Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, Erin Gayle McCormick, was a registered nurse and licensed as such by the State of Florida under License No. 101652-2. On June 24, 1981, Respondent's nursing license was suspended because of charges relating to drug use and the forging of prescriptions and their subsequent issue while she was employed at Leesburg Nursing Center during August and September, 1980. Thereafter, on October 12, 1982, the suspension was lifted and Respondent's license was reinstated on one year's probation, subject to certain conditions, one of which was that she not violate any federal or state laws, or rules or orders of the Board of Nursing. Another condition of probation was that she not consume or otherwise self-medicate with any unprescribed controlled substances. Respondent has been a long-term patient of Dr. Paul F. Tumlin, her family physician for many years and who, during the period August through October, 1982, treated her several times for two separate types of headaches, cluster headaches and migraine headaches. Both generate great pain when an attack is ongoing. During the period in question, he treated Respondent with several types of pain killers, some of which are controlled and some of which are not. Among the drugs he used to treat Respondent are: Florinal, Zomax, Phenergan, Inderal, Ludiomil, Talwin and Nubain. Each of these drugs has some side effect. However, over prolonged use, a tolerance may develop in the patient so that the magnitude of the side effect is reduced. Several of them produce such side effects as drowsiness and blurred vision (Ludiomil and Talwin). Another (Inderal) produces depression and weakness. Phenergan is a drug which used in conjunction with others tends to accentuate or extend the effect of that drug. The side effects are of varying duration, and a nurse should not practice her profession when those side effects, such as drowsiness, unclear vision, unsteadiness and weakness, interfere with the full effective control of her facilities and the safe performance of her duties. However, reasonable use of any drug, consistent with a medically indicated purpose, does not constitute drug abuse. Dr. Tumlin cannot recall from memory or from his records any instance where Respondent abused medications prescribed for her by him. All of the drugs Dr. Tumlin prescribed for Respondent during this period are listed in her medical records. These records reflect that on October 14, 1982, Dr. Tumlin prescribed for the Respondent 36 tablets of Florinal #3, a pain killer which contains codeine, which he directed be taken either one or two at a time every four hours for pain. This prescription was authorized one refill. Pursuant to the terms of the October 12, 1982, Order, on October 18, 1982, less than one week after the reinstatement of Respondent's license, Nita Edington, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), contacted Respondent and requested she provide a urine sample for testing. This was not done because of any report of drug abuse by Respondent and was less than a week after the Board of Nursing, in its October 12, 1982, Order, indicated receipt of good reports on her rehabilitation. This urine sample provided by Respondent was subsequently tested by DPR's contract laboratory and determined to be positive for codeine. However, this codeine residue was from the ingestion of Florinal #3, which had been previously prescribed for Respondent by her physician. Respondent was employed in a full-time position as a nurse at the Leesburg Nursing Center, Leesburg, Florida, during August and September, 1980. When she had indication her license was to be reinstated, on August 12, 1982, she applied for a position at the Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center (LVT). The application form filled out, signed and submitted by Respondent calls for "Former Employers and Experience (References)" and reflects that the position desired by the applicant was "sitter." Respondent, in listing former employers, listed the following: Shoe-Biz III 10/81-2/82 Belks 1/81-6/81 Tampa Critical Care 9/79-6/80 Nursing Pool Leesburg General-Hospital 6/78-11/78 11/78-7/78 This total period covered includes the months of August and September, 1980, but the application form fails to reflect the August and September, 1980, employment at Leesburg Nursing Center. On November 11, 1952, Respondent applied for a position as a registered nurse at Lake Community Hospital, Leesburg, Florida, and filled out and submitted an application form which called for the applicant to list the last four employers, starting with the last one first. On this form, Respondent listed: Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center 5/82-10/82 Tampa Med. Pool 11/79-10/80 Waterman Memorial Hospital 11/78-7/79 Leesburg General Hospital 6/78-11/78 Again, she failed to list her employment at Leesburg Nursing Center during August and September, 1980, including that period in the employment period at Tampa Med. Pool, which was untrue, nor did she reveal this employment when she was interviewed for the position. Had she done either, the reference would have been checked, and the information provided by this reference would have had a definite bearing on the decision to hire Respondent or not. Respondent was hired by Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center as a sitter on August 24, 1982, and her position was converted to that of a registered nurse on August 30, 1982, when a vacancy came about. On several occasions from that date until she resigned from employment on October 29, 1982, Charles W. Dick, at that time a food supervisor at the facility, now head baker and a former Baptist minister who, he says, has counseled 100 drug addicts over a 35-year ministry, observed Respondent when she came to the kitchen to pick up food for a resident/patient. On three particular occasions, he saw that her eyes were glassy; her speech was unclear, though understandable; and she appeared unsteady on her feet. Mr. Dick did not, however, report these incidents or discuss them with anyone other than his wife, also an employee of the facility. These symptoms, which are often indicative of drug ingestion, are, according to Dr. Tumlin, also consistent with the effects of severe migraine headaches. Laura Burley, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), worked with Respondent at Lakeview Terrace Retirement Center during August through October, 1982. Ms. Burley has had 10 years' experience with drug abuse patients and is familiar with the symptoms of drug abuse. In her opinion, she saw similar conduct on the part of Respondent during this period. She saw, for example, the Respondent frequently ingest white tablets while on duty, though she does not know what they were. She has heard Respondent complain of the cold and put on a lab coat when the witness, herself, was not cold. She has observed Respondent clutching her stomach and holding her head and has heard Respondent say she did not know if she would make it through the day. She observed Respondent to have radical mood shifts and to eat a lot of sugar or foods with heavy sugar content. She has seen Respondent frequently try to get into the drug carts or get the keys to the drug cart. Ms. Burley also keeps a notebook in which she records what she perceives as unusual conduct on the part of her coworkers. She does this because of her interpretation of a request by the facility administrator for her to report to him any significant occurrences. Doris Draper was also an LPN at LVT while Respondent worked there. A part of Ms. Draper's duties was to dispense drugs. On one occasion, while she was doing so, Respondent came to her and asked for the keys to the medication cart, as she needed to get some Tylenol for another nurse, Mrs. Dick. On a later discussion, Mrs. Dick denied having asked Respondent to get her Tylenol, but said she had wanted some other medicine for a patient. On the basis of this, the two nurses concluded that Respondent intended to substitute regular Tylenol for a patient's Tylenol #3 so as to convert the latter codeine-included medication to her own use. However, though Ms. Draper heard other nurses say they suspected Respondent was taking drugs, she never saw her do so. Nurse Donna Devoe also worked with Respondent at LVT during the period in question. At one point during Respondent's employment, at the request of Ms. Burley and Ms. Draper, she reviewed the charts on a patient, Mrs. Testerman, who, by her recollection, rarely received pain medication. Her review of these patient records revealed that the patient was recently being given pain medicine more frequently than usual by Respondent, whom she counseled about the situation. Ms. Devoe also discussed the situation with the Center administrator, but, because there was no evidence of drug diversion, nothing further was done about it. Her review of the records also revealed that all medications given to patients by the Respondent were given in accordance with a physician's orders, and there was no evidence that Respondent violated these orders. Based on all the above, if Respondent was under the influence of any medication, it was the medication prescribed for her by Dr. Tumlin and not non- prescribed substances. The symptoms described by Mr. Dick, certainly not a trained drug therapist, are equally pertinent to migraine headaches. The innuendos of Ms. Burley, Ms. Draper and Mrs. Dick are just that--innuendos--and not probative of any improper drug usage. Not one witness could conclusively state there was any instance where Respondent failed to properly treat patients or was incapable of doing so because of drugs, alcohol, or illness. Mr. Speener, to whom Ms. Devoe and Ms. Burley both admittedly reported, stated that he had no reports of poor or improper treatment. By his own admission, due to her prior involvement, for which she had been disciplined, Respondent was the subject of "preconceived concerns and misinformation, rumors, and etc.," and she found it difficult to function. In his letter to Ms. Keefe, Mr. Speener said that if there was any conclusive, provable evidence of incompetence, or if there was any substantiation of drug involvement, Respondent would be immediately terminated. Mr. Speener could find no evidence of such and neither can I. In fact, he found her to be a highly professional nurse. During the period of her employment, Respondent had responsibility for the care of, inter alia, Clifford Bryant and Arthur Everett. Arthur Everett was an elderly, paralyzed individual who, on the occasion in question, was administered treatment by Respondent for an impacted bowel. This procedure was inordinately messy and resulted in fecal material getting on both Mr. Everett's clothing and the bed clothes. Both had to be changed. When Respondent came to the patient's room to perform this procedure, she failed to bring a clean gown with her. As a result, by her own admission, Mr. Everett was left totally undressed and uncovered without the screen drawn for the period of time it took her to go get him a clean gown. While this was going on, Mr. Everett was one of two patients in a semiprivate room. The other was a blind, stroke patient. No one else was in the room at the time, but Ms. Burley came in for one brief period while Mr. Everett was unclothed. With regard to Mr. Bryant, at the time in question, he had just arrived at the facility by ambulance and was in wrist restraints because he had previously tried to pull out his catheter. Respondent was in the midst of completing an admission examination of the patient when Ms. Burley entered the patient's private room to find out what was taking so long. She observed the patient to be fully unclothed with the bed clothes pulled down to the foot of the bed. This was also observed by Mrs. Dick, who, when she entered the room, saw the patient nude and the Respondent there with a stethoscope in her hand. While Ms. Burley does not consider this to be patient abuse, she does consider it to be an abuse of his privacy, poor practice and a violation of the standards of LVT. This opinion is shared by several others employed there, such as Nurse Warren and Mary Willis, a registered nurse of long standing and vast experience who is currently Supervisor of Investigative Services for DPR. Respondent denies that Mr. Bryant was totally unclothed at any time she was with him. When he arrived at the facility, he was in pajamas, and she helped him from the wheelchair to the bed before she began the examination. In order to complete the examination, it was necessary for her to unbutton his pajama top to listen to his chest sounds and to observe his chest movement. She also had to lower his bottoms to examine that part of his body as well, but in each case, she asserts she replaced the clothing when she was finished. In light of the nature of Ms. Burley's and Mrs. Dick's testimony on other aspects of this case, nebulous and devoid of specifics as it was, the fact that both were in the room only briefly and the apparent animosity felt by these witnesses toward the Respondent, the evidence shows that Mr. Bryant was not left totally unclothed at any