Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jean L. Hammer, was at all times material hereto a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0588011. In October 1986, respondent was employed by Pinewood Lodge, a treatment center for alcohol and drug rehabilitation, as a staff nurse on the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift. Respondent was the only employee on duty during her shift, and was responsible for monitoring the patients for signs of distress, noting their progress on the medical records, and administering prescribed medications. For such services, respondent was paid $27,000 per annum; a salary consistent with that paid a registered nurse (R.N.) at the facility. In January 1987, respondent was offered and accepted the position of Supervisor of Nurses at Pinewood Lodge. The staffing of this position required the services of and provided an annual salary of $25,000 and other benefits. Respondent occupied this position until July 1987 when it was discovered that she was not a registered nurse and was discharged. The respondent's personnel file at Pinewood Lodge demonstrates that in seeking and gaining employment at the facility respondent represented herself to be a licensed registered nurse, the recipient of a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh, and the recipient of an Associate in Science Nursing degree from Broward Community College. Such representations were false, and the documents submitted to support such representations were forgeries. The proof further demonstrates that respondent assumed the title of R.N., routinely signed documents in a manner that identified her as an R.N., and otherwise led the public and associates to believe that she was licensed as a registered nurse; all for pecuniary gain. While there was no showing that anything untoward occurred during the course of her tenure at Pinewood Lodge, respondent knew her actions were improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending respondent's license for one year, that following such suspension respondent be placed on probation for two years subject to such terms and conditions as the board may specify, and imposing an administrative fine against respondent in the sum of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 4. 3-4. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraph 4. 7-8. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 5. 9. Addressed in paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Raymond Shope, Esquire John S. Cobb Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard Smith, Esquire 1258 South State Road 7 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33317-5989 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Professional Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner meets the academic requirements for licensure as a registered nurse in Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Board of Nursing, has been the state agency responsible for the licensing of registered and licensed practical nurses in Florida and the regulation of the nursing profession in this state. On November 25, 1998, while residing in France, Petitioner, Pascal Canesse, filled out an application for nursing licensure (DH Form 1204. 8/98), seeking licensure by examination as a registered nurse in Florida which he submitted in January 1999. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated, and it is found, that: Petitioner attended the nursing program at Institute Formation en Soins Infirmiers (the Institute) in France from 1993 - 1995, The Official Transcript submitted by the Institute does not list classroom instruction or clinical practice in obstetrics. The Training Sessions, or clinical practice, portion of the Official Transcript submitted by the Institute includes a breakdown of 350 hours of surgery training that includes the following subject areas: emergency polyvalent intensive care digestive surgery and urology The Form B submitted by the Institute states that Petitioner had 600 hours of classroom instruction and 490 hours of clinical practice in surgical nursing. The Training Sessions, or clinical practice, portion of the Official Transcript submitted by the Institute lists a total of 1,715 hours of training. The theoretical Assessment portion of the Official Transcript submitted by the Institute does not include the number of hours of instruction but breaks down the training to include nursing care to patients in the following categories: psychosis patients patients with breathing problems patients with ENT-stomatology- dermamtology troubles patients with endocrinous troubles patients with digestive troubles patients with troubles of the nutriment duct pediatrics and child psychiatry elderly patients with neuropsychiatry troubes elderly patients patients with nervous system troubles patients in emergencies-intensive care-blood transfusions patients with hematology/urology/nephrology troubles In answer to question 6 on his application, Petitioner stated that he completed 40 hours of training in obstetrical nursing under the categories listed on the transcript. The Form B - Transcript of Nursing Education in a Foreign Country submitted by the Institute and relating to Petitioner reflects that he received 40 hours of classroom instruction in obstetrical nursing. No hours of clinical practical in obstetrical nursing are reflected. In correspondence to the Board dated June 10, 1999, Petitioner set forth his explanation of the discrepancies in the application, Form B, and his transcript. Petitioner contends that when he filled out his application and the supporting documentation therefor, he listed 525 hours of clinical medical nursing practice and 490 hours of clinical surgical nursing practice. While he reflected 40 hours of instruction in obstetric nursing, he failed to indicate any obstetric clinical practice. He claims the number of hours claimed as being in medical/surgical area comprises the number of