The Issue Whether Respondent nursing home violated Florida statutes and Department rules (and should be subject to a civil penalty) as alleged by the Department for (1) failing to provide adequate health care to an injured patient, and (2) failing to meet nursing staffing requirements.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, including the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and posthearing filings by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent Nursing Home, the Apalachicola Valley Nursing Center, is a nursing care facility located immediately west of Blountstown, Florida. It is licensed by the Department, and has been in operation since June, 1975. (Testimony of Margaret Brock) Injury to and Standard of Care Provided Myrtle White On July 4, 1979, Dora M. Keifer was the licensed practical nurse on duty during the Nursing Home's night shift. At approximately 1:30 a.m., nurse Keifer heard a noise coming from the nearby room of an elderly patient, Myrtle White. The nurse immediately investigated, and found Myrtle White lying on the floor, and against the wall. Nurse Keifer then visually examined Mrs. White's head and extremities for bruises, discolorations, swelling, lacerations, and other signs of possible fractures. Finding only a slight abrasion on her elbow, nurse Keifer then manually examined the patient's leg and hip for signs of a bone fracture or associated pain. The patient responded by complaining of pain on her right side from her knee to her hip. However, no swelling of that area could be detected; nor were there any other physical symptoms of a bone fracture which were detectable by visual or manual examination. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) After completing the examination, nurse Keifer, with the assistance of four aides, placed Mrs. White on a blanket and carefully lifted her directly onto her bed, placing her on her back. This is a lifting procedure which minimizes sudden movement and is recommended for use with patients who are suspected of suffering from bone fractures. Nurse Keifer then raised the bed side rails to prevent the patient from falling off the bed, and checked the patient's vital signs. Except for slightly elevated blood pressure, the patient's vital signs were within normal limits. Nurse Keifer, then pushed the bed to within 10 feet of her nursing station to ensure that the patient would-be constantly observed during the remainder of her shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Except on the two occasions when she made her routine rounds, nurse Keifer kept Mrs. White under constant personal observation until her shift ended at 7:00 a.m. on July 4, 1979. When she made her rounds, nurse Keifer advised her aides to keep Mrs. White under constant observation. During the remainder of her shift, nurse Keifer periodically reexamined Mrs. White. Physical symptoms of a fracture, or other injury resulting from the patient's fall, continued to be absent. At 4:30 a.m., nurse Keifer checked the patient's urine sample and detected no blood or other unusual signs. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) At the time of her accident on July 4, 1979, Mrs. White, an 88-year-old woman, was suffering from deafness, senility, disorientation, poor eyesight and arthritis. She had previously fractured her right hip, and a prosthetic device had been inserted. Her ailments caused her to frequently suffer, and complain of pain in the area of her right hip, for which her doctor (Dr. Manuel E. Lopez) had prescribed, by standing (continuing) order, a pain medication known as Phenophen No. 4. The standing order authorized the nursing staff to administer this pain medication to the patient, without further authorization from a physician, four times daily, and on an "as needed" basis to relieve Mrs. White's pain. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Mr. Manuel Lopez, Margaret Brock) Previous to and at the time of Mrs. White's accident, nurse Keifer was aware of Mrs. White's ailments, and frequent complaints of discomfort, as well as the standing order of Dr. Lopez which authorized the administering of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White on an "as needed" basis to relieve pain. In addition, nurse Keifer, by background and training was qualified to examine, make judgments concerning, and render care to patients requiring emergency medical treatment. For several years, she had served as a part-time nurse on the night shift at the Nursing Home, and had served for 6 years in the emergency room and obstetric ward at Calhoun County Hospital. At the hospital, she had engaged in the detection and treatment of traumatic injuries and broken bones on a daily basis, and was familiar with the proper nursing and medical techniques used in caring for such injuries. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White) Nurse Keifer had been instructed by local physicians (including Dr. Lopez) practicing at the Nursing Home that they should not be telephoned during the late evening and early morning hours unless, in the nurse's judgment, the patient required emergency care. Because Blountstown suffers a severe shortage of physicians, the judgment of licensed nurses necessarily assumes on increasingly important role in providing adequate medical care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. E. B. White, Margaret Brook, Dr. Manuel Lopez) Between 1:30 a.m. (the time of Mrs. Trite's accident) and 7:00 a.m., on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer administered Phenophen No. 4 two times to Mrs. White for the purpose of relieving pain. The initial dose was given Mrs. White shortly after she had complained of pain and been moved near nurse Keifer's duty station for observation. The drug appeared to alleviate Mrs. White's discomfort. Three or four hours later, after Mrs. White again complained of pain, a second dose was administered. (Testimony of Dora Keifer) Nurse Keifer administered the two doses of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White during the early morning hours of July 4, 1979, without contacting, or seeking the further authorization of a physician. Having detected no symptoms of a bone fracture, or other injury to Mrs. White resulting from her fall, nurse Keifer concluded that administration of the medication to relieve pain was authorized by Dr. Lopez's standing order, and justified under the circumstances. She further made a judgment that Mrs. White was not suffering from an injury which justified emergency treatment, and the immediate contacting of a physician. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Manuel Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) At 5:30 a.m. on July 4, 1979, nurse Keifer telephoned Calhoun County Hospital and left a message requesting Dr. Lopez to come to the Nursing Home and examine Mrs. White as soon as he completed his rounds at the hospital. Nurse Keifer was aware, at the time, that Dr. Lopez began his daily hospital rounds at 6:00 a.m. Later that morning, at the direction of Dr. Lopez, Mrs. White was taken to the hospital for x-rays which revealed that Mrs. White had fractured her right hip. She was returned to the Nursing Home that day, and transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for several days. No surgical repairs were ever made to the hip fracture, however, and Mrs. White was subsequently returned to the Nursing Home, for bed-side care. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Dr. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White) It was nurse Keifer's professional judgment, based upon the facts known to her at that time, that Mrs. White's fall, and physical condition neither required emergency medical treatment nor justified the immediate contacting of a physician. Nurse Keifer further concluded that the administration of Phenophen No. 4 to relieve Mrs. White's pain, without further authorization of a physician, was necessary and authorized by the standing order of Dr. Lopez. These professional nursing judgments and actions were reasonable, justified by the facts, consistent with established health care standards applied in the Blountstown area, and did not endanger the life, or create a substantial probability of harm to Mrs. White. Although the Department's Medical Facilities Program Supervisor, Howard Chastain, testified that nurse Keifer's failure to immediately notify a physician concerning Mrs. White's fall presented an imminent danger to the patient, it is concluded that the contrary testimony of two experienced medical doctors constitutes the weight of the evidence on this issue. As to the meaning of Dr. Lopez's standing order con cerning administration of Phenophen No. 4 to Mrs. White, the Department's witnesses on this matter, James L. Myrah and Christine Denson, conceded that they would net disagree with Dr. Lopez if the doctor testified that nurse Keifer's action was consistent with the standing order. Dr. Lopez, subsequently, so testified. (Testimony of Dr. M. Lopez, Dr. E. B. White, James L. Myrah) Shortage of One Nurse on Night Shift During the period of June 1 through June 30, 1979, and July 1, through July 21, 1979, for a total of fifty-one (51) nights, the Nursing Home employed only one licensed nurse on the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. night shift. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah) During this same 51-day time period, the number of patients at the Nursing Home fluctuated between 70 and 80 patients. (Testimony of Margaret Brook, J. L. Myrah, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) The Nursing Home is managed by a licensed nursing home administrator, and provides a full range of health and related services to patients requiring skilled or extensive nursing home care. Most of the patients require nursing services on a 24-hour basis and are seriously incapacitated, mentally or physically. (Testimony of Margaret Brook) The Administrator of the Nursing Home was aware that Department rules required the employment of two licensed nurses on the night shift during June and July, 1979. She made numerous unsuccessful efforts to recruit, locate, and employ an additional nurse for the night shift. Her failure to hire the additional nurse required by Department rules was not a willful act of misfeasance or nonfeasance on her part--but was due to a statewide nursing shortage which is particularly severe in rural northwest Florida. Other nursing homes have experienced similar difficulty in recruiting and hiring the requisite number of licensed nurses. The Nursing Home received no economic benefit from its failure to employ the additional night nurse during the time in question because the cost of such an employee is fully reimbursed by the State. On approximately March 1, 1980, the Nursing Home located, and has since employed, the additional licensed nurse required by Department rules for the night shift. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brook) Due to the widespread shortage of qualified nursing personnel, the Department ordinarily brings enforcement actions against nursing homes for noncompliance with the minimum nursing staff requirements only if the noncompliance is adversely affecting patient care. (Testimony of James L. Myrah, Margaret Brock) The shortage of one licensed nurse on the night shift during the time in question did not adversely affect the level of patient care provided by the Nursing Home. (Testimony of Dora Keifer, Margaret Brock) The parties have submitted proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. To the extent that those findings and conclusions are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, unsupported by the evidence, or law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department's Administrative Complaint, and the charges against Respondent contained therein, be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Dempsey & Slaughter, P.A. Suite 610 - Eola Office Center 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact In October 1978 Bonnie Ray Solomon Crawford, LPN was employed at the West Pasco Hospital, New Port Richey, Florida as a licensed practical nurse provided by Upjohn Company's rent-a-nurse program. On 7 October 1978 Respondent signed out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and on 8 October 1973 at 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Demerol 75 mg for patient Kleinschmidt (Exhibit 2). Doctor's orders contained in Exhibit 4 shows that Demerol 50 mg was ordered by the doctor to be administered to patient Kleinschmidt as needed. Nurses Notes in Exhibit 4 for October 7, 1978 contains no entry of administration of Demerol at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m. shows administration of 50 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. Exhibit 3, Narcotic Record for Demerol 50 mg contains two entries at 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 1978 and one entry at 12:30 p.m. where Respondent signed out for Demerol 50 mg. for patients King, Zobrist and King in chronological order. Nurses Notes for King, Exhibit 6, and Zobrist, Exhibit 5, contain no entry that Demerol was administered to patient Zobrist at 8:15 a.m. or to patient King at 12:30 p.m. on 7 October 1978. In fact, the record for Zobrist shows that Zobrist was discharged from the hospital on October 5, 1978. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics constitutes a gross error in patient care and is not acceptable nursing practice. Similarly it is not acceptable nursing practice to withdraw narcotics not contained in doctors orders or administer medication not in doctors orders. When confronted by the Nursing Administrator at West Pasco Hospital with these discrepancies in the handling of Demerol, Respondent stated that she failed to check the identity of the patient before administering medication and that she didn't feel she should be giving medications any more. Following this confrontation with the hospital authorities, Respondent was fired for incompetency. No evidence was submitted regarding Respondent's 1975 disciplinary proceedings.
The Issue As stated in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the "issue to be litigated is whether Petitioner is entitled to a Superior or Standard rating on its license for the period September 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987"?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, The Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, is a 210-bed nursing home located in a four-story building in Pensacola, Florida. It is licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Howard Bennett and his wife have been the owners of the Petitioner since it was built in 1978. On April 28-30, 1986, and May 1-2, 1986, the Department conducted an annual Licensure and Certification survey (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Survey") of the Petitioner's nursing home as required by Section 400.23, Florida Statutes. Based upon the Annual Survey conducted by the Department, the Department determined that the Petitioner's facility failed to meet nursing home licensure requirement numbers (NH) 100 and 102, as identified on the Department's Nursing Home Licensure Survey Report, DHRS exhibit 2. The deficiencies found by the Department and which in fact existed during the Annual Survey relating to NH 100 and 102 were as follows: The charge nurse for each shift on each of the four floors of the facility is responsible, under direction from Director of Nursing, for the total nursing activities in the facility during each tour of duty. The charge nurses are thus responsible for ensuring that nursing personnel carry out the direct nursing care needs of specific patients and assist in carrying out these nursing care needs. This responsibility is not always met in that: On the day of the survey, there were urine odors noted on the halls, rooms of fourth and third floors, indicating lack of attention by nursing. Other instances of lack of personal attention by nursing on the above mentioned floor in that: One patient required oral hygiene. Fourteen residents required fingernail care, one resident's fingernails were long, thick, and black indicating a need for attention. Two residents had redden buttocks, three residents were wet, three residents needed shaving, three residents needed hair cuts. One resident needed colostomy bag changed. One resident had a small amount of feces on backside, and was not properly cleaned around the rectum and scrotum. Several residents had on clothing that was too tight, zippers open, buttons not fasten, soil wrinkled and threads hanging around the bottom. It is also noted, that there are 116 total care, and 17 self care residents in the facility indicating a need for constant intensive nursing care to the residents. Ref. 10D-29.108(3)(d)(1) Based upon the totality of these deficiencies, it was concluded that the Petitioner failed to comply with the standard of care to be provided by the charge nurse. The deficiencies cited by the Department during the Annual Survey were classified as Class III deficiencies. The Annual Survey was conducted by Christine Denson. Ms. Denson had conducted nine to ten annual surveys of the Petitioner prior to the survey which is the subject of this proceeding. During Ms. Denson's inspection of the Petitioner's nursing home, Ms. Denson pointed out the deficiencies which are noted above to the director of nursing who accompanied Ms. Denson during her inspection. Ms. Denson normally records in some manner the identity of a resident to whom a deficiency relates; by noting the room number or bed number. Ms. Denson did not follow this procedure during the Annual Survey. Ms. Denson met with Howard Bennett, the owner of the Petitioner, at the conclusion of the Annual Survey. After Ms. Denson had explained the deficiencies she had found during her inspection, Judge Bennett stated to Ms. Denson: "I know the place is going down hill. We are letting it slide. Judge Bennett did not ask Ms. Denson for any information concerning the identity of the residents to which deficiencies related. The Petitioner had policies in effect at the time of the Annual Survey which addressed each of the deficiencies cited by the Department. Those policies were not, however, followed. Ms. Denson did not know when the residents to which the deficiencies she found related had been admitted to the Petitioner, their medical condition, how long the fingernail problems had existed or how long the residents had resided at the Petitioner. Ms. Denson did not speak to the residents about the problems she noted, review their medical or dental records or talk to any residents' physician. Finally, Ms. Denson did not remember whether any of the residents were continent or incontinent. On August 13, 1986, a letter was issued by the Department informing the Petitioner that its license rating was being converted from a superior rating to a standard rating. The August 13, 1986, letter from the Department also indicated that the deficiencies noted in the Annual Survey had been corrected based upon a July 31, 1986, follow-up inspection conducted by the Department. The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed rating of its license by letter dated September 24, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assigning a standard rating on the Petitioner's license for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4182 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Accentance or Reason for Rejection 1-3, 6-7, 81 These are matters included in the Prehearing Stipulation. They are hereby accepted. 4-5 Statement of the issue in this case 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Denson testified at pages 48-49 of the transcript that whether a nursing home was considered to be out of compliance depended on the totality of the deficiencies and that she considered all of the deficiencies she found at the Petitioner's facility. 9 12. 10-11 10. 12-13 7. 14 Irrelevant. 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29-31 10. 17 Hearsay. 18, 28, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 41-43, 45 Hereby accepted. 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 48, 54-66, 71, 73-77 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They all involve, however, possible explanations for the deficiencies found at the Petitioner's facility. In order for these proposed findings of fact to be relevant it would have to be concluded that the Department had the burden of dispelling any and all possible explanations for the deficiencies. Such a conclusion would not be reasonable in this case. The Department presented testimony that the deficiencies cited existed and that, taken as a whole, they supported a conclusion that the Petitioner was not providing minimum nursing care. This evidence was credible and sufficient to meet the Department's burden of proof and to shift the burden to the Petitioner to provide proof of any explanations for the deficiencies. 35 9. 38, 40, 49-51, 53, 82-83, 86-87 Irrelevant and/or argument. 43-44 1. 46-47, 51, 56, 66-67, 71-71 These proposed findings of fact are true. They are not relevant to this proceeding, however, because they involve situations at the Petitioner's facility which may explain the deficiencies. The Petitioner failed to prove that they actually were the cause of any of the deficiencies. 70, 78-80, 84-85 Conclusions of law. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-3. 2 11-12. 3 4 and 6. 4 4. 5-7 Irrelevant, summary of testimony, conclusion of law. 8 9. 9 8. 10 Irrelevant. 11 8. 12 Summary of testimony and facts relating to the weight of Ms. Mayo's testimony. 13-14 Hereby accepted. 15 Argument. 16-17 Conclusions of law. 18 4. 19-20 Conclusions of law, argument and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael O. Mathis Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Mary E. Johnson, was discriminated against by her discharge from her position as a Certified Nurse Assistant by Respondent, Ormond Beach Memorial Hospital (Hospital), on November 21, 1991, because of her handicap, clinical depression, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner worked as an on-call Nurse Assistant for Respondent. On call employees were guaranteed no certain amount of hours and no benefits were provided to them. On call employees were called to work when patient census was high, and were the first to be cancelled when the census was low. Vodenicker, Tr. 29 (1. 20-25) - 30 (1. 1-19); Johnson, Tr. 31 (1. 4-5). On November 21, 1991, Respondent discharged Petitioner from her position as a Certified Nursing Assistant at the Hospital. Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. Petitioner had been hospitalized the majority of May 1991 for clinical depression. She returned to work at the Hospital following her hospitalization and was not hospitalized again prior to her discharge, although she did continue to have problems with depression. Johnson, Tr. 33 (1. 18-25) - 34 (1. 1-14). Ms. Vodenicker, Vice President of Nursing Services, became aware that Petitioner had been hospitalized for clinical depression during a counseling session on August 20, 1991. Ms. Sally Cole, Nurse Manager of Six North, was also present during this meeting. Johnson, Tr. 53 (1. 23-24); Vodenicker, Tr. 120 (1. 8-16), Tr. 121 (1. 9-17), Tr. 133 (1. 8-11). In early May, Diane McCall, Assistant Director of Nursing, was told by Dorothy Johnson, Petitioner's mother, that Petitioner was depressed and had been hospitalized. McCall, Tr. 78 (1. 23-25) - 79 (1. 1-8). Petitioner never discussed her clinical depression with Ms. McCall. McCall, Tr. 79 (1. 9-14); Johnson, Tr. 51 (1. 5-7). Petitioner's psychiatrist, Dr. Oh, had no conversations with anyone at the Hospital regarding Petitioner's clinical depression. Johnson, Tr. 38 (1. 13-15). As a physician practicing in the area, the nurses and staff were familiar with his specialty, and some of the Petitioner's supervisor's knew Dr. Oh was treating the Petitioner. Petitioner did not inform any members of the Hospital's nursing staff that she was suffering from clinical depression. Johnson, Tr. 50 (1. 19-22). Ms. Burns, one of Petitioner's supervisors, was not aware that Petitioner suffered from clinical depression. Johnson, Tr. 51 (1. 14-16); Burns, Tr. 182 (1. 16-19). Ms. Bowen, Nurse Manager of Six South, had no knowledge that Petitioner suffered from clinical depression. Johnson, Tr. 52 (1. 