Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: During the night shift on March 28, 1983, respondent had only one licensed nurse on duty. Two licensed nurses were required by the petitioner's rules governing nursing home facilities. These facts were admitted by the respondent's Administrator. On or about 4:30 A.M. on April 7, 1983, a male intruder entered the respondent's facility and sexually assaulted two female residents. The respondent's facility was inspected on April 8, 1983. It was discovered that an alarm on an exit door adjacent to the rooms of the victims was not functioning properly. The alarm is designed to visually and audibly alert persons at the nursing station. On April 8th, the alarm would not sound at the nurses station. As soon as the respondent became aware of the defective alarm, it was replaced temporarily by a local alarm, and then was repaired to function as designed. A door closer on another exit door was found to be defective in that the door would not latch properly. Respondent immediately adjusted this door to work properly upon notice of the defect.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of violating Rules 10D-29.108(4) and 10D- 29.122, Florida Administrative Code, and that an administrative fine in the total amount of $375.00 be imposed against the respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 22nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia Park District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Mr. Albert Shepard Administrator The Ambrosia Home 1709 Taliaferro Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Jay Kassack, Director Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Office of Licensure and Certification Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a skilled nursing facility should have been changed to conditional effective January 28, 1998, and March 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nursing home facilities. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (1997). Edgewater Manor, located at 9555 Southeast Federal Highway, Hobe Sound, Florida, is a 120-bed facility licensed to operate as a nursing home pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules found in Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. Edgewater Manor also participates in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Edgewater Manor was rated superior from 1991 through 1994, and in 1997; it was rated standard in 1995 and 1996. The Agency conducted a survey of Edgewater Manor with an exit date of January 28, 1998, for the purpose of determining the degree of compliance with the applicable criteria. As a result of the January 28, 1998, survey and insofar as is relevant to the instant proceeding, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for two violations relating to the quality of care provided its residents, classified the violations as Class II deficiencies, assigned Edgewater Manor a conditional rating, and issued Edgewater Manor a conditional license effective January 28, 1998, through February 28, 1998. The Agency conducted a follow-up survey with an exit date of March 30, 1998. The two Class II deficiencies identified during the January 28 survey had been corrected, but Edgewater Manor was cited for another violation relating to the quality of care provided its residents, and the new violation was classified as a Class II deficiency. A conditional rating was assigned, and a conditional license was issued effective March 30, 1998, through February 28, 1999. A follow-up survey was conducted on June 4, 1998, and the Agency found that all previously cited deficiencies had been corrected, a standard rating was assigned, and a standard license was issued. When the Agency prepares to conduct a compliance survey of a nursing home, a team of surveyors is selected, which meets and reviews documentation which includes the facility's history of deficiencies and its resident census. The team then takes an orientation tour of the facility, led by a staff member. After the orientation tour, the team selects its Phase I sample of residents to review; the Phase I review includes both comprehensive and focused reviews. A focused review is conducted when the team selects a particular resident with certain identifiable conditions which fall within the team's areas of concern. After the Phase I review is completed, a Phase II review is conducted, in which the team performs only focused reviews of particular residents. After the facility survey is completed, the team meets to discuss the results of the investigation and to evaluate the results to determine if the nursing home is in compliance with the applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. Violations are assessed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the State Operations Manual, which is published by the federal Health Care Financing Agency and provides guidance to state surveyors in interpreting and applying the federal rules and regulations applicable to nursing homes. The State Operations Manual, Guidance to Surveyors, includes "tag numbers" corresponding to provisions of the rules found in Title 42, Chapter 483, Code of Federal Regulations. In the State Operations Manual, a "tag number" is assigned to each provision of the federal rules, and the intent of the rule provision is set forth, together with guidelines, procedures, and probes which are to be used by the state surveyors in determining whether a particular rule provision has been violated. The parties stipulated that the deficiencies cited in the surveys were based on violations of tag F223, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.13(b) Code of Federal Regulations; tag F224, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), Code of Federal Regulations; tag F225, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), Code of Federal Regulations; tag F250, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.15(g), Code of Federal Regulations; and tag F314, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.25(c)(1) and (2), Code of Federal Regulations. Unfortunately, neither party offered into evidence the reports of the surveys referenced herein, in which the factual bases for each violation were set out. Accordingly, for purposes of the findings of fact herein, the specific nature of the violations alleged against Edgewater Manor could only be derived from the testimony of the two Agency surveyors who testified at the hearing. DOAH Case No. 98-1270: January 28, 1998, survey Resident 34 With regard to Resident 3, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for a Class II deficiency based on violations of tag F223, tag F224, tag F225, and tag F250, as a result of the January 28, 1998, survey. The tag F223 violation is associated with the requirement of Title 42, Section 483.13(b), Code of Federal Regulations, that residents of long-term care facilities have the right to be free from abuse. The tag F224 violation is associated with the requirements of Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), (iii), and (2) through (4), Code of Federal Regulations, that a facility must develop and implement policies to prohibit abuse, neglect, and mistreatment, and not use abuse to control its residents. The tag F225 violation is, in this case, associated with the requirements of Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(2), (3), and (4), Code of Federal Regulations, that facility staff must report and investigate suspected abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. The tag F250 violation is associated with the requirement in Title 42, Section 483.15(g), Code of Federal Regulations, that a facility must provide social services to maintain the well-being of the residents. Resident 3 became a resident of Edgewater Manor on September 24, 1990. His diagnoses as of September 1992 included organic mental syndrome, arteriosclerotic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression. At the time at issue herein, Resident 3 lived in Room 124, which is in Edgewater Manor's Protective Care Unit. He had lived in Room 124 for quite a while before the unit where that room was located was converted to the locked Protective Care Unit. When asked before the conversion if he wanted to move to another unit, he chose to remain in Room 124. In the opinion of Janice Bey, Edgewater Manor's Director of Nursing, he was appropriate for the unit because he had been diagnosed with dementia secondary to Parkinson's disease. In 1997 and 1998, Resident 3's thought processes were impaired as a result of the dementia associated with Parkinson's disease, which was by that time in an advanced stage. In four Minimum Data Sets (comprehensive assessments) completed for Resident 3 from April 1997 through December 1997, it was noted that he was capable of independently making decisions regarding the tasks of daily life; that his short- and long-term memory was "OK"; that he had no indicators of periodic disordered thinking or awareness; and that he consistently exhibited inappropriate behavior but that the behavior was easily altered. Socially inappropriate behavior, as used in the Minimum Data Set, includes sexual behavior. At the time at issue herein, Resident 3 walked with a shambling gait, and his ability to ambulate was impaired by spasticity associated with Parkinson's disease. Numerous entries in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 3 reflect that he was found on the floor of his room or in the hall after falling or losing his balance and sliding down the wall to the floor. He suffered from obvious tremors in his hands, which increased in severity when he was agitated or excited. Resident 3 was treated with Sinemet for his Parkinson's disease, a drug which has a noted side-effect of hypersexuality. He was referred for a psychiatric consultation in 1995 because he exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior. At the time at issue herein and notwithstanding the assessment included in the Minimum Data Set, Resident 3 was observed to experience periods of confusion regarding time and place, even though, at various times during the day, he appeared oriented as to time, place, and person. He was capable of independently making decisions concerning the basic activities of daily living, such as when to eat, when to sleep, and when to go to the bathroom. Resident 3 was not, however, able to make decisions requiring the exercise of judgment because, as a result of his dementia and impaired cognitive ability, he could not evaluate the consequences of such decisions. Resident 3 acted primarily to fulfill his basic needs. Inappropriate sexual behavior involving staff. Entries in the Nursing Care Notes maintained for 1997 and early 1998 by the nurses on the Protective Care Unit and in the Social Progress Notes maintained for the same time period by Edgewater Manor's social services director document a number occasions on which Resident 3 engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior toward female staff. According to the reports, this behavior was directed especially at certified nursing assistants and occurred primarily as they provided direct care. Resident 3 reportedly attempted to kiss the certified nursing assistants, grabbed at and actually grabbed their breasts and other private parts, pinched their buttocks, and exposed himself and masturbated in front of them. Resident 3 reportedly cornered one certified nursing assistant in his room, and she had to crawl over his bed to escape. Instances involving such behavior directed to staff were noted to have occurred on December 11, 1996; on January 9, February 11, March 6, July 8, August 29, and December 30, 1997; and on January 24, 1998. Inappropriate behavior toward staff members was also noted in the 1997 monthly summaries included in the Nursing Care Notes for March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, and December. Kelly Streich, the social services director at Edgewater Manor, was notified of some of the instances of inappropriate sexual behavior involving staff. She was notified of an instance involving staff which took place on December 11, 1996, and she responded by notifying Resident 3's sister-in-law and requesting that her husband, Resident 3's brother, talk with him about the behavior. The sister-in-law suggested that Resident 3 should be seen by his physician and by a male psychologist. According to Ms. Streich's notes, Resident 3 denied that his behavior towards staff was serious. On December 18, 1996, Ms. Streich noted a nurse's report that Resident 3 had not exhibited any inappropriate sexual behavior since December 11 and that, in the nurse's opinion, a psychological consultation was not necessary. Later on December 18, Ms. Streich reported that Resident 3 was seen by his physician and promised that he would not make sexual