Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues involved in this hearing, the Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, having been licensed on September 1, 1967, by examination, with license number 41856-2. At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Gulf Coast Community Hospital (GCCH), Panama City, Florida. On August 4, 1983, Dr. David W. Scott, an orthopedic surgeon with practice privileges at GCCH, treated Arthur Collins in the emergency room of that hospital. After taking a history from the patient and examining him, he concluded that Mr. Collins was a drug addict who had the ability to manipulate physicians for the purpose of obtaining narcotics. As a part of his treatment of this individual, Dr. Scott prescribed 100 mg of Demerol four times a day which was obviously insufficient for Mr. Collins who had developed a drug tolerance. As a result, Dr. Scott added an additional drug, Vistoril, to augment the Demerol. Before leaving the hospital that night, and because Mr. Collins was obviously addicted to narcotics, Dr. Scott left an oral order with the nurse on duty at the nurses' station, subsequently identified as Ms. Habersham, not to increase the dosage prescribed for the patient, not to give additional narcotics, and not to call the on-call physician in the event Mr. Collins complained of pain. The reason for this last instruction concerning the physician was to prevent the on call physician, who might not know the patient's history and of his drug addiction, from prescribing additional narcotics. Ms. Habersham worked as a charge nurse on the day shift during this period and recalls patient Collins. When she was relieved by the Respondent at the end of her shift, she passed Dr. Scott's orders on to her. Consequently, it is clear that Respondent was aware of Dr. Scott's order not to increase Collins' dose and not to contact the on-duty physician in the event Collins asked for more medicine. Nonetheless, Respondent admits giving Mr. Collins an injection of 125 mg of Demerol even though the doctor's order called for a 100 mg dose. She justifies this on the basis that the patient had said he was in great pain and constantly kept coming to the nurses station begging for more medication. She observed him to be sweating and grabbing at his stomach. Based on her experience in the Army Nurse Corps and the Army Surgeon General's recommendation for a 125 mg dose of Demerol in situations such as this, and because she did not want to wake up Dr. Rohan, the on-call physician, she gave the additional dose on her own authority feeling she could get Dr. Rohan's approval later on. Dr. Rohan recalls only an incident in August of 1983 where he got a call from a nurse whose name he cannot remember for a "cover order" for a medication. As he recalls it, the nurse in question called to notify him that she had administered more of a drug than was called for in the doctor's order. It was his understanding, however, that the nurse had given too much by accident and was telling him about it after-the-fact, not in advance, to authorize a higher dose. It is clear from the above, therefore, that Respondent called Dr. Rohan after she had administered the higher dosage to Mr. Collins on her own authority. Respondent indicates, however, that Ms. Habersham had told her that if this particular patient needed more medication he was to get it and that the nurse should secure the authorization by phone. Respondent presented no evidence to support this, however, and though she contended she had a witness to this conversation, the witness was not presented. Respondent contends that she could change the amount of medication prescribed by the physician if it was necessary. She claims that nurse-practitioners can do this within the protocols set down by a physician. Respondent was not then nor is she now a nurse practitioner. During the month of February, 1984, Linda Marie Jones was unit coordinator for three units at GCCH, including Respondent's. Part of her job involved the monitoring of and investigation of drug discrepancies. During this time, Mr. Jones was conducting an audit of drug accountability in Respondent's unit. This audit, while not based on any suspicion of misconduct by any employee, resulted in a determination that one Nembutal tablet was missing from the unit. A check of the records reflected that this medicine had not been ordered for any patient on the unit that day. She then checked the patients' charts to see if a Demerol 100, a similar drug, had been used, and as a part of this procedure, she found that in the case of some patients, two different records dealing with a specific administration of medication did not agree. Her check of all records on the unit revealed that only the Respondent had any discrepancies. All other nurses' records were satisfactory. Her investigation included a comparison of the medication administration record (MAR) with the nurses notes on which the same administration was to be noted. In the course of her investigation, she checked six patient records, including those of patient Haire, patient Oakley, and patient Crosby. At the conclusion of her investigation, she prepared a summary of her findings which she presented to Ms. Flemister, the Director of Nursing. Ms. Flemister met with Respondent and showed her a copy of the report. At that point, Respondent denied having taken any of the medications and said that she could not figure out why the discrepancies existed. As to the Nembutal, which prompted the investigation initially, Respondent remembered cleaning out the narcotic box the first time, but did not identify a shortage at the time. As a result, the missing Nembutal was attributed to "wastage" and when that happens, the wastage must be recorded on the narcotics sheet. This Nembutal wastage was not recorded by Respondent or any other nurse. Ms. Jones admits, however, that there is no evidence to connect Respondent with the wastage of the Nembutal any more than any other nurse assigned to that floor. With regard to an administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire at 9:00 P.M., on February 6, 1984, the narcotics control sheet fails to show that morphine sulfate was administered to this patient on that occasion. With regard to the 8:30 P.M. administration of Morphine Sulfate to patient Haire on February 5, 1984, the narcotics control sheet reflects that Respondent recorded the administration of this medicine but does not reflect the date in question. The entry made reflects the patient's room rather than the date. As a result, it is impossible to tell if the administration was done on February 4 or February 5. However, the Respondent did reflect this administration on the nurses' notes although in the wrong place. As to the issue of Respondent's signing out Morphine Sulfate for patient Haire at 7:00 A.M. on February 5, the evidence establishes that she did sign out both Morphine Sulfate 100 and Demerol 100 as alleged. The MAR reflects some entry but it is impossible to determine what the entry is or to what drug it refers and Respondent's nurse's notes for that date are silent. The medical records pertaining to patient Oakley for February 5, 1984, reflect that, as to the nurses' notes, the patient was given medication for pain but the notes fail to show what type of medication was administered. It could have been aspirin or tylenol and the note should have said what medicine was administered. This administration was not listed on either the narcotics control sheet or the MAR. If the substance given was not Demerol or Morphine Sulfate, it need not appear on the narcotics control sheet, but whatever it was, it should have been listed on the MAR and it was not. The records regarding patient Crosby reflect that on February 5, 1984, Respondent signed out 75 mg Demerol for the patient as alleged. The notes do not, however, reflect that she administered Demerol specifically. They reflect only that she administered some medication. As to the 9:30 P.M. dose of Demerol on February 5, 1984, Respondent did sign out Demerol at that time but the nurses' notes do not reflect what the substance administered was. Patient Haire's records reflect that on February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Morphine Sulfate for the patient. The nurses' notes reflect that at 8:00 P.M. on that date, she administered a "pain medication" to the patient without defining what that medication was. The record does not indicate that Morphine Sulfate was administered. The narcotics control sheet for this period is not dated so it is impossible to determine whether Morphine Sulfate was listed on its document or not. However, the MAR reflects that Respondent administered Morphine Sulfate to this patient at 6:00 A.M. On February 4, 1984, Respondent signed out Demerol for patient Oakley and properly noted this on the narcotics control sheet but the nurses' notes fail to show that the substance was administered as required. Later on, at 8:30 P.M. the same day, Respondent again signed out Demerol for Patient Crosby listing on the narcotics control sheet the patient's room number but not the date. Other dates on the sheet lead to the conclusion that it was February 4, however Respondent thereafter failed to record the drug's administration on the nurses' notes. She also signed Demerol out for Patient Crosby at 7:30 P.M. on February 4 though the narcotics control sheet fails to reflect the date - only the room number. This administration is in the MAR at 8:30 P.M. rather than at 7:30 P.M. but is not in the nurses' notes at all. On February 3, 1984, Respondent recorded in her nurse's notes that she administered Demerol to