10-12); Bowen, Tr. 185 (1. 9-17). In her capacity as Team Leader and/or Charge Nurse, Ms. Canelli had occasion to supervise Ms. Johnson's work. Ms. Canelli described Petitioner's performance as "erratically efficient" because sometimes Petitioner was "very good at her job and at other times she was less than adequate". Canelli, Tr. 83 (1. 4-15). In early May 1991, Petitioner was counseled by Ms. Vodenicker regarding her personal interactions with a coworker, Brad Van Buren. Ms. Vodenicker cautioned Petitioner to keep her personal life separate from her business life at the Hospital. Johnson, Tr. 57 (1. 15-25) - 58 (1. 1-15). On July 20th, Ms. Canelli counseled Petitioner regarding the deficient level of care she had provided to a "total-care patient" (i.e., a patient who cannot feed, bathe or move themselves in bed) on July 2nd. Ms. Canelli discovered the patient "lying in a puddle of stool," and located Petitioner sitting at the nurses station holding her pocketbook and waiting to leave for the day, even though there was still 20-25 minutes left until the end of the shift. Ms. Canelli instructed Petitioner to clean up the patient. About ten minutes later, Ms. Canelli went back into the patient's room and discovered that the patient had apparently been wiped off with a dry cloth but had not been bathed. This was evident because there was still stool on the patient's pillow, dressings, and leg. Ms. Canelli summoned another Nurse Assistant, and they cleaned up the patient. Ms. Canelli counseled Petitioner regarding this incident on the next available opportunity she had to work with her, and she also documented the incident. Canelli, Tr. 83 (1. 21-25) - 84 (1. 1-17) - 85 (1. 4-25) -86 (1. 1-23); Respondent's Exhibits 6 and 7. On August 20th, Ms. Vodenicker had a second counseling session with Petitioner concerning Mr. Van Buren, following a complaint by Mr. Van Buren that Petitioner had been following him around in her car and that she had been seen in the Hospital parking lot watching him as he came on duty on the evening of August 19th. Vodenicker, Tr. 118 (1. 10-14). On October 27th, Ms. Canelli counseled Petitioner about Petitioner's absence from her assigned floor when she could not be located by the nursing staff, even after she was paged over the Hospital paging system. Ms. Canelli documented the events surrounding this counseling session on October 28th, to include several prior instances in which the nursing staff had been unable to locate Petitioner on her assigned floor. Canelli, Tr. 88 (1. 2-25) - 89 (1. 1- 8) - 102 (1. 1-25) - 103 (1. 1-3); Respondent's Exhibit 8. Ms. Vodenicker requested that Ms. Cole, Nurse Manager of Six North, escort Petitioner to Ms. Vodenicker's office in order to discuss the situation and to get Petitioner's side of the story. Ms. Cole sat in on the meeting as a witness. Ms. Vodenicker reminded Petitioner of their previous discussion regarding Mr. Van Buren and told Petitioner to keep her business and personal lives separate. Ms. Vodenicker also took this opportunity to discuss other problems with Petitioner's job performance. Vodenicker, Tr. 119 (1. 15-25) - 120 (1. 1-7); Johnson, Tr. 58 (1. 18-25) - 59 (1. 1-10). Because Petitioner's actions were in violation of the directives that Ms. Vodenicker had previously discussed with Petitioner in May, Ms. Vodenicker a wrote a disciplinary report. Johnson, Tr. 121 (1. 20-24). On August 21st, Ms. McCall presented Petitioner with the disciplinary report in the presence of Ms. McCall. Petitioner refused to sign the document, and Ms. Vodenicker made a notation of this fact on the face of the document and forwarded the original to the Hospital's personnel department. Vodenicker, Tr. 121 (1. 25) - 122 (1. 1-23) - 146 (1. 10-25) - 147 (1. 1-3); McCall, Tr. 156 (1. 22-25) - 157 (1. 1-11); Johnson, Tr. 59 (1. 11-25) - 60 (1. 1-4); Respondent's Exhibit 3. Ms. Burns counseled Petitioner after the Petitioner failed to answer a page and could not be found when Ms. Burns undertook a personal search for Petitioner. Petitioner later stated that she had taken a patient to x-ray; however, when Ms. Burns called the x-ray department, no one remembered seeing Petitioner in that area. Ms. Burns counseled Petitioner regarding leaving her assigned floor without notifying proper personnel and documented the incident. Burns, Tr. 176 (1. 4-23) - 177 (1. 22-25) - 178 (1. 1-17) - 179 (1. 3-25) - 180 (1. 1-10) - 181 (1. 14-16) - 182 (1. 9-15). On October 26, 1991, Petitioner was working under Ms. Peterson's supervision. Ms. Peterson observed that, while on a supposed 15-minute break at 8:15 a.m., Petitioner did not return until nearly 9:15 a.m. Ms. Peterson documented the incident after consulting with her supervisor. No one at the Hospital had instructed Ms. Peterson to keep an eye on Petitioner. Peterson, Tr. 172 (1. 12-23) - 173 (1. 18-25) - 174 (1. 1-6) - 175 (1. 1-3); Respondent's Exhibit 17. On November 2, 1991, Ms. McCall counseled Petitioner regarding being absent from her assigned floor, and limiting her breaks to 15 minutes and lunch breaks to one-half hour. Ms. McCall instructed Petitioner not to leave the floor unless directed to do so by the Charge Nurse or Team Leader. Ms. McCall documented her counseling Petitioner in her personnel file. McCall, Tr. 149 (1. 19-25) - 150 (1. 1-18); Respondent's Exhibit 14. On November 10, 1991, Petitioner was assigned to assist patient Joan Cummings. Patient Cummings was an "NPO" patient, meaning that she could not receive any of her fluids and medications by mouth. Petitioner forgot to measure the patient's urine output prior to emptying her bedpan. Canelli, Tr. 92 (1. 18-25). Johnson, Tr. 40 (1. 2-8) - 66 (1. 23-25) - 67 (1. 1-5). After forgetting to measure patient Cummings' urine, Petitioner asked the patient how many times she had urinated. The patient informed her that she had voided three (3) times, and Petitioner multiplied that number by 200 cc's to arrive at a figure of 600 cc's. Petitioner recorded 600 cc's as patient output on the intake/output slip, and which was ultimately recorded on the patient's daily log form located on a clipboard outside the patient's door. The information was later transcribed onto the patient's chart. Johnson, Tr. 40 (1. 10-25) - 42 (1. 4-25) - 43 (1. 1-12). The Nurse Assistant assigned to the patient is responsible for an accurate intake and output measurement as recorded on the patient's intake/output slips and daily log sheets. The information recorded on these Hospital documents are relied upon as accurate by the entire nursing staff. The information is transferred onto the patient's graphic charts by the nurse, or nursing assistant or nursing team leader, depending on who has time. Canelli, Tr. 112 (1. 8-25) - 113 (1. 1-3); Bowen, Tr. 184 (1. 3-8). By substituting 200 cc's in the place of the BRP designation, Petitioner failed to follow the procedures as described to her by Ms. Canelli. Petitioner had never been instructed by anyone at the Hospital to substitute 200 cc's for actual measurement. Johnson, Tr. 44 (1. 21-25) - 45 (1. 1) - 47 (1. 15-25) - 48 (1. 1-19) - 49 (1. 1-6); Canelli, Tr. 99 (1. 2-8). It would not be proper for a nurse or nurse assistant to multiply the number of times a patient had voided by 200 cc's, and use that number as an accurate representation of the amount of urine output by the patient. Canelli, Tr. 91 (1. 9-14). Petitioner's "Nursing Skill Evaluation" form reveals that she received training on the use of intake/output sheets, including the accurate measuring of cleaning of these items, although she cannot recall what instructions she received. Johnson, Tr. 64 (1. 7-25) - 65 (1. 1), (1. 14-17); Respondent's Exhibit 4. An accompanying self-evaluation form also reveals that Petitioner indicated that she felt comfortable with charting elimination of bedpan fluids and with the accurate measuring and cleaning of the graduated pitcher. Johnson, Tr. 67 (1. 12-25) - 68 (1. 1-12); Respondent's Exhibit 5. Ms. Canelli instructed her Nurse Assistants to inform the Team Leader, whenever they had forgotten to measure a patient's urine output and to let their Team Leader know the number of times the patient had voided so that the staff would have some idea that the patient had voided and chart that the urine had not measured. Canelli, Tr. 91 (1. 17-25). Petitioner's substitution of her estimate of urine output was contrary to acceptable charting practice. Petitioner had been instructed by Ms. Canelli, who regularly performed Team Leader and Charge Nurse duties, to document instances in which she had forgotten to measure a patient's output by writing the number of times the patient had voided beside the designation "BRP" (bathroom privileges). Johnson, Tr. 43 (1. 25) - 44 (1. 1-20). On November 10, 1991, patient Cummings reported to Ms. Canelli that Petitioner had dumped her bedpan without measuring the urine output after the Petitioner had left at the end of her shift. Ms. Canelli documented the facts related to her by the patient in a report to her team leader, Ms. Bowen. Canelli, Tr. 94 (1. 22-25) - 95 (1. 1-3); Respondent's Exhibit 9. Petitioner admits that the nurses rely on the information recorded on the intake/output slips and daily logs as being accurate representations of the actual amount of fluids measured by the Nurse Assistants. Johnson, Tr. 43 (1. 13-15). Nurse Bowen was the Team Leader on Six North on November 10, 1991. Ms. Bowen spoke with Ms. Cummings, who advised her that Petitioner had failed to measure her urine output before emptying the bedpan. Ms. Bowen also documented the patient's complaint in a report. Bowen, Tr. 184 (1. 9-19). Nurse McCall was advised of the Cummings incident when she returned to work after the weekend. Ms. McCall brought the incident involving patient Cummings to the attention of Ms. Vodenicker. In reviewing patient Cummings' medical file, Ms. Vodenicker was very concerned about Petitioner's inaccurate recording of patient information. Ms. Vodenicker opined that it was very important that the Hospital be able to trust what its health-care employees tell them and have confidence that the employees have done what they say they have done. Vodenicker, Tr. 123 (1. 9-20) - 124 (1. 7-16). Ms. Vodenicker was already aware of Petitioner's performance, as well as the prior written corrective action which she had given Petitioner. She reviewed Petitioner's personnel file, performance appraisals, and met with Nurse McCall, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, in order to analyze this matter further. Ms. Vodenicker decided in view of the decline in Petitioner's performance, the verbal and written counseling she had received from the supervisory staff, the prior corrective action which had been issued, and the recent incident involving patient Cummings that a decision was required regarding Petitioner's further employment. Vodenicker, Tr. 124 (1. 20-25) - 125 (1. 1-3). Ms. Vodenicker discussed the matter with Nurse McCall and asked that she provide her with a recommendation. Nurse McCall recommended Petitioner's discharge based upon the incident involving patient Cummings and Petitioner's declining work performance. Vodenicker, Tr. 125 (1. 8-18); McCall, Tr. 153 (1. 10-25) - 154 (1. 1-11) - 157 (1. 24-25) - 158 (1. 1); Respondent's Exhibit 13. Petitioner's annual performance evaluation reflected that there had been a demonstrable demise in her overall performance over the course of her first year of employment. McCall, Tr. 155 (1. 4-21). The decision to discharge Petitioner was not communicated to Petitioner until November 21st, mainly because of the time that it took Ms. Vodenicker to conduct her review of the situation and discuss the proposed disciplinary action with her superiors. Petitioner was not called to work due to low patient census on November 15, 18, and 20, 1991. Vodenicker, Tr. 125 (1. 23-25) - 126 (1. 1-18) - 144 (1. 1-6). On November 21, 1991, Ms. Vodenicker met with the Petitioner and reviewed the incident involving patient Cummings with Petitioner. Petitioner admitted to Ms. Vodenicker that she had forgotten to measure the patient's urine output and had documented the output as 600 cc's. Ms. Vodenicker expressed her concern over Petitioner's failure to properly chart patient information, and Petitioner's declining work performance. Ms. Vodenicker then terminated the Petitioner. Vodenicker, Tr. 126 (1. 19-25) - 127 (1. 1-8); Johnson, Tr. 189 (1. 22-25) - 190 (1. 1-19); Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner states she does not wish to return to the Hospital as a Nurse Assistant at this time for health reasons. Johnson, Tr. 50 (1. 3-13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order finding that Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1993 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1556 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Respondent's PFOF: 1-7 Adopted. 8-9 Irrelevant. 10-17 Adopted. 18-19 Irrelevant. 20-27 Adopted. 28 Irrelevant. 29-32 Adopted. 33 Rejected as contrary to the best evidence. 34-42 Adopted. 43-44 Subsumed in 24 and other paragraphs. 45-50 Adopted. 51-56 Subsumed in 41. 57 Adopted. Petitioner's PFOF: 1-End Rejected and contrary to the best evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Ms. Mary E. Johnson c/o Ms. Dorothy Johnson 1807 Golfview Boulevard South Daytona, Florida 32119 Gary E. Thomas, Esquire FISHER & PHILLIPS 1500 Resurgens Plaza 945 East Paces Ferry Road Atlanta, Georgia 30326