advances to the staff in the future. Resident 3 was not seen by a psychologist at this time due to his promise that he would stop engaging in offensive behavior. After being notified of the behavior involving staff which occurred January 9, 1997, Ms. Streich again notified Resident 3's family and his physician. She also reviewed Resident 3's care plan and modified it to provide that she continue to monitor Resident 3 and to make one-to-one visits and provide counseling. Primarily, however, Ms. Streich determined that staff should continue to discourage Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior and that his physician should speak with him again. Resident 3's annual review was completed in April 1997. In her notes, Ms. Streich reported that Resident 3's cognitive status remained the same and that he was alert and oriented as to time, place, and person. She described Resident 3 as "isolative" and noted that he preferred watching television in his room to interacting with other residents. Ms. Streich also observed that he continued to have episodes of inappropriate sexual behavior and that the staff continued to discourage this behavior. Ms. Streich testified that she should also have noted that Resident 3 sometimes exhibited confused thought processes. In the care plan developed as a result of this annual review and dated April 11, 1997, it was noted that Resident 3 had difficulty with "individual coping" which was "evidenced by inappropriate sexual behavior related to Cognitive impairment." The interventions identified in the care plan to reach the stated goal that Resident 3 would "not exhibit inappropriate sexual gestures to staff by next review," included the following: Be firm but gentle when correcting resident's inappropriate sexual behavior Monitor & document inappropriate behavior Discourage all inappropriate behavior of resident with staff Provide 1:1 individual visits In an entry dated June 25, 1997, Ms. Streich observed as part of her quarterly review of Resident 3's care plan that he continued to exhibit inappropriate sexual behavior. She further noted: "Staff continues to tell him this behavior is unacceptable." Ms. Streich determined that the care plan did not need to be changed and that she would continue to provide one-to- one supportive visits. In her quarterly review recorded September 20, 1997, Ms. Streich noted that Resident 3 "occasionally display[ed] inappropriate sexual gestures." Ms. Streich determined that no changes were needed to his care plan and that staff should continue to discourage Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior. In her quarterly review recorded December 19, 1997, Ms. Streich noted that Resident 3 "continues to be inappropriate at times sexually - displays gesture to direct care staff." She recommended that no change be made to his care plan and indicated that her one-to-one supportive visits would continue and that appropriate behavior would be reinforced. Inappropriate sexual behavior toward staff in a long- term care facility, and especially in a protective care unit for patients suffering from dementia, is not unusual. Edgewater Manor had guidelines directing staff how to handle residents who engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior and provided its staff with in-service training for avoiding and redirecting this behavior. Inappropriate sexual behavior with residents. The Nursing Care Notes and Social Service Notes document instances of Resident 3's sexual behavior involving female residents of the Protective Care Unit. The Agency surveyor was particularly concerned with reports of Resident 3's behavior with three residents of the Protective Care Unit, Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20. Resident 18 When Resident 18 was admitted to Edgewater Manor on June 16, 1997, she was an eighty-five-year-old widow who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. She had short- and long-term memory problems and was moderately impaired in her ability to make decisions regarding activities of daily living. Resident 18 was ambulatory and was very social and outgoing, appearing to enjoy interacting with others, especially men, and she would sometimes escort other residents to her room for conversation. Ms. Streich reported in the Social Service Notes for Monday, June 30, 1997, that, on the previous Friday and Saturday nights, Resident 18 was found in her room with Resident 3 in what were described in Ms. Streich's notes as "various sexual positions." Both Resident 3 and Resident 18 were lying fully clothed in Resident 18's bed during these encounters. On both occasions, Resident 18 resisted when staff separated them. Ms. Streich did not personally observe the encounters, and she did not interview the nurse reporting the encounters to learn what was meant by "various sexual positions." Ms. Streich contacted H. F., Resident 18's daughter, on June 30 regarding her mother's behavior and asked that the family decide if staff should continue to separate Resident 3 and Resident 18 should they attempt to engage in any further intimate contact.5 In her notes dated July 1, 1997, Ms. Streich reported that Resident 18's family had decided that Resident 3 and Resident 18 should be allowed to continue their relationship. A note was added to Resident 3's care plan by the care plan team that "condoms available from floor nurse," and an addition was made to Resident 18's care plan on July 7, 1997, by the care plan team, to address "DESIRE FOR AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER RESIDENT." The care plan provided that Resident will participate in a safe sexual encounter as she wishes. Provide resident with a safe, private room Provide condoms on request Family will be kept aware of situation Condoms available from floor nurse. In H. F.'s opinion, her mother might have Alzheimer's disease and be forgetful, but she still has her personality and would not do anything she did not want to do. H. F. believed at the time at issue herein that her mother was capable of consenting to intimate contact, including sexual intercourse. Although H. F. believed it absurd to think that her mother would want to have sexual intercourse, she also thought it was responsible of Edgewater Manor to include in her mother's care plan a provision that she should be provided with condoms on request. Ms. Bey was notified of the encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18 which had taken place on June 27 and 28, 1997. She spoke with staff about the encounters and concluded that there had not been an incident of abuse involving Resident 3 and Resident 18. The term "incident" is defined in the long-term care context as "any unusual happening in a facility that deviates from day-to-day normal activities or anything that results in an injury." Ms. Bey does not believe that sex is an unusual activity, and, in her opinion, Resident 18 was capable of refusing to do anything she did not want to do. Ms. Bey did not conduct an investigation beyond speaking with staff, and she did not notify the facility administrator of the encounters between the two residents. Ms. Bey concluded as a result of her investigation that no abuse had occurred, and, accordingly, no incident and accident report was completed by the facility, nor were the encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18 reported to Florida's Abuse Registry. The encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18 were also investigated by the Assistant Director of Nursing, Sherree Montero. Ms. Montero interviewed both staff who had observed Resident 3 and Resident 18 together on June 27 and 28 and staff who had heard about the encounters from other staff. Ms. Montero concluded that there was no evidence that Resident 3 had sexually abused Resident 18. Resident 3 and Resident 18 apparently abandoned their relationship after their first two encounters because there are no further reports of their engaging in sexual conduct, and neither ever requested condoms. On the basis of the information contained in the nursing and social service notes and of the information she obtained through interviews, the Agency surveyor concluded during the survey which was completed on January 28, 1998, that Resident 18 had been the victim of sexual abuse by Resident 3 on June 27 and 28, 1997, and that Edgewater Manor had allowed the abusive situation to occur. In the surveyor's opinion, Resident 18 "lacked the capacity to make that decision [to be sexual] and needed to be protected,"6 even though the surveyor was told by H. F. that Resident 18 could make her own decisions. The surveyor's conclusion that Edgewater Manor's management and the nurses on the Protective Care Unit allowed an abusive situation to exist was also based on her opinion that, even if Resident 18 were able to consent to a sexual relationship, she would need a physical examination and a lubricant before having intercourse. There is no evidentiary basis in the record to support these conclusions of the Agency's surveyor or a finding of fact that Resident 3 sexually abused Resident 18. Rather, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 18 had the capacity to consent to an intimate relationship and that she did so with regard to her two encounters with Resident 3. The evidence is also sufficient to establish that Edgewater Manor's staff responded appropriately to the situation. Resident 19 Resident 19 suffers from Alzheimer's disease and, at the time at issue herein, was alert and oriented towards herself only. She was severely impaired in her ability to make decisions involving activities of daily living. She was incontinent of bowel and bladder and wore a diaper at all times. She was non- verbal except that she would respond to her name being called by uttering noises. She constantly wandered throughout the Protective Care Unit and seldom stayed in one place for any length of time. She often wandered into the rooms of other residents on the unit, and she was sometimes found on the beds in these rooms. When she sat or lay down, she would often lift her legs and wave them in the air. It was reported in the Nursing Care Notes that, on December 30, 1997, Resident 19 was found in Resident 3's room, lying across his bed. In the opinion of the nurse who observed this behavior, Resident 3 was attempting to remove Resident 19's slacks and briefs. Resident 19 was described as disoriented, and she was assisted out of Resident 3's room. When Resident 3 was interrupted, he reportedly stated "It's hard, let me do her - let me do her." The nurse told Resident 3 that his behavior was unacceptable, and he was closely monitored for the rest of the night. On December 31, it was noted that Ms. Streich called Resident 3's brother, who came in and talked to him about his behavior. Resident 3 was reportedly well-behaved until mid- January 1998. Ms. Bey was notified of Resident 3's encounter with Resident 19, and she spoke with staff members about the incident. She was unable to find a staff member who had witnessed Resident 3 pulling Resident 19's slacks down below her waist, although a corner of her brief was sticking above the waistband of the slacks, as though the slacks had not been pulled up completely. The nurse who documented the incident in the Nursing Care Notes would not change her interpretation of what had occurred in Resident 3's room that night; other witnesses interviewed by Ms. Bey stated that Resident 3 sat in his chair until Resident 19 was escorted from his room. As a result of her investigation, Ms. Bey concluded that there had not been an incident of abuse involving Resident 3 and Resident 19. As a result, she did not report the incident to the administrator or prepare an incident and accident report. Ms. Montero also investigated this encounter and interviewed both staff who had observed the incident and staff who had heard about it from others. Based on these interviews and on her own knowledge of Resident 3's physical condition, Ms. Montero concluded that it was not likely that Resident 3 could have successfully pulled Resident 19's slacks down because he often needed assistance dressing himself. The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, when he was interrupted by Edgewater Manor's staff, Resident 3 was attempting unsuccessfully to pull Resident 19's pants down as she lay on the bed. The evidence presented by the Agency is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 sexually abused Resident 19: To the contrary, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 did not have the mental capacity to formulate the intention to inflict either physical or psychological injury on Resident 19 by his behavior. Moreover, the evidence is uncontroverted that Edgewater Manor's staff intervened promptly to prohibit Resident 3 from completing the act of removing Resident 19's slacks. Resident 