time. On October 29, 1982, Mrs. Catherine Devore was visiting her husband, Henry, in his private room at LVT when Respondent entered the room to give him his medication. Mr. Devore is blind and has had a stroke and generally is uncommunicative. Because of his resistance to taking his medicine, it is concealed in ice cream which is fed to him. Mrs. Devore indicates that at the time in question, her husband's head was forward with his chin on his chest, and Respondent lifted it up for the medicine by entwining her fingers in the hair at the top of his head and pulling it up. Respondent did not yank his head up, but lifted and held the head up by the hair while she administered the medication. When Respondent released the head, the hair where Respondent had been holding remained standing up. Mrs. Devore did not consider this to be abuse, nor did she feel her husband was hurt by this action. She did, however, consider it unusual and unnecessary and felt that if the Respondent would treat her husband that way with her there, she was uncertain of the treatment he would get if she were not there. As a result, when she got home, she called one of the owners of LVT, to whom she reported the incident and who suggested she report it to the administrator, Mr. Speener, which she did. Respondent indicates a somewhat different story. When she went in to give Mr. Devore his medicine, Mrs. Devore stated, "He's not going to like that," at which point Mr. Devore put his head on his chest. Respondent then put one hand on his head and began to rub it while at the same time placing her other hand on his chin. With this, Mr. Devore voluntarily raised his head. When Respondent moved the hand on top of the head, the hair where she had been rubbing remained standing. In light of the basic improbability that a nurse would, without provocation, grab a patient by the hair and pull his head up with the patient's wife standing by and the fact that the actions described by Respondent could readily be mistaken for pulling, it is clear that Respondent did not pull Mr. Devore's hair on October 29, 1982, and, therefore, her actions did not constitute abuse. No report of abuse was ever filed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services regarding this incident. Because of Mrs. Devore's report, however, Respondent was shortly called to the office of Mr. Eugene K. Speener, administrator of the 20-bed skilled nursing facility at LVT. After some discussion of the incident and of some other discussions they had had relating to Respondent's alleged rigidity of personality, he suggested, and she agreed, that her immediate resignation would be appropriate and accepted. Respondent was not discharged from employment, and her departure had nothing to do with drugs. Unfortunately, however, because of the knowledge of her former difficulty and the continued gossip and insinuations by coworkers, there was always present the spectre of her earlier problem, and Mr. Speener admits telling Respondent he felt it was difficult for her to function as a nurse at that facility because of it. He also included these sentiments in a letter he sent to Ms. Keefe of the Board of Nursing, sometime between October 15 and October 29, 1982. When it was determined that Respondent would resign effective immediately, Mr., Speener called Ms. Burley, who was off duty at the time, and requested that she come in and replace Respondent at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Burley agreed. In the interim, Respondent remained in another office until her departure from LVT sometime between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on October 29, 1982. When Ms. Burley got to the ward that day, she discovered that Respondent had already made entries in various patients' records showing procedures taken, medications given, vital signs taken and patient condition noted, all as of 8:00 p.m., October 29, 1982. Respondent admitted to Ms. Burley before she left that day that she had advance-charted the 8:00 p.m. medications that had not been given, and at the hearing admitted the other advanced chartings. She contends, however, that she did so partially upon the previous written advice of Ms. Burley, who, early in Respondent's tenure at LVT, suggested to her that she lump together three hours' medication at one time. It is also common practice to chart activities at a time other than when the actual function is accomplished. To do otherwise would make it impossible for a person to do what was required and at the same time accomplish the attendant paperwork. It is, however, unacceptable practice within the nursing profession, according to Ms. Willis, to chart substantially in advance. This is because things may change which alter the patient's condition, so that a particular precharted drug, for example, is not actually given, or some procedure is not followed. Generally, a leeway of one half hour on each side of the procedure or drug is acceptable. Somewhat after the submission of her application to Lake Community Hospital, she was employed by that facility as a nurse and is still employed there. According to two former coworkers, Respondent has performed in an excellent manner and has been recommended for promotion. Respondent's drug therapist for the last few years is of the opinion that Respondent is not now, nor was she during the August through October, 1982, period, abusing medications. Respondent is involved in nursing and has continued to improve. In fact, her supervision was terminated as unneeded in March, 1982. It was only because supervision was made a part of the Order of Probation that she is back with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the above, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be reprimanded and that probation be continued one additional year until October 11, 1984. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George L. Waas, Esquire Slepin, Slepin, Lambert & Waas 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504 111 Coastline Drive, East Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 64B9-8.005(2) and 64B9-8.005(12), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the regulatory and prosecutorial duties related to nursing practice in Florida. Respondent is a licensed practical nurse in Florida, holding license no. PN 0481631. From May 13, 1992, to April 11, 1997, she was employed by Southlake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Southlake). On April 9, 1997, Respondent worked as a nurse on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on Southlake's A wing. T.C. was a patient of another nurse on that wing. Around 7:00 p.m., Respondent began administering medications to her patients. Melody Perez, the ward clerk, informed Respondent that T.C. needed assistance because he was in respiratory distress. T.C. was sitting in the hall, six to eight feet from Respondent. Respondent went over to T.C., checked to make sure that there was oxygen in his tank and that his nasal cannula was in place. Respondent saw no outward symptoms of T.C. being in acute respiratory distress such as rapid breathing or anxiety. Respondent told Ms. Perez that she could not help T.C. because he was not her patient. She told T.C. that his nurse, who was on break and had the keys to the other medication cart, would be back in a few minutes. Respondent thought that T.C. just wanted his medications. She did not perform a nursing assessment, as that term is commonly understood in the practice of nursing. She did not take T.C.'s vital signs, count his respirations, or listen to his chest. After telling him to wait for his nurse, she just walked away. On April 10, 1997, T.C. and another resident complained to Southlake's administrative staff about Respondent's failure to help T.C. Southlake initiated an investigation based on these complaints. Conchita Griffin, Southlake's Assistant Director of Nursing, conducted the investigation. As was the custom and procedure at Southlake, Ms. Griffin interviewed T.C., the second complaining resident, Ms. Perez, and two certified nursing assistants (CNAs) who were on duty during the incident. Ms. Griffin then compiled a written report of the incident and submitted it to Southlake's administration. Based on her investigation, and after considering Respondent's disciplinary history at Southlake, Ms. Griffin recommended that Southlake terminate Respondent. Southlake had written policies requiring a nurse to attend to any resident who needed help. The policies require a nurse to assess a patient complaining of respiratory distress by taking the patient's vital signs, listening to respirations and to the chest for congestion. According to the policies, a nurse should attend to any patient in distress, calling the patient's assigned nurse, facility management, or 911 if needed. There are no circumstances where the nurse should do nothing. On April 11, 1997, Respondent was called in and asked about her side of the incident. She admitted that she looked at T.C. and that he did not appear to be in distress. She acknowledged that she did nothing except tell T.C. that his nurse would be back soon. When informed that she was being terminated, Respondent refused to sign the disciplinary form. She was asked to leave the premises immediately. Sharon Wards-Brown, Southlake's nursing supervisor for the evening shift in question, accompanied Respondent to A wing to retrieve her belongings. When Respondent arrived on the A wing, she went into the medication room, picked up T.C.'s chart, removed some pages from the chart, and went to the fax machine just outside the medication room. Ms. Wards-Brown and Beverly Burstell, the nurse manager who was on the floor checking some charts, saw Respondent remove the pages from T.C.'s chart and go to the fax machine. Both of them told Respondent that she could not remove or copy anything from the resident's chart. Respondent told Ms. Wards-Brown and Ms. Burstell not to touch her. Each page of nurses' notes in the patients' charts have a front and back side. Respondent stood at the fax machine for only a couple of seconds, not long enough to copy both sides of one page of nurses' notes. She certainly did not have time to copy both sides of all of the pages that she had removed from T.C.'s chart. Respondent's testimony that she had time to copy some of the nurses' notes from T.C.'s chart is not persuasive. Her testimony that she left all of the original pages in the fax machine is not credible. After being prevented from copying all of the pages that she had removed from T.C.'s chart, Respondent ran into the bathroom. A few seconds later she came out of the bathroom with papers and her purse in her hand. Ms. Wards-Brown called Clara Corcoran, Southlake's administrator, and Ms. Griffen for assistance. All three of them followed Respondent out of the building, demanding that she return the documents that she had removed from T.C.'s chart. Respondent repeatedly told them not to touch her. Ms. Corcoran and Ms. Griffen followed Respondent into the parking lot. Respondent got in her car but Ms. Corcoran and Ms. Griffen blocked Respondent from closing the car door and continued to demand the return of the papers. Respondent finally drove forward over the cement bumper and the grass in order to leave with the papers. Meanwhile, Ms. Wards-Brown returned to the A wing to examine T.C.'s chart. Ms. Griffen also examined the chart within two to three minutes after Respondent left the floor. The chart was still open on the desk. Ms. Wards-Brown and Ms. Griffen discovered that T.C.'s nurses' notes for April 9, 1997, were missing. They knew the notes were missing because both of them had seen the notes in the chart the day before when they reviewed the chart as part of the investigation. Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a copy of the front and back of one page of T.C.'s nurses' notes. The last note is dated March 27, 1997. It is not plausible that T.C.'s chart had no nurses' notes from that time until after April 10, 1997. Even if Respondent did not remove any of T.C.'s original nurses' notes from the premises, she violated the acceptable standards of nursing care by copying the front and back of one page and removing the copies from the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order fining Respondent $1,000 and suspending her license for one year, followed by two years of probation with appropriate conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Room 3231A Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Randy Rogers, Esquire Delegal & Merritt, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202-2837 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D., R.N. Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4042 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part Il, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $5,000. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 3. Conditional licensure status is imposed on the Respondent beginning on February 15, 2013 and ending on March 15, 2013. 