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the State Agency charged with the regulation of the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapters 20,456 (formerly Chapter 455, Part II; see Chapter 2000-160, Laws of Florida) and 464, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils or boards, as appropriate, including the issuance of emergency orders of suspension or restriction. Respondent is Cynthia Chance. Respondent is a Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. PN 0855441. On or between March 1997-May 1997, Respondent was employed by Health Force, a nurse-staffing agency. In or about March 1997, Respondent was assigned to work various shifts at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 18, 1997. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time-slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 21, 1997. Findings of fact based on the evidence of record Missing Drugs On May 13, 1997, Health Force received a "late call" from Cathedral Gerontology Center (Cathedral) needing a "stat" nurse because one of their nurses had not come to work. Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), administrator for Health Force, called Respondent who reported to Cathedral at 6:50 p.m. Kim Harrell, R.N., a supervisor at Cathedral, was the nurse who stayed until Respondent arrived. Also at 6:50 p.m. on May 13, 1997, Barbara Kelley, R.N., received and signed for a delivery of medications for residents from American Pharmaceutical Services. Included in that delivery was an order of Alprazolam (Xanax) and an order of Diazepam (Valium) for two residents on the floor where Respondent was working that evening. The delivery came with a separate medication or narcotics card for each medication. There were two floors of residents at Cathedral. Each floor had its own medication cart and its own nurse assigned to the floor. Controlled medications have a separate box in the medication cart with a separate key. The nurse on each floor had a key to her own medication cart but did not have a key to the medication cart of the other floor. The Director of Nursing (DON) also had a key to both medication carts in the event of an emergency such as a lost key. After receiving and signing for these drugs, Nurse Kelley locked the medications that belonged to her medication cart in it and inserted the narcotic cards for those medications into the notebook that corresponded to her cart. She then gave the medications and control sheets that belonged to Respondent's medication cart to Respondent, placing them in Respondent's hand. Nurse Kelley told Respondent that these were controlled drugs and instructed Respondent to lock up the medications in Respondent's medicine cart. There is conflicting testimony as to what happened next. Respondent admits to receiving the medications and the control cards. However, Respondent maintains that she placed the medications in the locked drawer of the medication cart and inserted the cards into the notebook in front of Nurse Kelley, whereas Nurse Kelley maintains that she walked away immediately after giving the drugs and cards to Respondent and did not see her place the drugs in the controlled drug lock box or the cards in the notebook. It was a policy at Cathedral for the out-going nurse to count controlled drugs with the on-coming nurse. When Respondent arrived on the night in question, she counted the controlled medications with Nurse Harrell. The narcotics count for both narcotics cards and actual doses was 16. At the end of her shift, Respondent counted the controlled medications with the on- coming nurse, Pamela Schiesser. The number of narcotics cards and tablets or doses was 16, the same as when Respondent came on duty. Nurse Schiesser was scheduled to work a double shift, 11 to 7 and 7 to 3. During the 11 to 7 shift, Nurse Schiesser was the only nurse for both floors of residents and she, therefore, had the key to both medication carts. Sometime during the 7 to 3 shift on May 14, 1997, Nurse Schiesser called the pharmacy to find out about a medication order she had placed for two residents so they would not run out. She was informed by the pharmacy that the drugs had been delivered the evening before and that they had been signed for by Nurse Kelley. She checked the delivery sheets and confirmed that Nurse Kelley had signed for the medications. After determining that there were no cards for the missing drugs and the drugs were not in the cart, she then reported to her supervisor, Kim Harrell, that the medication had been delivered but could not be located. Nurse Schiesser and Nurse Harrell checked the entire medication cart, the medication cart for the other floor and the medication room but did not find the missing medications. Nurse Harrell then notified the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Lu Apostol, and the Director of Nursing (DON), Fely Cunanan, regarding the missing medications. The ADON began an investigation and secured written statements from all of the nurses on her staff who had access to the drugs: Nurses Kelley, Harrell, and Schiesser. She called Nurse Kelley to confirm that she had received the medications from the pharmacy and confirmed that the two missing medications, Alprazolam (Xanax) and Diazepam (Valium), were given by Nurse Kelley to Respondent. The ADON also called Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), the administrator of Health Force for whom Respondent worked to notify her of the missing medications. On May 14, 1997, Ms. Streeter (Calfee) called Respondent and informed her about the missing drugs. On May 15,2000, Ms. Streeter and Respondent went to Cathedral for a meeting. They were informed that the two missing drugs had not been located and they were shown the written statements of the other nurses. Respondent admitted that the drugs had been given to her the night before by Nurse Kelley, but stated that she had locked the drugs in her cart. She denied any further knowledge about the drugs. At Ms. Streeter's suggestion, Respondent took a blood test on May 15, 2000.1 The drug test result was negative thus indicating that the drugs were not in her blood at the time of the test, which was two days after the drugs were missing. No competent evidence was presented as to how long it takes for these drugs to leave the bloodstream. Cathedral had a policy that required that all controlled substances be properly accounted for and secured by each nurse responsible for the drugs. This policy was verbally communicated from the off-going nurse to the oncoming nurse. When Nurse Kelley gave the drugs and drug cards in question to Respondent, she specifically instructed Respondent to lock up the drugs in the narcotics drawer. Respondent maintains that other people had keys to her medication cart and could have taken the drugs after she put them in the locked narcotics box. This testimony is not persuasive. Every witness from Cathedral testified unequivocally that there was only one key in the facility for each medication cart and that key was in the possession of the nurse assigned to that cart. The only other key, which was in the possession of the Director of Nursing, was not requested or given to anyone at anytime material to these events. The persuasive testimony is that Respondent was the only person during her shift with a key to her medication cart. That key was passed to Nurse Schiesser who discovered that the drugs and narcotics cards were not in the medication cart or notebook. The count of the drugs and the cards on hand did not show that anything was missing at the change of shift from Respondent to Nurse Schiesser as the count was 16, the same as when Respondent came on the shift. If Respondent had put the drugs and corresponding cards in the medication cart, the count should have been 18. The only logical inference is that Respondent did not put the drugs or cards in the cart. In the opinion of the two witnesses accepted as experts in nursing and nursing standards, Respondent's failure to properly secure the narcotics and to document the receipt of these controlled drugs constitutes practice below the minimal acceptable standards of nursing practice. Time-Slips While employed by Health Force as an agency nurse, Respondent was assigned at various times to work at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches (Beaches). Respondent submitted time cards or slips for each shift she worked to Health Force so that she would be paid for the work. Respondent submitted time-slips for working at Beaches on March 18 and 21, 1997. When Health Force billed Beaches for these two dates, Anne Hollander, the Executive Director of Patient Services, the person responsible for all operations at Beaches since 1989, determined that Respondent had not worked on either March 18 or 21, 1997. Ms. Hollander faxed the time-slips back to Health Force for verification. She advised Health Force that Respondent was not on the schedule as having worked on either of those dates. She also advised Health Force that the supervisor's signatures on the two time-slips did not match anyone who worked at Beaches. Ms. Hollander is intimately familiar with the signatures of all the supervisors who are authorized to sign time-slips at Beaches and none of them have a signature like the signatures on the two time-slips. Health Force did an investigation and ended up paying Respondent for the two days, but did not further invoice Beaches. Health Force was never able to determine whose signatures were on the time-slips. Health Force did have Respondent scheduled to work at Beaches on March 21, 1997, but not on March 18, 1997. Beaches keeps a staffing sheet for every day and every shift. The supervisors are responsible for completion of the staffing schedules to ensure that the necessary staff is scheduled to work on each shift. These staffing sheets are used for both scheduling and doing the payroll. According to Ms. Hollander, it is not possible that Respondent's name was just left off the staffing sheets. The staffing sheets are the working sheets. If a person works who is not originally on the staffing sheet, the supervisor writes that person's name into the correct column at the time they come to work. Ms. Hollander has been familiar with these staffing sheets for 12 years and does not recall any time when someone's name has been left off the staffing sheet when he or she had worked. The two supervisors who testified, Erlinda Serna and Carol Lee, are equally clear that in their many years of experience as supervisors at Beaches, no one has worked and not been on the staff schedules. Anybody who worked would show up on the schedule. Every shift and every day should be on the staffing schedules. Ms. Serna is unaware of any time in her 10 years at Beaches that someone's name was left completely off the schedules, but that person actually worked. Respondent's name was on the staffing schedule for March 21, 1997, but it was crossed out and marked as cancelled. When agency nurses