not examined by a physician or an advanced registered nurse practitioner for six days after the injury was discovered. However, when the advanced registered nurse practitioner examined Resident #1 on October 31, he did find that the condition of the wound demanded a change in treatment or immediate intervention. As noted by the plastic surgeon, the Silvadene then being administered was appropriate. The failure of the advanced registered nurse practitioner to diagnose Resident #1's burn would have been material, if timely diagnosis would have resulted in materially different treatment that could have obviated the need for surgical debridement. However, the plastic surgeon established that, from the moment of the burn, Resident #1 was destined to undergo a surgical debridement of the wound. Significantly, the wound healed shortly after the surgery. The failure of the advanced registered nurse practitioner to diagnose Resident #1's burn would also have been material, if a timely diagnosis would have materially shortened the healing process or materially reduced the amount of pain produced by the wound. However, the evidence describing Resident #1's reaction to the pain of the wound prior to debridement is scant. And no evidence suggests timely diagnosis would have meant that a surgical debridement would have taken place earlier than the one actually performed--about one month after the burn occurred. In general, the evidence fails to show that the delayed diagnosis materially affected Resident #1's physical, mental, or psychosocial wellbeing. The question whether Respondent mistreated or neglected Resident #1 requires an assessment of the reasonableness of its reliance upon the nonemployee health care professionals who cared for Resident #1 prior to the intervention of the plastic surgeon. Respondent timely notified these professionals, as well as Resident #1's husband, of the initial injury, as well as subsequent developments. Petitioner has not shown that any shortcomings in diagnosis and treatment by those professionals had a material bearing on the course or outcome of Resident #1's case. In general, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent's care for Resident #1 after discovery of the injury constitutes mistreatment or neglect, a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality, or a failure to provide the services necessary for Resident #1 to attain her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #2 was 61 years old. He had been admitted to Hallandale on October 9, 2001, with a right-leg amputation below the knee a day or two prior to the admission to Hallandale, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dehydration, but not pressure sores. While at the facility, Resident #2 mostly remained in his room. Resident #2 had recently been living in a homeless shelter. When he used his wheelchair, Resident #2 propelled himself with his arms, not his foot. On October 31, about three weeks after his admission, Respondent's staff found a "stage II" open wound measuring 2 cm by 3 cm on the sole of Respondent's foot. Respondent contends that the wound was a vascular ulcer. This contention is supported by the diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and recent amputation. On the other hand, Petitioner's surveyor examined the wound during the survey and found a stage II pressure sore the size of a quarter or half-dollar. Several facts support Petitioner's classification of the wound as a pressure sore; these include the fact that it healed later in December, that some of Respondent's records identify the wound as a pressure sore, various risk factors for pressure sores, and Respondent's haphazard maintenance of medical records for this resident-- featuring one admittedly incorrect record of the inception of the wound and treatment records that Respondent claims are missing. A stage II pressure sore is defined by the presence of opened area through the epidermis and possibly the dermis. A stage I pressure sore is defined by a reddened area. A stage III pressure sore is defined by the exposure of subcutaneous tissue, and a stage IV pressure sore is defined by the exposure of the fascia, muscle, or bone. A pressure sore results from pressure to an area over an extended period of time, so that an area loses blood circulation and suffers tissue breakdown. It is impossible to find sufficient factual bases for mistreatment or neglect of Resident #2 strictly in the development of the pressure sore. His various physical problems predisposed him to this condition. His means of movement in the wheelchair was his hands, not his foot, so that the source of pressure on the foot is not obvious. However, Respondent's response to the pressure sore was inadequate. First, Respondent provided Resident #2 no treatment for the pressure sore for the first three weeks after its discovery; under these circumstances, this absence of treatment was mistreatment and neglect and a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. During this period, Respondent likewise failed to make the necessary revisions in any care plan that it maintained for Resident #2. On November 20, Respondent's staff applied duoderm to the pressure sore and continued to provide effective treatment, including hydrogel, that resulted in the speedy resolution of the condition. However, the period during which Resident #2 suffered with an untreated pressure sore on his foot occurred during a crucial period of his life, as he tried to recover from the amputation of part of his right leg. While his pressure sore remained symptomatic and untreated, Resident #2 suffered a decline in his level of participation in physical therapy. For instance, progress notes from the occupational therapist dated October 17 and 24 report "excellent progress"; the latter note reports "max[imum] motivation" and the therapist's expectation that Resident #2 will make "cont[inued] progress." By November 19, Resident #2 was refusing to participate in physical therapy, citing "drainage pain in foot." He refused physical therapy again the next day for the same reason. One week later, the physical therapist discontinued Resident #2's physical therapy due to his noncompliance. Interestingly, Resident #2's urinary continence also changed for the worse during the same period that his painful foot remained untreated. On October 22, Respondent completed a minimum data set for Resident #2 and determined that he was continent. However, the minimum data set that Respondent completed six weeks later revealed that he was now occasionally incontinent. The interdisciplinary care plan confirms declines during this time in behavior and continence. If Resident #2 reacted poorly to the untreated and painful pressure sore in his left foot, it can perhaps be explained by, not only the fact that this was his sole remaining foot, but also by the circumstances surrounding the loss of the right foot. A week prior to his admission to Hallandale, Resident #2 had been admitted to the hospital complaining of a draining ulcer at the base of his right foot, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee a few days later. Two other allegations involve Resident #2. One involves the discovery of the resident by a surveyor in a urine- soaked condition. The other involves the presence of excessively long