1 Filed August 27, 2013 2:59 PM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 28-day of Arpt 2013. wie Elizabg¢th Dudek, Bery etary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and eos Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this7S" ry of Ld / ; , 2013. ane Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 [ Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Andrea M. Lang, Senior Attorney Margaret Chamberlain, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Attorney for Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook (Electronic Mail) 2379 Woodlake Drive, Suite 400 Okemos, Michigan 48864 (U.S. Mail) | STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. Case Nos. 2013002508 SA-PG - VERO BEACH LLC d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF VERO BEACH Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter “Agency”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint against SA-PG - VERO BEACH LLC d/b/a PALM GARDEN OF VERO BEACH (hereinafter “Respondent”), pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57 Florida Statutes (2012), and alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action against a skilled nursing facility to impose an administrative fine of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00) pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), based upon two (2) Class II deficiencies and to assign conditional licensure status beginning on February 15, 2013, and ending on March 15, 2013, pursuant to Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). The original certificate for the conditional license is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference. The original certificate for the standard license is attached as Exhibit B and is incorporated by reference. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2012). EXHIBIT 1 2. The Agency has jurisdiction over the Respondent pursuant to Section 20.42, Chapter 120, and Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2012). 3. Venue lies pursuant to Rule 28-106.207, Florida Administrative Code. PARTIES 4. The Agency is the regulatory authority responsible for the licensure of skilled nursing facilities and the enforcement of all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations and rules governing skilled nursing facilities pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2012) and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. The Agency is authorized to deny, suspend, or revoke a license, and impose administrative fines pursuant to Sections 400.121 and 400.23, Florida Statutes (2012); assign a conditional license pursuant to Section 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2012); and assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case pursuant to Section 400.121, Florida Statutes (2012). 5. Respondent operates a 180-bed nursing home, located at 1755 37" Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, and is licensed as a skilled nursing facility, license number 1415096. Respondent was at all times material hereto, a licensed skilled nursing facility under the licensing authority of the Agency, and was required to comply with all applicable state rules, regulations and statutes. COUNTI The Respondent Failed To Ensure Physician Orders Shall Be Followed As Prescribed in Violation Of Rule 59A-4.107(5), Florida Administrative Code 6. The Agency re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1) through five (5). 7. Pursuant to Florida law, all physician orders shall be followed as prescribed, and if not followed, the reason shall be recorded on the resident’s medical record during that shift. Rule 59A- 4.107(5), Florida Administrative Code. 8. On or about February 11, 2013 through February 15, 2013, the Agency conducted a Licensure Survey of the Respondent’s facility. 9. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for catheter placement, pain medication and skin sweeps for one (1) of twenty eight (28) residents, specifically Resident number ninety six (96), which resulted in significant pain for the resident. 10. Resident number ninety six (96) was admitted on January 7, 2013 with diagnoses to inclide urinary retention and urethral erosion. An observation was made of Resident number ninety six (96) on February 13, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. and Resident number ninety six (96) was holding his/her hands over his/her genital area. 11. A review of the medical record documented a physician order dated January 25, 2013 for Keflex 250mg by mouth four (4) times daily for seven (7) days for urethral erosion and lidocaine jelly 2% to the urethra as needed four (4) times a day. The February Physician Order Sheet documented; keep the catheter up and taped to abdomen and positioned out of top of pants. There is an order on the Physician Order Sheet for weekly skin assessment due Friday on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. shift. 12. Catheter care was observed on February 13, 2013 at 8:33 a.m. As the Certified Nursing Assistant started to perform the catheter care, Resident number ninety six (96) moved into the fetal position and started moaning and grunting. The Certified Nursing Assistant stated this is normal for Resident number ninety six (96). As the Certified Nursing Assistant moved the resident’s scrotum, the left groin area was noted to be bright red and patchy. Resident number ninety six (96) yelled out and tried crossing his/her legs. Resident number ninety six (96) was not asked if he/she was in pain. The Certified Nursing Assistant drew back the foreskin of the penis and it appeared to be bright red and excoriated. The resident was moaning when touched, mumbling “Oh God “. Resident number ninety six (96) kept crossing his/her legs and trying to get back into the fetal position and the Certified Nursing Assistant would reposition the resident onto his/her back to wash the catheter and genital area. At one point, Resident number ninety six (96) lifted his/her head and groaned loudly with a grimace on his/her face and his/her eyes bulging. At this point the Certified Nursing Assistant asked Resident number ninety six (96) if he/she was in pain. The resident stated “a little “. Lidocaine Jelly 2% was not applied to the urethra. The catheter was then brought out the bottom of the adult brief, not anchored to any anatomical site. 13. In. an interview with the Registered Nurse who was providing care for Resident number ninety six (96) on February 13, 2013 at 9:01 a.m., the Registered Nurse stated that she would check the catheter to make sure it is patent and positioned properly. The Registered Nurse checked for exudate on the penis and checked the indwelling catheter to make sure it was draining properly. The Registered Nurse stated that the catheter was positioned properly. The catheter was still threaded through the bottom of the adult brief and not taped to Resident number ninety six’s (96) abdomen. 14. A review of the February Medication Administration Record revealed no lidocaine jelly 2% listed. The Treatment Administration Record documented “keep Foley catheter taped to abdomen and position out of top of pants." The last skin sweep documented is February 1, 2013 and did not document anything about redness to the groin area. 15. In an interview with the Unit Manager at 9:28 a.m. on February 13, 2013, the Unit Manager acknowledged that there is an order written for lidocaine jelly 2% that was not transcribed onto the Medication Administration Record. The Unit Manager also verified that there was nothing in the chart to indicate a rash or redness to the groin of Resident number ninety six (96) nor was the weekly skin sweep done as ordered on February 8, 2013. 16. | The Unit Manager went with the surveyor to assess Resident number ninety six (96) at 9:35 a.m. The Unit Manager acknowledged that the catheter tubing was not taped to Resident number ninety six’s (96) abdomen, nor was it up and over the top of the adult brief. The Unit Manager also acknowledged excoriation in the left groin and penis. Resident number ninety six (96) would still flinch and moan when touched, and the Unit Manager stated he/she was in pain. 17. Resident number ninety six (96) was observed with the Licensed Practical Nurse on February 14, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. Resident number ninety six (96) was fidgeting in the wheelchair. When asked, Resident number ninety six (96) stated the catheter did not feel okay. The catheter was angled downwards through the leg of the brief and not taped to the abdomen as ordered. The Licensed Practical Nurse acknowledged the catheter tubing was incorrectly placed and not taped to the abdomen as ordered. 18. The Agency determined that this deficient practice compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. The Agency cited Respondent for a Class II deficiency as set forth in Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). 19. A Class II deficiency is subject to a civil penalty of $2,500 for an isolated deficiency, $5,000 for a patterned deficiency, and $7,500 for a widespread deficiency. The fine amount shall be doubled for each deficiency if the facility was previously cited for one or more Class I or Class Il deficiencies during the last licensure inspection or any inspection or complaint investigation since the last licensure inspection. A fine shall be levied notwithstanding the correction of the deficiency. 20. Based upon the above findings, the Respondent’s actions, inactions or conduct constituted an isolated Class II deficiency pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). WHEREFORE, the Agency intends to impose an administrative fine in the amount of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00) against the Respondent pursuant to Sections 400.23(8)(b), and 400.102, Florida Statutes (2012). COUNT IL The Respondent Failed To Ensure The Right To Receive Adequate And Appropriate Health Care in Violation of Section 400.022(1)(I), Florida Statutes (2012) 21. The Agency re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1) through five (5). 22. Pursuant to Florida law, all licensees of nursing home facilities shall adopt and make public a statement of the rights and responsibilities of the residents of such facilities and shall treat such residents in accordance with the provisions of that statement. The statement shall assure each resident the following: The right to receive adequate and appropriate health care and protective and support services, including social services; mental health services, if available; planned recreational activities; and therapeutic and rehabilitative services consistent with the resident care plan, with established and recognized practice standards within the community, and with rules as adopted by the Agency. Section 400.022(1)(), Florida Statutes (2012). 23. Onor about February 11, 2013 through February 15, 2013, the Agency conducted a Licensure Survey of the Respondent’s facility. 24. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for three (3) of twenty eight (28) residents, specifically Resident number ninety six (96), Resident number three hundred five (305) and Resident number two hundred forty two (242), regarding failure to assess and manage pain for a resident with an urethral erosion and two (2) residents with no medical justification for their catheters respectively. 25. Resident number ninety six (96) was admitted on January 7, 2013 with diagnoses to include urinary retention and urethral erosion. An observation was made of Resident number ninety six (96) on February 13, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. to be holding his/her hands over his/her genital area. 26. Catheter care was observed on February 13, 2013 at 8:33 a.m. As the Certified Nursing Assistant started to perform the catheter care, Resident number ninety six (96) moved into the fetal position and started moaning and grunting. The Certified Nursing Assistant stated this is normal for the resident. As the Certified Nursing Assistant moved Resident number ninety six’s (96) scrotum, the left groin area was noted to be bright red and patchy. Resident number ninety six (96) yelled out and tried crossing his/her legs. Resident number ninety six (96) was not asked if he/she was in pain. The Certified Nursing Assistant drew back the foreskin of the penis and it appeared to be bright red and excoriated. The resident was moaning when touched, mumbling “Oh God “. Resident number ninety six (96) kept crossing his/her legs and trying to get back into the fetal position and the Certified Nursing Assistant would reposition the resident to wash the catheter and genital area. At one point, Resident number ninety six (96) lifted his/her head and groaned loudly, with a grimace on his/her face and the eyes bulging. At this point the Certified Nursing Assistant asked Resident number ninety six (96) if he/she was in pain. The resident stated “a little “The catheter was then brought out the bottom of the adult brief, not anchored to any anatomical site. 27. There is a Pain Evaluation in Advanced Dementia sheet in Resident number ninety six’s (96) chart that has the residents name on it but is not filled out. Based on the criteria listed on the form, the combination of "repeated calling out, loud moaning or groaning, crying", "facial grimacing" and "rigid, fists clenched, knees pulled up, pulling or pushing away" indicates distressing pain. On February 14, 2013 at 1:13 p.m., the Director of Nursing acknowledged the form was in the chart and should have been filled out. 28. ‘In an interview with the Registered Nurse on February 13, 2013 at 9:01 a.m., the Registered Nurse stated that she would first give Resident number ninety six (96) medications, then she would check Resident number ninety six’s (96) catheter to make sure it is patent and positioned properly. The Registered Nurse checked for exudate on the penis and checked the indwelling catheter to make sure it was draining properly. The Registered Nurse stated that the catheter was positioned properly and did not assess the groin or pull back the foreskin to properly assess the penis. Resident number ninety six (96) was still moaning and the nurse asked if he/she was in pain but the resident said no. Resident number ninety six (96) appeared more relaxed in bed, not grimacing. The Registered Nurse stated the Certified Nursing Assistant was supposed to tell the nurse when the resident stated he/she is in pain. 29. A review of the medical record documented a physician order dated January 25, 2013 for Keflex 250mg by mouth four (4) times daily for seven (7) days for urethral erosion and lidocaine jelly 2% to the urethra as needed four (4) times a day. The February Physician Order Sheet documented keep the catheter up and taped to abdomen and positioned out of top of pants. 