20 At the time at issue herein, Resident 20 suffered from Alzheimer's disease and was alert and oriented to herself and others, although she was sometimes confused as to time and place. She had short- and long-term memory problems and was moderately impaired in her ability to make decisions regarding activities of daily life. It was noted on the Multiple Data Set for June 1997 that her cognitive status had deteriorated since the previous quarterly review. She was combative and frequently angry with herself and others, and she sometimes resisted care. She wandered throughout the Protective Care Unit and sometimes exhibited frustration, anxiety, and agitation. Her husband visited her every day, and he attended to her personal needs. Resident 20 was very territorial and would become agitated if another resident came into her room. She did not speak very well, but she would communicate by chattering loudly and waving her arms. As a result, it was always obvious when Resident 20 was agitated or upset. It was reported in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 3 that, on January 22, 1998, he was found in Rm 123 making sexual advances to both ladies and ejaculation [sic] on the floor after masturbating in front of them. Both ladies were upset. R escorted to own room and then did it on the floor there. R laughed when this nurse told him his actions were not appropriate for public viewing. Room 123 is occupied by Resident 20 and her roommate and is directly across the hall from Resident 3's room. It was reported in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 20 that, on January 22, 1998, she was very upset because the man from "124-2" had come into her room and made sexual advances to her. She reportedly yelled and pushed away from him. When this encounter was reported to Ms. Bey, she was told that Resident 3 held up his gown with his left arm while he walked, masturbated with his right hand, and ejaculated. Ms. Bey investigated by interviewing staff, and she concluded that the report of the event contained in the Nursing Care Notes was not objective. In Ms. Bey's opinion, Resident 3 was physically incapable of performing these acts simultaneously because of his advanced Parkinson's disease and his history of falling. Ms. Bey spoke with the nurse who had charted the nursing note, but the nurse refused to change the note, stating that the note accurately described the encounter. Ms. Montero also investigated this event and concluded that Resident 3 was not physically capable of simultaneously walking, holding up his gown, and masturbating, much less of ejaculating twice within a thirty-minute period. The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish that Resident 3 stood in Resident 20's room holding his gown up, masturbating, and ejaculating. The evidence presented by the Agency is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 sexually abused Resident 20. To the contrary, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 did not have the mental capacity to formulate the intention to inflict either physical or psychological injury on Resident 20 by his behavior. Moreover, the evidence is uncontroverted that Edgewater Manor's staff intervened promptly to remove Resident 3 from Resident 20's room. Generally In addition to the instances of inappropriate sexual behavior involving Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20, Resident 3 was reported to have behaved inappropriately toward other residents of the Protective Care Unit. The following notation was entered in the Nursing Care Notes for July 9, 1997, at 10:00 p.m.: Resident walks down hallway grabbing [at] other female residents. Attempts to pull a female resident into another room. This nurse found resident pushing shoulders of a female resident down towards bed. Resident starting [sic] kissing another female resident on lips and started leaning over. This nurse caught them. This nurse reminds resident about behavior towards females. Resident continued this behavior for over 2 [hours] this evening. In the Nursing Care Notes for January 24, 1998, it was reported that Resident sexual promiscuity has increased during the last two weeks. Resident calls female staff into room while he is masturbating. He laughs when staff attempts to tell him that his behavior is not appropriate. He was also observed to fondle fellow female residents & was observed undressing them in his room. Fellow residents do not have the mental capacity & are unaware of his sexual advances as it appears. He was again redirected & told that his behavior is unacceptable & . . . the resident just denies he does nothing [sic] wrong & that his behavior is acceptable. As a result of Resident 3's behavior in the weeks preceding January 24, a psychiatric consultation was ordered by Resident 3's physician on January 26, 1998. The report of the consultation was dated February 5, 1998, and the psychiatrist reported that Resident 3's hypersexuality might be controlled by medication. It was also noted in the report that Resident 3 had been referred for a psychiatric consultation in 1995 as a result of sexually inappropriate, aggressive behavior. The Agency's surveyor did not discuss Resident 3's behavior with Ms. Bey or with Mr. Murray, the administrator of Edgewater Manor. Rather, she contacted the Florida Abuse Registry and the Martin County Sheriff's Department and reported her interpretation of Resident 3's behavior based on the information she had gathered from the documentation and her interviews with staff. As a result of suggestions by the Agency's surveyor and the adult protective investigator, Edgewater Manor placed a personal alarm, also known as a tether alarm, on Resident 3. This device would sound an alarm if Resident 3 moved from his chair, so that the staff would know where he was at all times. Although Ms. Bey investigated the reports regarding the sexual behaviors Resident 3 exhibited with Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20, she did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. No incident and accident reports relating to these events were prepared and no reports were submitted to adult protective services about Resident 3's behavior because Ms. Bey concluded from her investigations that there were no instances of suspected abuse, mistreatment, or neglect involving Resident 3. Had Ms. Bey suspected that abuse had occurred, she would have reported the incidents involving Resident 3 to the Florida Abuse Registry, pursuant to Edgewater Manor's policy of reporting all instances of suspected abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. During the survey, the Agency surveyor was provided with a copy of Edgewater Manor's policy and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and mistreatment. Although the policy addressed resident-to-resident abuse and sexual harassment, the survey team concluded that the policy had not been implemented to prevent what the team considered to be the abusive behavior of Resident 3 toward the female residents of the Protective Care Unit. Summary The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish that Resident 3 had a pattern of engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior directed to both female staff and female residents on the Protective Care Unit. The evidence presented by the Agency is not, however, sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 could, or did, formulate the intent to inflict physical or psychological injury that would be necessary for his behavior to constitute sexual abuse, as that term is defined in the State Operations Manual. Indeed, the evidence taken as a whole supports a finding that Resident 3 was an elderly man who, as a result of progressive cognitive impairment related to advanced Parkinson's disease, engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in response to the basic urge for sexual gratification but without any appreciable comprehension of the potential effect of his behavior on others. As derived from the evidence presented herein, the Agency charged that Edgewater Manor failed to prevent, investigate, document, and report Resident 3's sexual abuse of female residents on the Protective Care Unit. Because the Agency has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of fact that Resident 3 committed sexual abuse, Edgewater Manor did not breach its duty to prevent, investigate, document, or report abuse. Moreover, the evidence establishes that Edgewater Manor's staff promptly and appropriately intervened to interrupt Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior involving Resident 19 and Resident 20 and to confirm that Resident 3's relationship with Resident 18 was consensual. Additionally, the evidence is uncontroverted that Edgewater Manor had a written policy statement with procedures designed to prevent abuse, neglect, and mistreatment of residents7 and that investigations were done of the encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20 by both the Director of Nursing and the Assistant Director of Nursing. Because the investigations lead to the conclusion that sexual abuse had not occurred in any of the three encounters, no written reports were prepared, and the encounters were not reported to the Florida Abuse Registry. The evidence is, therefore, not sufficient to establish that Edgewater Manor violated the requirements that sexual abuse be prevented, investigated, documented, and reported. The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Edgewater Manor failed to provide Resident 3 with the medically-related social services necessary for his physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Resident 3 was first sent for a psychiatric consultation in 1995 because he had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, but, notwithstanding the numerous instances of Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior toward staff and other residents from July 1997 through late January 1998, Resident 3 was not referred for another psychiatric consultation until January 26, 1998. The interventions identified in the care plans for Resident 3 were limited to correcting Resident 3 when he engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, observing and documenting such behavior, and discouraging such behavior toward staff. In addition, the social services director conducted one-on-one "supportive" visits with Resident 3. Edgewater Manor's staff, pursuant to policy, interrupted and redirected Resident 3 when he was observed engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior involving others.8 Resident 3's family members and physician were asked to talk with him after episodes of inappropriate behavior. Because it became obvious that none of these interventions resulted in anything more that a temporary hiatus in his inappropriate sexual behavior, Edgewater Manor should have developed a care plan designed to provide Resident 3 with the services he needed to control his inappropriate sexual behavior both to enhance his own well-being and to protect other residents of the Protective Care Unit. Resident 12 As a result of the January 28, 1998, survey, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for a Class II deficiency based on a violation of tag F314. The tag F314 violation and Class II deficiency cited by the Agency are associated with the requirement in Title 42, Section 483.25(c), Code of Federal Regulations, that facilities ensure that residents do not develop pressure sores which are not unavoidable and that residents with pressure sores be provided necessary treatment and services. A pressure sore is defined in the State Operations Manual as an "ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or shear." The seriousness of a pressure sore is described using a "staging system" in which the characteristics of the sore are classified by reference to four stages, two of which are relevant here: A Stage II pressure sore exists when "[a] partial thickness of skin is lost; may present as blistering surrounded by an area of redness and/or induration"; a pressure sore has reached Stage III when "[a] full thickness of skin is lost; exposing the subcutaneous tissue; presents as shallow crater; may be draining."9 Unrelieved, prolonged pressure on areas of dependency such as the heels and the buttocks and coccyx can cause the development of pressure sores, and pressure sores can develop and/or worsen as a result of various clinical conditions. Peripheral vascular disease contributes to the development and impedes the healing of pressure sores because blood vessels are constricted, blood flow is decreased, and skin integrity and healing are compromised because nutrients aren't delivered efficiently to the tissue and because the removal of waste materials is inhibited. Chronic bowel and urinary incontinence compromise skin integrity and