toenails on Resident #2, suggestive of a lack of attention to his grooming needs. During the survey, a surveyor found Resident #2 in his bed soaked in urine up to his armpits. She found his sheets and clothing totally soaked in urine and the smell "unbelievabl[y] . . . strong." When the surveyor contacted the Director of Nursing, he told her that staff had last changed Resident #2's incontinence brief 12 hours ago. The evidence concerning the condition of Resident #2's toenails does not establish any deficiency. The surveyor who noted the condition of the toenails had to rely on her report, rather than an independent recollection. The evidence generally does not describe the circumstances surrounding this situation. Although Petitioner did not prove that Respondent unreasonably failed to avoid the development of the pressure sore, Petitioner proved that Respondent's failure to treat the pressure sore promptly was mistreatment and neglect and a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. Similarly, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to revise Resident #2's comprehensive care plan during this period of nontreatment. Although Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to promote care to maintain Resident #2's dignity in terms of any failure to timely trim his toenails, Petitioner proved that Respondent's failure to change Resident #2's briefs for 12 hours, at the end of which time he was totally soaked in urine, constituted a failure to provide those services necessary to maintain personal hygiene to a resident in need of assistance in his activities of daily living. The prompt healing of the pressure sore, once it was treated, is a mitigating factor. However, the effect of the delay in treatment upon Resident #2 is a serious aggravating factor. Having recently undergone the amputation of his lower right leg following a similar sore on his right foot, Resident #2 began the difficult transition period with a worrisome pressure sore on his remaining foot. The period during which Respondent failed to treat this pressure sore corresponds with the period during which Resident #2 suffered declines in urinary continence and therapeutic progress following the leg amputation. Allowing Resident #2 to lie in bed totally soaked in his own urine literally added insult to injury. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #3 was 45 years old. He was quadriplegic and incontinent. Due to decreased bed mobility and bowel incontinence, Resident #3 was at increased risk of developing pressure sores. The surveyor directed that staff remove dressings of wounds, so that she could examine the condition of the wounds. In removing a dressing covering a stage II pressure sore at the sacrum, a nurse either tore the epidermis at the distal end of Resident #3's buttock or a previously reddened area had been masked by the tape used to secure the dressing for the pressure sore at the sacrum. There is little evidence in the record concerning Resident #3. With respect to either of his pressure sores, Petitioner failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or any failure to provide services meeting professional standards of care. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #4 was 77 years old. She was incontinent and dependent on staff for all of her needs. During the survey, a surveyor discovered a severe excoriation of the perineal area extending to Resident #4's groin and right upper thigh. At the time, Respondent's staff was treating the excoriated area with zinc oxide to provide a barrier between the skin and external moisture. The treatment was appropriate, and Respondent's standing orders duly authorized the use of zinc oxide for this condition without obtaining a physician's order to do so. Petitioner failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or failure to meet professional standards of quality in Respondent's care of Resident #4. At the time of the incidents described below, Resident #5 was 87 years old and Resident #7 was 57 years old. Both residents had been admitted to Hallandale less than one month prior to the survey. During the survey, the surveyor noticed that each of these residents had stage II pressure sores without dressings. The Director of Nursing, who was pregnant at the time and unable to remove dressings herself, had directed staff to remove the dressings of a number of residents at the same time, shortly before the wound inspection, to facilitate the surveyor's examination of wounds. Staff did so with respect to Resident #5 and Resident #7, and the surveyor wrongly inferred that Respondent did not maintain the necessary dressings for these residents. As to Resident #5 and Resident #7, Petitioner failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or any failure to meet professional standards of quality. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #6 was 90 years old. During the survey, the surveyor found a dressing on a wound on Resident #6's left lateral ankle. The date written on the dressing was two days prior to the date of the survey, but the physician's order was to change the dressing and treat the wound daily. The treatment record documents that Respondent's staff changed the dressing on the day prior to the survey, even though this date was not noted on the dressing itself. Absent any evidence of harm to the resident, the evidence does not establish that Respondent's staff failed to change the dressing on the prior day. As to Resident #6, Petitioner has failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or any failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #8 was 47 years old. He had been admitted to Hallandale with diagnoses of heart failure, HIV, neuropathy, and psychosis. Fortunately, Resident #8 required minimal assistance with his activities of daily living because he was intractably abusive toward staff, yelling insults and throwing furniture and dishes. During the survey, a surveyor noticed that Resident #8's fingernails were long and yellowed. The resident claimed that Respondent's staff ignored his frequent pleas that they trim his nails. According to Respondent's staff, Resident #8 refused to allow anyone to trim his fingernails. It is impossible to credit Resident #8's claims. Petitioner cited excessively long nails for only two of about 75 residents. The other situation was discussed above. The most likely explanation for Resident #8's long fingernails was his disruptive lack of cooperativeness and psychotic behavior. Petitioner failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain Resident #8's dignity. There is little evidence concerning Resident #9, whom Petitioner alleges suffered from excoriated buttocks and delays in changing wet briefs. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner did not mention the latter allegation, which consisted of hearsay in this record, but restated the observation of excoriated buttocks. There is also little evidence concerning Resident #10, whom Petitioner alleges suffered from delays in responses to her call bell to be assisted in toileting. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner did not mention this allegation, which consisted of hearsay in this record. Absent evidence of the circumstances surrounding the excoriation or the other alleged deficiencies omitted from the proposed recommended order, Petitioner has failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain either resident's dignity. As for Resident #11, Resident #12, and Resident #13, Respondent's staff double-diapered all of them at the time of the survey. Resident #11 and Resident #13 had requested double diapering. As to these residents, Petitioner failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain their dignity. Resident #12 had not consented to double diapering. However, according to her minimum data set completed about three weeks before the survey, Resident #12 suffers from dementia, has a poor memory, and is completely incontinent of bladder and bowel. Absent additional evidence of Resident #12's response to the double diapering, it is impossible, on this record, to infer sufficient insight on her part as to justify a finding of loss of dignity in this otherwise-benign practice, as evidenced by the fact that some residents request double diapering. Although Respondent had reminded staff not to double diaper residents who had not requested such extra protection, language barriers likely contributed to the unrequested double diapering of Resident #12. As to Resident #12, Petitioner has failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain her dignity. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #14 was 49 years old. She had been admitted to Hallandale on November 22, 2000, with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure, status--post subarachnoid hemorrhage, status--post cerebral aneurysm, seizure disorder, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube and tracheostomy placement. Respondent was aware that Resident #14 repeatedly pulled at both tubes, without which she would expire. Respondent was aware that Resident #14 was agitated and restless. On January 16, 2001, Resident #14 succeeded in pulling out her tracheotomy tube, and, after onsite resuscitation, she was transported by ambulance to the hospital for treatment. Three days later, Resident #14 was readmitted to Hallandale with wrist restraints, pursuant to her physician's order. The order required that Respondent's staff check the restraints every 30 minutes to assure that they would effectively prevent Resident #14 from pulling out her tubes. The order required that Respondent's staff release the wrist restraints every two hours for ten minutes. Five hours after her readmission to Hallandale, Resident #14 was found with her wrists unrestrained, her tracheotomy tube removed, and not breathing. She was in a coma from which she never recovered, and Resident #14 later died. Petitioner cited Respondent for a class II deficiency in connection with this incident. On April 25, 2001, one of Petitioner's surveyors conducted a complaint-investigation survey concerning Respondent's care of Resident #14 and concluded that Respondent had failed to provide Resident #14 with adequate supervision. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent concedes that it was unable to demonstrate that the citation from this incident had been improperly issued. Petitioner has alleged that Respondent never developed a risk management plan or trained its staff in the management and prevention of risk. Although Petitioner alleges in the alternative that Respondent did not implement a presumably developed risk management plan, the amended Administrative Complaint cites only Section 400.147(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which is not the subsection covering implementation, but is the subsection covering the development of a plan and the training of staff in risk management and prevention. Although Respondent lacked a written risk management plan at the time of the survey, it maintained a program that included the reporting of all adverse incidents, investigation of all adverse incidents, development of plans to avoid the repetition of adverse incidents, and training of staff on avoiding adverse incidents. Additionally, Respondent conducted monthly quality assurance meetings and required the weekly assessment of wounds. Undoubtedly, Respondent's care for Resident #14 was gravely deficient, and its care for Resident #2 was seriously deficient. Resident #2 was not the only resident who was the victim of poor recordkeeping, although he seems to have been the only resident who was the victim of materially false recordkeeping. Respondent's care for Resident #1 was marginally adequate. Notwithstanding obvious shortcomings in staff competence, the record in this case does not portray a facility replete with care problems--from which an inference of risk management deficiencies would be easier. Respondent's nontreatment of Resident #14 and mistreatment of Resident #2 seem isolated, Respondent's treatment of Resident #1--although not without its flaws--reflects a dogged persistence to obtain competent care for her wound, and Respondent's handling of the other residents is either adequate or not materially inadequate. Petitioner has failed to prove any failure to develop a risk management program or to train staff in risk management and prevention. Petitioner has sought a $6000 survey fee, based on the existence of a class I deficiency. Ignoring Petitioner's argument that the citation alone of a class I deficiency satisfies the statutory requirement, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, it is necessary to consider the status of the matters proved as to Resident #2. As to Resident #2, Petitioner cited Respondent for an isolated class I deficiency with respect to the following: mistreatment or neglect and a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. The remaining citations were for isolated class II deficiencies. However, in its proposed recommended order, Petitioner refers to the mistreatment or neglect as a class II deficiency. Assuming that this is a typographical error, it remains necessary to consider all aspects of Respondent's mishandling of the care of Resident #2 to determine if it constitutes a class I deficiency. As discussed above, Respondent's mistreatment or neglect of Resident #2 and failure to provide him with services meeting professional standards of quality interfered with his ability to rehabilitate following the amputation of part of his right leg. As such, these deficiencies are class II deficiencies. These deficiencies were not so grave as to meet the class I criterion of causing, or likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed a class I deficiency during the December 2001 survey and thus has failed to prove that Respondent is liable for the $6000 statutory survey fee. The amount of the fines is based on the classification of the deficiencies and whether they are isolated or widespread. As already noted, the deficiencies of mistreatment or neglect and failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality are class II deficiencies, not class I deficiencies as alleged. The failure to revise the comprehensive care plan and the failure to provide services in the form of changing urine-soaked sheets and clothes to maintain personal hygiene are also class II deficiencies, as alleged. The care plan relates closely to the other deficiencies concerning the delayed treatment of the pressure sore, and the failure to alleviate Resident #2's urine-soaked condition