30. A review of the February Medication Administration Record revealed no lidocaine jelly 2% transcribed. The Treatment Administration Record documented “keep Foley catheter taped to abdomen and position out of top of pants. The last skin sweep found is February 1, 2013 and did not document anything about redness to the groin or penis. 31. Inan interview with the Unit Manager at 9:28 a.m. on February 13, 2013, the Unit Manager acknowledged that there is an order written for lidocaine jelly 2% that is not listed in the Medication Administration Record. The Unit Manager also verified that there was nothing in the chart to indicate a rash or redness to the groin of Resident number ninety six (96). 32. The Unit Manager went with the surveyor to assess the resident at 9:35 a.m. The Unit Manager acknowledged that the catheter tubing was not taped to Resident number ninety six’s (96) abdomen, nor was it up and over the top of the residents’ adult brief. The Unit Manager also acknowledged excoriation in the left groin and penis. The Unit Manager acknowledged Resident number ninety six (96) was acting as if he/she was in pain, groaning and guarding his/her genitals when touched. 33. In an interview with the Director of Nursing on February 13, 2013 at 2:42 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated Resident number ninety six (96) was transferred to the Reflections unit for behaviors of yelling and screaming and was given a care plan to reflect the behaviors. The Director of Nursing stated Resident number ninety six (96) is not necessarily in pain; this is just how the resident acts. In a subsequent interview with the Director of Nursing on February 14, 2013 at 1:13 p.m., she acknowledged the care plan indicates Resident number ninety six (96) had behaviors of resisting care, not yelling and screaming. The Director of Nursing also stated she was unable to find any documentation in the chart that indicates Resident number ninety six (96) had yelling behaviors. 34. — A nurse's note dated January 22, 2013 documented that Resident number ninety six (96) had pain which was manifested by fidgeting and shouting out intermittently. Routine pain medication was given and the effect was good with decreased fidgeting and decreased shouting. 35. The pain assessment dated January 7, 2013 documented under the question “Does the patient/resident exhibit any non-verbal signs that would indicate pain?” Moaning is checked off. Under nursing interventions, no evidence of pain is checked off. The monthly summary dated February 12, 2013 indicated Resident number ninety six (96) is alert and confused, quiet and cooperative with a flat affect. Resident number ninety six’s (96) speech is listed as difficult. 36. A review of the fourteen (14) day Minimum Data Set assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of January 24, 2013 revealed Resident number ninety six (96) was severely impaired with cognition. No behavioral symptoms are exhibited, including screaming and disruptive sounds. The Minimum Data Set identified Resident number ninety six (96) as having pain occasionally in five (5) of the seven (7) previous days with a level of five (5) out of ten (10). 37. In an interview with Resident number ninety six (96), the Licensed Practical Nurse on February 14, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. stated the catheter is to be positioned up over the brief and taped to the abdomen to prevent further irritation to the urethra. Resident number ninety six (96) has had a catheter for a long time. Because Resident number ninety six (96) is confused, the Licensed Practical Nurse stated she would watch for grimacing or fidgeting as signs of pain and that Resident number ninety six (96) tried to stand on his/her own if the catheter is placed incorrectly. The Licensed Practical Nurse stated that the staff does not use yelling as an indicator for pain because Resident number ninety six (96) often yells. Because Resident number ninety six (96) was trying to stand up in the activity room, the Licensed Practical Nurse brought him/her back into the room to check on the catheter. The resident stated to the nurse that the catheter "does not feel ok". Resident number ninety six (96) kept crossing his/her legs and fidgeting in the chair. A Certified Nursing Assistant came into the room to assist the Licensed Practical Nurse stand up Resident number ninety six (96). Resident number ninety six (96) stood to have his/her pants pulled down and his/her brief opened. The catheter was angled down and not taped to the abdomen as ordered. This was acknowledged by the Licensed Practical Nurse. When the nurse touched Resident number ninety six (96) he/she would yell out. There was also tape tangled in the pubic hair and as the nurse tried to remove it, Resident number ninety six (96) yelled out “It hurts a lot “. Resident number ninety six (96) kept trying to grab the nurse to make her stop but the Certified Nursing Assistant held his/her hands still. The catheter was then placed correctly. Resident number ninety six (96) stated he/she felt much better when the catheter was properly positioned. 38. Anobservation on February 12, 2013 at 3:25 p.m. revealed Resident number two hundred forty two (242) lying in bed. A Foley catheter (indwelling urinary drainage devise) was observed at bedside draining. 39. A review of the record revealed Resident number two hundred forty two (242) was admitted to the facility on December 31, 2012 with diagnoses to include urinary tract infection, functional decline, hypertension, deep vein thrombosis, anemia, hyperlipidemia, and renal insufficiency. A review of the Nursing Evaluation dated December 31, 2012 documented the existence of the Foley catheter. A review of the admitting physician's orders documented, "Catheter Orders" and further documented the ordered care and treatment for the catheter. A further review of the physician orders revealed the next order related to the Foley was not until nine (9) days after admission. This order was dated January 8, 2013 for the discontinuing of the catheter. A final review of the record lacked any evidence of a diagnosis or medical justification for the Foley catheter. 40. During a review of the record and interview with the Director of Nursing on February 15, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing agreed there was no valid diagnosis or medical justification for the Foley catheter for Resident number two hundred forty two (242) upon admission to the facility. When asked the standard procedure related to catheter use the Director of Nursing stated that they try to have the catheters discontinued within a few days of admission to their facility. 41. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled "Urinary Catheters" documents, “Procedure: 1. Eliminate indwelling urinary catheters when possible. 2. Use catheters only when they must be used, and only with documented medical justification by a physician." 42. During an interview on February 11, 2013 12:37 p.m., the Registered Nurse caring for Resident number three hundred five (305) was asked if the resident had a Foley catheter and the diagnosis or medical justification for the catheter. The Registered Nurse stated, "There is no valid reason for the catheter, Resident number three hundred five (305) came with it from the hospital. I'm going to call! the doctor to see if it can be removed." 43. An observation of Resident number three hundred five (305) on February 12, 2013 at approximately 11:45 a.m. revealed the resident sitting in a wheel chair at the nurse's station. Although the bag that holds and covers the Foley catheter for dignity purposes was noted, the Foley catheter was not present. 44. A review of the record documented Resident number three hundred five (305) was admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital on January 31, 2013 having sustained a cerebral vascular accident/stroke and subdural hematoma. Admitting diagnoses included diabetes, hypertension, left ventricle thrombus, hyperlipidemia, and intermittent atrial fibrillation. The record documented the existence of the Foley catheter upon admission to the facility as per the nursing evaluation dated January 31, 2013, the plan of care and in daily nursing notes from admission through February 11, 2012. A review of the plan of care dated January 31, 2013 for the indwelling catheter specifically documented the intervention "Identify documentation in the medical record which substantiates use of indwelling catheter, if absent confer with MD". An order to discontinue the Foley catheter was obtained on February 11, 2013 after surveyor questioning. A final review of the record lacked any diagnosis or medical justification for the catheter for Resident number three hundred five (305). 45. During an Interview on February 13, 2013 at approximately 4:00 p.m., the Unit Manager for the 300 unit was asked the procedure for residents admitted to the facility with a Foley catheter. The Unit Manger stated that the normal practice is to evaluate the resident and ask the physician for an order to discontinue the catheter within a few days of admission. The Unit Manager agreed that Resident number three hundred five (305) had a Foley catheter thirteen (13) days after admission to the facility with no appropriate diagnosis or medical justification. 46. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled "Urinary Catheters" documents, "Procedure: 1. Eliminate indwelling urinary catheters when possible. 2. Use catheters only when they must be used, and only with documented medical justification by a physician." 47, The Agency determined that this deficient practice compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. The Agency cited Respondent for a Class II deficiency as set forth in Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). 48. A Class II deficiency is subject to a civil penalty of $2,500 for an isolated deficiency, $5,000 for a patterned deficiency, and $7,500 for a widespread deficiency. The fine amount shall be doubled for each deficiency if the facility was previously cited for one or more Class I or Class II deficiencies during the last licensure inspection or any inspection or complaint investigation since the last licensure inspection. A fine shall be levied notwithstanding the correction of the deficiency. 49. Based upon the above findings, the Respondent’s actions, inactions or conduct constituted an isolated Class II deficiency pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). WHEREFORE, the Agency intends to impose an administrative fine in the amount of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00) against the Respondent pursuant to Sections 400.23(8)(b), and 400.102, Florida Statutes (2012). COUNT Il Assignment Of Conditional Licensure Status Pursuant To Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2012) 50. The Agency re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Count I. 51. The Agency is authorized to assign a conditional licensure status to nursing home facilities pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2012). 52. Due to the presence of one (1) Class I deficiency, the Respondent was not in substantial compliance at the time of the survey with criteria established under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2012), or the rules adopted by the Agency. 53. The Agency assigned the Respondent conditional licensure status with an action effective date of February 15, 2013. The original certificate for the conditional license is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference. 