contribute to the development of pressure sores, first, because the skin in the area of the buttocks and coccyx is continually being rubbed to clean the resident after each episode of incontinence and, second, because even with regular cleaning and the application of an ointment to provide a moisture barrier it is impossible to keep an incontinent resident's skin from coming into contact with urine and stool. Weight loss affects skin integrity because it is indicative of poor nutrition and hydration, which impede healing. At the time of the January 28, 1998, survey, Resident 12 was a ninety-six-year-old woman who was admitted to Edgewater Manor on October 30, 1990.10 Her diagnoses as of December 1, 1997, and January 1, 1998, included senile dementia, atrial fibrillation, organic brain syndrome, psychotic disorder, cerebral vascular accident, iron deficiency anemia, peripheral vascular disease, stasis ulcer on lower right leg, and impaired skin integrity. As of December 1, 1997, Resident 12 was, and had been for some time, incontinent of bowel and bladder and consistently had loose stool. Since at least August 13, 1997, Resident 12 had been totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living and was severely impaired in decision- making. Based on Resident 12's diagnoses and her general condition as of December 1, 1997, Resident 12 had several of the primary risk factors for developing pressure sores identified in tag F314: She was immobile and depended on the staff for repositioning; she spent time in a wheelchair with a restraint to keep her properly positioned; and she suffered from peripheral vascular disease, chronic bowel incontinence, and continuous urinary incontinence. Resident 12 was identified by Edgewater Manor as a person at risk of the development of pressure sores, and a care plan dated August 20, 1997, was developed which provided generally for increased protein in her diet and directed that she be given a multivitamin and vitamin C. The care plan reflected that, as of August 20, 1997, Resident 12 had an open area on her right lateral calf,11 and the plan contained specific provisions to deal with the development of pressure sores and with impaired skin integrity. A soft tech mattress, which is like a large feather pillow, was placed on her bed to reduce pressure on the pressure points on her body; she was to be provided with clean dry linens; range of motion manipulation was to be done on her extremities every shift; she was to be turned and repositioned every two hours, her heels were to be off the bed at all times, and pillows were to be placed under her calves; she was to be encouraged to consume all the fluids on her food tray and 80-to- 100 percent of her food; pillows were to be used to keep any bony prominences from direct contact with each other; balmex ointment (bag balm) was to be used on her buttocks after each episode of incontinence; and she was to have a daily skin assessment. Much of the preventive care set out in the August 20 care plan was to be provided by certified nursing assistants. Specifically, because Resident 12 was dependent on staff for almost all activities of daily living, certified nursing assistants were responsible for, among other things, turning and repositioning Resident 12 every two hours, feeding, bathing and grooming, and cleaning her body and her bed after episodes of incontinence. The services provided were recorded daily for each shift on a form entitled "Nurse Assistant Care Records," which was completed and initialed daily by the certified nursing assistant caring for the resident during each shift. The Nurse Assistant Care Records completed for Resident 12 during October, November, and December 1997 establish that, each day, she was fed by the staff and ate her meals in one of Edgewater Manor's dining rooms; that she was repositioned; that she had frequent bouts of bowel and bladder incontinence; that she was cooperative and accepted assistance; that she received passive range of motion movement; and that she spent time sitting in a wheelchair, with restraints. Frequent turning and repositioning is a critical component of care to prevent the development of pressure sores. The Nursing Assistant Care Records for October, November, and December 1997 reflect that Resident 12 was turned and repositioned each shift. The records do not, however, show the frequency of turning and repositioning and variously reflect that Resident 12 turned and repositioned herself independently, that she turned and repositioned herself with assistance, and that she was fully dependent on staff for turning and repositioning. Enid Lue, a certified nursing assistant who provided care to Resident 12 during these three months, testified that she personally turned and repositioned Resident 12 every two hours whenever she cared for her and that she was routinely informed verbally by the certified nursing assistant who cared for Resident 12 during the shift preceding hers that Resident 12 had been turned and repositioned every two hours during that shift. Ms. Lue confirmed that Resident 12 was totally dependent on staff for turning and repositioning and testified that she had incorrectly indicated on the Nursing Assistant Care Records that she had merely assisted Resident 12 to turn and reposition herself. The wound care nurse who provided treatment to Resident 12 for the stasis ulcer on her leg and for the pressure sore which developed on her coccyx testified that whenever he provided treatment to Resident 12 and whenever he passed her room, which was several times each day, he observed that she had been turned and repositioned. Notations are included in the monthly summaries in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 12 indicating that she was turned and repositioned every two hours in October, November, and December 1997. In addition, the daily Nursing Care Notes maintained for Resident 12 include entries indicating that Resident 12 was turned and repositioned every two hours; the entries in the daily notes appear with greater frequency after December 30, 1997. In September 1997, it was noted in the Dietary Progress Notes maintained by Edgewater Manor's dietitian for Resident 12 that she had problems with skin integrity. The amount of protein in her diet was increased, and it was noted that she received a multi-vitamin and vitamin C, both of which aid in promoting healing. In the quarterly dietary care plan review conducted on November 4, it was noted that Resident 12's weight had remained stable at 117 pounds since January 1997 and that she was on a mechanical soft diet. Resident 12 was to be continued on the current care plan, and staff was directed to encourage fluids. On December 5, the dietitian ordered that protein rich foods be sent on Resident 12's tray. Daily skin assessments for each resident are routine practice at Edgewater Manor, and they are completed by licensed nurses, with a certain number of residents being assessed each shift. Pursuant to a memorandum to all licensed nurses, dated July 8, 1996, the nurses are to note the results of the skin assessment on a Daily Skin Assessment form. The nurses are specifically alerted to watch for redness, tearing, sheet burns, friction, shearing, and pressure areas, among other things. On December 18, 1997, it was noted on the Daily Skin Assessment for Resident 12 that a blister, redness, and/or an open area was observed on her "cheeks." On December 19, Resident 12's physician discontinued the application of bag balm as a moisture barrier on her buttocks and ordered that Desitin ointment be applied instead. The change in the type of ointment to be used on Resident 12's buttocks was made because a reddened area had been detected. The appearance of the reddened area was not, however, charted in the Nursing Care Notes, as required by the Edgewater Manor internal memorandum dated July 8, 1996. On December 24, 1997, it was noted on the Daily Skin Assessment that Resident 12 had an open area on her buttocks. This is reflected in the Nursing Care Notes for December 24, and a new order was given by Resident 12's physician on that date. The new order directed that a hydrocoloid dressing12 was to be applied to the coccyx every three days and that, on the third day, the dressing was to be removed, the area cleaned with a solution of normal saline and dried, and a new dressing applied. The open area was located in a fold of Resident 12's buttock, and two people were required to treat the wound because the buttocks had to be separated to expose it for treatment. On December 29, Resident 12's physician visited her, but he did not issue any new treatment orders except to discontinue the "leg buddy," a type of restraint used to help maintain proper positioning for a person sitting in a wheelchair. The "leg buddy" had been ordered on December 9, 1997, to replace a "lap buddy," another, more restrictive, device used to maintain proper positioning in a wheelchair. The staff noted in the Nursing Care Notes of December 29 that the "leg buddy" had been tried but did not properly position Resident 12 in the wheelchair. It allowed her to slide down in the chair and to rock back and forth. This caused pressure on Resident 12's coccyx and irritated the area. Even so, it was not improper to prescribe use of the leg buddy for Resident 12 because it was important for her to sit up to improve healing, and the leg buddy is the least restrictive restraint for use with a wheelchair. On December 30, Dante Graziani, Edgewater Manor's wound care nurse, visited Resident 12 for the first time to treat both the pressure sore on the coccyx area and the stasis ulcer on the right lower leg.13 Mr. Graziani removed the hydrocoloid dressing which had been placed on the coccyx area pursuant to the treatment prescribed by Resident 12's physician on December 24, and he observed that the wound had worsened since it was first noted on December 24. Mr. Graziani was on vacation from December 24 through December 29 and did not observe the open area on December 24, when treatment began. Nonetheless, he was able to determine that the pressure sore was at Stage II14 on December 24 based on the information provided in the Nursing Care Notes and physician's order. In his experience as a wound care nurse, it is not unusual for pressure sores to worsen during the first days of treatment, and it is standard procedure to allow a week for each new treatment to see if the sore is responding. In Mr. Graziani's opinion, it was unlikely that the sore would have appeared worse when the hydrocoloid dressing was changed on the third day after treatment began and it was not inappropriate for that treatment to have been continued for an additional three days, until December 30. On December 30, Mr. Graziani made the first entry for Resident 12 on the Weekly Pressure Sore Progress Report, which is an internal Edgewater Manor report usually prepared by the wound care nurse. Mr. Graziani determined from his examination that the pressure sore had advanced to Stage III.15 He noted on the report that the open area measured two centimeters wide and three centimeters long, with a depth of two-tenths of a centimeter, about the size of a quarter. Mr. Graziani attributed the worsening of the pressure sore between December 24 and December 30 to Resident 12's continued incontinence, her failure to eat well, her weight loss, her iron deficiency anemia, and her peripheral vascular disease. On the basis of the information provided by Mr. Graziani, Resident 12's physician ordered a change in the treatment of the pressure sore on the coccyx on December 30. Because there was necrotic tissue in the wound, the hydrocoloid dressing was discontinued and a transigel pad was ordered. A transigel pad is a debriding agent and facilitates the removal of necrotic tissue from a wound. Mr. Graziani indicated on the Weekly Pressure Sore Progress Report that December 30 was the first day of treatment with the transigel pad. Also on December 30, Resident 12's physician ordered five days' bed rest and insertion of a Foley catheter until the open area on the coccyx resolved. A care plan for Resident 12 was prepared to address the pressure sore on her coccyx and the statis ulcer on her right leg. The alteration to the integrity of her skin was attributed to her immobility, peripheral vascular disease, and incontinence. The care plan incorporated the physician's orders for use of the transigel pad, insertion of the Foley catheter, and five days' bed rest. It also provided for routine preventive care such as continued use of the soft tech mattress, turning and repositioning every two hours, use of pillows to turn and reposition and to keep pressure off Resident 12's wounds, use of heel protectors, and range of motion to all extremities each shift. The Nursing Care Notes for January 3, 1998, reflect that Resident 12 was