compromised his ability to maintain or reach his highest psychosocial wellbeing. As alleged, these deficiencies are isolated because they affect only one resident. In calculating the amount of fines, it is necessary to treat the mistreatment or neglect and failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality as a single deficiency because they are proved by the same facts. However, the failure to revise the care plan is a separate deficiency, as is obviously the failure to provide services to maintain personal hygiene. The fine for each isolated class II deficiency is $2500 for a total of $7500. However, the citation six months earlier of a class II deficiency in the failure to supervise Resident #14 requires the doubling of the fine to $15,000. On December 11, 2001, Petitioner issued a moratorium on admissions, which Petitioner lifted eight days later. Respondent's mistreatment and neglect of Resident #2 following its recent citation in connection with the death of Resident #14 constitute adequate grounds for Petitioner to have found, at the time of the December 2001 survey, or even a few days later, that the care provided by Hallandale was so inadequate as to present a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of its residents. Based on the facts then known or presently found in this recommended order, an eight-day admissions moratorium was a prudent action. Based on the findings of class I and II deficiencies, Petitioner, by letter dated December 14, 2001, imposed upon Respondent a conditional license, effective December 4, 2001. This license expired on December 31, 2001. Lastly, Petitioner seeks the costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, pursuant to Section 400.121(10), Florida Statutes. Absent evidence of such costs, the Administrative Law Judge shall retain jurisdiction of the case solely for the purpose of entering a supplemental recommended order awarding these costs, if the parties cannot agree to such costs within a reasonable time. The Administrative Law Judge will set a hearing for this purpose on the request of either party.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of three separate, isolated class II deficiencies with respect to Resident #2, imposing a fine of $7500 for these violations, doubling the fine to $15,000 due to the existence of a class II deficiency in the preceding complaint investigation, imposing a conditional license, sustaining the already-lifted admissions moratorium, and imposing costs for the investigation and prosecution (if the parties can agree on an amount; if not, remanding the issue of costs to the Administrative Law Judge for the issuance of a supplemental recommended order on the amount of these costs). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the remainder of the amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 11th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lori C. Desnick Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jay Adams Jay Adams, P.A. Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Angell Care of Hialeah, Inc., d/b/a Hialeah Convalescent Home (Hialeah), is a nursing home licensed under the authority of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On April 26, 1985, Hialeah submitted its license renewal application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), to renew its nursing home license for license year August 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986. The Department issued Hialeah Standard License No. 2134; however, by letter of September 30, 1985, the Department cancelled Hialeah's standard license, and replaced it with Conditional Rating License No. C-985. The Department's action was premised on its assertion that the results of a survey concluded by its Office of Licensure and Certification on August 1, 1985, established a conditional rating. Hialeah filed a timely request for formal administrative review of the Department's action. Hialeah asserted that the Department's action downgrading its license from standard to conditional was unwarranted and that, as opposed to a standard rating, it was entitled to a superior rating. At hearing, the parties stipulated that if this de novo review of the Department's action, which was premised on the deficiencies found in the survey conducted by its Office of Licensure and Certification, resulted in a finding that Hialeah was qualified to receive a standard rating, as opposed to a conditional rating, then it should receive a superior rating. Accordingly, the issues in this case are resolved to the validity of the deficiencies noted by the Office of Licensure and Certification. Deficiencies noted by the Department: Pertinent to these proceedings, 1/ the survey conducted by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification classified the deficiencies noted at Hialeah into ten major categories, and listed the deficient nursing home licensure requirement number (NH) and applicable statutory or code provision violated, 2/ as follows: Administration and Management (1) NH 3 10D-29.104(1)(b), F.A.C. (2) NH 21 10D-29.104(5)(d)1g, F.A.C. (3) NH 25 10D-29.104(5)(d)4, F.A.C. (4) NH 26 10D-29.104(5)(d)5, F.A.C. Patient Care Policies NH 57 10D-29.106(2), F.A.C. Physician Services (1) NH 60 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Nursing Services (1) NH 77 10D-29.108(3)(c)16, F.A.C. (2) NH 80 10D-29.108(5)(b)6, 13, 15a & b, 16b & i, F.A.C. Dietary Services (1) NH 125 10D-29.110(3)(g)2; 10D-13.24(1)(4), F.A.C. Maintenance (1) NH 352 10D-29.122(1)(a), F.A.C. (2) NH 357 10D-29.122(1)(f), F.A.C. Infection Control (1) NH 365 10D-29.123(3)(a), F.A.C. Disaster Preparedness (1) NH 404 10D-29.126(5), F.A.C. Statutory Requirements (1) NH 405 Section 400.165, Fla. Stat. Life-Safety (1) NH 241 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (2) NH 250 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (3) NH 251 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (4) NH 269 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (5) NH 273 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (6) NH 277 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (7) NH 295 10D-29.121(10)(e), F.A.C. With the exception of the deficiencies listed for NH 3 (administration and management), NH 60 (physician services), and NH 250, NH 251, NH 269, NH 277, and NH 295 (life safety), Hialeah concedes that the deficiencies noted by the Department were appropriate. 3/ Accordingly, resolution of the question of which rating should be accorded Hialeah is dependent upon the propriety of seven disputed deficiencies. The Administration and Management Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 3 found: The provision for the resident's rights to privacy during treatment and care was not routinely adhered to. On the morning of July 24, 1985, staff members were observed attending to residents in rooms 7 and 8 of the Center Court while other residents were in the rooms and without the use of the portable privacy curtains. Chapter 400, Part 1, F.S. 10D-29.104(1)(6), F.A.C. Section 400.022(1)(h), Florida Statutes, accords a nursing home resident a right to privacy during treatment and care. Hialeah's failure to use available portable privacy curtains while patients were being bathed violated their right to privacy, and NH 3 was properly cited. The Physician Services Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 60 found: There was no documented evidence to verify that staff incident reports were reviewed by the Medical Director. 