patient Crosby at 8:00 P.M. The narcotics disposition record (narcotics control sheet) shows that she signed the medication out between 8:00 and 9:00 P.M., but it is impossible to tell with certainty the exact time. It is obvious that Respondent's handwriting is poor. This fact adds to the difficulties encountered from the way in which Respondent kept her records. In the opinion of Ms. Jones, who has been doing quality assurance checks for a number of years, Respondent's records are inaccurate, inconsistent, incomplete and totally insufficient for a nurse on the next shift to know what medications have been given and what must be done. In this area alone, Ms. Jones was of the opinion that Respondent's charts are below the minimum standards for nursing practice in the area and even though her own report was erroneous in some respects, there are still enough verified errors by the Respondent to support her opinion that Respondent's performance is less than acceptable. Respondent admits that some but not all of the charges against her are true. Though she may have mischarted her administration of drugs she never took the drugs herself. The patient always got the drug that he or she was supposed to get and her errors were errors only as to the recordation of time. They were administrative errors, not substantive errors. She contends that in February, 1984, because the floor on which she had been charge nurse since December, 1981 had been closed, she was forced into a staff nurse position. This was not a good situation and as a result of the closing of that floor, several nurses quit. This loss of nurses resulted in more patients per nurse to the point where Respondent felt that patient safety was in danger. She contends she tried to tell Ms. Jones about this but Ms. Jones would not see her. All of a sudden, she found herself called in front of Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones and terminated based on the alleged inaccuracies in her records. Respondent contends she received no information about this other than that contained in Ms. Jones' summary and in that regard she says, Ms. Jones assured her that her summary was correct and in no way tried to explain the inaccuracy of the records. Respondent contends that she had frequently asked her supervisors for extra help but never got any. She contends she had as many as 18 patients to handle by herself and at the time involved in the records discrepancies here, she had 8 patients on the floor. She contends that the errors to which she admits were due to her hectic schedule. As a single parent, she was working, she says, between 60 to 80 hours per week on two jobs and had a sick child at home. Ms. Flemister, on the other hand, says that Respondent had plenty of help. At the time, Respondent was working the night shift from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The shift was staffed by 4 registered nurses, 2 licensed practical nurses, and a secretary, and in her opinion, this staff was well within the normal range of staff-patient ratio. Ms. Flemister contends that while Respondent was on duty, she had between 5 and 6 patients to take care of. She was the charge nurse for the shift and therefore had less patients than a regular floor nurse. She admits that Respondent did complain about being shorthanded, but these complaints were neither constant nor repeated and were never submitted through proper channels. Ms. Flemister contends that prior to this time Respondent had been counseled about her writing and documentation, but there has been no evidence of any discrepancies other than those involved in this case. There are certain procedures followed at GCCH and a part of Ms. Flemister's job is to oversee the standards of the hospital, the Board of Nursing, and the Joint Committee on Hospital Accreditation as they are applicable at this hospital. On the first day of duty, all new nurses are given an orientation which includes records management and how to use a medication cart. A medications test is given and a model cart is used in this training. On the cart, each patient has his or her own area. Narcotics and barbiturates are kept together. Medication administration records, including a page for every patient, are kept with the cart. Each administration of medication is supposed to be recorded and each use of narcotics is supposed to be listed on the narcotics sheet with the name of the patient, the date, the drug, and the nurse administering it. Medications are first called for in the doctor's orders and are checked by the secretary and the nurse who checks and signs it initially. The doctor's orders are then used to give medications. When a nurse gives a medication she checks the doctor's order against the medical records and then prepares the medicine, administers it, charts it and signs it off. The entry is recorded on the medical administration record and it and the charting register are both on the cart. The nurse goes back to the nurses' station to record the administration of the medicine in the nurses' notes which are kept in the patient record. This method of documentation is set out in the hospital policy and procedures which are given to all nurses. Accurate medication records are important so that nurses on subsequent shifts do not administer a drug too soon after the last dose was given and thereby create an overdose. Therefore, medications are logged in several different locations because state law requires it to promote agency oversight by the pharmacy and the Department of Nursing, and because the record is used at shift change to insure an accurate count of narcotics on hand on the medicine cart. Failure of employees to follow the hospital procedures results in the following sequence of events: reprimand; counseling; a written reprimand; and discharge; all depending, of course, on the seriousness of the offense. However, after the discussion with Ms. Flemister and Ms. Jones Respondent was terminated because of the discrepancies between the narcotic record and the poor and illegible documentation in the nurses' records and elsewhere. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that though she has been licensed in the State of Florida since 1967 and has worked at GCCH since 1981, there has never been any prior disciplinary action taken against her nor has she received any prior complaints about her method of charting or administration of drugs and she was doing it as she usually does in February, 1984. Notwithstanding her protestations of no prior disciplinary action, however, the records reveal that Respondent was given a two-day suspension for the incident involving the over administration of Demerol to Mr. Collins and advised that a repeat discrepancy would result in her discharge. It is important to note that as a part of the investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct, she was requested to provide a urine sample for urinalysis. This routine drug screen revealed no use of controlled substances within the seven days prior to the test which was accomplished on February 20, 1984.
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent's licenses as a registered and practical nurse should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on allegations that she violated various provisions of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes, as more specifically set forth hereinafter, in detail, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. At all times material herein, Respondent was licensed as a registered and practical nurse having been issued license numbers 76324-2 and 28359-1 by the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Between November 13, 1978 and October 1, 1979, Respondent was employed as a nurse at Broward General Medical Center. On October 1, 1979, Respondent's resignation was requested by Julia Trenker, Director of Nursing Services and Assistant Administrator of Nursing Services for Broward General Medical Center. The reason for the resignation request by Ms. Trenker was alleged discrepancies in the charting of narcotics performed by Respondent. The practical effect of the resignation request of Respondent was the same as a termination inasmuch as Respondent was given the option of either voluntarily resigning or being terminated. (Tr. pages 97, 190, 193 through 197.) By letter dated October 2, 1979, Ms. Trenker notified the Florida State Hoard of Nursing of Respondent's employment termination from Broward General Medical Center due to charting discrepancies. (Tr. page 193 and Petitioner's Exhibit 25(a).) On or about March 22, 1982, Respondent completed an application for employment as a registered nurse with Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. On the employment application, Respondent listed her previous employment with Broward General Medical Center and gave as the reason for leaving the need for increased salary because she gave was head of her household. (Petitioner's Exhibit 19.) At no time prior to employment with Doctor's Hospital 2/ of Hollywood, Inc. did Respondent notify Doctor's Hospital of the true reasons for the severance of her employment relationship with Broward General Medical Center (charting discrepancies). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Tr. page 132.) Respondent admitted to Lucille Markowitz, an investigator with the Petitioner and Maureen Lake, then the Assistant Director of Nursing for Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc., that she had been terminated from Broward General Medical Center because of her failure to chart. Respondent did not list that reason on her employment application because she considered that it would have been too hard for her to be considered for employment. (Tr. 41.) Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. from March, 1982 through October, 1982. While employed at Doctor's Hospital, Respondent worked in Unit 2 East. Patient care was provided in that Unit under the "team care concept." Each team consisted of a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse and an aide. The team leader was responsible for overseeing team members, administering medications, setting up IVs, and administering IV medications, performing charting for the aide that the LPN could not do, coordinating patient x-rays, operating room (OR) and doctor's orders, transcribing such orders, taking telephone orders and making "rounds" with physicians. (Tr. pages 153 to 154.) There were two nursing teams on Unit 2 East at Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. and the patient census was, at maximum, 35. Patients on Unit 2 East were split evenly between the two teams. The team leader was responsible for the "hands-on care" of at most four patients. The remaining patients were assigned to the other team members and assignments were overseen by the team leader. (Tr. pages 149 through 153.) Medications for each team are kept in separate medication carts. Each cart contained patient drawers for each patient on that team. The medication cart contains a narcotic drawer which is locked with the keys for each narcotic drawer kept by the cart's team leader or the LPN for that team when the team leader was unavailable. The medication administration record (MAR) and a 24- hour narcotic control drug record (narcotics sheet) is placed on each cart. The policy at Doctor's Hospital with reference to the administration of medications was that medications would be administered to a team: s patient only from that team's medication cart. Patients were not to be cross-medicated from other carts. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2) The Policy and Procedure Manual for Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. states that "when a medication is given, it is to be charted." (Tr. page 185.) At Doctor's Hospital, it was the team leader's responsibility to remove all post-operative orders for patients returning to Unit 2 East from surgery and to fill out a new MAR for that patient. (Tr. page 293.) Charting must be performed in the administration of all narcotics. When a narcotic is withdrawn from the narcotic drawer, the withdrawal must be noted on the narcotics sheet. The narcotics sheet is an audit tool for pharmacy and reflects the withdrawal and addition of narcotics in the narcotic cart. Once a narcotic has been administered to a patient, the administration should be immediately charted on the MAR. Charting involves making a notation on the MAR of the time that the narcotic was given and placing one's signature (who administered the narcotic) in the appropriate space. The MAR is the most accurate record of the administration of medications and the MAR along with the Nurse's Notes, unlike the narcotics sheet, becomes a part of the patient's medical history. In practice, the Nurse's Notes are usually completed within one hour of the administration of the medication and is acceptable if performed prior to the completion of one's shift provided other charting is performed in a timely manner. On September 1, 1982, at approximately 12:10 p.m., patient Katherine Kerwin was returned to Unit 2 East after eye surgery. Respondent's team was responsible for Ms. Kerwin's care on September 1, 1982. Respondent, as team leader for Unit 2E, received Ms. Kerwin from surgery. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Upon Ms. Kerwin's return from surgery, Respondent administered 35 milligrams of demerol intramuscular to Ms. Kerwin. Under the physician's order, Kerwin was to receive that dosage once every six (6) hours as needed for twenty-four (24) hours. Respondent noted the withdrawal of the demerol on the narcotics sheet at or before the time of administration to Ms. Kerwin. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 7.) When Respondent withdrew demerol from the narcotics drawer, she withdrew a 50 milligram vial. Ms. Kerwin was to receive a 35 milligram dosage of demerol. Respondent therefore had to waste 15 milligrams of demerol which wastage was witnessed by Lonna Wlodarczyk, an LPN on Respondent's team. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Although Wlodarczyk witnessed the wastage, she did not inquire and was not required to inquire as to the patient for whom the wastage was performed. At the time of administering demerol to Ms. Kerwin, Respondent did not chart the administration of medication on either the Nurse's Notes or the MAR. Respondent did not prepare an MAR upon Kerwin's return from surgery. Sometime after 1:00 p.m. on September 1, 1982, patient Kerwin requested pain medication from Wlodarczyk. Wlodarczyk asked Kerwin if she had received pain medication and she replied that she had not. Wlodarczyk checked patient Kerwin' s chart to see if any post-operative orders had been taken off and none had been removed. Wlodarczyk further checked the MAR and determined that there was not one for patient Kerwin. Wlodarczyk further checked the Nurse's Notes to see if patient Kerwin had received anything for pain prior to the time Wlodarczyk answered patient Kerwin's buzzer. There was no record in the Nurse's Notes that demerol had been administered to patient Kerwin upon her return from surgery. (Tr. pages 291-292.) After determining that there was no record of the administration of demerol to patient Kerwin on the Nurse's Notes or the MAR, Wlodarczyk drew up 35 milligrams of demerol from a 50 milligram vial. Jean Ellis witnessed the wastage of the excess demerol for patient Kerwin. Wlodarczyk noted the withdrawal on the narcotics sheet and had Ellis sign the narcotics sheet as a witness to the wastage of the excess. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Wlodarczyk did not check the narcotics sheet to determine whether demerol had been withdrawn previously for patient Kerwin. (Tr. page 293.) Wlodarczyk prepared an MAR sheet for patient Kerwin by taking down the post-op orders and placed them on the MAR sheet. After administering the demerol to patient Kerwin, Wlodarczyk charted the administration of demerol on the MAR. When Wlodarczyk went to chart the administration of demerol to patient Kerwin on the Nurse's Notes, after having administered the demerol. Wlodarczyk noted that the Nurse's Notes indicated that an identical dosage of demerol had been previously administered by Respondent. The entry noting said administration by Respondent was not in the Nurse's Notes when Wlodarczyk originally checked them. The entry was made some time between the time Wlodarczyk originally checked the Nurse's Notes and the time that Wlodarczyk went to chart the administration of demerol and give it to patient Kerwin (approximately 1:30 p.m.). (Tr. page 292.) The double dosage of patient Kerwin resulted in an incident. An incident was reported by Wlodarczyk to Marsha Hogg, Supervisor. Supervisor Hogg prepared an Incident/Accident Investigation Report. Hogg counseled Respondent on proper procedures in making out MAR and charting the administration of medications immediately. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21 and Tr. pages 137-138, 362, and 366-368.) On or about September 4, 1982, Respondent administered 75 milligrams of demerol intramuscular to Elizabeth Dobson at 9:00 a.m. and at 2:50 p.m. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 8, 10 and 12.) On September 4, 1982, Respondent was team leader for Team 1, Unit 2 East. Elizabeth Dobson was a patient being cared for by Team 2, Unit 2 East. The team leader for Team 2 was Cecelia Falis. The procedures in effect at Doctors' Hospital during September, 1982 were that when administering medication to patients on another team, it was incumbent upon the staff person administering the medication to first determine whether a team mother for that patient was available to medicate the patient and thereafter if no such person was available to medicate the patient, the patient should be medicated from that team's cart. In administering demerol to Elizabeth Dobson, Respondent withdrew two 75 milligram vials of demerol from her own team's medication cart. Respondent did not withdraw the demerol from the Team 2 medication cart even though Team 2 was responsible for Ms. Dobson's care. (Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 9.) Respondent did not immediately chart the 9:00 a.m. administration of demerol to patient Dobson on the MAR. When Falis checked the MAR later in the afternoon, the 9:00 a.m. entry was not on the MAR. Falis checked the MAR for patient Dobson at 7:30 and 9:00 a.m., 12:00 and 1:00 p.m., and immediately prior to the close of her shift, 3:00 p.m. (Tr. pages 324 and 332.) At a time uncertain, Respondent charted the 9:00 a.m. administration of demerol to patient Dobson on her Nurse's Notes. However, Respondent did not sign the entry for that administration. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) When Falis reported to the incoming 3 - 11 shift employees on September 4, 1982, she first discovered that Respondent had administered two (2) 75 milligram doses of demerol to patient Dobson. Falis looked on the MAR for patient Dobson and discovered that entries had been made documenting the administration of demerol to patient Dobson at both 9:00 a.m. and 2:50 p.m. Prior to the end of the shift, Falis was certain that Respondent had not charted the administration of demerol to patient Dobson on September 4, 1982. On or about September 4, 1982, Joyce Murphy, Administrative Nursing Supervisor for the 7 - 3 shift at Doctors' Hospital, conducted an audit of the charting performed by Respondent on September 4, 1982. After reviewing Respondent's charting with reference to patient Dobson, Supervisor Murphy asked Respondent to go back and complete her charting for patient Dobson. At that time, Respondent had not charted the 2:50 p.m. administration of demerol to patient Dobson on the Nurse's Notes. (Tr. pages 378 through 380 and 394.) Pursuant to Murphy's request, Respondent made a "late entry" under Nurse's Notes for patient Dobson, documenting the administration of 75 milligrams of demerol and 25 milligrams of vistaril. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12 and Tr. page 394.) On September 8, 1982 at approximately 8:30 a.m., Respondent administered a percocet tablet to Carmela DeLora, by mouth. Pursuant to the physician's order for patient DeLora, she was to receive one percocet tablet every six (6) hours by mouth, as needed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 15.) Respondent noted the withdrawal of one percocet tablet for patient DeLora on the narcotics sheet some time between 9:00 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) Respondent also did not immediately chart the administration of a percocet tablet to patient DeLora on September 8th on either the Nurse's Notes or the MAR. (Petitioner's Exhibits 15 and 16 and Tr. page 344.) On September 8, 1982, Crystal Reeves, an RN at Doctors' Hospital, was called to relieve Respondent during lunch for a period of approximately 30 minutes. Reeves and Respondent made a narcotics count and Reeves assumed responsibility for the narcotics keys. While Respondent was at lunch, Carmela DeLora requested pain medication from Reeves. Reeves checked the doctor's orders for DeLora. Reeves thereafter checked the Nurse's Notes and the MAR for DeLora. Reeves found nothing charted for patient DeLora since the night of September 7, 1982. (Tr. page 344.) At approximately 12:00 p.m. after checking both the Nurse's Notes and the MAR for patient DeLora, Reeves administered one tablet of percocet by mouth to DeLora. Reeves charted the withdrawal of the medication on the narcotics sheet and after administering the percocet tablet to DeLora, Reeves charted the administration of percocet on the MAR. (Tr. pages 344, 346 and Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 15.) Reeves did not chart the administration of percocet on the Nurse's Notes because there was nothing charted on the Nurse's Notes for the entire morning and when serving in a relief capacity, Reeves, following the practice then in effect at Doctor's Hospital, merely filed an oral report with the nurse she relieved, Respondent. When Respondent returned to Unit 2 East on September 8, 1982, Reeves informed her that she had medicated DeLora with percocet. Respondent then advised Reeves that DeLora had been medicated earlier. (Tr. page 347.) Due to this medication error, Reeves completed an incident report at Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. The incident report was submitted to Marsha Hogg who prepared an Incident/Accident Investigation Report. Hogg counseled Respondent about the importance of charting on the MAR. Hogg also reviewed procedures for properly administering and charting medications. Finally, Hogg gave Respondent a written warning notice. (Petitioner's Exhibits 22 and 23 and Tr. pages 347, 362- 363, and 369-370.) Respondent offered (to Hogg) no reason for her failure to timely chart the administration of medications on the MAR or Nurse's Notes. On or about September 24, 1982, patient Will LaBree was sent to X-Ray at Doctor's Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. with two name bracelets. Respondent was the team leader responsible for LaBree's total patient care. The responsibility for placement of identification bracelets is primarily a responsibility resting with the Admission's Office. Respondent's Position As to the failure to chart and the failure to timely chart allegations, Respondent contends that Unit 2 East of Doctor's Hospital where she served as team leader was usually at capacity and that in addition to the responsibility for caring for 4 of the 17 or 18 patients, she also had the duties of making rounds with physicians, providing IV therapies, starting IV's, transcription of physician's orders and ensuring that all the treatment plans and care for those patients were completed on her tour of duty. According to Respondent, waiting to chart the MAR was a frequent occurrence and was acceptable at Doctor's Hospital in September of 1982. Respondent admits that while failure to chart the administration of medications upon a patient's MAR was unacceptable, late charting on the MAR by a nurse before she left duty was acceptable. Further, Respondent testified that she faced constant interruptions while team leader at Unit 2E; that it was customary as a team leader to chart Nurse's Notes after making rounds with physicians; that generalized accusations and innuendos were leveled at her and that following such accusations, she generally felt emotionally upset. She testified that this, in fact, happened in the administration of the percocet to patient DeLora, resulting in a failure to chart the MAR. When relieved by nurse Reeves to have lunch, Respondent returned to find that she had not charted the administration of percocet to patient DeLora. As to the allegation respecting the discovery of two arm bracelets upon patient Will LaBree on September 24, 1982, a nurse other than Respondent admitted patient LaBree at 6:30 a.m. onto the floor of Unit 2E and it is herein specifically found that it was not the Respondent's responsibility for ensuring or otherwise making out the patient's name tag for the patient's bed or to make sure that it matched the bracelet on LaBree's arm. As to the Respondent's stated reasons on her employment application submitted to Doctor's Hospital for employment and the given reasons for leaving Broward General Hospital Center as "needed higher salary (head of household)," Respondent contends that she relied upon Investigator Markowitz's representation to her that such would be a satisfactory answer as to her reason for leaving Broward General Medical Center. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's licenses as a registered and practical nurse be suspended for a period of two (2) years. Respondent may apply for reinstatement at the end of one (1) year of said suspension if she submits the following to the Board of Nursing: a satisfactory in-depth psychological evaluation prepared by a qualified psychiatrist, psychologist or other qualified mental health counselor recommending or otherwise representing that Respondent is currently able to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients; verification of successful completion and documentation that Respondent has successfully completed a refresher course in basic nursing skills including the procedures for charting the administration of medications prior to reinstatement. The terms of the probation are as follows: Respondent shall not violate any federal or state laws or rules or orders of the Board of Nursing. Respondent agrees to submit to random blood or urine tests and shall cause results of analysis to be furnished to the Board if collected by an agent other than an authorized representative of the Department. At such time as the blood and/or urine sample is collected, it shall be Respondent's responsibility to provide pertinent information regarding her usage of prescribed or over-the- counter medication consumed. Additionally, Respondent shall provide documentation of valid prescriptions for any medication or controlled substances consumed for legitimate purposes. Respondent shall not consume, inject or otherwise self- medicate with any controlled substance or prescription drug which has not been prescribed by an duly licensed practitioner. Respondent shall obtain or continue to obtain counseling with a psychiatrist, psychologist or other mental health counselor and shall cause progress reports to be furnished to the Board or probation supervisor every three (3) months during treatment as scheduled by the probation supervisor. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1984.