not chewing her food and, as a result, was choking. A notation was made that the speech therapist would be notified. In an entry on the Dietary Progress Notes dated January 7, 1998, the dietitian reported that Resident 12's diet had been changed to puree on the recommendation of the speech therapist because Resident 12 had exhibited a problem chewing her food, although the precise date the change was made is not recorded in either the Nursing Care Notes or the Dietary Progress Notes. On January 5, Resident 12's physician ordered a urine culture and sensitivity test because her urine had become dark and cloudy. On the same day, the physician prescribed the antibiotic Cipro for a week and ordered that Resident 12 be encouraged to take fluids. The urinary culture confirmed that Resident 12 had a urinary tract infection. Although fluids were encouraged, Resident 12 generally took them poorly during her illness. The urinary tract infection was resolved on or about January 12, 1998. Also on January 12, 1998, it was noted in the Dietary Progress Notes that Resident 12's weight had dropped to 110.5 pounds, a ten-pound weight loss since December 8, 1997, but still above her ideal body weight of 85-to-105 pounds. The dietitian noted that Resident 12 had been ill with a urinary tract infection but that she had improved and was again eating in the dining room. The dietitian also noted that Resident 12 continued to have skin breakdown and recommended that a protein supplement be prescribed to combat Resident 12's weight loss and to meet her need for increased protein in her diet. The protein supplement was ordered by Resident 12's physician on January 12 and was to be given twice each day. During the time she had the urinary tract infection, Resident 12 continued to receive treatment for the stasis ulcer on her leg and for the pressure sore on her coccyx. On January 8, 1998, the transigel pad was ordered discontinued because the sore on Resident 12's coccyx had been debrided; orders were given by Resident 12's physician that a hydrocoloid dressing was to be placed on the wound on the coccyx. Mr. Graziani noted on the Weekly Pressure Sore Progress Report that, as of January 8, the pressure sore was a Stage II sore. On January 15, Mr. Graziani noted that the pressure sore was improving with the use of the hydrocoloid dressing. However, by January 22, the sore was larger, although still a Stage II sore, and the treatment was changed back to a transigel pad to debride the wound. The record does not reflect the date the pressure sore to the coccyx was resolved, but it was present at the time of the January 30, 1998, survey. The Agency's surveyor based her conclusion that resident 12 developed an avoidable pressure sore while she was a resident of Edgewater Manor on the surveyor's review of documentation provided by Edgewater Manor; on interviews with staff, specifically with Doris Huey, a licensed practical nurse who cared for resident 12; and on an Edgewater Manor internal memorandum to licensed nurses dated July 8, 1996, regarding daily skin assessments. There is no evidence in the record that the Agency's surveyor actually observed resident number 12 during her review of the resident's condition. It is uncontroverted that Resident 12 developed a pressure sore while a resident of Edgewater Manor. The evidence is, however, sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 12's clinical condition was such that she was at risk for developing pressure sores and that the care plan for Resident 12 included appropriate routine preventive care measures. In addition, the evidence is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Edgewater Manor's staff provided the prescribed routine preventive and daily care, such as turning and repositioning every two hours; cleaning and drying Resident 12 after episodes of incontinence, including applying ointments to her buttocks which acted as a moisture barrier; using a soft tech mattress to decrease pressure on areas of dependence and bony prominences; and increasing the amounts of protein in Resident 12's diet, changing her food to puree, and encouraging Resident 12 to take fluids. Although weight loss puts a resident at risk of slow healing, nothing in this record associates the development or worsening of Resident 12's pressure sore with her ten-pound weight loss between December 8 and January 8. Finally, the evidence is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 12 received proper treatment to promote healing of the pressure sore, to avoid infection, and to prevent development of new sores. Routine preventive care was continued, and orders were issued for a change from bag balm to Desitin ointment when a reddened area was discovered on Resident 12's coccyx, for use of a hydrocoloid dressing as soon as the sore developed into an open area, and for insertion of a Foley catheter to minimize moisture in the area. In light of all of the evidence of record, the failure of Edgewater Manor's staff to document in the Nursing Care Notes the treatment of the pressure sore from December 24 through December 29 cannot support the inference that such treatment was not given. DOAH Case No. 98-2553: March 30, 1998, survey When the Agency's survey team conducted the March 30, 1998, follow-up survey, Edgewater Manor was found to have corrected the two Class II deficiencies identified in the January 28 survey involving Resident 3 and Resident 12. However, as a result of the March 30 follow-up survey, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for a Class II deficiency based on a violation of tag F224. The tag F224 violation and Class II deficiency cited by the Agency are associated with the requirements in Title 42, Section 483.13(c), Code of Federal Regulations, that facilities develop and implement written policies prohibiting the mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents. Resident 8, who was born on October 7, 1914, was admitted to Edgewater Manor on February 22, 1996, with a primary diagnosis of a fracture of the femur intertrochanteric, that is, a fractured hip. In a Minimum Data Set completed January 12, 1998, Resident 8's diagnoses were listed as hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, non-Alzheimer's dementia, transient ischemic attack, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis. She had both short- and long-term memory problems and was severely impaired in her decision-making ability, with a deterioration of her cognitive status having occurred since the previous assessment. She was totally dependent on staff for personal hygiene, locomotion in a wheelchair both on and off her unit, dressing, eating, and toilet use. She was frequently incontinent of bowel and always incontinent of bladder. She had two areas on her skin which exhibited redness which did not disappear when pressure was relieved, and she had a pressure ulcer in which a partial thickness of skin was lost, presenting as either an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater. She also had skin tears or cuts and was receiving protective and/or preventative skin care. She could reposition herself in her bed with limited assistance from one staff member.16 On the other hand, Resident 8 needed extensive assistance to transfer from her bed to a chair or wheelchair, with two staff members required to assist her by providing weight-bearing support or, at times, full support. Her ability to perform activities of daily living had deteriorated since the previous assessment, and Edgewater Manor staff's predicted that Resident 8's condition would continue to decline. A care plan was developed January 18, 1998, in which the care to be given to Resident 8 in light of the January 12 assessment was specified.17 On February 25, 1998, at approximately 10:00 a.m., a hematoma (bruise) of moderate size was found on Resident 8's left upper arm. Edgewater Manor's Director of Nursing, Janice Bey, was notified of the hematoma through an incident report, conducted an investigation to determine the cause of the injury, and concluded that the hematoma resulted from a blood-draw done on February 23 and not from abuse, neglect or mistreatment. Ms. Bey did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation into the cause of the hematoma on Resident 8's arm. Also on February 25, 1998, at approximately 3:30 p.m., the registered nurse on duty was called to Resident 8's room by a certified nursing assistant to observe that Resident 8's left great toe was swollen and looked inflamed. The wound care nurse and a podiatrist were called to evaluate the wound. On February 27, at approximately 4:00 p.m., a certified nursing assistant reported that there was some bleeding on Resident 8's left great toe and that the toenail had come off. The toe was rinsed with normal saline solution and loosely wrapped with gauze; there was no indication that the toe had received any previous treatment. Ms. Bey was notified of the bleeding toe and of the missing nail through an incident report. She was already aware that the toe was swollen and inflamed. Ms. Bey investigated the cause of the injury by interviewing the staff members who cared for Resident 8, and she personally examined Resident 8's toe. She concluded that the swelling and inflammation of the toe, with the subsequent loss of the toenail, was the result of Resident 8's peripheral vascular disease, exacerbated by the fact that she was not ambulatory. Ms. Bey found no bruising or skin tears around the toe and, therefore, determined that no abuse, neglect, or mistreatment had occurred. Ms. Bey did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on March 4, 1998, an aide reported that Resident 8 had an "ecchymotic" area (bruise) above her right eye. The licensed practical nurse on duty at the time completed an incident report and noted that the cause of the bruise and the place and time it occurred was unknown. On March 17, 1998, Resident 8 received two skin tears as she was being transferred from her bed to a wheelchair. The tears were on the right shin area, at right angles to one another, and were approximately one centimeter long by one centimeter wide. A small amount of redness was noted. The skin tears were cleansed and wrapped. Resident 8's son was notified of the skin tears, and an incident report and treatment request were sent via facsimile to Resident 8's physician. Ms. Bey was notified of the skin tears, and she investigated the cause of the injury. Ms. Bey found no evidence that the skin tears were caused by neglect or mistreatment, especially since Resident 8's skin was extremely fragile and paper-thin. Ms. Bey did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. On March 21, 1998, at approximately 7:45 p.m., the nurse on duty was called to Resident 8's room to examine her left lower leg, which had a bruised area and was hot to the touch. An incident report was prepared, and Ms. Bey was contacted at her home. She directed the nurse to contact Resident 8's physician. The physician was notified of the condition of the leg at approximately 9:30 p.m. He initially diagnosed Resident 8's condition as cellulitis and issued new orders for treatment of this condition. By 6:00 a.m. on March 22, antibiotics were being administered, and shortly thereafter, Resident 8's temperature was recorded at 100.4 degrees. By 2:30 p.m. on March 22, the left lower leg was not quite as swollen but was still hot to the touch. Ms. Bey visited Resident 8 when she returned to work on Monday, March 23. She observed that the leg had edema and that it was no longer red but was dark bluish in color. Based on her observation, Ms. Bey doubted that the diagnosis of cellulitis was accurate. Ms. Bey directed that Resident 8's physician be called, and she recommended that an x-ray be taken of the leg. On March 23, Resident 8's physician visited her and ordered an x-ray of the left lower leg and ankle. The x-ray of the left ankle, which was read by a radiologist at the Martin Memorial Diagnostic Center on March 23, 1998, showed that Resident 8 had a "trimalleolar fracture with significant displacement and disruption of the mortise," with "generalized soft tissue swelling" noted. An x-ray of the tibia and fibula taken at the same time revealed evidence of "the distal fracture" but no others, and the report contained the observation that Resident 8's bones were demineralized and vascular calcifications were noted. On March 25, Resident 8 was transported to the office of a Dr. Fraraccio for examination and treatment. He concurred that Resident 8 had an old "fracture of the left distal femur" and that she also had "a fresh fracture of the left ankle." He put a short cast on the leg, and she was returned to Edgewater Manor. Resident 8's left lower leg was still in the cast when the March 30, 1998, survey was conducted. When Edgewater Manor received the reports which indicated