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: Responsibilities of the Medical Director . . . shall include, at a minimum, the following: * * * (c) Reviewing reports of all accidents or unusual incidents occurring on the premises and identifying to the facility Administrator hazards to health and safety . . . . The proof in this case established that the Medical Director did review all incident reports; Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., does not require documentation. Accordingly, deficiency NH 60 was not substantiated. The Life-safety Deficiencies: The life-safety surveyor noted the following disputed deficiencies: NH 250: One required-stairway from the second floor discharges internally at the first floor and is not enclosed or separated to provide exiting directly to the exterior. This is a repeat deficiency. Architectural plans must be submitted to Jacksonville Plans and Construction Section for approval, indicating physical changes required to this deficiency, prior to corrective action . . . . * * * NH 251: The southwest exit door to 27th Street was locked and exit lights were removed. This created a dead end area with only one means of exiting for the south portion of the center court. This is part of a repeat deficiency form (sic) 1984 survey. * * * NH 269: a storage closet in the activities office is not protected by the automatic sprinkler system. * * * NH 277: The following air conditioning deficiencies were found: 1. The heat sensor for the air conditioner unit located on the first floor at the dining room did not activate properly when tested. NH 295: Rooms where soiled linen is stored and soiled utility rooms are not exhausted to the exterior in accordance with Table II. 4/ Hialeah asserts that the Department has waived or deleted deficiency NH 250, or is estopped from counting it as a deficiency for rating purposes. Hialeah's assertion is unpersuasive. The record reveals that during the October 24, 1984 life-safety survey, Hialeah was cited for the same deficiency, NH 250/K32, that is subject matter of these proceedings. 5/ In response to Hialeah's request for a waiver of this deficiency, the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) advised Hialeah by letter of January 28, 1985: We have reviewed your request for a waiver of items K-32 . . . cited as deficiencies to you. Based on this review we concur with the State Agency's recommendation to deny this request. We expect you to submit an accept- able Plan of Correction to these deficiencies to the State Agency within 15 days of the date you receive this letter. We are notifying the State of this action. Notwithstanding the unequivocal denial of Hialeah's request for waiver, a life- safety follow-up inspection on April 17, 1985, revealed that the deficiency had not been addressed or corrected. As of April 26, 1985, the date Hialeah submitted its renewal application which is the subject matter of these proceedings, a plan of correction had still not been submitted nor had the deficiency been corrected. 6/ At this juncture, faced with an uncorrected deficiency from its last survey, Hialeah submitted its second request for waiver of NH 243/K 32. 7/ Hialeah's request for waiver, dated May 23, 1985, was forwarded by the Department's Miami office to the Director of its Office of Licensure and Certification on July 23, 1985, with a recommendation of denial predicated on HCFA's previous action. Before the Department acted, however, the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey were published and the same deficiency cited. On October 30, 1985, the Department responded to Hialeah's May 23, 1985 request for waiver, as well as the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey. That letter provided: A thorough review has been made of the citations found in OPLCM report of life safety deficiencies found during the survey conducted July 29 - August 1, 1985. As a result of that survey NH 250; NH 277 item #2, NH 282, and NH 219 will be deleted from the report . . . . Your letter of July 23, 1985 (sic) addressed to Alvin Delaney requesting waivers of items K 32 . . . cannot be granted and corrections must be made . . . . However, by letter of December 12, 1985, the Department advised Hialeah that: the indication . . . (in my letter of October 30) . . . that NH 250 citation related to a second floor stairway would be deleted as a deficiency was an error . . . and that deficiency must be corrected. Hialeah's assertion that NH 250 was waived or deleted by the Department is contrary to the evidence. Hialeah's assertion that the Department is estopped from raising that deficiency because of its delay in passing on Hialeah's "second" request for waiver is equally unpersuasive. Hialeah knew of the deficiency because of the October 24, 1984 survey, knew by letter of January 28, 1985, that the deficiency would not be waived, and took no action to correct the deficiency. The fact that the Department erroneously advised Hialeah that NH 250 was deleted did not prejudice Hialeah since such announcement was made after the current survey. Further, that letter affirmatively advised Hialeah that K 32 (the federal equivalent) could not be waived. In sum, NH 250 was properly cited as a deficiency. Hialeah asserts that NH 251 was improperly cited because it had complied with an "alternative plan of correction," approved by the Department, which allowed the 27th Street exit to remain locked so long as staff carried keys to the exit. The proof supports Hialeah's assertion. Since staff do carry keys, NH 251 was improperly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 269 was improperly cited because the closet in question measured less than 100 square feet is unfounded. The closet was created by erecting a partition in an existing room, and was used for the storage of activity supplies, including combustibles, for nursing home residents. The life-safety code required that the subject closet be sprinkled, and the Department had no policy which deviated from the code. Accordingly, NH 269 was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 277(1) was improperly cited because the heat sensor was not correctly tested is unfounded. At the time of inspection the heat sensor was properly tested and failed to function. Therefore, NH 277(1) was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 295 was improperly cited, because cited on a consultative visit, is not supported by the record. NH 295 was cited as a result of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 life-safety inspection, not a consultative visit, and its citation was proper. Conditional vs. Superior Rating: The parties have stipulated that if Hialeah meets the requirements for a standard rating that it is likewise entitled to a superior rating. To qualify for a standard rating Hialeah must have no more than 20 Class III deficiencies and no more than 5 Class III deficiencies in the specific areas delineated by Hialeah's Exhibit 20, Item 3. While each of the cited deficiencies are Class III, and the number of deficiencies correctly cited do not exceed 20, Hialeah amassed more than 5 deficiencies in the area designated by Rules 10D-29.119, 10D-29.121, 10D-29.123, and 10D-29.125. Accordingly, Hialeah does not qualify for a standard or superior rating but, rather a conditional rating.