hours in both, including obstetrics. His failure to enter any clinical practice in the obstetrics area was the result of a combination of that discipline with medical/surgical training as is done in France. This reflects clinical hours only. His claim of 40 hours training is for classroom work in obstetrics only. It is not combined with surgery. It would have been much clearer if he had marked down the course he took rather than just the hours taken. A review of the Official Transcript provided by the Institute to be submitted to the Florida authorities in support of Petitioner’s application clearly fails to specifically indicate any obstetrical training. The "Addendum to Transcript" dated May 4, 1999, reflects 70 hours of obstetric classroom in addition to two weeks' clinical obstetrics experience. This is different from the surgical nursing that had been combined with surgical nursing on the Form B originally submitted. Other documentation from the Institute, a letter dated June 25, 1999, indicates that two "weeks" is equivalent to 70 hours. That same letter notes that much of the training in France is hospital-based with a significant amount of training being clinical in nature with a heavy emphasis in surgery. The French authorities claim that those surgical hours are comprehensive, and it is in that curriculum that the students receive clinical and classroom obstetrics training, with the clinical portion being a full two weeks - that is, "a minimum of 70 hours." Petitioner also introduced a syllabus for the module in the Institute’s nursing training program which relates to gynecology. This reflects the areas covered and includes a significant amount of information apparently related to obstetrics and childbirth. The syllabus reflects an extensive amount of clinical instruction over the three years of nursing training. However, again, the supporting documentation does not clearly quantify that portion of the training which deals with obstetrics, nor does it show where the training is integrated into the surgical nursing training as claimed by Petitioner. Petitioner was unable to convincingly recall at which point in the three-year training program he took the required clinical obstetrics training. At one point, in his deposition, he claimed it was integrated in his emergency medicine training. At hearing, however, he claimed it was integrated with medical surgical training. The fact that the obstetrical clinic may have been integrated with another service is not, of itself, disqualifying. The Board of Nursing accepts integrated nursing training, under certain conditions. When course integration is claimed, however, the Board requires the submission of a detailed course outline that delineates where the specific course content, here, obstetrics, is presented. Further, the Board considers the integration of obstetrics with emergency surgery as inappropriate because the basic nature of the disciplines is not the same. While one is reactive, the other is pro-active. No doubt, Petitioner was exposed to an obstetrics curriculum which included both classroom and clinical instruction. From the state of the evidence presented, however, it is impossible to determine the breadth and content of this exposure. According to Ms. Jacobsen, the Board’s nursing education director, staff which reviewed Petitioner’s application was concerned over the unexplained inconsistency in the supporting documentation submitted therewith. None of the information on the various submitted documentation matched. On its Notice of Educational Deficiencies dated May 20, 1999, it was suggested that Petitioner have his school write a letter explaining the discrepancy. The Institute’s letter of June 25, 1999 asserts that the required clinical training was provided, but does not define with any particularity at which point in the training the obstetrics discipline is treated. It appears to be integrated into the surgical clinical training, but from the state of the documentation presented, the particulars cannot be determined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that Petitioner’s application to sit for examination for licensure as a registered nurse in Florida be denied until he provides sufficient explanation of the clinical training he received in obstetrical nursing or proof of completion of the required training at an alternative approved site. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Doris A. Bunnell, Esquire 608 15th Street, West Bradenton, Florida 34205 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Large, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Ruth Stiehl, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Recommendation It is recommended that the license held by the Respondent, Rachael Ross Washington, to be a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, number 15136-1, be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Rachael Washington 2461 West 25th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Duval County Legal Aid Association 205 East Church Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues, Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida under license number 1262382 and was employed as a registered nurse at University Hospital of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. On the late afternoon or early evening of March 14, 1984, a female patient was brought into the emergency room at University Hospital suffering from an overdose of asthma medicine for which the prescribed treatment was dialysis to cleanse the blood of the drug. When the hospital personnel had determined that adequate dialysis had been accomplished the patient was removed from the dialysis machine. A patient is affixed to a dialysis machine through the insertion of tubes into a vein and artery which facilitates the removal and replacement of the blood being cleansed. When the catheters are removed, it is necessary that pressure be applied to the place of insertion for