are scheduled at Beaches, but are not needed, they are cancelled with the agency. If the agency fails to timely notify the nurse and the nurse shows up for work, the agency must pay her for two hours. If the hospital fails to notify the agency timely and the nurse shows up for work, then the hospital must pay the nurse for two hours. In no event is a nurse who is cancelled paid for more than two hours. There are times when a nurse is cancelled and shows up for work, but the hospital has a need for the nurse either as a nurse or in another capacity such as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). If that happens, the nurse's name is again written into the nursing unit staffing schedule. For March 18, 1997, Respondent's name is not on the schedule for Beaches. She did not work in any capacity on March 18, 1997. For March 21, 1997, Respondent's name was on the schedule, but she was cancelled. Even if she had not been timely notified that she was cancelled and she showed up for work, the most she could have billed for was two hours. If she had stayed and worked in a different capacity, her name would have been rewritten into the staffing schedule. Beaches is very strict and follows a specific protocol. No one except the supervisors is allowed to sign time cards. The signatures on these two time cards do not belong to any supervisor at Beaches. Therefore, it can only be concluded that Respondent did not work on March 18 or 21, 1997, at Beaches and that she submitted false time-slips for work she did not do on March 18 and 21, 1997. In June 1997, Respondent was also working as an agency nurse for Maxim Healthcare Services (Maxim). On June 8, 1997, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim and to Beaches indicating that she had worked eight-hour shifts at Beaches on June 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1997. All four days were on the same time ticket and purported to bear the initials and signature of Carol Lee. This time ticket was brought to Ms. Hollander's attention because Beaches had a strict policy that only one shift could appear on each time slip. Even if a nurse worked a double shift, she would have to complete two separate time tickets, one for each shift. Under Beaches policy, no time ticket would ever have more than one shift on it. The time tickets are submitted to Ms. Hollander's office daily with the staffing schedules that correspond. Therefore, a time ticket for a person who is not on the staffing schedule would immediately stand out. When Ms. Hollander was given the time ticket for June 2-5, 1997, she investigated and reviewed the staffing sheets for those days. Respondent was not listed on any of the staffing schedules. Ms. Hollander then showed the time ticket to Erlinda Serna, who was the nursing supervisor on the 3 to 11 shift. Nurse Serna verified that Respondent had not worked on the shift any of those days. Ms. Hollander then showed the time-slip to Carol Lee, the 11 to 7 nursing supervisor. Carol Lee verified that she had not initialed or signed the time ticket and that the initials and signature were a forgery. Nurse Lee would not have signed a time ticket with more than one shift per time ticket because she was well aware of the policy prohibiting more than one shift per time ticket. Nurse Lee verified that Respondent had not been scheduled to work any of those days and that Respondent had not worked on June 3, 4, or 5, 1997. These inquiries to Nurse Serna and Nurse Lee took place within a few days after the dates for which Respondent had submitted this time ticket. Therefore, the matter was fresh in the minds of both nursing supervisors. Both are certain that Respondent was neither scheduled nor worked on June 2-5, 1997. Only nursing supervisors at Beaches are authorized to sign time tickets. Maxim Healthcare has a policy of never working a nurse in excess of 40 hours in one week. The same policy was in effect in 1997. Susan Ranson, the records custodian who also staffs for Maxim on the weekends and assists in their billing, indicated that Respondent was paid by Maxim for working at another facility the same week as June 2-5, 1997. June 2-5, 1997, are a Monday through Thursday. Specifically, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim for another facility showing that she worked 12 hours on Saturday, June 7, 1997, and 13 hours on Sunday, June 8, 1997. Maxim pays from Monday through Sunday. If Respondent had worked 32 hours at Beaches on Monday through Thursday and then 25 hours at another facility on Saturday and Sunday, she would have worked more than 40 hours in one week, which would have violated their policy and would have required Maxim to pay overtime. When Maxim gets a request for a nurse and has no one to send who would not exceed 40 hours in one week, rather than exceed 40 hours, the agency does not staff the job. In the disciplinary document from Health Force dated June 18, 1997, Health Force advised Respondent that it would not be scheduling her based on the complaints they received regarding false billing, the missing drugs at Cathedral, and another incident at Beaches that occurred during this same time. Taken in its totality, the testimony of Respondent is not credible. Respondent's explanation of the discrepancy in the count of drugs and corresponding cards is that during her shift "there was [sic] one or two cards that only had one or two pills on them, so you just throw them away. And that's what made it back to 16." This explanation is unpersuasive. If there had been any pills left in the drawer from cards that Respondent threw away, the count would have been off at the change of shift. Moreover, several witnesses testified as to the care that is taken to carefully account for all narcotics. Respondent's assertion that narcotic pills were simply thrown away is not credible. Nurse Schiesser clearly remembered that there were no cards for the medications in question and there were no medications from this delivery in the medication cart. Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Board of Nursing in the Board's case No. 98-20122.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by failing to secure and document receipt of the drugs at Cathedral Gerontology Center; That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and of violating Rule 64B9-8.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, by falsifying employment and time records on multiple occasions; and That a penalty be imposed consisting of a fine of $1000 and payment of costs associated with probation, together with a reprimand and a three-year suspension of license to be followed by a two-year probation with conditions as deemed appropriate by the Board of Nursing. Reinstatement of Respondent's license after the term of the suspension shall require compliance with all terms and conditions of the previous Board Order and her appearance before the Board to demonstrate her present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing, which shall include a demonstration of at least three years of documented compliance with the Intervention Project for Nurses. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2000, 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 29th day of December, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent, Phyllis Carol Holmes, was a licensed practical nurse licensed by the State of Florida under license number 31075-1, employed as a licensed practical nurse at Crestview Nursing and Convalescent Home (CNCH), in Crestview, Florida, as a charge nurse on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift. When Respondent first began work at CNCH, she was required to go through a modest training and orientation program starting on June 21, 1983. As part of this program, she was briefed by various section heads on such matters as personnel policies and procedures, knowledge of working units and various aspects of nursing procedures. The checklist utilized in accomplishing this orientation was signed by four different nurses who accomplished the orientation briefings and it reflects that all aspects of the orientation were accomplished. In addition, Respondent was furnished with a complete written job description outlining the summary of work to be performed and the performance requirements for each which she acknowledged. She was also furnished with a policy letter on nursing personnels' responsibilities for charting and a policy letter on decubitus care procedure. Under the above-mentioned policies and procedures, as charge nurse Respondent had the responsibility for some 60 patients. Part of the requirements of her position included: Making rounds when coming on duty to see that there were no special problems; Administering medications; Preparing and controlling all documenta- tion for individual patients; Making rounds at least every two hours and checking on seriously ill patients more often than that; and Administering treatment immediately as needed in those areas where appropriate. Charge nurses also have the responsibility to insure that patients are moved every two hours to be sure that pressure sores (bed sores) do not develop. On or about July 19, 1983, Barbara Ann Griffin was working as a nurse's aide for Respondent who was charge nurse over her on the 11 - 7 P.M. shift. She observed the Respondent involved in a catheter insertion into an elderly female patient whose name she cannot remember. The records admitted at the hearing do not identify the patient by name but merely as a patient number. In any case, the evidence clearly reflects Respondent inserted a catheter into the female patient's rectum by mistake, then pulled it out, wiped it off and then inserted the same catheter into the patient's meatus. The term meatus means passage or opening. In this case, the witness was referring to the external opening of the urethra. This incident was also observed by Linda Gibbons, an aide who also cannot recall the name of the patient. She recalls, however, that Respondent has had difficulty in inserting catheters on other occasions and in each case, would insert it, perhaps in the wrong opening, withdraw it, and insert it again. At the hearing Respondent admits that she had a problem one time with Mrs. Henderson in inserting a catheter, but she denies reinserting it once she discovered it had been improperly inserted. She states that she got a new catheter from the supply room and inserted it rather than utilizing the one previously inserted and denies ever having any other problems with catheters on any other patients. However, the incident in question was brought to the attention of Mr. Hopkins, the nursing home administrator, at the time in question, and when he spoke with Respondent about it, she admitted that she made a mistake, but said the room was dim and she was in a hurry at the time. From the above, it is found, therefore, that Respondent on or about the date alleged, improperly inserted a catheter into a patient without insuring that it was sterile. Ms. Griffin, an aide, also indicates that on or about September 15, 1983, when she was conducting her midnight rounds, she observed the resident in Room 213A having some sort of problems. According to Ms. Griffin, from the symptoms the patient was displaying, it appeared that the patient had had a stroke. She immediately reported this to the Respondent at the nurse's station and then went back to the patient's room. Approximately 15 minutes later the Respondent came in, looked at the patient, and decided not to call the doctor because, according to Ms. Griffin, "it was too late." Ms. Griffin contends that Respondent did not check on the patient again that night, but at 6:00 A.M., told her to get the patient up for the day. Ms. Griffin went off duty at 7:00 A.M. and did not again see the patient who she later heard had been hospitalized with a stroke. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that instead of waiting 15 minutes when advised by Ms. Griffin, she went to the patient's room almost immediately. Admittedly, she did not make any notes in the patient's record about this situation but claims this was because she was giving her midnight medicines and thereafter forgot. However, she claims she checked the patient approximately every 30 minutes all through the night. Respondent contradicts Ms. Griffin's description of the patient indicating that when she first saw her, the patient was displaying no symptoms and when she saw the patient later that morning, she looked fine. Though she did not make notes at the time, the following day Ms. Holmes entered an after-the-fact note in the records which indicated that the patient was checked at 30 minutes past midnight due to an elevation in blood pressure. Her observation at the time was that the patient's color was good and her skin was warm and dry. The patient appeared cheerful and smiling but not talkative and appeared to be in no acute distress. The admission physical done at the time the patient was admitted to the hospital on September 15, 1985, reflects that there was no swelling of the extremities which had a full range of motion and there was no evidence of Babinski's symptoms which relate to a reflex when the tendons to the extremities are palpated. The history also shows that on the day of admission, the patient was found to have a right-sided weakness and slurred speech but there is no evidence to support the symptoms reported by Ms. Griffin. In substance, then, it appears that while the Respondent failed to report the patient's symptoms to the physician, there is some substantial question that the patient was in the acute distress indicated by the witness, Ms. Griffin. Further, Ms. Griffin admitted that she was in and out of other rooms in the home throughout the remainder of the shift and though she contends she is sure Respondent did not visit the patient during the remainder of the shift, there is no way she can be so certain. In paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleged that on or about April 11, 1984, Respondent administered Ascriptin to a patient in her care even though the physicians's order for the patient had discontinued administration of this substance on April 4, 1984. Review of the documentation submitted by the Petitioner in support of its claim here, specifically the medication administration record for patient number 17, reflects that on April 11, 1984, the Respondent did administer Ascriptin to the patient. The physician's orders clearly reflect that on April 4, 1984, Ascriptin, along with several other medications were discontinued by the physician. However, on April 16, 1984, according to the medication administration record, another nurse also administered Ascriptin. Petitioner admits that the medical administration record did not show the fact that the medication was discontinued. The entry indicating discontinuance was made well after the second administration by the other nurse. However, Ms. LeBrun, the then Director of Nursing for CNCH, contends that even though the medication administration record did not show the discontinuance, Respondent should have noted that the medicine had not been given for quite a while and gone to the doctor's orders to see why that was the case. Had she done so, she would have noticed the order indicating the medication was discontinued. Ascriptin, however, is a pain medication and the doctor's original order indicated it was to be given in the event of pain. If the patient was not suffering pain, the patient would not have called for it and it would not have been given even if authorized. Respondent indicated that the patient did not complain of pain often. When she administered the medication last, there was no indication on the medication administration record that it had been discontinued and even as of April 11, 1984, when the medication was administered by the Respondent, seven days after the doctor's order discontinuing it, the medication was still in the patient's drawer on the medication cart. Inez Cobb has worked at CNCH for approximately 15 years as a nurse's aide and worked for Respondent during the 1983-1984 period. As she recalls, on the morning of May 2, 1984, while getting the patients up for the day, between 6:00 and 6:45 A.M., she entered the room of patient Haas. When she came in she observed the patient slumped in his chair. She checked his blood pressure and found it to be very low and his pulse was weak and faint. She immediately reported this to the Respondent who did nothing and as of 7:00 A.M., when the witness left duty, Respondent had failed to check on the patient. As she recalls, however, the incoming charge nurse who was to replace Respondent on the next shift also failed to check on the patient. Respondent contends that when she was notified of Mr. Haas' condition, she had the medicine nurse for the day shift check him and this nurse, acting on Respondent's instructions, called the doctor almost immediately after the Respondent was notified. Respondent was giving report to the oncoming charge nurse when Ms. Cobb mentioned Mr. Haas to her, and when she finished this report, she went and checked on him. Admittedly, she did not notify the physician. The nurse's notes made by Respondent on the day in question fail to reflect any mention of this incident. Ms. LeBrun noting that Respondent's nurse's notes fail to reflect any acknowledgment of the problem, indicated that proper practice would have been for Respondent to have immediately gone to observe the patient, made her own assessment, immediately called the physician, and then made her nurses notes entry. This is so especially in light of the comment regarding the incident in the flow sheet made by Ms. Cobb regarding the patient's condition. Also, according to Ms. Cobb, on May 11, 1984, she noticed a red area on the coccyx of patient Martin. She reported this to the Respondent several times even after the skin broke, but to her knowledge, nothing was done about it for several days. It is her understanding that when an aide sees an area like this, she is not allowed to treat it herself but must report it to the nurse on duty which she did. Unfortunately, the red spot turned into an ulcer which remained on the patient until he died at some later date. The decubitus care procedure and policy letter reflected above outlines the method of care to be taken with regard to the prevention of ulceration. It calls for keeping the patient's skin dry, massage and frequent turning. Ms. Gregg noted this situation on the flow sheets for May 11, at 5:15 A.M. The nurse's notes prepared by the Respondent at 5:15 A.M. in the morning on May 11 reflect merely that a bed bath was given with a linen change and that a broken area was noted on the patient's right buttox. There is no indication that any treatment was given by the Respondent or that the physician was notified. Respondent admits that she knew Mr. Martin had a broken area and she treated it often. Admittedly, she did not chart her treatment properly because she had to give all medicines at the time and do all the charts for more than 60 patients and did not get around to it. She contends she may not have heard Ms. Cobb report this situation to her because she is somewhat hard of hearing from time to time and as a result, has asked all her aides not to just give her information on the run but to be sure to get her attention when they need to report something. On the issue of whether Respondent's performance measures up to the standard of care required of nurses in Florida, Ms. LeBrun contends that the standard of care for licensed practical nurses is not that much different or much less than that required for registered nurses because in this State, licensed practical nurses do many of the same procedures often reserved for registered nurses elsewhere. In the area of medications, for example, there is no room for error. As a result, standards are high and Ms. LeBrun feels there is a need for checking and double checking. In the situation regarding the Ascriptin here, she believes that even though it is strictly a pain medication, the Respondent should still have checked the doctor's orders to insure the requirement was still valid before administering a medication which the records show had not been administered for quite a while. With regard to the catheter insertion, Ms. LeBrun states the fact that the patient did not develop an infection is irrelevant. The issue concerns the following of a procedure using a contaminated catheter which could easily have developed an infection for the patient. Referring to the stroke patient, Ms. LeBrun agrees with the testimony of Ms. Barrow, another licensed practical nurse, who was the day shift charge nurse relieving Respondent at 7:00 A.M. in the morning. As she recalls the situation on September 15, she observed the patient in question being brought out of the dining room. At that time, the patient was semi-lethargic. Ms. Barrow is of the opinion that if the patient was wakened at 6:30 A.M.; she would not have been in the condition she was in at 11:30 A.M. for a long time. Therefore, the stroke must have taken place just before 11:30 A.M.; as the patient was not in such poor shape during the preceding 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. shift. Ms. LeBrun feels that if the patient was in condition as described by the night nurse, it is not likely they would have gotten her up at 6:30 A.M. to go to the dining room. Nonetheless, she feels that Respondent should have responded sooner as the symptoms described by the night nurse are consistent with strokes as well as other things. On that basis, the Respondent should have made an assessment on the vital signs and notified the doctor immediately. Turning to the issue of the decubitus situation on the patient with the ulcer, Ms. LeBrun feels that the Respondent should have documented what she did for the broken area. If the records do not say what was done, it is presumed not to be done. When notified that the broken area was getting larger, the Respondent should have documented what treatment she administered since the nursing home had a procedure to be followed for this type of condition and it appears respondent did not follow this procedure. Several of the nurses who worked for the Respondent indicated that they had had other professional problems with her. For example, Ms. Griffin indicated that in addition to the catheter incident, she had instances when she would report problems to the Respondent but Respondent would make no record of it. She would, for instance, report patients with rashes to the Respondent but nothing would be done about it. It got so bad that the witness finally started to request Respondent to initial reports she made. Ms. Gibbons also has noticed Respondent to have had difficulty on other occasions than that involved in this hearing with the insertion of catheters. Ms. LeBrun prepared at least one efficiency report on Respondent which had to be reaccomplished because the Respondent would not sign for it and acknowledge the rating. In addition, Ms. LeBrun counseled Respondent on at least one occasion for jumping channels. On the basis of Ms. LeBrun's testimony, it would appear that there was some friction between the two nurses but this does not necessarily, in light of all the other evidence, indicate that Ms. LeBrun's testimony is biased or tainted. On the basis of the above incidents, Ms. Holmes was terminated from employment with the nursing home on June 29, 1984, because of poor performance. On December 21, 1983, the Board of Nursing entered an Order pursuant to a stipulation executed by the Respondent in another case which resulted in her being fined $250.00, being placed on probation, and being required to take certain continuing education courses. The stipulation reflects that the Respondent denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint which supported it which related to various failures by Respondent to conform to the minimal standards of nursing practice. Respondent indicated that she entered into the stipulation simply because she had no money with which to retain an attorney and was forced, therefore, to utilize the services of Legal Aid. It was her Legal Aid attorney who talked her into stipulating on the basis that she had no witnesses to support her position. She continues to deny the allegations in the former Administrative Complaint, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of one year or until such time as she has completed a course of remedial study prescribed by the Board of Nursing and to its satisfaction, and that upon her completion of such course of study, she be placed on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Board of Nursing. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Furlow, Esquire, and Celia Bradley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale E. Rice, Esquire Post Office Box 687 Crestview, Florida 32536 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 E. Coastline Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Which one of three Certificate of Need applications for a new nursing facility in AHCA Nursing Home District 3 should be granted: Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc.’s; Life Health Care Resources, Inc.’s; or Arbor Health Care Company’s?