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
The Issue Should Petitioner's license rating have been changed from "Standard" to "Conditional" based on the allegation that Petitioner failed to properly monitor a resident with bilateral edema of the lower and upper extremities?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Agency is vested with the statutory authority under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2001), to license nursing homes, including the assigning of a licensure status pursuant to Section 400.102, Florida Statutes (2001). Petitioner is a licensed nursing home facility (Facility) located in Clewiston, Florida. On January 14-17, 2002, the Agency conducted an Annual Re-Certification Survey (Survey) of the Facility and determined that the Facility failed to monitor Resident 15 (the Resident), who was suffering from bilateral edema of the lower extremities. The Agency cited the Facility for one Class II deficiency described by Tag Number F224. By letter dated January 31, 2002, the Agency advised the Facility that its license rating was changed to "Conditional" effective January 17, 2002. During a follow-up survey the Agency was convinced that the deficiencies that resulted in the conditional license status had been corrected and reissued a standard license to the Facility on January 31, 2002. At the time of admission, on October 17, 2001, the Resident was 66 years old and had been diagnosed with Congestive Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, with previous renal failure and electrolyte imbalance. The Resident was also receiving Pain Management for Degenerative Joint Disease. The Resident was not suffering from edema at the time of admission. The staff of the Facility and the Resident's physician, Dr. Daniel McIntire, described the Resident as being very active, a social person who was ambulatory and communicative. The Resident was constantly on the move throughout the Facility's hallways and was constantly in the Patio area to indulge in smoking. On November 1, 2001, the nurses notes indicate that the Resident had 2-3+ edema to both feet and that Dr. McIntire was notified. On November 1, 2001, Dr. McIntire examined the Resident and determined that he was suffering from lower leg edema. Dr. McIntire treated the Resident's edema with a short course (40 mg once a day x 4 days) of Lasix. On November 4, 2001, the nurses notes reveal that the Resident had responded to the Lasix treatment and the Resident's edema was resolved. There is no documentation in the nurse's notes that the Resident was being monitored for edema during the period between November 4, 2001, and January 1, 2002. However, the testimony of the Director of Nursing, which I find to be credible, was that the absence of documentation did not mean that the Resident was not being monitored since only exceptions were documented. The documentation in the nurses notes reveal that on January 1, 2002, the Resident was suffering from a 2+ pitting edema in both lower extremities and both arms. Dr. McIntire was notified of the Resident's condition. Dr. McIntire placed the Resident on Lasix (40 mg once a day x 5 days). Between January 1, 2002, and January 8, 2002, there was no documentation in the clinical record of monitoring for the edema or for the effectiveness of the diuretic, Lasix. On January 9, 2002, the documentation in the clinical record reveals that the Resident had generalized edema in the lower extremities and arms. Dr. McIntire was informed of the Resident's condition. Dr. McIntire ordered Keflex (an antibiotic) for the Resident and referred him to the Pain Clinic. There is no evidence that the pain suffered by the Resident was caused by the edema. On January 14, 2002, during a group meeting, the Resident advised one of the Agency's surveyors that his feet were swollen and that he was having trouble putting on his shoes. The Resident stated that he had no pain in his feet when he walked with his walker but that his shoes did not fit. There is no documentation in nurses notes indicating that the Resident's edema was being monitored from January 9, 2002, until January 16, 2002, when Agency's surveyor advised the Facility's nurse that the Resident's feet were swollen. Upon examining the Resident, the nurse determined that the Resident had bilateral edema of his lower legs and feet and right lower arm. On January 16, 2002, the nurse notified Dr. McIntire that the Resident was suffering from edema. Dr. McIntire placed the Resident on Lasix (20 mg once a day x 5). The Nurses notes of January 17, 2002, revealed that Dr. McIntire increased the dosage of Lasix for the Resident to 40 mg once a day x 3 days. Dr. McIntire visited the Facility regularly, between November 4, 2001, and January 1, 2002, and encountered the Resident on a regular basis during those visits. Dr. McIntire did not observe the Resident suffering from any further edema between November 4, 2001, and January 1, 2002. Although the Resident gained considerable weight during his period of stay at the Facility, there is no evidence that his weight gain was the result of the edema. In fact, the Resident's weight gain was most likely the result of his poor eating habits. The Resident was constantly eating snacks in addition to his regular meals. Although there is a lack documentation that the nurses or Dr. McIntire was monitoring the Resident's edema during his stay at the Facility, there is sufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the Facility was monitoring the Resident's edema throughout his stay in the Facility. Other than his comment to the survey member on January 14, 2002, concerning his swollen feet, the Resident made no complaint concerning his feet being swollen to the point that he could not put on his shoes or that the edema was causing him any pain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency enter a final order rescinding the conditional licensure status issued to the Facility on January 17, 2002, and reinstate the standard licensure status for the period in question. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 9th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire R. Bruce McKibben, P.A. 1435 East Piedmont Drive Suite 214 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building Suite 310H St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanction(s), if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a 120-bed Skilled Nursing Facility located at 1990 S. Canal Drive, Homestead, Florida 33035 (Facility) pursuant to a license issued by the Agency. At all times material to the instant case, Edwin Coelho was the administrator of the Facility; Linda Howell was the LPN clinical coordinator at the Facility; Diane Doyle was the Facility's staff educator and infection control nurse; and Isela Palacios and Rosa Romero were Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) on the Facility's staff. At all times material to the instant case, E. H. was a resident of the Facility. On July 8, 2004, prior to her admission to the Facility, E. H. suffered a spiral/oblique fracture of her right distal tibia and fibula. Such a fracture is "usually caused by some sort of torque on the bone." At the time of her injury, E. H. was an 89-year-old woman with osteoporosis2 who had been "nonambulatory for nine years." Her bones were "very fragile" and "brittle" and "subject to easily be[ing] fractured" as a result of mere "movement." E. H. was treated by Felix Stanziola, M. D., an orthopedic specialist. Because of E. H.’s age and condition, Dr. Stanziola treated E. H.'s fracture conservatively by "align[ing] the bones and then put[ting on] a [long leg] cast." No surgery was performed. In August of 2004, E. H. became a resident of the Facility. Her right leg was still in a "long leg cast" at the time of her admission. On September 1, 2004, E. H. was transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office, where Dr. Stanziola removed her "long leg" cast and put her in a "short leg cast." On September 29, 2004, E. H. was again transported from the Facility to Dr. Stanziola's office. During this visit, Dr. Stanziola determined that the "fracture was healed" and, based on this determination, removed the cast he had put on E. H.'s leg the previous visit. Because E. H. was experiencing "knee pain" as a result of "severe arthritis," Dr. Stanziola "ordered physical therapy" for her. Throughout her stay at the Facility, both before and after the cast was removed, E. H. was nonambulatory and bedridden, requiring "total care" except for feeding.3 Facility staff had to reposition her in bed every two hours "because she could not reposition herself." When she needed to be moved either out of, or back onto, her bed (and the need arose "virtually every day"), Facility staff used a Marisa "sling lift" (Marisa) to make the transfer. This was "the safest way to move her." Other non- weight bearing residents in the Facility were also moved using a Marisa. A Marisa is a mobile, electric lift consisting of a U- shaped base and an upright post, on which is mounted a curved arm with a "tilting spreader bar." A head and body support sling, which "cradles" and supports the resident above the knees, is attached to the "tilting spreader bar." The operating controls are located on the back of the upright post. There is also a "remote" device that can be used to operate the lift. In making a transfer using the Marisa, the curved arm is first positioned over the resident. Then, two Facility staff members, situated in front of the resident, with the aid of a "Maxislide," slide the sling "right up under [the resident's] buttocks so it supports [the resident] from the knees back." To do this, the resident's "legs have to be lifted manually," but "only a very small amount." During the lift, the resident's lower legs (beneath the knee), which are unsupported, can swing freely. At all times material to the instant case, the Facility had policies and procedures in place that its staff were to follow in making a "patient lift/transfer." These policies and procedures included the following, among others: Every precaution is used to safeguard the patient when making a mechanical or manual lift, transfer or move. Plan any lift, transfer or move ahead of time. Have the proper equipment or personnel on hand. Ensure everyone involved in the task understands his or her role in the transfer, lift or move. Arrange the environment as necessary. Make sure there is appropriate space to maneuver and work in to ensure a safe lift, transfer or move. * * * Prior to using a mechanical lifting device the nurse will ensure proper planning for the transfer/lift has been accomplished and will request assistance [when] required for any difficult lift/transfer. CNAs Palacios and Romero received training in these policies and procedures prior to December 8, 2004. E. H. received a shower every other day in the shower room, which was two rooms down the hallway from the room E. H. occupied at all times material to the instant case. In the shower room, she was bathed while seated in a shower chair (which had wheels) by "shower CNAs." The shower chair that was used did not have a footrest, nor any other device or feature to prevent E. H.'s lower legs from swinging freely when being wheeled in the chair. The "shower CNAs" had to lift E. H.'s legs to bathe them properly. On December 8, 2004, CNA Palacios, with the assistance of another CNA, used the Marisa to transfer E. H. from her bed to a shower chair. The transfer was safely accomplished, without incident, like every prior transfer of E. H., since her arrival at the Facility, had been. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. in the shower chair to the shower room, where the "shower CNAs" bathed E. H. After bathing E. H., the "shower CNAs" placed a "covering" on her and wheeled her into the hallway, where CNA Palacios was waiting. CNA Palacios then wheeled E. H. back to E. H.'s room. E. H. had remained in the shower chair the entire time she had been out of her room. E. H.'s room (which she shared with another resident) was a "standard" 12-foot by 24-foot semi-private room with a small bathroom (having just a sink and toilet). When E. H. returned from her shower on December 8, 2004, in her room (taking up floor space) outside the bathroom, were: two beds (eight feet by three feet); two night stands (18 inches by 30 inches); two wardrobe closets (23 inches by 22 inches); two "over the bed" tables; a reclining chair (30 inches by 30 inches); a television stand (24 inches by 14 inches); an oxygen concentrator; a high back chair (22 inches by 26 inches); E. H.'s wheelchair; and the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. These were the same items that had been present in the room earlier that day when E. H. had been moved (safely, with the Marisa) from her bed to the shower chair. On Respondent's side of the room (the "A" side, which was closest to the door) were one of the beds, one of the nightstands, one of the "over the bed" tables, both of the wardrobe closets, the high back chair, the wheelchair, and the shower chair (with E. H. in it). The remaining items were on the other resident's side of the room (the "B" side). The high back chair was located against the wall next to the wardrobe closets (which were to the left as one entered the room). The high back chair was in the room, not for E. H. or her roommate to sit on, but for visitors to use. After wheeling E. H. back into the room in the shower chair, CNA Palacios went to get the Marisa, which was "right outside the door" to the room. There, she met CNA Romero, who volunteered to help CNA Palacios transfer E. H., with the Marisa, from the shower chair to E. H.'s wheelchair. CNA Palacios then went back into E. H.'s room with the Marisa, followed by CNA Romero. The Marisa was positioned so that its curved arm was over the shower chair in which E. H. was seated. CNAs Palacios and Romero then secured E. H. in the sling and the lift began, with CNA Palacios at the controls and CNA Romero next to E. H. (who was facing in the general direction of the door). The wheelchair (into which E. H. was to be placed) was between the shower chair and the high back chair. During the lift, E. H.'s roommate (who was behind a privacy curtain) asked for CNA Palacios' assistance. CNA Palacios responded that she would "be there in a minute," after which she continued to focus her attention on operating the Marisa and