that Resident 8's ankle was fractured and displaced, Ms. Bey spoke with the staff to determine the cause of the injury. As a result of this investigation, Ms. Bey concluded that Resident 8 had not been dropped when being transferred and that the fracture could not be associated with any particular event. Ms. Bey's clinical impression was that Resident 8 had very fragile bones and a history of fractures, as set out in reports of x-rays taken in May 1997, which were maintained as part of Resident 8's chart. In her opinion, Resident 8's ankle could have been fractured when she was transferred from the bed to a chair or turned and repositioned in the bed or by the pressure of a wash cloth when she was bathed. Ms. Bey relied during her investigation on the opinion of Dr. Fraraccio, which she solicited, that he believed the fracture was unavoidable and that it "could have occurred during normal transfer or by any other maneuver, such as turning the patient in bed." Ms. Bey ultimately concluded that the fracture was not caused by abuse, neglect, or exploitation, but she did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. The Agency's surveyor determined that each of Resident 8's bruises, the inflamed toe, and the ankle fracture were caused by mistreatment or neglect by the staff. This determination was not based on any independent investigation by the surveyor but solely on her conclusion that Resident 8 could not have injured herself because she was cognitively impaired, was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living, and required the assistance of two people for transfers from her bed to a chair or wheelchair. Even if it such a determination were relevant to the violation alleged, the Agency presented no evidence from which it could be found, with any degree of confidence, that Resident 8 was the victim of abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. The Agency did not, however, cite Edgewater Manor with a tag F224 violation for having abused, mistreated, or neglected Resident 8 or with a tag F225 violation for having failed to investigate incidents involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment.18 Rather, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor with a tag F224 violation for failing to develop and implement written policies and procedures to prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents.19 The evidence conclusively establishes that Edgewater Manor had indeed developed such written policies and procedures for the protection of all of its residents from abuse, mistreatment, or neglect and provided a copy to the Agency surveyor. Furthermore, the Agency presented no evidence to establish that these policies were not implemented with regard to Resident 8. The survey team apparently based its decision to cite Edgewater Manor for a tag F224 violation and Class II deficiency related to Resident 8 on the lack of documentation of Ms. Bey's investigations into the causes of Resident 8's bruises, inflamed toe, and fractured ankle. 20 The team apparently applied the following reasoning: Because there were no written reports of Ms. Bey's investigations, no investigations had been conducted; because no investigations were conducted, it was not possible for Edgewater Manor to develop written policies and procedures to prohibit abuse, neglect, or mistreatment or to develop a care plan for Resident 8 to avoid future injuries.21 These inferences lack any foundation in logic and, as noted above, are not supported by the evidence presented in this case. Finally, the evidence is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the care plan developed for Resident 8 failed to specify the means by which she was to be transferred from her bed to a chair or wheelchair,22 even assuming that the inclusion of such instructions would be necessary to protect her from abuse, mistreatment, or neglect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order in DOAH Case No. 98-1270 Finding that Hobe Sound Geriatric Vill., d/b/a Edgewater Manor, violated the requirements of Title 42, Section 483.15(g), Code of Federal Regulations; Citing Edgewater Manor with a Class II deficiency at the time of the January 1998 survey based on a violation of tag F250; and, Denying Edgewater Manor's request to change its conditional rating for the period from January 28, 1998 through March 30, 1998. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order in DOAH Case No. 98-2553 Rescinding the conditional rating for the period from March 31, 1998, through February 28, 1999; and Issuing the appropriate rating to Edgewater Manor effective March 31, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 May, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Patti Jo Rossi, L.P.N., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is the agency in Florida responsible for regulating the practice of nurses pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 464, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Ms. Rossi is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1317451. Ms. Rossi, at the times pertinent, was employed in her capacity as a licensed practical nurse by Palm Gardens of Vero Beach (hereinafter referred to as "Palm Gardens"). Palm Gardens. Palm Gardens was, at the times pertinent, a Florida licensed residential nursing home facility as defined in Section 400.021(13), Florida Statutes. Palm Gardens' facility included a wing, "A-Wing," which was devoted to the care of residents suffering from various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. While employed at Palm Gardens, Ms. Rossi was assigned to A-Wing. Due to the tendency of some patients on A-Wing to "wander," A-Wing doors leading to the outside were equipped with alarms which sounded whenever a patient attempted to open them. Whenever an alarm was triggered, employees, including nurses, had to check to ensure that a resident was not leaving the unit. Part of A-Wing consisted of a room which was used as a dining room and day room (hereinafter referred to as the "Day Room"). There were four, floor-to-ceiling, windows at one corner of the Day Room located near an open area of A-Wing, which included a nurses' station. There was a single, heavy, self-closing door providing access to the Day Room. This door was normally propped open. During the pertinent period of time involved in this case, the door to the Day Room was slightly larger at the one corner than the door jam, which caused the door to stick if closed. Although the door could be opened, it took some strength to do so. The condition of the door was known to employees of A-Wing, including Ms. Rossi. Patient M.S. Among the patients on A-Wing was M.S., a female resident. M.S. was elderly, suffered from dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and was in relatively poor physical and mental health. M.S., whose date of birth was February 3, 1920, was totally dependant on the facility and employees of Palm Gardens for her care. M.S. was ambulatory, but not capable of providing the daily necessities of life, such as cleaning herself or dressing. M.S. was not oriented as to time or place, and lacked the capacity to consent. M.S. had a habit of wandering the halls of A-Wing and touching doors equipped with alarms, which would cause the alarms to sound. The Events of December 22, 2001.2 On December 22, 2001, Ms. Rossi was working the "swing shift" (from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) on A-Wing. During Ms. Rossi's shift, M.S. was wandering the wing, sometimes setting off door alarms. M.S. was not harming any other residents or causing any harm to herself. Out of frustration over having to respond every time that M.S. set off an alarm, Ms. Rossi took M.S. and placed her in the Day Room, closing the door as she left. By closing the door to the Day Room, Ms. Rossi effectively locked M.S. into the room. Ms. Rossi left M.S. in the Day Room without any supervision; no one was in the Day Room with her and no one was watching her through the windows between the room and the hall. M.S. for most of the time she was in the Day Room, was unsupervised by any employee of Palm Gardens. M.S. was too weak to open the door. She was, therefore, involuntarily confined to the Day Room. Three C.N.A.s observed M.S. in the Day Room, attempting to get the door open, and annoyed that she was unable to. One of the C.N.A.s let her out. Ms. Rossi told one of the C.N.A.s that she had placed M.S. in the Day Room, and said not to let her out again. Ms. Rossi then was seen placing M.S. back in the Day Room and closing the door. Again, M.S. attempted to get the door open to get out and was upset when she was unable to. M.S. was left in the Day Room for at least ten minutes, unsupervised and unable to leave, until a C.N.A. opened the door and released her. While she was not actually injured, M.S. could have been because she was unsupervised. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Rossi placed any other resident in the Day Room. Unprofessional Conduct. Ms. Rossi's conduct fell below the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. By placing M.S. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, Ms. Rossi failed to protect her welfare and safety. Ms. Rossi's conduct constituted unprofessional conduct for a nurse. Involuntary Seclusion. Placing M.S. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, constituted involuntary seclusion. Based upon the length of time that Ms. Rossi left M.S. in the Day Room constituted an "extended" involuntary seclusion. Ms. Rossi's Explanation. Ms. Rossi testified at hearing that she had not closed the door to the Day Room, but had only shut it three quarters of the way. This testimony is not been credited. Ms. Rossi's version of events is inconsistent with other, more credible witnesses. Jurisdiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department: Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Patti Jo Rossi, L.P.N., violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing discipline as suggested in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 day 9th of March, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a nursing home facility located at 1900 Mercy Drive, Orlando, Florida. It is licensed by Respondent and certified to participate in the Medicaid Program. Prior to the rating at issue in this case, Petitioner was rated a "superior" nursing home by Respondent. The "standard" rating at issue in this case was for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. The most recent rating for Petitioner, for the period after February 28, 1986, is "superior." Petitioner was deprived of increased Medicaid reimbursement due to its "standard" rating during the period in question. Additionally, Petitioner was deprived of the ability to hold itself out to the public as a "superior" nursing home for the period in question. The parties stipulated that Petitioner was qualified for a "superior" rating for the period in question, except for the factors considered by Robert Maryanski, former Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification, when he made the decision to give Petitioner a "standard" rating, effective November 30, 1984 until February 28, 1986. The factors considered by Maryanski which formed the basis of his decision were: a rating sheet and results of a survey conducted of Petitioner's facility on November 5 through 7, 1984, as well as follow-up visits on January 15 and February 1, 1985: a report of a complaint or surveillance visit conducted on February 1, 1985; a memo dated March 14, 1985 from Robert W. Smith, Area Supervisor of the Office of Licensure and Certification: concerns of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council as expressed by letter dated November 15, 1984 and concerns of Paul Snead, Jr., Respondent's District Administrator as expressed by memo dated November 26, 1984. In conducting its annual survey of Petitioner's facility, Respondent's surveyors, George Farrar and June Monaghan, identified seven Class III deficiencies which were corrected by the time follow-up visits were conducted on January 15 and February l, 1985. However, in conjunction with the February 1, 1985 follow-up visit, Respondent's surveyors also conducted an unannounced complaint or surveillance visit which identified eight additional deficiencies. No exit interview was conducted following this complaint or surveillance visit, and Petitioner was not informed of these additional deficiencies, or the fact they could affect their annual rating, until approximately a week later. Neither Farrar nor Monaghan, the surveyors who conducted the February 1 complaint or surveillance visit and who are still employed by Respondent, testified at the hearing. The only witnesses testifying at the hearing who were present during all or a portion of the February 1 visit were Charlotte Uhrig, Administrator of Petitioner's facility, Kathleen Wingard, Director of Operations for Petitioner's management company, and Linda Anderson, a licensed practical nurse employed by Petitioner. Uhrig and Anderson offered credible testimony to explain the deficiencies found during the complaint or surveillance visit, and their unrebutted testimony precludes any finding that the deficiencies reported by Farrar and Monaghan actually existed. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented, it is specifically found that during this visit on February 1, 1985: Petitioner did not violate a patient's right to privacy in treatment since only the patient's heel and back of the leg were exposed at the request of the surveyor; Petitioner took prompt action in terminating a Director of Nursing who violated its policies by allowing aides to do and chart dressings and treatments; Anderson's actions in attempting to give a patient two pills were reasonable and in accordance with proper nursing practice. The fact that the patient did not swallow the pills and the surveyor found them in a glass of water does not indicate any failure on the part of Petitioner to adhere to required nursing home procedures; The lock on a treatment cart was only broken for a couple of hours and was repaired as soon as possible. During the time the lock was broken, the cart was in the nurse's station and observable by nurses on duty; Stains on the walls were fully explained as the result of roof leaks which had recently been repaired and Petitioner was simply waiting for a good rain to insure the leak was fixed before repainting; There was no dust or soap residue on chair lifts, but rather a small amount of powder used on patients was identified by the surveyors; In-service training was promptly given to all aides about washing their hands after treating each patient; An unidentified cart noticed in the new linen room was simply the cart used to carry new linen to the laundry for washing before use; An unidentified, undated bottle of liquid on the medication cart was apple juice given to patients to assist them in taking their medication; The door to the janitor's closet was not left open, but rather the door had been closed but the lock had not engaged; In service training was promptly given to aides concerning leaving unattended bottles of germicide and cups of liquid soap in patients' bathrooms. In his memo dated March 14, 1985, Robert W. Smith recommended that Petitioner be given a "superior" rating for the time in question. Smith supervised nursing home surveyors including Farrar and Monaghan. Robert Maryanski was Smith's superior and had the final authority on rating decisions. Yvonne Opfell, Vice Chairperson of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council, testified that one-fourth of all complaints in the Orlando area the Council received in 1984 involved Petitioner's facility. The Council investigates every complaint received and found most complaints against Petitioner to be "not substantiated." However, several were found to be "substantiated" including one which was substantiated by Adult Protective Services involving an incident in August, 1984 in which a patient was allegedly dropped and suffered a broken arm. Henry McLaulin investigated this incident for Adult Protective Services and testified that Petitioner was less than cooperative with him in this investigation. However, based on the evidence received, including the testimony of Uhrig and Karen Skadering, a physical therapist who worked with this patient in August, 1984, it has not been proven that aides dropped the patient causing a broken arm. The patient was very weak and dependent, with brittle bones, and according to David Parsons, M.D., a patient in this condition could break a bone simply by turning over in bed through no fault of Petitioner's staff. As District Administrator of Respondent, Paul Snead, Jr. expressed his concerns about Petitioner's rating in a memo dated November 26, 1984. Snead testified at the hearing about these concerns and his feeling that Petitioner-should not be given a "superior" rating. He also admitted he has never visited Petitioner's facility. In addition to the incident in August, 1984 involving a patient's broken bone discussed above in Finding of Fact 9, Snead reported complaints about scabies at Petitioner's facility during 1984. Based upon the testimony of Charlotte Uhrig, Petitioner's Administrator, Bob Duncan, a pharmacist, Ruth E. Laughlin, senior community health nurse, and David Parsons, M.D., it is found that scabies did exist on several occasions during 1984 at Petitioner's facility. However, scabies is frequently found in nursing homes, even those rated "superior". It is a highly communicable parasitic condition which can be introduced into a nursing home by patients, family and staff. When the condition was diagnosed, Petitioner took action to eradicate the problem, but due to the lengthy three to six week incubation period and highly contagious nature of this condition, it did take repeated efforts to remove it from the nursing home. Petitioner's efforts were successful, and there is no evidence that the condition continued to exist after November, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner a "superior" rating for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Suite 500, Day Building 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Douglas Whitney, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 9, 10, 11. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 9, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and also as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent, and certified to participate in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent conducted the annual licensure survey of Petitioner during the period August 6-8, 1984 and its findings were transmitted to Petitioner on August 31, 1984, on HRS Form 553. In conducting the annual survey the Respondent pulled a sample of 10 patient records out of a census of 96, census being the number of patients in the facility on a particular day. Of the 10 records pulled and reviewed, 4 of the patients' records indicated that physicians' orders had not been followed. The 4 patients records where physicians orders had not been followed revealed: (a) the failure to apply Lotromin Cream to patient's left foot and toes twice a day for a week as prescribed; (b) the failure to apply Clears eyedrops 4 times daily as prescribed; (c) failure to timely take a potassium blood test as ordered; and (d) failure to timely take a test for occult blood in the stool as ordered. Lotromin Cream prescribed by Dr. Gary Goodman on June 30, 1984 to be applied to the patient's left foot was never administered by Petitioner. Lotromin Cream prescribed in this situation for a fungus condition may improve the conditions but generally, is not a cure. During the time frame of the annual survey, Clears eyedrops were prescribed by Dr. Arthur Barlin for a patient to be administered 4 times a day to the left eye. This order was not followed because the patient had lost his contact lens and the purpose of eyedrops was to lubricate the contact lens. The reason for not administering eye drops was not documented at the time by Petitioner. The test for occult blood in the stool ordered by Dr. Raymond D. Hansen on July 20, 1984 was never taken. A stool specimen is necessary for this test and is usually obtained where there is a bowel movement but there are other methods of obtaining a stool specimen. The patient's bowel movements were irregular and no stool specimen by any method was ever obtained to run this test. However, on July 30, 1984, the patient had a nasogastric tube inserted for tube feeding and the patient's condition improved and it was subsequently determined that the problem was not related to any gastrointestinal bleeding. No further order was given for testing occult blood in stool on this patient. On June 22, 1985 Dr. Samuel A. Pettina ordered a potassium blood level test to be taken in approximately 1 month. This potassium blood level test was not taken until August 7, 1984, approximately 6 weeks after the order when it was brought to Petitioner's attention by a member of the survey team, Carol Edwards. No other potassium blood level test was ordered by the physician for this patient during this period of time. None of the 4 patients suffered any identifiable ill effects in regard to their health as a result of Petitioner's noncompliance with the physicians' orders as prescribed. 10 Under a previous Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification a NH-68 violation was considered to be a Class II deficiency unless the surveyor could justify to the Director that it deserved another classification. This survey was conducted under a different Director and the memorandum classifying a NH-68 violation as a Class II deficiency was no longer being used. Carol Edwards, a member of the survey team, requested from Barbara Ladd (Ladd) Director of Nursing, the following information in regard to the staffing of orderlies and aides for the 6 months (February - July, 1984) previous to the survey: (a) the census of patients for each day of 1 week, the week to be picked by Ladd, for each of the previous 6 months; and (b) the actual number of orderlies and aides on any 2 of 3 shifts for each day, the shifts to be picked by Ladd, for each week selected in (a) above. Barbara Ladd collected this information and calculated the adjusted census for Carol Edwards. Based on the adjusted census provided by Barbara Ladd, Carol Edwards then calculated the minimum staffing requirements for orderlies and aides for each shift on each day in the weeks selected by Ladd for the previous 6 months. Based on this information, the Petitioner failed to substantially exceed the minimum staffing requirements for aides and orderlies on 5 out of 14 shifts during the week of February 13-19, 1984, on 6 out of the 14 shifts during the week of March 5-11, 1984, on 4 out of 14 shifts during the week of April 9-15, 1984 and on 1 out of 14 shifts during the week of June 11-17, 1984. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 shows Petitioner substantially exceeding the minimum staffing requirements for aides and orderlies on the p.m. and night shifts during the July, 1984 and during June, 1984 with the exception of the night shift on June 1 and 4, 1984, and the P.M. shift on June 22, 1984. While Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 shows Petitioner substantially exceeding the minimum staffing requirements for orderlies and aides, calculated on a monthly basis by hours, in all shifts for February, March, April, May, June, and July, 1984 with the exception of the a.m. shift in February and March, 1984, the more credible evidence is contained in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 since they are calculated by shifts on a daily basis. The record is not clear, but it appears that Respondent considers exceeding the minimum requirements by 10 percent satisfies the language "substantially exceeds" the minimum requirements. The testimony of Ladd in regard to aides and orderlies assisting patients beyond their normal duties was credible and could be considered as demonstrating "unusually effective functioning" of orderlies and aides. This testimony was supported by documents in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 from members of patients' families and from the aides. The record is unclear but apparently the Respondent did not consider whether or not orderlies and aides had demonstrated "unusually effective functioning" but was concerned more with staffing and whether the minimum staffing requirements had been substantially exceeded.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order classifying the NH-68 violation as a Class II deficiency and denying Petitioner a Superior Rating. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 5th day of August,1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Suite 500, Day Building 605 East Robinson Street P. O. Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gerry Clark, Esquire District VII Legal Counsel 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 David Pingree Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Sections 400.23(4) and 400.141, Florida Statutes (1979), and Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to correct alleged deficiencies in its nursing center; and whether Respondent should he penalized.