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ruth Theresa Healey, was, at all times material hereto, licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0983072 by the Board of Nursing. On May 20, 1988, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Broward Convalescent Home for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Included in Respondent's responsibilities were the assessment of each patient under her care; the administration of medication to her patients according to the physician's orders; and the correct documentation of each medication administration on each patient's medical chart. Under Respondent's care on May 20, 1988 was the patient, E.M. The physician's orders for E.M. during Respondent's shift indicated that she was to be fed with one-half strength Entrition at 60 cc's per hour with water flushes through the gastrostomy tube (G Tube) which had been inserted into her abdomen. One-half strength Entrition is a nutrition substitute which is supplied in a self-contained package. On May 20, 1988, the supply of one-half strength was on special order and would not be available for use at Broward Convalescent Home until the next morning during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. E.M.'s G Tube was clearly marked on E.M.'s chart and easily observed upon patient assessment since it was protruding from her abdomen. Sometime during Respondent's shift, a naso-gastric tube, NG Tube, was also inserted into E.M. Without a physician's order, the insertion of a NG Tube into a patient with an existing G Tube could prove harmful to the patient and is contrary to the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. It was Petitioner's contention that Respondent inserted the NG Tube into her patient. Petitioner's position was supported by the testimony of Geraldine Hamilton, a nurse who came on duty the morning of May 21, 1988. Ms. Hamilton recalled that Respondent admitted to Ms. Hamilton that Respondent was in trouble because she, "put an NG Tube in one of the patients who has already got a G Tube." However, Respondent, at the hearing, consistently denied having made the statement. She asserted, instead, that a co-worker, Bunster Martinez, inserted the NG Tube. During Respondent's shift, she had sought Mr. Martinez's advice concerning the procedure she should use to feed E.M. since the one-half strength Entrition was not available. Mr. Martinez was not present at the hearing. Respondent's speech pattern, as observed at the hearing and as noted through the testimony of others is not clear. Rather, it is cryptic and disjointed. Given Respondent's poor diction and syntax, Respondent's consistent denial that she inserted the NG Tube and the lack of corroborating evidence that Respondent did, in fact, insert the NG Tube, the literal meaning of Respondent's statement to Ms. Hamilton is unclear. Respondent did not perform an assessment of E.M. which would have revealed the G Tube. Instead, contrary to the physician's order, Respondent began the administration of full strength Entrition through the NG Tube. In an attempt to create one-half strength Entrition, Respondent knowingly administered full strength Entrition for one hour at 85 cc. per hour followed by water flushes. However, the quality of one-half strength Entrition can not be obtained by diluting full strength Entrition in this manner, and the administration of full strength Entrition could have harmed F.M. Respondent's failure to perform an assessment of her patient and her action with regard to this feeding were contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice and constituted unprofessional conduct on her part. Also, although Respondent administered to E.M. full strength Entrition through the NG Tube, she entered the feeding on E.M.'s chart as Entrition one- half strength at 60cc/hour via G tube. Accordingly, Respondent knowingly falsified the medication administration report. The following morning, May 21, 1988, when the presence of the NG Tube was questioned, Respondent abruptly and forcibly removed the NG Tube from E.M. The procedure Respondent used to remove the NG Tube was also contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, constituting unprofessional conduct on her part and placing her patient in more jeopardy. Respondent acted somewhat incoherently on several occasions around the end of May, 1988. She was observed "talking to herself", was unresponsive to questions and appeared disoriented. No competent evidence was presented that such conduct resulted from a physical or mental condition or from medication. Respondent was previously suspended by the Board of Nursing and required to undergo psychiatric treatment. She was subsequently reinstated. No competent and substantial evidence was presented that Respondent disobeyed the previous order or any order of the Board of Nursing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the a final order be entered suspending Respondent's license for a period of one year, and thereafter, until she can demonstrate the ability to practice nursing in a safe and proficient manner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12 day of October 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 12 day of October 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3401 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 2. Subordinate to the result reached. In part, addressed in paragraph 3 ;in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. In part, subordinate to result reached; in part, addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. In part, addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6; in part, subordinate to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 7. In part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence, in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. In part, addressed in paragraphs 10 and 11. In part, subordinate to the result reached, in part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. Addressed in paragraph 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Ruth Theresa Healey, R.N. 1075 N.E. 39th Street, Apartment 110 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of the practice of nursing in State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a practical nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number PN 0741801. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a practical nurse at the Harborside Health Care facility in Naples, Florida. At all times material to this case, Patient F. D. was a resident of Harborside Health Care. On or about August 17, 1998, at approximately 11:00 a.m., the Respondent initialed a medication administration record indicating that the Respondent had provided a nutritional supplement to F. D. According to the medication administration record, F. D. was to receive the nutritional supplement at approximately 2:00 p.m. At the time the Respondent placed her initials on the medication administration record, she had not provided the nutritional supplement to F. D. At all times material to this case, Patient L. G. was a resident of Harborside Health Care. On or about August 17, 1998, at approximately 11:00 a.m., the Respondent initialed a medication administration record indicating that the Respondent had provided a nutritional supplement to L. G. According to the medication administration record, L. G. was to receive the nutritional supplement at approximately 2:00 p.m. At the time the Respondent placed her initials on the medication administration record, she had not provided the nutritional supplement to L. G. At all times material to this case, Patient R. T. was a resident of Harborside Health Care. On or about August 17, 1998, at approximately 11:00 a.m., the Respondent initialed a medication administration record indicating that the Respondent had provided a nutritional supplement to R. T. According to the medication administration record, R. T. was to receive the nutritional supplement at approximately 2:00 p.m. At the time the Respondent placed her initials on the medication administration record, she had not provided the nutritional supplement to R. T. Minimal acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice require that nurses accurately document the provision of supplements and nourishment to nursing home patients. Minimal acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice require that documentation of care provided to patients be recorded contemporaneously with the provision of the care. The Respondent's documentation of care provided to the patients identified herein fails to meet minimally acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice. The placing of a care provider's initials on a medication administration record indicates that medication has been administered to patients. "Pre-initialing" of medication administration records poses a risk of confusion to other care providers working in the facility and is not an acceptable practice. The Respondent acknowledges that she initialed each medication administration record at about 11:00 a.m., several hours prior to the actual administration of the supplement's to the patients. She asserts that she did not record the amounts of supplement each patient consumed (100 percent in all three cases assuming the records are accurate) until after the patient had consumed the supplement. The rationale for the Respondent's practice is unclear. The Respondent suggests that she had "a few moments" at about 11:00 a.m. and so she went ahead and initialed the documents, knowing that she could complete the charting at a later time. The Respondent's suggestion is the intent of the practice is to save time; however, any time saved is at best minimal. If the Respondent's testimony regarding post- administration record completion is credited, the practice requires that each record be handled twice to complete a single task. The Respondent suggests that she returns to each individual record after administering the supplement and charts the amount of supplement consumed by writing in a space approximately one-quarter inch beneath the "pre-initialed" space. In reality, "pre-initialization" doubles the time required to complete the documentation and increases the potential for confusing other care providers involved in patient care and charting. The Respondent continues to assert that the "pre- initialization" practice is acceptable. The assertion is clearly contrary to minimally acceptable standards of nursing practice, and to common sense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order against the Respondent, imposing a fine of $500, requiring completion of appropriate continuing education in nursing records documentation in addition to any existing continuing education requirement, and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under such conditions as the Board of Nursing determines are warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald D. Dixon, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Harry A. Blair, Esquire Harry A. Blair, P.A. 2180 West First Street, Suite 401 Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D., R.N., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to appropriately chart the administration of medications and make the appropriate entries in the drug inventory procedures, and whether this constituted a departure from the accepted and prevailing nursing standards.