a period of time to allow clotting sufficient to stop bleeding from the vein or artery. Generally, the pressure is administered by a nurse physically applying pressure to the immediate area. This patient did not respond properly, however. As a result, Dr. Mendez-Vigo was called to examine her. He determined that because of her blood loss, a transfusion was appropriate, which he ordered, and then left the treatment area. Approximately ten minutes later, he was called again and advised that the patient's blood pressure was dropping and that the dialysis nurse, the nurse that was attending the patient at the time, needed him. Dr. Mendez-Vigo advised the nurse to start a saline solution and indicated he would come to the dialysis unit, where the patient was being treated, as soon as possible. The dialysis of this patient was accomplished in the dialysis room which is located contiguous to and immediately off the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) in the hospital. Ordinarily, the dialysis room, which opens onto the ICU is not manned. It is however, generally fully equipped with its own supplies and equipment and when this patient was placed on the dialysis machine, she was moved to this dialysis unit and tended by a nurse, Ms. Domingo, whose sole job was in the dialysis unit. Ms. Domingo was called to come in from off-duty to attend to the patient in question and arrived at the dialysis unit at approximately 5:15 p.m. When she arrived, she found the patient stable, and the only treatment required at the time was pressure to the groin area as described above to promote clotting until the bleeding stopped. After Dr. Mendez-Vigo started the transfusion and left, as described above, the patient became restless and started sweating, which prompted Ms. Domingo to stop the flow of blood. This took place at approximately 6:00 p.m. Once she stopped the inflow of blood, she wanted to remove the needle through which the blood was being inserted, but because she was unable to remove the pressure from the patient's groin area and because she was alone in the dialysis unit, she called for help from those nurses assigned to the ICU. At first, no one responded, but shortly thereafter, after a second call for assistance, Nurse O'Brien did come in. Ms. O'Brien was, at the time, one of several nurses assigned to duty on the ICU and had worked there just a few days. She and Respondent, the nurse in charge of the unit, were the only two registered nurses on duty, along with several licensed practical nurses (LPN's). However, at the time in question, Respondent was off the unit at dinner and Ms. O'Brien is not sure where the LPN's were. When she heard the dialysis nurse call for help, she went into that room and saw the situation. Ms. Domingo told her that the patient looked to be in shock - sweating, with a high pulse rate, very low blood pressure, and in a semi-conscious state. At this point, Ms. O'Brien immediately opened up the IV point to put in a saline solution, then went outside the dialysis room to get equipment to start another intravenous line (IV), and to page Dr. Mendez-Vigo. When she brought back the equipment she needed and tried to start the second IV, she experienced difficulty because of the patient's low blood pressure. At this point, she asked another nurse from the ICU to speed the doctor up. At this time, in her opinion, the patient was extremely unstable and near critical. It was then that Ms. O'Brien first saw the Respondent. She told him she was going into the dialysis unit to help out. Respondent did not follow, but instead went to the nurse's station on the ICU from which he could see the door to the dialysis room and called to Ms. O'Brien telling her she was not to go into the dialysis unit since it was a separately staffed unit. Ms. O'Brien responded to the effect that while this might be the case, the patient was sick and needed help and she was going to give it. In response, Respondent told her several times that she was not to be in the dialysis room. Ms. O'Brien finally told Respondent that she was going to do what she had to do regardless of what he- said. She further contends that when Dr. Mendez-Vigo finally returned her call, Respondent took the call and spoke with the doctor but refused to tell Ms. O'Brien what the doctor said until she came out of the dialysis room to talk to him. To do so, she had to leave the patient with whom she was working to go to the nurse's station and get the message from the doctor which had been given to Respondent. When Dr. Mendez-Vigo arrived at the dialysis unit, he saw the Respondent and two other nurses in the ICU area. He went into the dialysis unit and observed the dialysis nurse still applying pressure to the artery and one other nurse, subsequently identified as O'Brien. At this point, Respondent and the other nurses in the ICU were standing around in that unit not assisting in the dialysis area. When he arrived, Dr. Mendez-Vigo found the patient to be nearly unconscious with a high pulse rate and low blood pressure. He suspected a transfusion reaction and because of that, started action to counteract that situation. Because both nurses in the dialysis room were totally occupied by the patient, he needed help to get other things ready for treating the patient. For example, he needed to get additional equipment, additional IV lines had to be prepared; and solutions had to be mixed. Both Ms. Domingo and Ms. O'Brien seemed to him to be upset because it appeared Respondent had attempted to keep the other ICU nurses from helping in the dialysis room when they were needed because the patient was not an ICU patient. During the initial telephone conversation between Dr. Mendez-Vigo and Respondent, the doctor requested Respondent to secure certain supplies. When the doctor got to the dialysis unit and saw the condition of the patient, he took a blood sample, which he asked Respondent to take to the lab for identification for transfusions. Respondent