completing the lift. Before the lift was completed, CNA Romero advised CNA Palacios that there was blood on the floor directly below E. H.'s right leg. Up until that point in time, nothing unusual had occurred during the lift, such as E. H. bumping into or hitting something or expressing discomfort. Upon being told about the blood, CNA Palacios turned off the Marisa. CNA Romero then removed the covering that the "shower CNAs" had placed on E. H.'s legs. It was apparent that E. H. had suffered a compound fracture (that is, a fracture where "the bone was protruding through the [skin]") of her right lower leg. There was considerable bleeding. The blood was dripping onto the floor in the area beneath the injured leg. There was no blood anywhere else inside or outside the room (other than on E. H. and CNA Romero's pants). Once E. H.'s injury was discovered, nurses were summoned to the room. After the nurses had stabilized E. H.'s leg, the Marisa was turned on again and E. H. was moved back onto her bed. It was not until she was on the bed that E. H. first gave "any indication of discomfort." Emergency rescue workers were called. After they arrived on the scene, E. H. was transported to the hospital by helicopter. X-rays revealed that that E. H. had a "new" spiral/oblique fracture "just above" where she had fractured her leg on July 8, 2004. Shortly after E. H. was taken to the hospital, the Facility began an investigation to determine what had happened to cause her injury. LPN Howell was the staff member put in charge of the investigation. Among the individuals LPN Howell interviewed as part of her investigation were CNAs Palacios and Romero. CNA Palacios was interviewed within an hour of the incident. CNA Romero was interviewed within two and half hours of the incident.4 Both CNAs told LPN Howell that they did not know how E. H. had been injured. CNAs Palacios and Romero were subsequently asked to give written statements about the incident. The written statement CNA Palacios provided read as follows: She came back from the shower on the chair. I put the sling on her back. Rosa help[ed] me. We put the machine Maris[]a [to] get her up. The Mari[]sa pick[ed] her up in the air. Then we put her in the wheelchair. Then we notice[d] blood on the floor. I went out to get nurse [G]eorge. Everybody went to help. I did not hear her foot bump or hit anything. The written statement CNA Romero gave read as follows: I, Rosa Romero was assisting Isela Palacios transferring a resident in . . . Room 304 A from the shower chair to the wheelchair with the hoyer l[i]fter and her leg got caught in it. We didn't notice she was hurt until she was s[it]ting in the wheelchair when we saw lot[s] [of] blood on the floor. Isela and I w[ere] helping each o[ther] and we did everything the right way, the way [it] is supposed to be [done]. Notwithstanding the assertion CNA Romero made in her written statement that E. H.'s "leg got caught in it," there is "nothing [in the Marisa] to get caught in."5 After completing her interviews on December 8, 2004, LPN Howell spoke to her supervisor, Facility Administrator Coelho, who also serves as the Facility's risk manager. Facility Administrator Coelho told LPN Howell that he "was going to check things out himself." To this end, he participated in several "reenactments" of what had transpired in E. H.'s room after she had come back from her shower on December 8, 2004, in an effort to ascertain how E. H. may have injured herself. The "reenactments" took place in E. H.'s room. "[I]tems [in the room] were placed" where, according to CNAs Palacios and Romero, they had been at the time of the incident. Facility Administrator Coelho played the role of E. H. "[O]ne of the CNAs" operated the controls of the Marisa and, using the machine, lifted Facility Administrator Coelho out of the shower chair and into E. H.'s wheelchair. This was done "about three times." At no time did Facility Administrator Coelho come close to "hit[ting] anything inside" the room. The Facility administration submitted required reports concerning E. H.'s injury. LPN Howell prepared the "Federal 5-day Report," which Facility Administrator Coelho reviewed and discussed with her before its submission. This report contained the following "findings of facility investigation": After completion of interviews, the area and equipment involved were checked. It is determined that the area was crowded due to the size of the resident, the size of the shower chair, the size of the w/c, the size of the Marisa lift and the furniture along with the constant request of the other resident in the room distracted the staff when the resident was moved to position the Marisa sling over the w/c. The procedures in place at the time for safety of both residents and staff were being followed but a lack in focus or concentration led to the injury.[6] There is no evidence of intent to do harm on the part of the staff members involved. The staff members were suspended without pay for 5 days and have returned to work effective 12-13-04.[7] Facility Administrator Coelho authored an "Administrative Incident Report," in which he stated that the Facility administrations's investigation revealed "no definitive reason for the accident," but that it "was assumed that in turning the resident while she was on the sling her leg got caught on the high back chair" in the room. He added that the Facility administration was taking action to remove high back chairs from rooms of residents who "ha[d] to be lifted." The high back chairs were removed from E. H.'s room and the rooms of other residents who "ha[d] to be lifted" on or about December 10, 2006. The Facility administration did so only out of an abundance of caution, not because it had determined with any certitude that the presence of the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, constituted a hazardous condition that resulted in E. H.'s injury. Prior to the incident on December 8, 2004, there had never been a problem at the Facility in lifting E. H. or any other resident in a room with a high back chair. The lifting of residents in rooms set up like E. H.'s had "happened all the time in [the] building" without any resident getting injured. At no time during this period had the Facility been cited by the Agency, during any life safety inspection, for failing to comply with requirements concerning the design and equipping of residents' rooms.8 Having the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, did not unreasonably expose E. H. to the risk of accidental injury while being lifted with the Marisa. Even with the high back chair in E. H.'s room on December 8, 2004, there was adequate space for trained Facility staff, acting in a reasonably prudent manner in accordance with Facility policy and procedure, to lift E. H. with the Marisa (as had been done in the past) without E. H.'s bumping into something and injuring herself. It is unclear exactly what caused E. H. to suffer a compound fracture of her right lower leg on December 8, 2004.9 What is clear is that this injury was not the result of her having gotten her leg "caught" in the Marisa or on the high back chair while being lifted from the shower chair. During the lift, her leg did not hit against any object in the room.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of June, 2006.