Findings Of Fact Jane Adelaide Drake is a registered nurse licensed by the Florida State Board of Nursing. She was employed at Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, Florida from approximately 1973 until March, 1978. She was the assistant head nurse on Ward 4 South on March 23, 24 and 25, 1978. Her duties included responsibility for the narcotics and other controlled substances maintained on 4 South, and the administration of controlled substances to patients. The scheme or procedure for control of narcotics and other; controlled substances called for their issuance in individual dosages daily by the hospital pharmacy to each ward, including 4 South. A Controlled Substances Disposition Record (CSDR) was used to issue controlled substances to the wards. Each ward was issued sufficient new stock daily to maintain its stockage level at the level indicated by the numbered entries on the CSDR for each drug. Additional stockage was indicated by the addition of letters following the numerical entries for a particular drug on the CSDR. Each individual drug dose was issued in an envelope which was clear on one side and had a preprinted form on the other. As drugs were administered, an entry was made by the person responsible for narcotics control on the CSDR opposite the type and strength of drug to be administered. An inventory was conducted daily from this sheet to check drugs on hand against those which had been administered. Doctor's orders for medication were transferred to an electronic data system, and daily printouts were received by each ward for each patient indicating the drugs to be administered and the times or conditions for administration. This preprinted form was referred to as the medication administration record (MAR) or patient profile. Administration of the medication was indicated by striking through the time for administration and initialing, or writing in the time of administration and initialing when it was a drug not given at a specified time. One apparent exception to the use of preprinted MARs existed when a new patient was received on a ward. In this event, hand written orders were taken prior to the preparation of the preprinted MAR. Nursing notes were maintained by each shift on each patient. Nursing notes were kept on a form which provides spaces for the patient's name and identifying data to be stamped at the top of the form, and headings for the date, time, treatment or medication administered, remarks, and signature and title of the individual making the entry. The work force on 4 South was organized into LPNs and RNs who worked directly with patients and are referred to in the record as bedside nurses. The ward supervisors, to include the Respondent, maintained the ward records, drug inventory records, doctor's orders, and administration of controlled medication. Nursing notes for the various shifts and by various RNs and LPNs reflect that only rarely did entries in nursing notes indicate that a specific drug had been administered by the bedside nurse. When recorded at all in nursing notes, generally the only remark is that the patient complained of pain and was medicated. Although acceptable nursing practice would dictate that the nurse who administers medication would sign out for a drug, administer the drug, make an entry on the MAR, and chart the drug on nurse's notes, this was not uniformly followed by the nurses on 4 South at Holy Cross Hospital. This was the result of a hospital policy that personnel not trained in the drug records system would not make entries in the drug record, complicated by a shortage of nursing staff that necessitated utilization of "pool" nurses or nurses obtained from local registries. The majority of these nurses were not trained in the hospital's drug records system. These nurses, who were used as bedside nurses, could not make entries on the drug administration records, therefore, they could not administer the drugs. This necessitated that the administration and maintenance of the drug control records be done by the regular staff. Because bedside nurses were responsible for patient charting generally, it became the prevailing practice for bedside nurses to chart the administration of medications which were administered by other staff. The specific allegations of the complaint relate to Rose Ferrara, Minnie C. Ward, and Josephine Locatelli. Regarding Locatelli, the allegation of the complaint is that the Respondent signed out for and administered Demerol (Meperidine) to the patient on March 23, 1978 but failed to properly sign out for the drug on the C8DR. Exhibit 12 is a handwritten 4AR for both March 23 and 24, 1978, on which Demerol is listed under the date March 23. Entries on this record would appear to reflect that the patient was administered Demerol by the Respondent at 1100 and 1430 on March 23, and by Ann Fosdick at 1900 on that date. The CSDR indicates that Meperidine was signed out for Locatelli at 1035 and 1435 by the Respondent and at 1900 by Ann Fosdick on March 24. The hospital records indicate that the patient was not admitted to the hospital until March Obviously, neither the Respondent nor Fosdick could have administered the drug on March 23. What the records do reflect is that on March 24, the Respondent and Fosdick signed out for Demerol which was administered to the patient on March 24, but recorded on the handwritten MAR under the date of March 23, the date the doctor's order was entered. The administration of pain medication by Fosdick is reflected in the nursing notes of J. Hughes, GN, for 2000 hours March 24, 1978. No nursing notes exist in the record for the Respondent's shift. See Exhibits 2, 12 and 13. The CSDR reflects the Respondent signed out on March 25 for Meperidine at 0700. 1000, and 1430 hours for Locatelli. The nurses notes reflect no entry relating to the administration of these medications for March 25, 1978. The MAR for March 25, 1978, was not introduced. The nursing notes for March 23, 24 and 25, 1978, were maintained by persons other than the Respondent or Fosdick. Regarding Ferrara, the testimony indicates that the Respondent signed out for medications on the CSDR and made appropriate entries on the MAR except in one instance. Again, the administration was not charted in nurses notes. However, the MAR submitted as an exhibit is for March 24, 1978, while the nurses notes cover primarily March 23, 1978. The primary failure reflected in the testimony relates to Respondent's failure to chart nurses notes. However, review of the nurses notes on this patient from February until March reveals that the only pain medication received by the patient, and that only on one occasion, was Percodan which was given several weeks after the patient's leg was amputated. Although there may be individual variations to pain, it is hardly conceivable that Ferrara could have undergone the amputation of her leg without any pain medication except Percodan which was administered one time several seeks after the operation. Presumably, the patient did receive pain medication and this was not charted in nurses notes by any of the nursing staff. Regarding Minnie Ward, the CSDR shows that the Respondent signed out for Meperidine at 12 noon on March 23, 1978. The nurses notes show no complaint of pain or administration of pain medication at 12 noon on that date. However, the CSDR reflects that "PM" signed out for 50 mg of Meperidine at 0200 hours for the same patient. The MAR for March 23 does not reflect administration of the drug by "PM'. or charting of administration in the nurses notes on March 22, 23, or 24, 1978, by "RM." See Exhibits 1, 9 and 10. Further, regarding Ward, a review of her records for other dates reflects that on March 17, the Respondent signed out for Meperidine at.1105 and 1530. The nurses notes, which on that date were kept by the Respondent, reflect administration of the drug at 1100. No entry was made regarding the 1530 administration. An entry is contained at 1900 hours on that date indicating that Ward complained of pain and was medicated; however, no corresponding entry is contained in the CSDR indicating that a controlled substance was signed out for administration to this patient. The shift on 4 South would have changed between 1500 and 1530 hours. The pain medication administered necessarily had to come from some source, presumably the 1530 sign-out by the Respondent. However, it is unclear whether it was administered at 1530 and not charted until 1900, or not administered until 1900 when it was charted. On March 18, 1978, the CSDR reflected that Ward was given 50 mgs of Meperidine at 1300 hours by the Respondent. Nurses notes for that date reflect administration of pain medication at that time. The CSDR also reflects that Ann Fosdick signed out for 50 mgs of Meperidine at 1900 hours on March 18. However, the nurses notes for Fosdick's shift do not reflect that the patient complained of pain or received pain medication. On March 19, Ann Fosdick signed out for 50 mgs of Meperidine at 1800 hours as reflected on the CSDR for that date. The nurses notes kept by M. Green, title illegible, for that date reflect that Ward was medicated for pain by the team leader at approximately 1800. On March 20, 1978, the Respondent signed out for 50 mgs of Meperidine at 0900 hours