54. The Agency assigned the Respondent standard licensure status with an action effective date of March 15, 2013. The original certificate for the standard license is attached as Exhibit B and is incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, respectfully requests the Court to enter a final order granting the Respondent conditional licensure status for the period beginning February 15, 2013 and ending on March 15, 2013 pursuant to Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2012). CLAIM FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, respectfully requests the Court to enter a final order granting the following relief against the Respondent as follows: 1. Make findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the Agency. 2. Impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00.). 3. Assign conditional licensure status to the Respondent for the period beginning on February 15, 2013, and ending on March 15, 2013. 4. Assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case. 5. Enter any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted this A¢-u day of ne , 2013. A ee ee cae J ‘Andrea M. Lang, Assistant General Counsel Florida Bar No. 0364568 Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 335-1253 NOTICE RESPONDENT IS NOTIFIED THAT IT/HE/SHE HAS A RIGHT TO REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 120.569 AND 120.57, FLORIDA STATUTES. THE RESPONDENT IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IT/HE/SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO RETAIN AND BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY IN THIS MATTER. SPECIFIC OPTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ARE SET OUT IN THE ATTACHED ELECTION OF RIGHTS. ALL REQUESTS FOR HEARING SHALL BE MADE AND DELIVERED TO THE ATTENTION OF: THE AGENCY CLERK, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 2727 MAHAN DRIVE, BLDG #3, MS #3, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32308; TELEPHONE (850) 412-3630. THE RESPONDENT IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF A REQUEST FOR HEARING IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, A FINAL ORDER WILL BE ENTERED BY THE AGENCY. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form were served to: Anthony Brunicardi, Administrator, SA-PG - Vero Beach LLC d/b/a Palm Garden of Vero Beach, 1755 37" Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, by United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt No. 7011 1570 0002 1695 8511 and to Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., Registered Agent, SA-PG - Vero Beach LLC d/b/a Palm Garden of Vero Beach, 155 Office Plaza Drive, Suite A, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, by United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt No. 7011 1570 0002 1695 8528 on this ‘S &_ day of Wg , 2013. Net FP On od Andrea M. Lang, Assistant General‘Cdunsel Florida Bar No. 0364568 Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (239) 335-1253 Copies furnished to: Anthony Brunicardi, Administrator SA-PG - Vero Beach LLC d/b/a Palm Garden of Vero Beach 1755 37" Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (U.S. Certified Mail) Andrea M. Lang, Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Capitol Corporate Services, Inc. Registered Agent for SA-PG - Vero Beach LLC d/b/a Palm Garden of Vero Beach 155 Office Plaza Drive, Suite A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (US. Certified Mail) Bernard Hudson, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Bureau of Long Term Care Services Long Term Care Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3, Room 1213B Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Electronic Mail) Arlene Mayo-Davis Field Office Manager Agency for Health Care Administration 5150 Linton Boulevard, Suite 500 Delray Beach, Florida 33484 (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent Lawrence J. Sleurs, was a registered nurse in Florida under License Number 1248372, which was issued on February 21, 1987, and which expires on March 31, 1989. Respondent was originally licensed by endorsement on June 1, 1981 and was licensed for the renewal bienniums from June, 1981 through March, 1989. The Board of Nursing is the agency responsible for licensing registered nurses in Florida. At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint the Respondent was employed as Director of Nursing at the Hillsborough County Developmental Center in Tampa, Florida, having been hired to that position by Julia Pearsall, the Administrator of the facility. Starting in July, 1987, numerous employees at the facility reported to the Administrator that Respondent was not performing his duties in an appropriate fashion. A consultant, Addle Colgan, employed by Medical Services Corporation, was called to evaluate Respondent's performance and conducted a series of evaluations of the facility as it related to Respondent's performance as Director of Nursing in June, July, and August, 1987. During the course of these various interviews, she determined that Respondent had failed to record appropriate records or take appropriate steps regarding several grand mal seizures of a particular patient during the latter part of June and the early part of July, 1987; that he had failed to exercise appropriate managerial skills in providing appropriate nursing help; that his medical record-keeping was less than satisfactory; that his drug control operations were substandard; and, that numerous other areas of nursing practice as accomplished by Respondent were below standards. In her report dated July 16, 1987, Ms. Colgan recommended that Respondent be put on probation for a period of observation followed by reevaluation. This information and the failures in his performance were discussed with the Respondent by Ms. Colgan and he indicated his awareness of them and his belief that he could do better. It was obvious, however, that he could not do so. On July 25 and 26, 1987, Respondent again failed to orient a licensed practical nurse as required; he failed to relieve one nurse, requiring her to work approximately 20 hours straight; and his mismanagement caused the nurse in charge to commit multiple medication errors due to her fatigue, lack of orientation, and the receipt of improper directions from Respondent. As a result, on July 30, 1987, Respondent was interviewed by Ms. Colgan and Ms. Pearsall at which time he verified what he had advised the nurse in question; his failure to document medication errors or to notify a physician; his failure to read policy and procedures regarding medication errors; and his lack of awareness of immediate and future scheduling needs. Considering the seriousness of these offenses and the fact that Respondent had not improved over the period of probation, at 2:30 PM on July 30, 1987, he was relieved of his duties as Director of Nursing and discharged from employment with the facility. The personnel file pertaining to Respondent and the investigative file concerning his alleged misconduct were forwarded to Mary L. Willis, a registered nurse consultant and expert in the field of nursing competence for evaluation. Having reviewed the entire file, she is satisfied that Respondent's skills were poor and he interfered with the nurses under his supervision in the details of their duties. As a result of his activities, she questions his managerial skills, his preparation for the job of Director of Nursing, his knowledge of care of seizure patients, and his lack of understanding and experience with medications. Taken together, these defects convince her that the care rendered by Respondent during the period in question did not come up to minimal standards as it relates to seizure patients. She is also convinced that the level of skill demonstrated by Respondent in this case was less than that of a practical nurse. In addition, it is her opinion that his charting of medications failed to achieve minimal technical standards in that he ignored basic principles involved in the administration of medication. Ms. Willis has many serious doubts regarding Respondent's preparation to serve as a Director of Nursing. She cannot understand, in light of the fact that he initially complained of the hours required of a Director of Nursing and because of the fact that he lived in Lakeland and while working in Tampa, why he accepted the position in the first place. Taken together, it is her opinion and it is so found, that Respondent's performance of duty as Director of Nursing and as a registered nurse, during the period June - July, 1987, failed to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent Lawrence J. Sleurs, R. N., be reprimanded, that he be placed on probation for one year under such terms and conditions as the Board may specify, and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 16 day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 16 day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32201 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence J. Sleurs, R.N. 2047 Somerville Drive Lakeland, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent should be subjected to discipline for the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner on July 28, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license no. ME 0031639 on October 26, 1977. Respondent is board certified in general surgery and has worked and trained as a general and vascular surgeon. Respondent has practiced medicine in Tampa since 1988. Respondent offered testimony establishing that his peers respect his ability as a surgeon. Until 1996, Respondent had not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine or by any other licensing entity. On January 26, 1996, the Board of Medicine issued a final order in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 95-3925, imposing discipline on Respondent’s license to practice medicine. Case No. 95-3925 involved two separate incidents in which Respondent performed surgical procedures that had not been specifically consented to by the patients. In the first incident, Respondent removed the severely diseased left leg of the patient when the signed consent to surgery was for removal of the right leg. The patient was well known to Respondent, and it was understood between Respondent and the patient that both legs would eventually require amputation. In the second incident, Respondent removed a toe that had become dislocated during a debridement of the patient’s foot. The toe was connected only by ligament and necrotic tissue, and Respondent removed it during the debridement procedure rather than waiting to obtain specific consent for its removal. In the final order, the Board of Medicine concluded that Respondent had violated Sections 458.331(1)(p) and (t), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain proper consent from a patient and by practicing medicine below the standard of care. Based on these conclusions, the Board of Medicine imposed the following relevant disciplinary measures: Respondent’s license to practice medicine is REPRIMANDED. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000 to the Board of Medicine, within one year of the date this Final Order is filed. Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is SUSPENDED for a period of 6 months including the time served under the emergency suspension. Respondent shall submit a practice plan prior to reinstatement to be approved by the Board’s probation committee. Within 6 months of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent shall have an independent, certified risk manager review Respondent’s practice. Specifically, this independent consultant shall review the Respondent’s practice concerning preoperative procedures including patient consent. This consultant will prepare a written report addressing Respondent’s practice. Such report, if necessary, will include suggested improvements of the quality assurance of Respondent’s practice. Respondent will submit this report to the Board’s Probation Committee with documentation that demonstrates compliance with the suggestions enumerated in the consultant’s report. Upon reinstatement, Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: Respondent shall comply with all state and federal statutes, rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of medicine, including Chapters 455, 458, 893, Florida Statutes, and Rules 59R, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent shall appear before the Probation Committee at the first meeting after said probation commences, at the last meeting of the Probation Committee preceding termination of probation, quarterly, and at such other times requested by the committee. Respondent shall be noticed by the Board staff of the date, time and place of the Board’s Probation Committee whereat Respondent’s appearance is required. Failure of the Respondent to appear as requested or directed shall be considered a violation of the terms of this Probation, and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. * * * 6. Respondent shall not practice except under the indirect supervision of a physician fully licensed under Chapter 458 to be approved by the Board’s Probation Committee.... The responsibilities of a monitoring physician shall