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. is licensed to operate southside Nursing Center at 40 Acme Street in Jacksonville, Florida and is under the direction and charge of a licensed administrator, Raymond R. Savage. The nursing home was built in 1965 and has been in operation since that date. It has 119 beds and is usually fully occupied with elderly people. On December 30, 1980 an Administrative Complaint was served on Mr. Savage notifying him that after 30 days from receipt of the complaint Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services intended to impose a civil penalty of $2,000 upon the nursing home for alleged violations of the statutes and rules of Florida pertaining to nursing homes. Respondent was cited for the following: Corridor to office windows have wired glass panels in aluminum frames with glass areas exceeding 1,296 square inches; Two doors between kitchen and the dining room do not have any automatic positive latching hardware and the window from the kitchen to the accounting office is wired glass in an aluminum frame exceeding 1,296 square inches; Eight skylights are not boxed in vertically with a one-hour fire rated sheathing and the steel roof structure is unprotected from fire through the plastic panels. The dining room and lobby have six built-in ceiling light fixtures; nurses station #2 has two built-in light fixtures and nurses station #1 has one built-in light fixture; arts and crafts room has two built-in fixtures, all of which compromise the one-hour fire rated ceiling assembly; and Smoke detectors have not been tested and logged in conjunction with the weekly fire alarm system tests. On January 9, 1981 Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At the bearing Petitioner called one witness and offered one exhibit which was entered as evidence. The Administrator, Mr. Savage, testified on behalf of Respondent. An inspector for Petitioner made an on-site inspection of the subject nursing home on September 6, 1979 and filed his report on September 15, 1979. He listed certain deficiencies and classes of deficiencies and designated the date of October 10, 1980 as the date by which the deficiencies must be corrected (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). Inspection on September 24, 1980 showed that tests of the smoke detectors were being made and logged as required and for which Respondent had been cited in violation (d), Page 2 supra, but no changes had been made as to violations (a) , (b) and (c). On both occasions the inspector informed Respondent's administrator of each alleged violation, but Respondent failed to change the structural deficiencies outlined by Petitioner. Respondent admitted that the violations of the Life Safety Code cited by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint existed and stated that they had existed since the building had been constructed. They were first called to his attention in 1978 but, except for the smoke detectors, he had not rectified the alleged deficiencies and felt they were no danger. He said that if he complied with the subject requirements of the statutes and rules the home would not look as good as it presently does. Mr. Savage noted that he had recently corrected the violation noted in (d) , Page 2 supra. Petitioner acknowledged that reports on tests of the smoke detectors as required by the statutes and rules were being made at the time of hearing. Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order, which instrument has been considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services assess a penalty against Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc., doing business as Southside Nursing Center, of $500 for each of the three (3) violations of Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, prohibited and continuing on the date of the formal hearing. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 9th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Raymond R. Savage, Administrator Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. d/b/a Southside Nursing Center 40 Acme Street at Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency care for a nursing home resident in respiratory distress in violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 483.25 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect as of the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the State of Florida. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 830 West 29th Street, Orlando, Florida (the facility). Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of the facility on September 14, 2001. The survey cited the facility for a deficiency described in F309, and rated the deficiency with a scope and severity of "G" and Class II, respectively. The deficiency classifications authorized in Subsection 400.23(8) range from Class I through Class IV. Class I deficiencies are not relevant to this case. The statute defines the remaining classifications as follows: A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has 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. . . . A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines will result in no more than minimal physical, mental or psychosocial discomfort to the resident or has the potential to compromise the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined. . . . A Class IV deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident. . . . Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the state of Florida to adhere to federal regulations found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, Rule 59A-4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. The "G" rating adopted by Petitioner for the scope and severity rating of the deficiency alleged in F309 is a rating authorized in relevant federal regulations. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated. Applicable state law authorizes Petitioner to change a facility's licensure rating from standard to conditional whenever Petitioner alleges that a Class II deficiency exists. Petitioner alleged in the survey report that a Class II deficiency existed at the facility and assigned a conditional rating to the facility's license. The conditional rating was effective September 14, 2001, and continued until substantial compliance was achieved. When Petitioner proves that a Class II deficiency exists, applicable law authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil money penalty. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking to impose a fine of $2,500.00 and subsequently filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The allegations on which both the change in license status to a conditional license and the proposed fine are based are set forth in F309. The deficiency alleged in F309 is set forth on CMS Form 2567, entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" (the 2567). The 2567 that Petitioner used to charge Respondent with the deficiency described in F309 involved only one resident. In order to protect this resident's privacy, the 2567, F309, the Transcript, and all pleadings refer to the resident as Resident 1. F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25. In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Use F309 for quality of care deficiencies not covered by 483.25(a)-(m). F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 CFR Section 483.25 because: Based on interview and record review the facility neglected to provide appropriate emergency care for [Resident 1] in respiratory distress and failure. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the Manual). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The facility admitted Resident 1 to the pediatric long-term care unit on November 20, 2000. The admitting diagnosis was cerebral palsy, pneumonia and convulsions, a tracheostomy, and a gastrostomy. Resident 1 could breathe on her own and was being weaned from the trach. She could breathe through her nose at times. She was not on a ventilator but could breathe room air. At all times, Resident 1 was making respiratory effort. Resident 1 was on an apnea monitor. Resident 1 had three stomas. Stomas are the openings for the tracheostomy tube. Her throat structures were very frail. She had received numerous throat reconstructions. She had significant scar tissue and a granuloma at her stoma sites. A granuloma is a tumor-like growth. The granuloma was vascular, and the blood vessels were easily broken. Resident 1 was spastic as a result of her cerebral palsy. On September 7, 2001, at 2:50 a.m., Resident 1's apnea monitor alarm sounded. Staff immediately responded to find that Resident 1 had pulled out her tracheostomy tube and was bleeding profusely. Facility staff called 911 and notified the treating physician and the parents. An ambulance was dispatched to the facility at 2:51 a.m. on September 7, 2001. While awaiting the ambulance, the Registered Nurse on duty (RN) could not detect an apical or radial pulse. The RN did not administer CPR. Rather, the RN established an airway by successfully replacing the tracheostomy tube. Securing a patent airway was the first thing that the RN should have done for Resident 1 under the circumstances. No oxygen can be given without a patent airway. It was difficult for the RN to visualize the trach opening because of the profuse bleeding. The RN was able to tactilely reinsert the tube. Vital signs taken by the RN showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. CPR is not appropriate when vital signs are present. The ambulance and EMT personnel arrived shortly after the RN reinserted the trach tube. At 2:56 a.m., EMT personnel took over the care of Resident 1. EMT personnel worked on Resident 1 for 23 minutes before transporting her to the hospital. Resident 1 died at the hospital at 3:35 a.m., 38 minutes after the EMTs took responsibility for her care. EMT personnel generated EKG strips indicating that Resident 1's heart was beating at some point after they took over. Two sets of x-rays subsequently taken at the hospital substantiate that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel took over her care. EMT personnel removed the trach the nurse had inserted and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. Removing the trach eliminated the airway that the RN had established for Resident 1 before EMT personnel arrived. The endotracheal tube was 22 centimeters long and significantly longer and larger than the regular trach tube used for Resident 1. The physician's order for Resident 1 stated that nothing should go past 6 centimeters into Resident 1's trach. It took the EMTs three attempts to get the endotracheal tube placed. The EMTs should have hyperventilated Resident 1 before placing the endotracheal tube. They did not do so. The x-ray taken at 3:42 a.m. in the hospital, shows that the endotracheal tube was improperly positioned in Resident 1's lung. All steps taken by the RN were appropriate for Resident 1 under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between any act or omission by the facility and the harm to Resident 1. The care plan for Resident 1 called for suctioning of her tracheal tube. Care plans are to be followed under normal circumstances. Emergency procedures take precedence in critical situations. Suctioning for Resident 1 was appropriate under normal circumstances when she had a patent airway. If Resident 1 did not have an airway, the first priority is to establish an airway. The RN first established a patent airway for Resident 1. It would have been inappropriate for the RN to suction Resident 1 before establishing an airway because it would have sucked out the air remaining in Resident 1's lungs. Suctioning also could have caused a vasovagal response that could stop the heart and could have caused tissue damage. After the RN opened an airway for Resident 1, the next priority would have been for the RN to check for vital signs. The RN checked Resident 1's vital signs after opening an airway, and the vital signs showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. The presence of vital signs made it inappropriate for either the RN or EMT personnel to administer CPR. CPR is appropriate only in the absence of vital signs. When EMT personnel arrived, they continued the same procedure that the RN had followed. EMT first established an airway by removing the trach tube used by the RN and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. The resident had vital signs after placement of the trach and CPR was inappropriate. F282 relates to failure to implement a care plan. Respondent was not cited under F282. Petitioner stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation that both the conditional license and fine were based on F309 alone.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in F309 and the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint, and changing Respondent's conditional license to a standard license effective September 4, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, Room 3106 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. Post Office Box 2011 2180 Park Avenue, North Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