and at 1330 hours, and "REK" signed out for Mereridine at 2100 hours. The nurses notes by R. Ezly, R.N., for March 20, reflect the administration of medication at approximately 1330 and the nurses notes by an LPN whose name is illegible reflect the administration of pain medication at 2000 hours. Again, the nurses notes were kept by an individual other than the person administering the medication. The MARs on March 17, 18, 19 and 20, 1978, were properly executed by the Respondent and the other nurses referred to above. The nurses notes for Minnie Ward do not reflect any remarks between 1400 hours on March 23, 1978 and 1530 hours on March 24, 1978, and two separate sets of entries for March 25, 1978. A supervisor was called to testify to what constituted acceptable and prevailing nursing practices at Holy Cross Hospital. She had been a nursing supervisor since 1976, and was supervisor on the 3 to 11 shift in March, 1978. In addition, she stated that she had only administered medication four times in the approximately four years she had been at Holy Cross Hospital as a supervisor. Her testimony was based solely upon her observations on her own shift and the review of the records of her shift which she stated that she spot- checked. The supervisor's testimony revealed that she was aware of the fact that shifts on the wards were divided into those nurses giving bedside care and those nurses administering medication. Her testimony and the testimony of the director of nursing shows that the records of the shift on which the Respondent served were spot-checked. Spot-checking was reportedly the means by which the alleged discrepancies in the Respondent's charting were noted. From even cursory inspection of the records, it is evident that medication nurses were not charting the nurses notes and bedside nurses were charting the administration of medication in nurses notes. Such spot-checking also reveals the discrepancies in charting noted above. All of those discrepancies constitute a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The Respondent offered the only explanation of why these practices had occurred. During the winter months of 1977-78, there had been an increase in patient census, and shortage of staff nurses which caused working conditions to deteriorate. Some regular staff members quit their jobs worsening the already bad situation. The number of Nurses on 4 South varied between three and six to treat forty-eight patients. Even with six nurses on duty, this was 1.3 nurse hours below the hospital's goal of 4.3 nurse hours per patient per twenty-four hours. An attempt was made to make up the personnel shortages by using "pool" or registry nurses; however, hospital policy prevented these nurses from making entries on the CSDRs and MARs which kept all but a very few from administering medication. Theme nurses were used to provide bedside care and were permitted to chart nurses notes. Because of the acute shortages, the medication nurses, to include the Respondent, executed the CSDRs and MARs, prepared medications, and administered them, but permitted the bedside nurses to chart the administration in nurses notes. The Respondent complained concerning the staffing levels to her supervisor and to the director of nursing. The director of nursing requested a written memorandum from the Respondent, which she received; however, the situation was not improved. Thereafter, the Respondent was terminated for errors in charting, although there had been no prior complaints or counseling with regard to her charting errors, and in spite of the fact that her charting was consistent with the patterns seen with other nurses on other shifts. The general practice concerning charting errors was that nurses were counseled, required to correct errors, and required to prepare incident reports where necessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Nursing issue a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene A. Peer, Esquire 2170 NE Dixie Highway Jenson Beach, Florida 33457 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Licensing and Investigation State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Jane Adelaide Drake North Western University Institute CASE NO. 78-1450 of Psychiatry 3203 E. Huron Chicago, Illinois 60611 As a Registered Nurse License Number 76252-2 /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered nurse holding License No. 0936792 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. The Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville, Florida, from August of 1978, until April, 1979. Her duties were as a nursing team leader and medication nurse on the fourth floor. The fourth floor unit to which the Respondent was assigned was a 52-to-56- bed unit. Staff on this floor consisted of a charge nurse in charge of the floor and two to four registered nurses. Patient census on this unit ran from 40 to 56 patients. This was a general medical ward whose patients included the chronically ill. (a) Regarding the allegations of Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint related to the patient Gussie Sims Gardner, the hospital records reveal the patient was not admitted to the hospital until 2225 hours on March 24, 1979. The individual responsible for initial preparation of the medication administration record (MAR) did not cross through the times prior to the administration of the patient's first medications as required by the hospital's protocols. See Exhibit 1, Medication Record (Form No. 15-02-41-2), page 2, paragraph 5. Because of this failure, the initial entries for medication administered to the patient on March 25 were transposed to the date of March 24, and the entries for March 26 were placed in the column far March 25. After two days this error was apparently discovered, and no entries were made in the column for March 26. The Respondent cannot be held responsible for this error, because she was not on duty when the patient was admitted. Under the hospital's standard operating procedures (SOP), the first individual administering medication should have crossed out the dates and times in such a manner that this error could not occur. (b) Regarding Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint, the Control Substance Form (CSF) does reflect that the Respondent withdrew two Darvon 65, a Class IV controlled substance, on March 25, 1979. The Respondent recorded the administration of the Darvon at the appropriate time but under the date of March 24, 1979. Only the administration of this medication at 0830 hours on March 25 was noted by the Respondent in the nurses' notes. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 4, recording of the entries for March 25 and 26 under the dates of March 24 and 25 resulted in no entries being made on the MAR on March 26 by any of the nursing staff. (d) Regarding the allegations of Counts 6 and 8 that the physician's order entered March 24 for Oarvom 65 was no longer effective on March 28, Exhibit 1, the Formulary, page VIII, provides that stop orders occur automatically at the end of 48 hours for narcotics and at the end of seven days for all other drugs unless renewed. The Formulary differentiates on page IX between narcotics and other controlled substances. Darvon, while a controlled substance, is not a narcotic and therefore would not be terminated at the end of 48 hours, but at the end of seven days. The administration of this drug by the Respondent on March 28 was not precluded by the hospital's regulations. (e) Regarding the allegations contained in Counts 3, 5, 7 and 9, there is no substantial evidence that the Respondent possessed any controlled substance for any purpose other than the administration of the substance to the patient. No substantial and competent evidence was presented that the medications were not administered to the patient as recorded in the written records of the hospital. (a) Regarding the allegations concerning the patient Mary Lee Love Graham contained in Count 10 of the administrative Complaint, the CSF reflects two doses of Codeine were signed out by the Respondent for this patient on March 25, 1979. The appropriate entries were made on the MAR by the Respondent. Although the 1200 hour administration of medication was charted in the nurses' notes, the administration of the medication at 0830 hours was not charted by the Respondent. Similarly, the administration of Codeine 60 to this patient at 2200 hours was not charted by Nurse Wigginton on March 24, 1979. (b) Regarding Count 12 of the Administrative Complaint, the MAR reflects that Graham received Codeine 60 at 0400 hours from Wigginton and at 0800 hours from the Respondent on march 26, 1979. The nursing notes do not reflect the administration of Codeine 60 at either time. On March 27, 1979, the Respondent apparently administered no medications to this patient; however, the administration of Codeine 60 to this patient at 1600 hours on March 27, 1979, was not charted in the nursing notes. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 14 in the Administrative Complaint, the MAR and CSF agree regarding the administration of Codeine 60 to Graham on March 26, 1979, at 0800 and 1400 hours by the Respondent. The administration of the medication at 0800 hours was not charted in the nursing notes, as was the administration of the same medication at 2300 hours on the same date by another nurse. Although the physician's orders were not renewed and therefore terminated at the end of 48 hours as discussed above, the MAR was not changed to reflect discontinuation of this medication, and all staff nurses, to include the Respondent, continued to administer Codeine 60 to this patient after the physician's orders ceased. (d) Regarding the allegations contained in Counts 11, 13 and 15, there is no substantial and competent evidence that the Respondent possessed any controlled substance for any purpose other than its administration to a patient. There is no substantial and competent evidence that the medications were not administered as charted. (a) Regarding the allegations contained in Count 16 concerning the patient Marshal Rex Burk, the MAR and CSF records reflect administration of Darvon 65 by the Respondent to this patient at 1000 hours on March 24, 1979. This was not charted by the Respondent in the nursing notes. As stated above, the drug Darvon 65 is not a narcotic drug and not subject to automatic termination at the end of 48 hours. Thee administration of Darvon 65 on March 24, 1979, was pursuant to a physician's order entered on March 19, 1979. (b) Regarding the allegations of Count 18, the CSF and MAR reflect administration of Darvon 65 to Burk at 1000 hours on March 25, 1979, by the Respondent. The Respondent did not chart this in the nurses notes. The physician's order for Darvon remained valid on March 25, 1979. (c) Regarding the patient Burk, the MAR reflects that Dalmane, a Class IV controlled substance, was administered March 21, 22, 23 arid 25 by a staff nurse. The administration of this medication was not charted in the nursing notes, and a review of the physician's orders for this patient does not reflect an order for Dalmane being entered until March 29, 1979. A review of the nursing notes for this patient reveals no charting for March 27, 1979. The SOP for charting provides a minimum of one charting for each patient per shift. (d) The allegations contained in Counts 17 and 19 are not proven. The records reflect the Respondent signed out for Darvon 65 and administered it to the patient. (a) Regarding the allegations contained in Count 20 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Willie Mae Bender Tison, the CSF shows the Respondent signed out for two doses of Darvon 65 on March 24, 1979, for this patient. The MAR reflects administration at 0330 hours on March 24, 1979. The nursing notes do not reflect administration of Darvon 65 to his patient on March 24, 1979. One Darvon 65 was not accounted for in the records. (b) Regarding this patient, his MAR indicates the patient started receiving drugs on March 17, 1979; however, the admitting data and nursing notes reflect that this patient was not admitted until 1450 hours on March 21, 1979. The data contained in the MAR from March 17 until March 24 is clearly in error. (c) Regarding Count 21, although the facts indicate the Respondent did not chart the administration of one Darvon 65 to the patient Tison, no evidence was introduced that the Respondent took the medication herself or retained the medication for sale or distribution. (a) Regarding the allegations in the Administrative Complaint contained in Count 22 relating to the patient Frances Louise Blocker Medina, the MAR reveals that Percodan was administered to this patient on March 24, 1979, at 0530 hours, 0930 hours by the Respondent, 1300 hours by the Respondent and 2200 hours. The CSF reflects that the Respondent withdrew two doses of Percodan for the Respondent on March 24, 1979. The Respondent recorded the administration of the medication to this patient at 1300 hours in the nursing notes. No entries were made in the nursing notes for March 24, 1979, reflecting the administration of Percodan at 0530 hours, 0930 hours and 2200 hours by the Respondent and others. (b) Regarding the allegations of Count 24, the MAR reflects that the Respondent administered Percodan to this patient at 0700 hours and 1100 hours on March 25, 1979. The Respondent charted the administration of this medication to this patient in the nursing notes at 0730 hours and 1030 hours. The CSF shows the Respondent signed out for two Percodan for this patient on March 25, 1979. The MAR also reveals that this patient received Percodan at 1830 hours on March 25, 1979, from another nurse. The nursing notes do not reflect charting of this medication. (c) Regarding the allegations in Count 26, the CSF reflects that the Respondent signed out for two doses of Percodan for this patient on March 26, 1979. The MAR reflects administration of Percodan to this patient at 0200 hours, 0800 hours by the Respondent, 1400 hours by the Respondent and 2000 hours on March 26, 1979. The nursing notes reflect only the administration of this medication for 2000 hours. (d) Regarding the allegations of Count 28, the medical records of this patient reflect that staff nurses, to include the Respondent, continued to give the patient Percodan, a narcotic, although the physician's order for this medication automatically terminated. (e) Regarding the allegations of Count 30, the MAR and CSF reflect that the Respondent administered one Percodan to this patient on March 28, 1979. The Respondent failed to chart the administration of this medication to this patient in the nursing notes. (f) Regarding Counts 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31, no substantial and competent evidence was presented that the Respondent maintained possession of any drug. The records reflect that all drugs signed out by the Respondent were administered to the patient. (a) Regarding allegations contained in Count 32 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Ruby Lee Denson Standback Woodburne, the times on the exhibit copies of the CSF are illegible. However, the MAR and CSF do reflect that the Darvon 65 checked out for this patient by the Respondent on Marcy 24, 1979, was administered to the patient. The nursing notes reflect administration of the medication to the patient. (b) Regarding the allegations in Count 34, the CSF shows the Respondent signed out for Darvon 65 two times on March 25, 1979, for this patient. The MAR reflects the Respondent administered Darvon 65 to the patient at 0830 hours and 1200 hours. The nursing notes reflect that Darvon 65 was administered at 1200 hours but not at 0830 hours. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 36, the MAR and CSF records show the Respondent medicated the patient at 0800 hours and 1200 hours on March 26, 1979, with Darvon 65. The Respondent charted the administration at 1200 hours in the nursing notes but failed to chart the administration at 0800 hours. (d) Regarding the allegations of Count 38, the CSF reflects the Respondent withdraw one Darvon 65 for this patient on March 27, 1979. The MAR does not reflect administration of this medication; however, the nursing notes reflect the administration of Darvon at 0830 hours on March 27, 1979. (e) The medical service orders for this patient were renewed March 22, 1979, after Use patient's surgery. Presumably, this would have renewed the Darvon 65 order of March 17, 1979, and it would have been effective through March 29, 1970. (f) Regarding Counts 33, 35, 37 and 39, there is no evidence that any medication was net administered to the patient as reflected in the records. Although the MAR entry was not made on March 27, 1979, a nursing note does reflect administration of Darvon 65 on that date by the Respondent. (a) Regarding the allegation contained In Count 40 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Willie Mae Hair, the CSF and MAR records reflect the Respondent administered Darvon 65 to this patient at 0830 hours on March 24, 1979. No entry was made in the nursing notes by the Respondent for this date. Although the patient was discharged on March 24, she was medicated for pain in the evening of March 23, and the nursing note for 0145 hours of March 24 reflects that the nursing staff apparently expected her to experience pain. (b) There is no substantial and competent evidence to support the allegation of Count 41. All medications checked out by the Respondent for this patient were administered according to the records. Regarding Count 42 of the Administrative Complaint, Exhibit 11 reveals that on several occasions the Respondent wasted medications without the required countersignatures of another staff member. There was no substantial and competent evidence presented that the Respondent converted any of the drugs wasted to her own use. To the contrary, although improperly witnessed, the records reflect that the medications were wasted. Review of Exhibit 1, containing extracts of the hospital's SOP's for controlled substances and charting, does not reveal any requirement that the specific time of withdrawal of a controlled substance be entered on the CSF. Exhibit 1 does reflect that medication may be prepared and placed upon a lockable medicine cart. The nature of the entries on the MAR reflect that medications were drawn at one time from the controlled substance container for administration to patients during a shift. The SOP for charting nursing notes does not require that the administration of medication be noted. However, the SOP for administration of medication would require noting the patient's complaint and the patient's response to medication in the nursing notes if a prn medication were administered. Gross departures from the hospital's SOP's regarding controlled substances and charting of nursing notes occurred among staff nurses employed on the fourth floor at the time in question due to staffing shortages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken against the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Irving J. Whitman, Esquire 9595 North Kendall Drive, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33176 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. State Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