include: Submit quarterly reports, in affidavit form, which shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Description of probationer’s practice. Brief statement of probationer’s compliance with terms of probation. Brief description of probationer’s relationship with monitoring physician. Detail any problems which may have arisen with probationer. * * * Respondent shall submit quarterly reports in affidavit form, the contents of which shall be specified by the Board. The reports shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Practice location. Describe current practice (type and composition). Brief statement of compliance with probationary terms. Describe relationship with monitoring/supervising physician. Advise Board of any problems. * * * 11. Respondent understands that during this period of probation, semi-annual investigative reports will be compiled by the Agency for Health Care Administration concerning his compliance with the terms and conditions of probation and the rules and statutes regulating the practice of medicine. On January 31, 1996, Respondent submitted to the Board of Medicine the practice plan required by the final order. The practice plan named Joseph Diaco, M.D., as Respondent’s monitoring physician, and stated that Dr. Diaco would review twenty percent of Respondent’s patient charts. The practice plan stated that Respondent would comply specifically with all the terms and conditions of the final order, and with the recommendations of the certified risk manager. The practice plan further stated: ... Dr. Sanchez will have specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered, wherein he will discuss the intended surgical procedure again, and will have the intended surgical site marked with indelible ink. The record does not document that the Board of Medicine’s Probation Committee formally approved Respondent’s practice plan, or addressed the terms of the practice plan in any way. Such approval is presumed from the fact that Respondent appeared before the Probation Committee on several occasions subsequent to filing the practice plan, and the record does not indicate that the Probation Committee registered any objection or suggested any modifications to the practice plan. Respondent made the required appearances before the Probation Committee. Respondent and Dr. Diaco submitted the required quarterly reports to the Board of Medicine, and Dr. Diaco fulfilled the monitoring requirements of the practice plan. Periodically during the probation period, Mr. Richard Hess, an investigator with the Agency for Health Care Administration, would contact Respondent and Dr. Diaco to inquire as to Respondent’s practice and compliance with the terms of probation. Mr. Hess would inquire regarding such matters as the submission of quarterly reports, the payment of the administrative fine, and the current locations at which Respondent was practicing. Mr. Hess would submit his reports to the Agency for Health Care Administration and to the Board of Medicine, and these reports were used to supplement the information submitted directly by Respondent and Dr. Diaco. Based upon the information he was provided by Respondent and Dr. Diaco, Mr. Hess never found Respondent out of compliance with the terms of his probation. On the morning of November 2, 1997, an order was entered at Vencor Hospital by the primary treating physician for placement of a central venous line for patient D.M., an 80 year- old female patient. A central venous line is most often placed for access to the circulatory system for the provision of medications and/or fluids when the peripheral venous system is not available for such use. A central venous line may be ordered if the patient has no veins remaining for the insertion of a peripheral catheter, or for extended access, such as when a patient requires a long-term cycle of antibiotics for a bone infection. Patient D.M. required the central line for antibiotics to treat infected ulcerations on her lower extremities. The placement of a central line may be performed by any licensed physician, though surgeons are often called in to perform the procedure for primary physicians. Two physicians who teach at the University of Miami testified that third-year residents are allowed to perform the procedure with only indirect supervision. Dr. Diaco testified that nurse practitioners may perform the procedure under the supervision of a physician. The procedure is performed at the patient’s bedside, not in an operating room. No general anesthesia is required. A local anesthetic is administered at the point of insertion. The entire procedure takes two to three minutes to perform. The central line may be placed in at least three locations in the body: the leg, the neck, or the collarbone. In the case of D.M., Respondent placed the line by way of the collarbone. A needle is inserted under the clavicle and into the vein that unites with the jugular vein to form the second largest vein in the human body, the superior vena cava. Using a guide wire, a catheter is threaded through the subclavian vein and placed inside the superior vena cava. Prior to performance of the procedure, the patient’s head is typically placed lower than her feet in what is called the Trendelenburg position. If the patient has a feeding tube, it is typically turned off prior to the procedure to prevent aspiration of tube material. Proper placement of the central line is confirmed by X- ray taken immediately after the procedure. Such confirmation of placement is necessary due to the risks associated with incorrect placement. The most immediate risk is pneumothorax, the puncturing of the patient’s lung. Other less common complications are blood loss, cardiac arrest, infection, and irregular heartbeat. The consensus of the experts who testified at hearing was that the procedure poses no greater risk of complication for elderly patients such as D.M., but that elderly patients who do suffer complications may have a harder time recovering than would younger, more robust patients. D.M. was an 80 year-old female patient who shared Room 218 at Vencor Hospital with J.P., an 89 year-old female patient. D.M. and J.P. were of the same general age, ethnic origin, and gender. They had similar medical problems, including bilateral lower extremity decubiti and ulcerations. D.M. was able to understand conversation and could verbally communicate with staff. D.M. signed on her own behalf the consent form for the insertion of the central venous line. The signature on the consent form was obtained by and witnessed by Elizabeth Rood, a registered nurse on duty during the day of November 2, 1997. Ms. Rood testified that she believed D.M. was rational enough to sign the form on her own behalf. Vencor Hospital policy dictated that informed consent be obtained from the patient by the surgeon who was to perform the procedure. The nursing employees of Vencor Hospital and Respondent all testified that, despite the stated policy, it was common practice at the time for nurses to obtain the signatures of patients on the consent forms. The express terms of Respondent’s practice plan also required Respondent to have “specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered. ” J.P. suffered from organic brain syndrome and was generally unable to communicate verbally. J.P. was unable to give consent for surgical procedures on her own behalf. Ms. Rood obtained D.M.’s signature on the informed consent form at about 10:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter, hospital staff contacted Respondent to inform him of the order and request that he perform the placement of the central line. Respondent replied that he was unable to perform the procedure at that time because of a more urgent consultation at St. Joseph’s Hospital, but would come to Vencor Hospital later to perform the procedure. Shortly before the start of the nursing night shift, the central line cart with supplies for the procedure was brought by the day supervisor to the second floor of Vencor Hospital and placed outside Room 218. Lisa Cotroneo was the night charge nurse. When she arrived for her shift, she received report from the day charge nurse. That report indicated that D.M. was to receive a central line placement at some time during the evening. The nursing staff at Vencor was divided into teams of two or three nurses assigned to particular rooms on the floor. Team three was responsible for Room 218. At the start of the night shift, Nurse Cotroneo informed two of the three nurse on team three, Donna Maranto and Fortune Ndukwe, that a central line was to be placed on patient D.M. that evening. Nurse Cotroneo did not inform the third nurse, Mary Shogreen, because Nurse Shogreen was a pool nurse called in to work on short notice and had not yet arrived for her shift. Nurse Shogreen was the nurse on team three who was assigned primary care duties for the patients in Room 218. Nurse Shogreen was later informed by Nurse Ndukwe that one of her patients would be receiving a central line placement that evening. Nurse Shogreen testified that she intended to check with the charge nurse to confirm the order for a central line placement, but that she never did so. At around 8:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned the nursing unit to inform the charge nurse that he was on his way to perform the placement of the central line. Nurse Cotroneo conveyed this information to Nurses Maranto and Ndukwe, and told them to be sure everything was ready for Respondent’s arrival. Respondent arrived at Vencor Hospital shortly after 8:00 p.m. and proceeded to the second floor nursing station, where he asked for and received the chart for patient D.M. He reviewed the chart, which contained the signed consent form and the order for placement of the central line. After reviewing the chart, Respondent inquired as to the location of D.M. and the nurse who would assist him in the procedure. Respondent was told that D.M.’s nurse was down the hall. Respondent walked down the hall and approached a group of three or four nurses. Respondent did not know any of them. He informed the group that he was Dr. Sanchez and was there to perform the central line placement. One of the nurses, later identified as Mary Shogreen, told him she was ready for him. She led him down the hall toward Room 218. Respondent paused at the central line cart outside Room 218 to pick up a pair of surgical gloves and the kit used for the central line placement. When Respondent entered the room, he observed Nurse Shogreen already at the bedside. The room was dark, save for a single light over the bed of the patient where Nurse Shogreen was working. Respondent saw that Nurse Shogreen was turning off the feeding tube to the patient, a common precursor to performance of a central line placement. Respondent walked to the other side of the patient’s bed and addressed the patient by the name of D.M. He told her that he was Dr. Sanchez and that her physician had asked him to insert a central venous catheter in her. Respondent looked into the patient’s eyes and realized she was not comprehending what he said. Nurse Shogreen was standing directly across the bed and could hear Respondent’s efforts to talk to the patient, including his addressing that patient as “D.M.” Respondent asked Nurse Shogreen if the patient was “always like this,” i.e., unresponsive. Nurse Shogreen answered that she had never had the patient before, but believed that was the usual condition of the patient. It would not be unusual for an elderly patient such as D.M. to be communicative and able to understand and sign a consent form at 10:00 a.m., but then be uncommunicative in the evening. The medical community informally refers to this phenomenon as "sundown syndrome." Respondent told Nurse Shogreen to assist him in placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position, and to get a rolled towel to place between the patient’s shoulder blades. While Nurse Shogreen was getting the towel, Respondent examined the patient’s neck and chest. Nurse Shogreen returned with the towel, but was unable to adjust the bed into Trendelenburg position. Respondent told her to go get another nurse who knew how to work the bed. She brought in Nurse Ndukwe, who was also unable to get the bed into the proper position. At length, they found a certified nurse assistant who was able to place the bed into position. Neither Nurse Shogreen nor Nurse Ndukwe expressed any concern to Respondent regarding the identity of the patient. Nurse Ndukwe had received an explicit report concerning the fact that patient D.M. was to receive a central line placement. Nurse Shogreen had heard Respondent address the patient as D.M. Respondent completed the procedure, which took about one minute. He proceeded to the nurse’s station and ordered the standard X-ray to confirm the proper placement of the central line, completed the consult form, and dicated both his consultation report and operative report. Nurse Shogreen remained behind in the room to clean up after the procedure. She made notations in the bedside chart of patient J.P., the mistaken recipient of the central line. Even at this point, Nurse Shogreen did not realize