failed to respond to any of the doctor's requests. Another resident, Dr. Curran, was called into the dialysis from by Dr. Mendez-Vigo when she came to the ICU that same evening. On at least one occasion, after she started to work on this particular patient, she walked out to the nursing station of the ICU and asked Respondent for help. At that point he refused, stating that he was busy and responsible for all the other patients and could not leave. As a result, Dr. Curran took the blood to the lab for what lab work was necessary. When she got back from the lab, she asked Respondent where she could get MAST trousers for the patient and if he would call the emergency room to inquire. Respondent refused to do this, requiring Dr. Curran to do it herself. When she was advised that the operating room might have them and started to place that call, at that point, Respondent did make the call to try to secure what she needed. During the course of his treatment of the patient, Dr. Mendez-Vigo had occasion to attempt to use the cardiac monitor that was a part of the equipment in the dialysis room. It is unclear whether the doctor did not know how to operate the equipment or whether it did not work. In any event, the doctor requested the Respondent to get a portable monitor that was a part of the ICU's equipment. Respondent refused this request initially on the basis that the patient was a dialysis patient rather than an ICU patient, and that his instructions were that ICU equipment could not be used for dialysis patients. Notwithstanding his initial refusal, Respondent ultimately did provide the requested monitor, however. Dr. Mendez-Vigo's recollection of the incident was that the Respondent's total response was that since the patient was not an ICU patient, he could not help out and do what was necessary since he was assigned to ICU, not dialysis. He reportedly stated that he could get into trouble if he did. According to the doctor, however, none of the other patients in the ICU needed immediate attention so that, in his opinion, Respondent or some other member of his staff could have assisted in the treatment of this critically ill patient. What was unknown to Respondent at the time was that the patient had been identified for admission to the ICU, and orders to that effect had been written by Dr. Mendez-Vigo though the formal process of admission had not taken place. As was stated, this information regarding proposed admission had not been communicated to Respondent or the other ICU nurses even though the information was contained on the patient's chart which was with her in the dialysis room during this period of time. If Respondent had gone in to help as requested and looked at the chart, he would have seen this. According to Ms. O'Brien, through all the period of requests for help prior to the arrival of the doctor, and even through the period of requests for assistance and equipment after the arrival of the doctors, Respondent did not come into the dialysis room to see the patient's condition for himself. It was only after Dr. Mendez-Vigo started the neck IV line that the Respondent came into the dialysis room, and when he saw the patient he said something to the effect of, "Oh, I didn't know she was so sick." This was 20 to 25 minutes after the original call for help. Sometime after the incident, Respondent went to Ms. O'Brien and apologized to her for not responding more quickly and for trying to get her out of the dialysis room when he returned from dinner. At that time, he said his resistance was based on the fact that he did not want her to get into trouble. He also told her that if she intended to report the incident, he would just go ahead and submit his resignation because he had been in trouble previously and this would hurt him. Respondent's demands to Ms. O'Brien to come out of the room when she was in assisting Ms. Domingo, prior to the arrival of the doctor, were heard clearly by Ms. Domingo. Ms. Domingo also overheard the doctor ask Respondent to help hook the patient up to the monitor and overheard Respondent's initial refusal. What was most puzzling to Ms. Domingo was that though she had never dealt with Respondent prior to this time, whenever she had asked for help from the ICU nurses previously, she had always gotten it. According to another nurse on the ICU that evening, Ms. Bowers, who was on her break at the time of O'Brien's first confrontation with Respondent, emergency situations requiring help from the ICU personnel were not frequent and this was the first emergency situation she knew of involving Respondent. In this case, she was not aware of any "code" being announced, nor overheard the argument between Respondent and Ms. O'Brien. She had been in the ICU for an hour prior to this time and during that entire period, had received no request from Ms. Domingo for help. She had not previously been asked for assistance and until she became aware of the problem by overhearing the dispute referenced above, she had no idea there was an emergency situation in the dialysis room. Frank B. Bellamy works as a nurse manager at University Hospital for the ICU. As a part of his job, he oversees and evaluates nursing services in the ICU and was doing so at the time of the incident in question. To his knowledge, at that time, there was no written policy on support of the dialysis unit by the ICU. However, the oral instructions given to ICU personnel were that ICU equipment and supplies were not be used in routine cases in the dialysis unit - only in emergency cases. In an emergency case, anything could be used. The job description drafted for registered nurses in University Hospital does not delineate any separation for jobs between ICU and the dialysis unit, but it was generally followed at the time in question that ICU nurses did not help out in the dialysis room in routine situations. However, in an emergency situation, ICU nurses could and should help--out. In Mr. Bellamy's opinion, in