Findings Of Fact The Parties and The Applications Beverly Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the largest provider of nursing-home care in the nation. Beverly is proposing to construct a 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County from which it proposes to provide hospice services, respite services and, for six days a week, inpatient and outpatient therapy services. The nursing home, if constructed, will contain a 16-bed Medicare unit and a 20-bed secured Alzheimer’s unit. The Beverly application is conditioned upon providing at least 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. In addition, Beverly proposes to provide 0.2 percent of its patient days to indigent and charity patients. Beverly proposes to provide care to residents who are HIV positive or have AIDS. If the application is approved, Beverly will contribute $10,000 to a geriatric research fund. Life Care Life Care is a new, start-up corporation formed initially for the purpose of seeking a CON for a nursing home in Hernando County. Life Care’s plan is that it be operated by Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (LCCA), a privately owned Tennessee corporation authorized to business in Florida. LCCA owns, operates, or manages over 185 nursing homes with over 22,700 beds and retirement center units in 28 states. It is the largest privately owned nursing-home company in the United States. Life Care’s application proposes construction and operation of a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County. The nursing home will include a 20-bed secured Alzheimers/dementia care unit and a state-of-the-art adult care unit. In fact, Life Care has agreed to condition approval of its application on inclusion of these two units. Additionally, it has agreed to a condition of service of Medicaid residents at the district average (69.26 percent) at least. Life Care proposes a broad range of Specialized Programs, including care of AIDS victims, respite care, and care to hospice clients and outpatient rehabilitative care. Its inpatient care will include a 20-bed Medicare unit, within which will be at least 12 beds for "subacute" services. Arbor Headquartered in Lima, Ohio, Arbor Health Care Company has 27 facilities located in five states. Twelve of the facilities are in Florida but none of its licensed facilities are in District 3. Of the twelve in Florida, eleven are JCAHO accredited, with the twelfth, newly-licensed, scheduled at the time of hearing for an accreditation survey in December of 1997. Ten of the eleven accredited facilities are also accredited for subacute care. Arbor’s accreditation record is outstanding compared to both the 600 nursing facilities in Florida, 93 of which are JCAHO accredited and 49 of which are accredited for subacute care, and the national record of accreditation of nursing home facilities in subacute care, 23 percent. This record, too, is demonstrative of Arbor’s progress in carrying out its corporate mission: to be the premier subacute provider of long-term care services. Consistent with its mission, Arbor proposes a distinct subacute unit to serve patients with digestive diseases and patients in need of ventilator therapy, infusion therapy, wound care, and cardiac therapy. In addition to subacute services, Arbor proposes to serve residents with dementia, including Alzheimer’s, by utilizing a strongly-developed, individualized- care plan with an interdisciplinary approach implemented upon admission and subject to continuous review and, if necessary, revision. Arbor's application, however, distinctly different from Beverly’s and Life Care’s, does not propose a secured Alzheimer’s unit. Arbor proposes comprehensive rehabilitation care for its patient and residents, as well as outpatient rehabilitation services for both former residents and residents throughout the community. Arbor proposes to provide 0.2 percent of all patient days for charity care and 69.26 percent of all patient days for Medicaid patients within its 104-bed long-term facility. Medicaid patients will also be served in the 16-bed subacute unit. In addition, Arbor proposes to provide, at a minimum, one percent of its patient days for hospice care, respite care, the care of AIDS patients, and the care of pediatric patients. Arbor is committed to such services, as well as the provision of both inpatient and outpatient intensive rehabilitative programs, and has agreed to condition its award of a Certificate of Need upon such commitments. Arbor is the only one of the three applicants committed to provide care and services to pediatric patients. Location Introduction The issue on which these cases turn is location within District 3. (There are other issues in this case certainly. For one reason or another, their disposition will not determine the outcome of this case. Not the least among the other issues is whether Beverly or Life Care should be favored over Arbor because they propose secured Alzheimer’s units. This issue, however important and subject to whatever quality of debate, is not dispositive because at present it has no clear answer. See Findings of Fact Nos. 43-45, below.) District 3 Comprised of 16 counties located as far north as the Georgia state line and southwest to Hernando County, District 3 is the largest AHCA Nursing Home District area-wise. The District is not divided into subdistricts for the purpose of applying the state methodology to determine numeric need of additional nursing home beds. Among the 16 counties in the district are Marion, Hernando and Citrus. The Applicant’s Proposed Locations Beverly proposes to construct its 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County. The specific proposed location is south of the City of Ocala, east of State Road 200 and west of Maricamp Road. From this location, Beverly would serve primarily residents of Marion County, but would also be accessible to residents of Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties. Life Care proposes to construct its 120-bed nursing home in the Spring Hill area of Hernando County. Arbor proposes to locate its 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County. It did not propose a specific location within the County. The Best Location Conflicting qualified opinions were introduced into evidence by each of the three applicants. Each applicant, of course, presented expert testimony that its proposed location was superior to the locations proposed by the other two. In its preliminary decision, AHCA approved Arbor’s application and denied the other two. AHCA continues to favor Citrus County as the best location for a new 120-bed nursing home in District 3. At bottom, AHCA’s preliminary decision is supported by Arbor's proposal to locate in the county among Marion, Hernando and Citrus Counties with the greatest need: Citrus. This basis underlying, and therefore, the Agency’s preliminary decision, is supported by the findings of fact in paragraphs 21-35, below. Allocation of Nursing Home Beds Within AHCA Nursing Home District 3 Although the district is identified as a single entity for purposes of the state methodology utilized to determine the need for additional nursing home beds, the local planning council divides the district into geographic units or planning areas in order to specify preferences for the allocation of nursing homes within the district. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc., has created seven planning areas in District 3. The local health plan utilizes a priority-setting system to identify the relative importance of adding beds to specific planning areas. After establishing well-defined priorities for geographically-underserved areas and designated occupancy thresholds, the priority-setting system creates a decision matrix: the Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation (PANHAM). The matrix is based on the population at risk, bed supply (both licensed and approved), and occupancy levels within the planning area. The allocation factors in the local health plan are particularly significant with respect to District 3 in light of its lone stance among the Agency’s Nursing Home Districts as lacking a process for allocating number of beds needed to the individual subdistrict. The local health plan provides "the only road map or the only guidance" (Tr. 311) as to how to allocate beds within District 3. The local health plan bases its occupancy priorities upon both licensed and approved beds within each planning area. From a planning perspective, it is reasonable and appropriate to calculate occupancy rates based upon both licensed and approved beds in assessing the need for additional beds. The number of approved beds is a measure of how much additional capacity will be on line in the near future. To ignore the number of approved beds in the evaluation of where to allocate new beds is not a good health planning technique. The three counties in which Beverly, Life Care and Arbor propose to locate are each separate planning areas in the local health plan. Marion is Planning Area 4; Hernando and Citrus are 6 and 5, respectively. The preferences contained within the local health plan for the allocation of nursing home beds within District 3 are listed in terms of importance and priority. Allocation factors "[t]wo and three really are the basis . . . for figur[ing] out in this huge district of 16 counties, how [to] make sense of where the beds ought to go." (Tr. 312.) The first of these is for applicants proposing to develop nursing home beds in geographically-underserved areas. None of the planning areas designated by the three applicants in this proceeding meet this geographic-access priority. The second of these two allocation factors, Allocation Factor 3, assigns a number of priorities in order of significance. These priorities are based primarily upon occupancy or utilization and need determined by the number of beds per area residents of 75 years of age and older. The first priority in Allocation Factor 3 is "an acid test." (Tr. 312.) It states that no nursing home beds should be added in a planning area until the number of nursing home days, considering both licensed and approved beds, for the most recent six months is 80 percent. It is only when an applicant meets this threshold that the remaining priorities in Allocation Factor 3 are considered. If the 80-percent priority is not met in a planning area, then the area should be given no further consideration for the allocation of beds. The only planning area of the three at issue in this case which meets the 80-percent occupancy standard is Planning Area 5, Citrus County. At the time the original fixed need pool for District 3 was published for the batching cycle applicable to this case, Citrus County had 69-approved nursing home beds. Hernando County had 147 (including 27 hospital-based skilled nursing beds), and Marion County had 234 approved beds. The most recent data available at the time of hearing show no new beds in Citrus or Hernando Counties but 309 new beds approved for Marion County. Utilizing the most recent data regarding the number of licensed and approved beds in Citrus, Hernando and Marion Counties, Citrus County remains the only planning area of the three which meets or exceeds the 80 percent occupancy threshold. Assuming that the remaining priority factors contained within the PANHAM matrix are applicable, none of the three applicants received