that the wrong patient had received the central line. The findings as to events in Room 218 on the evening of November 2, 1997, were based on the testimony of Respondent. Nurse Shogreen testified that it was Respondent who led the way into the room, Respondent who proceeded to the wrong bed, and Respondent who prevented Nurse Shogreen from going out to get the patient’s chart to confirm her mental condition after questioning by Respondent. Nurse Shogreen agreed with Respondent’s version of the problems with getting the bed into proper position, but testified that Respondent was so angry and in such a hurry that he performed the central line placement before the staff was able to place the bed in the proper position. Based on both the substance of the testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Respondent’s version of events is more believable, and that Respondent is a more credible witness than Nurse Shogreen. The undersigned is unable to credit testimony that a physician of Respondent’s skill and experience would plunge ahead into the room and commence a procedure on a patient he had never seen, without doing anything to ascertain her identity. The undersigned finds it more plausible that Respondent followed Nurse Shogreen’s lead, observed the visual cues she was providing, and assumed that the patient to whom Nurse Shogreen attended was in fact patient D.M. Respondent's proffer of testimony regarding inconsistencies in Nurse Mary Shogreen's testimony before the Peer Review Committee was disregarded in formulating these findings of fact. Several physicians offered expert testimony as to whether it is within the standard of practice for a surgeon to rely on his assisting nurse for patient identification. Dr. David Shatz, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that any surgeon must be absolutely sure he is working on the right person. He testified that once Respondent was unable to get a verbal response from the patient, he should have asked the nurse if he was speaking to patient D.M. Dr. Shatz concluded that it is a deviation from the standard of care to perform a procedure on a noncommunicative patient without checking the patient’s identification bracelet. Dr. Stephen Michel agreed that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by placing the central line in the wrong patient. Dr. Michel’s other conclusions regarding the events in question cannot be credited because he admitted he was assuming that Dr. Sanchez was not permitted by the terms of his probation to be working in Vencor Hospital at all. This assumption was incorrect, and colored the remainder of his conclusions. Dr. Enrique Ginzburg, also an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that a surgeon is usually unfamiliar with the patient in a central line placement, and stated that he could not remember the last time he checked an identification bracelet when the nurses were in the room with him. He agreed that it would be easy to check the armband, but that physicians simply do not check the armband if nurses are present to identify the patients. Dr. Jerry Diehr, an anesthesiologist at St. Josephs Hospital in Tampa, testified that a reasonably prudent physician would do what Respondent did. He stated that he relies on nurse identifications in similar circumstances, and that it is common practice for physicians to do so. Dr. Diehr testified that physicians rely on nurses for all manner of patient identification. He noted that care is often dictated by telephone calls. When a nurse calls him and tells him about the condition of his patient, the underlying assumption is that the nurse has correctly identified the patient and adequately reported the condition. Physicians may base their entire course of treatment on such reports from nurses, and must be able to rely on the nurses for such identification and reporting. Dr. Diaco strongly opined that physicians must be able to rely on nurses for patient identification. It is the nurse’s responsibility to identify the correct patient when the physician does not know the patient. Dr. Diaco testified that if physicians cannot rely on nurses for such basic information as the identity of their patients, they may as well live in the hospital and administer their own medications. Peter Shute, an expert in general nursing practice, opined that the three nurses on duty at Vencor Hospital on the evening of November 2, 1997, were negligent in their duty to know the patients on their assigned unit. He testified that Nurse Shogreen was particularly negligent, because she had not received full report on her patients, found out that one of her patients was to receive a central line placement that evening, but did not immediately obtain a full report and take steps to ensure that all preparations had been made. The weight of the evidence is that it was within the standard of care under the conditions and circumstances for Respondent to rely on Nurse Shogreen’s identification of the patient. This finding does not minimize the fact that Respondent bears ultimate responsibility for the performance of an invasive procedure on a patient who did not give informed consent. After Respondent dictated his notes and left the hospital, David Vallejo, the X-ray technician, came to the floor to obtain the X-ray ordered by Respondent. He discovered that the patient who received the central line was J.P., not D.M. Mr. Vallejo went to the nurse’s station and informed Nurse Cotroneo, who called the nursing supervisor to come to the room with her. Nurse Cotroneo and the supervisor confirmed that both patients in Room 218 were wearing their identification bracelets. The nursing supervisor called J.P.’s primary physician, who ordered an X-ray, which confirmed that J.P. suffered no ill effects from the placement of the central line. He also ordered removal of the central line, which was accomplished without incident. Respondent was informed of the error by telephone. He came to Vencor Hospital the next day, November 3, 1997, and documented the error in the medical records of both D.M. and J.P. On that day, a different surgeon performed the central line placement on D.M. All of the expert witnesses agreed that Respondent’s charting and recording of the incident, both before and after he learned of the error, were adequate and indicated no effort to conceal the facts of the situation. The experts also agreed that marking the intended surgical site with indelible ink serves no purpose in a central line placement. Petitioner's own expert, Dr. Shatz, stated that marking the site of a central line placement would be "silly." On November 3, 1997, Vencor Hospital suspended Respondent’s hospital staff privileges pending an investigation of the incident. Respondent immediately contacted Dr. Diaco, his indirect supervisor, as soon as he learned of the error. Respondent fully informed Dr. Diaco of the facts of the situation. Dr. Diaco told Respondent that he did nothing wrong and that “the nurse is in big trouble.” Respondent also sought the counsel of his attorney, Michael Blazicek. Mr. Blazicek conferred with Dr. Diaco, and also concluded that this was a nursing problem, not a standard of care problem for Respondent. The results of the hospital’s internal Peer Review Committee review seemed to bear out the opinions of Dr. Diaco and Mr. Blazicek. On November 26, 1997, Respondent was restored to full privileges at Vencor Hospital. Nurse Shogreen received verbal counseling and a one-day suspension for failure to render proper treatment to the correct patient. Vencor Hospital’s “Root Cause Analysis Team” found that nursing protocols should be changed to prevent a recurrence of patient misidentification. Patients would henceforth be identified by bed letter designation. Identification of the patient and consent to treatment would be verified by two people, one of whom must be a hospital employee. On November 17, 1997, the quality review manager of Vencor Hospital submitted an Adverse or Untoward Incident Report (Code 15) regarding the incident, pursuant to Sections 395.0197(6) and 641.55(6), Florida Statutes. A Code 15 Report is a report of serious adverse incidents in licensed facilities. The Code 15 Report identifies the physicians and nurses involved by their license numbers, and identifies the patient and facility. It describes the nature of the incident and all actions taken by the hospital in response to the incident. The purpose of the Code 15 Report is to notify the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Health within 15 days of a serious adverse incident so the Agency may review the incident and begin an investigation. Respondent appeared before his Probation Committee on November 13, 1997. At this time, Respondent knew that the hospital would be filing a Code 15 Report, though it had not actually done so. Respondent was still on summary suspension at Vencor Hospital, pending review. Prior to his Probation Committee appearance, Respondent conferred with his attorney, Mr. Blazicek, who counseled him to answer any questions forthrightly, but not to volunteer information about the incident to the Probation Committee. This advice was based on the facts that the incident was still under investigation, that there had been no finding of wrongdoing by Respondent, and that summary suspension was a standard procedure for such incidents indicating no conclusions as to ultimate responsibility. Mr. Blazicek testified that he knew Respondent still had one more written quarterly report to file in January 1998. He reasoned that if the hospital's investigation resulted in adverse findings, Respondent could report the incident in that later filing. The Probation Committee raised no questions as to the Vencor Hospital incident, and determined that Respondent’s probation would terminate as scheduled upon payment of the administrative fine. Respondent did not volunteer information about the incident or the summary suspension. Respondent and Dr. Diaco filed their final quarterly reports in January 1998. Neither of them reported the Vencor Hospital incident. Respondent reported that he was in full compliance with all probationary terms. By the time the final quarterly reports were received, the Department of Health was aware of the Code 15 Report. Nonetheless, the Department issued an Order of Termination on February 2, 1998, finding that Respondent had satisfactorily completed the term of his probation as of January 26, 1998.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine enter a final order determining that Rolando R. Sanchez has violated Section 458.331(1)(p), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license for a period of nine months from the date of the Order of Emergency Suspension of License, imposing a fine of $2,500.00 and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years from the date the suspension expires. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue An administrative complaint dated August 16, 1989 alleges that Respondent, Atalia Dacosta G. Sagastume, L.P.N., violated certain provisions of Chapter 464, F.S., related to the practice of nursing, by failing to properly chart the administration of controlled substances to patients. The issue in this proceeding is whether the alleged violations occurred, and, if so, what discipline is appropriate. Procedural Matters Ms. Sagastume responded to the administrative complaint with a request for formal hearing. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was scheduled for hearing on May 9, 1990. On April 24, 1990, Ms. Sagastume called the hearing officer to request a continuance, as she was working with the U.S. Census Bureau and also had surgery scheduled. She asked that the case be reset for the end of June, or thereafter. She was told to check with opposing counsel regarding her request, and later she confirmed that there was no objection. The hearing was cancelled, and Ms. Sagastume was asked to follow up her oral request in writing. No written request was filed. The hearing officer's secretary made several efforts to contact Ms. Sagastume and left messages on her answering machine or with whomever answered her phone. On June 4, 1990, when nothing further was heard from Ms. Sagastume, the amended notice of hearing was mailed, establishing a new hearing date of August 30, 1990. The notice was not returned, nor was any communication received from Ms. Sagastume. She did not appear at the hearing. Instead, she sent a certified letter to Lisa Bassett, then counsel for Petitioner, postmarked August 27, 1990 and received August 29, 1990. The letter requested that the hearing be rescheduled for sometime in November, as she was still working for the Census Bureau. No return address nor telephone number was listed on the letter or envelope. When Respondent did not appear at the hearing, the hearing officer tried to contact her at the telephone number in the file, 407-348-4450, but the number had been discontinued. Mr. Tunnicliff informed the hearing officer that he had not spoken with Ms. Sagastume. The DPR investigator had attempted to reach her by phone, or in person at her house, several times, but was unsuccessful. Ms. Sagastume had returned the call once, but left no telephone number. Since Ms. Sagastume had successfully obtained a continuance in the past, it was deemed that she is aware of the proper procedure and was attempting to avoid the proceeding. Petitioner was prepared to present its case and the hearing commenced at 9:50 a.m. In support of the allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of Mary Elizabeth Duchaine, Helen Louis Shipley, Jacquette Cockrell, and Patricia Allen Zimmerman. Petitioner's exhibits #1-9 were admitted, which exhibits include the letter from Ms. Sagastume referenced above, patient records, Respondent's license file and a final order and complaint in another disciplinary action against the same Respondent. No transcript was filed and the right to file a proposed recommended order was waived by counsel for Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact During the relevant period, Respondent Atalia Dacosta G. Sagastume was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse holding license number PN 0824781, issued on March 31, 1986. Her address of record was 316 Florida Parkway, Kissimmee, Florida, 34743-6325. Ms. Sagastume was employed by Kissimmee Memorial Hospital as a "pool nurse" in November, 1988. A pool nurse is not a regular employee, but serves on call during times of need, and receives a premium salary with no regular benefits. Pool nurses are considered experienced nurses and are held by the hospital to the same nursing standards as regular staff. Ms. Sagastume received orientation as to hospital procedures at Kissimmee Memorial Hospital all day on November 28, 1988, and on five additional days throughout the next few months. The orientation included methods of appropriate record-keeping, which methods are also standard nursing practice. On January 18, 1989, Ms. Sagastume signed out the narcotic, Demerol, two times on the sign out sheet for Patient "D". Ms. Sagastume was not the attending nurse for this patient and no entries on this patient's chart were made by Ms. Sagastume, as observed by Jacque T. Cockrell, R.N., the Director of Nursing at Kissimmee Memorial at the time of the incident. Ms. Cockrell and another nurse supervisor met with Ms. Sagastume and prepared a counselling report on January 19, 1989. Ms. Sagastume was reminded that she may administer medications only to her own patients and that she must document narcotics on the patient's chart (progress notes) as well as on the narcotics record sheet. At that time the supervisors considered the problem was educational and felt they had remedied it. On February 6, 1989, Ms. Sagastume signed out narcotic medications for two patients, "W" and "M". She altered the times on the signout sheet by simply writing over the entries, rather than by striking through, writing "error", and then correcting the entry as she had been instructed. In addition, on February 6, 1989, Ms. Sagastume signed out narcotic medications to patient "M" four times during her evening shift: 15:05 (3:05 p.m.), 19:00 (7:00 p.m.), 21:00 (9:00 p.m.), and 23:10 (11:10 p.m.). This is unusual, and some notation should have been made that the physician was called about the patient's pain. The notes on the patient's chart do not reflect a need for the medication, particularly since the 7:00 p.m. entry by Ms. Sagastume indicates that the pain was relieved. Ms. Sagastume's careless, improper or incomplete record-keeping violate minimal standards of acceptable prevailing nursing practice. Kissimmee Memorial Hospital discharged Ms. Sagastume on February 20, 1989. A separate administrative complaint in DPR case #89-001399 was filed against this Respondent on March 8, 1990. That complaint alleges other violations of nursing practice standards at St. Cloud Hospital in April, 1989. These violations involved irregularities in narcotics record keeping, as well as the observation of unsteady, erratic behavior and the presence of fresh needle marks on the Respondent's arms. Respondent failed to respond to that complaint and on July 10, 1990, the Board of Nursing entered its Final Order finding that the investigative file supported the allegations of the complaint. The license of Atalia Sagastume was ordered suspended until she personally appears before the Board and demonstrates her ability to safely engage in the practice of nursing. (Petitioner's Exhibit #9).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct as alleged, and suspending her license to practice nursing, concurrently with the suspension already imposed in DPR case #89-001399. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Atalia Dacosta G. Sagastume 316 Florida Parkway Kissimmee, FL 32743-8413 and 710 Royal Palm Drive Kissimmee, FL 34743 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact Mark Hegedus, Respondent, is registered with the Florida State Board of Nursing and holds license No. 85729-2. He worked at the Sarasota Memorial Hospital (SMH) for approximately three years immediately preceding May 15, 1978. During the period between April 1, 1978 and May 15, 1978 Respondent was working on the cancer ward at SMH and was Charge Team Leader at the hospital. An audit conducted of the narcotics and barbiturates administration records at SMH for the period 1 April through 15 May 1978 disclosed that of 14 patients records selected who had been administered Demerol by Respondent, evidence of irregularity was discovered in 30 entries on 9 of the 14 patient medical records audited. These errors included signing out for 50 mg ampules of Demerol 11 times, for 75 mg ampules 11 times, and for 100 mg ampules 8 times in the narcotic record with no entry made on the Nurses Notes or on Medication and Treatment record. These errors involved patients Daryl C. Iverson, Edna Jurgenson, Clinton Jelmberg, John Lally, Genevieve Belt, Arleigh Updike, Michael Wujtowicz, Joan Slater, and Arda Miller. Hospital procedures and accepted nursing practice require the nurse administering narcotics to sign for the narcotic when it is removed from the narcotics locker and then make an entry in the Nurse Notes and patient Medication and Treatment record when the narcotic is administered to the patient. Medication and Treatment records are used by the doctors to see how frequently patients need narcotics prescribed on an as needed basis, whether the drugs prescribed have been administered, and by other medical personnel to ascertain when the patient last received and how much medication so as to preclude giving the patient an overdose. Respondent was discharged from his position at the hospital on 15 May 1978 because of the narcotics irregularities. At the time of his discharge, Respondent acknowledged that he had taken Demerol and had disposed of the ampules but that he did not use them himself or sell them. The audit disclosed a few errors in charting narcotics were committed by other nurses as well as Respondent. During the three years Respondent worked at SMH and, up until about 1 April 1978, he was a capable and competent registered nurse, well-liked by both patients and co-workers. He was promoted to First Team Leader after about one year at SMH and to Charge Team Leader approximately one year thereafter. These promotions were more rapid than the time required by the average nurse. All witnesses who had worked with Respondent spoke highly of his qualifications and dedication as a registered nurse.
The Issue exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
Findings Of Fact 1 At all times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has held license no. PN 12946-1 issued by the Board of Nursing in Florida. Petitioner is empowered to discipline that license if Respondent is shown to have violated her responsibilities as a nurse practitioner. Disciplinary action is taken in accordance with Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent had been referred to Memorial Medical Center a Jacksonville, Florida, hospital to work as a nurse on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift of April 9, 1988. This referral was from Consolidated Staffing and Home Health Services, a division of St. Vincent's Health Care System. Jacqueline L. Cumbie who is a registered nurse in Florida and a certified nursing administrator and the administrator and director of the nurses for the referring group was responsible for coordinating the assignment of this nurse. The referral here was consistent with that process. When Respondent reported for work at the hospital she was given a brief orientation by Debra Ellen Bearup, the staff R.N. on the floor where Respondent was assigned. That floor was Two Central, a surgical floor. The orientation included the location on the floor where materials could be found that the Respondent would need to carry out her duties to include an explanation about the medication room, supply room, an explanation of patient charts and the nursing flow sheets where the Respondent would have to do her charting and an indication of where the medications were being held that would have to be administered by the Respondent. In fulfilling this role Ms. Bearup was acting as the charge nurse. The assignment that Respondent had was to care for five patients in rooms 205, 209, 210, 214 and 215. The duties Respondent had with those patients was to assess the patients and to provide them with a level of care that they were supposed to be afforded to include monitoring vital signs, doing cepho-caudal assessment, administering medications, recording anything unusual that transpired and in general caring for the patients. Ms. Bearup's shift began at 7:00 a.m. on that date and ended at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Bearup was not at the hospital when the Respondent left the hospital. Ms. Bearup was not aware of any problems that the Respondent was experiencing in carrying out her duties while Ms. Bearup was in attendance with Respondent at the hospital. At times Ms. Bearup would approach the Respondent and state "are you doing o.k., are there any questions, are you running into anything that you do not understand." Respondent would reply that she was "doing fine." The contact between Ms. Bearup and the Respondent did not include any attempt on the part of Ms. Bearup to verify the treatment provided by Respondent for the benefit of the patients assigned to the Respondent such as looking at the patient charts. Ms. Bearup took the Respondent's word for the fact that things were proceeding as they should. Subsequently, Ms. Bearup did examine the charts of the patients that Respondent was responsible for and discovered that the patient in Room 205 had not had vital signs taken as called for and that Respondent had failed to administer antibiotics at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Bearup also discovered that the patient in Room 209 had not had vital signs taken at 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and that medication was not given at 5:00 p.m. for that patient. Related to the patient in Room 209, Ms. Bearup found that the Respondent had not completed charting for the patient. Concerning the patient in Room 210, Ms. Bearup found that the Respondent had failed to take the patient's vital signs at 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and had failed to complete the charting on the patient. Concerning the patient in Room 214, Ms. Bearup found that the Respondent had failed to take the patient's vital signs at 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and had failed to complete the patient's charting. Concerning the patient in Room 215, Ms. Bearup discovered that the Respondent had failed to complete the charting on this patient. In all instances referred to Respondent was aware of her obligations. Ellen Lederman was a staff nurse who came on duty at 7:00 p.m. April 9, 1988 and whose shift was to end at 7:00 a.m. on April 10, 1988. After Ms. Lederman came on duty she had contact with the Respondent and the Respondent became tearful with complaints of pain in her knees and that she was very tired. Ms. Lederman and Katherine Mitchell, another nurse working on the floor at that time, Ms. Mitchell being since deceased, asked the Respondent if she wanted to go home. The Respondent told them that she would like to go home and the nursing supervisor was called and permission was granted to the Respondent to leave her duties at the hospital. Respondent left shortly after 9:00 p.m. Nurse Cumbie who was accepted as an expert in nursing practice gave the opinion that the performance by Respondent did not meet minimal standards for nursing practice related to the oversights in the patient care that have been previously described.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact made and the conclusions of law reached, it RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of Petitioner: The first 10 paragraphs in the proposed fact finding and paragraphs 12 through 14 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Roberta Fenner, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Olean S. McCall Johnson 12929 Mandarin Point Jacksonville, FL 32223 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director DPR Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