a priority ranking under the PANHAM methodology. Applying the most recent data available, however, only Citrus County is moving toward the highest priority of high need and high occupancy. Both Marion County and Hernando County are moving away from the highest priority. Excluding the two counties within District 3 which have no nursing home beds (Dixie and Union), Hernando County has the lowest bed-to-elderly population ratio in the District. Considering occupancy rates over the past three years based solely upon licensed beds, Hernando County has demonstrated a marked decrease in utilization. Thus, even though Hernando has had a growth in population and experiences a lower bed-to- population ratio than the District as a whole, there is no stress on the nursing home bed supply in Hernando County. There is, moreover, no evidence of a high need to add additional bed capacity in Hernando County. The recently opened 120-bed Beverly nursing home in Spring Hill will serve to suppress or depress the overall rate of occupancy in Hernando County, making the occupancy rate even lower. There are a number of reasons why an area that has a relatively low bed-to-population ratio may also experience low occupancy. While a county or a planning area is defined by political boundaries, people do not necessarily stay within those boundaries for nursing home services. Socio-economic factors, the quality of existing nursing home services and the existence of alternatives, such as assisted living facilities, driving times and distances, the proximity of family, all may play a role in determining occupancy rates in a particular area. With regard to Planning Area 6, Hernando County, there are five nursing homes in northern Pasco County within a 15-mile radius of the center of Spring Hill, Life Care’s proposed location. Three of the four existing nursing homes in Hernando County have had downward occupancy trends. Occupancy rate may be expected to further drop with the recently licensed 120-bed facility in Spring Hill. Marion County has far and away the highest number of approved beds and a very high ratio of approved beds to licensed beds, thus providing significant additional capacity in that planning area. While the local health plan for District 3 affords no priorities based upon data concerning patient origin, Beverly attempted to demonstrate a greater need for additional beds in Marion County, as opposed to Citrus County, through patient origin information reported in those two counties. Beverly concluded that while 99 percent of the Citrus County population placed in a nursing home seek care within Citrus County, only 78 percent of Marion County residents placed in a nursing home seek nursing home care in Marion County. A 1996 nursing home data report showed that 147 Marion County residents sought nursing home care outside of Marion County, primarily in adjacent Levy, Sumter and Citrus Counties. Beverly’s analysis fails to establish need in Marion greater than in Citrus. First, it fails to take into account the 309 approved beds which will significantly add to Marion County’s capacity. Second, Citrus County’s occupancy rates are slightly higher than Marion County’s. Third, the data relied upon by Beverly’s expert performing the analysis is incomplete in that two or three nursing homes in Marion County did not report any data regarding patient origin. And finally, there are a number of reasons, found above, for why residents of one planning area choose a nursing home in another planning area. The Extent and Quality of Services Overview The District 3 local plan expresses a preference and priority for applicants which propose specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Examples of such services include care for special children, care for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients, subacute care, and adult day care. Only a small percentage of nursing home care is provided to children. Proposing such care does not in the ordinary nursing home case carry much weight. Nor was there any demonstration that there is an unmet need for pediatric nursing home services in District 3. Nonetheless, it is at least noteworthy that only Arbor proposes care for special children as part of its pediatric services; the other two do not propose pediatric care at all. Arbor is also the only applicant that demonstrated a need for subacute care in its planning area and that is committed to provide such care. Utilizing a reasonable methodology, Arbor demonstrated a need for 41 additional subacute care beds in Citrus County. Arbor’s 16-bed subacute unit is consistent with that demonstrated need. While Beverly and Life Care propose to offer skilled, short-term services, neither proposes a distinct subacute unit. Indeed, Beverly’s skilled Medicare unit will not provide subacute care or services. Life Care’s subacute "program" will be implemented only if management later verifies a community need for such a program. While Life Care proposes to offer adult day care for five clients, Life Care did not identify a need for such services in Hernando County. Each of the applicants proposes to offer services and programs for residents with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia and each intends to service AIDS patients, provide respite care, and offer rehabilitation therapy services. Given the mix of services proposed, as well as Arbor’s commitment to such services, Arbor best meets the local health plan’s priority for the provision of specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Subacute Care Arbor will offer a full range of subacute services, programs, and staffing it in its quest to be a premier provider of subacute services. In contrast, neither Beverly nor Life Care demonstrated a need for subacute care in their districts. In keeping with this lack of demonstration, neither Beverly nor Life Care made any commitment to a dedicated and distinct subacute unit or the provision of such services. Care for Alzheimer’s and Dementia Patients Approximately 50 percent of residents within nursing homes suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease or some form of related dementia. All three applicants propose to serve such patients and offer specified programs and rehabilitative services to these patients. Arbor, however, differs from Beverly and Life Care in its approach to treating those with Alzheimer’s. Beverly and Life Care propose secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units. Arbor, while clustering patients within the facility in terms of the level of care and resources which each requires, follows a policy of mainstreaming residents with Alzheimer’s within the general nursing home population. There is a difference of opinion in the health care community as to which approach is better: secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units or mainstreaming. There are both positive and negative aspects to dedicated, secured Alzheimer’s units. And it may turn out that the positive aspects prevail ultimately. But, at present, the results of research are inconclusive. The conclusion cannot yet be drawn that a secured, dedicated unit provides a more effective manner, either from a clinical standpoint or a cost-effective standpoint, of treating and caring for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients. Medicaid Services Florida’s State Health Plan expresses a preference for applicants proposing to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Since District 3 is not divided into subdistricts, the applicable comparison is the average District Medicaid utilization: 69.26 percent at the time the applications were filed. Beverly proposes to offer only 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. Beverly showed that Medicaid utilization has been declining in Marion County to the point at the time of hearing that it was 58 percent. But even if it were appropriate to use Marion County as the equivalent of a subdistrict, Beverly’s commitment would not match the Marion County rate, a rate lower than the district-wide rate. Beverly does not qualify for the preference. Life Care proposes 69.5 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients. Life Care qualifies for the preference. Arbor proposes to commit 69.26 percent of its patient days to Medicaid residents in the 104-bed long-term unit of its facility, or a minimum of 67 long-term care beds. In addition, Arbor will dually-certify some of its Medicare-certified beds for Medicaid in its subacute unit for patients who are either admitted on Medicaid or would convert of Medicaid. Typically, an applicant’s commitment to provide a certain percentage of its patient days for services to Medicaid patients is expressed in terms of patient days for the total facility. This batching cycle, however, was unique in that AHCA created a separate subset of nursing home beds, known as short- term beds, and required that separate applications be filed by applicants proposing both long-term and short-term beds. The partition created a problem for each applicant because it set up the possibility that one of the applicant's applications (either the short-term or the long-term) would be approved and the other denied. Arbor solved the problem by considering its 104-bed long term application as an application for a stand-alone project. Beverly and Life Care did not have the problem since they do not intend to have subacute units within their proposed facility. For facilities approved by more than one CON, AHCA uses a blended rate for monitoring compliance with CON conditions. For Arbor’s application, therefore, one could argue that a blended rate of 60.03 percent, composed of 69.23 percent for 104 beds and 0 percent for the 16 subacute beds, which is the rate Arbor proposes for the entire 120-bed facility, should apply. Whether applying a blended rate or using the rate applicable to long-term beds, Arbor is entitled to the State Health Plan preference for service to Medicaid patients. Financial Feasibility With one exception, all parties stipulated that each of the three applicants propose projects that are financially feasible both immediately and on a long-term basis. The exception relates to the listing in Arbor’s application in Schedule 6 of understated proposed wages for certified occupational therapy assistants (COTAs) and licensed physical therapy assistants (LPTAs). The evidence establishes that through inadvertence, Arbor mislabeled the line item designated as COTAs and LPTAs. The item should have borne a description of therapists aides instead of licensed therapists. Had the item been correctly described, the wages listed were salary levels comparable to wages experienced in other Arbor facilities. The error is harmless. The licensed assistants, that is, the COTAs and LPTAs, were included under the therapist line items within Arbor’s Schedule 6. Thus, the total salary expenses reflected in the schedule are accurate and Arbor’s project is financially feasible in the second year of operation. Even if Arbor has misstated the total amount of salaries for therapists and aides in Schedule 6, Arbor’s project would still be financially feasible because the majority of those costs would be allocated to the Medicare unit and would be reimbursed by the Medicare program. Arbor would continue to show a profit (approximately $189,000) in the second year of operation. Arbor’s proposed project is financially feasible in both the short and long terms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The applications of Arbor Health Care Company (CON Application Numbers 8471L and 8471S) to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home facility in Citrus County be GRANTED; and the applications of Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8484L and 8484S) and Life Care Health Resources, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8479L and 8479S) to construct and operate 120-bed nursing home facilities in Marion and Hernando Counties, respectively, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane D. Tremor, Esquire John L. Wharton, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0810 Jay Adams, Esquire Douglas L Mannheimer, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