the instant case, as the fact situation existed, extra help was needed and the ICU nurses, including Respondent, could have and should have helped out if this assistance could be provided without jeopardizing the patients in the ICU. In such a case, the ICU nurse would have called the nursing supervisor, reported the situation, and requested help. In his opinion, Respondent's conduct in this case was unprofessional misconduct. It was not negligence but willful misconduct in that the Respondent refused to render assistance in an emergency situation and attempted to prevent Ms. O'Brien from doing so as well. Both of these are evidence of willful misconduct. In addition, in an emergency situation, the Respondent's failure to provide the portable monitor in a timely fashion was both unprofessional and unsafe in that the ability of the physician to determine cardiac rhythm is crucial. Nurses are obliged to acknowledge physician's orders and, if considered safe, to follow them. In emergency situations, according to Mr. Bellamy, it is negligence and unprofessional conduct not to provide assistance and equipment to a doctor upon request. Here, in the professional opinion of Mr. Bellamy, the Respondent's failure to provide the requested assistance to the doctor was critical and constituted negligence and unprofessional misconduct. The mere fact that the Respondent delayed responding is negligence because in an emergency situation, as here, time can be and was of the essence. Respondent made much of the need for the charge nurse to oversee the patients on the ICU. In fact, these checks by the charge nurse, the job which Respondent was filling at the time, were done only every 10 or 15 minutes, and assuming that this was necessary and critical on a routine schedule, there was still ample time between the checks for the Respondent to respond to the dialysis unit. Here it is clear that Respondent was asked for help and either refused to give it all, or failed to respond in a timely fashion. It is also clear that Respondent refused to provide equipment and other supplies, even though under the guidelines in place at the time, and which, though oral, had been briefed to the ICU nurses, this situation was one where he could have properly done so. With regard to Respondent's contention that he had been told that he was not to go into the dialysis unit to help, Ms. Kamienski, the Director of Nursing who helped to interview Respondent when he was hired, advised him that the dialysis section was responsible for routine care but that it was placed where it was, contiguous to the ICU, so that ICU nurses could help out in an emergency. She categorically denies ever telling Respondent that dialysis was to get no help, nor that he was never to go in there. As Director of Nursing, Ms. Kamienski received the complaint about the Respondent in the incident in question, and on the basis of the complaint did some investigation. She determined from her interview of the physicians and nurses involved, that the allegations were true and Respondent's conduct was inappropriate. In her opinion, any registered nurse who has the knowledge and skills (and, as here, the resources) to render aid and assistance in a need situation, who does do so and who, as here, attempts to hinder aid, is guilty of negligence and should not practice nursing in the State of Florida. Ms. Kamienski is satisfied that Respondent used poor judgment in this assistance. He should have either helped out himself or assigned someone on the unit to assist and he did neither. Also, he could have contacted the house supervisor to get help either for his unit or for the dialysis unit and failed to do that. In her opinion, his conduct was unprofessional and insubordinate. He had the responsibility to help out in a life threatening situation and failed to do so. Admittedly, the dialysis unit had been requested to use its own equipment and supplies, but in a life threatening situation, they were to get anything they needed. This is now, and was the policy at University Hospital, and to the knowledge of Ms. Kamienski, a similar policy is found in almost any hospital. It is a general standard of practice in nursing to use whatever is needed from wherever located in an emergency situation. Here, Respondent's delaying tactics in making the telephone calls at the request of physicians, was unprofessional conduct because of the life threatening situation. Death to the patient could be imminent in a situation such as this, and Respondent had a duty to respond in a timely fashion. Respondent also makes much of the fact that none of the other nurses in the ICU offered assistance and that nothing was done to them. The fact is that none of the other nurses were asked for help, nor were they asked for supplies and equipment by physicians, nor did they interfere to tell Ms. O'Brien to come out. As to the monitor, Ms. Kamienski feels that while admittedly it is not Respondent's responsibility to ensure that the dialysis monitor was working, under the circumstances of this incident, when he was asked for a portable monitor in an emergency situation, he should have provided it and not argued about whether the dialysis monitor was working or not. In the opinion of Ms. Cayer, a professor of nursing at Jacksonville University, a registered nurse should respond to an emergency and provide whatever assistance is necessary in the situation in the geographical area of the nurse, even if the patient is not the nurse's patient. Having had an opportunity to review the extensive documentation which outlines the situation here and what Respondent did and failed to do, and which fairly reflects the facts in evidence, she concluded that the patient here was unstable and rapidly declining; this was very near or actually was a severe emergency, and there was a need for help. Ms. Cayer was made aware of a hypothetical situation which very closely parallels the factual situation in this case. Based on this hypothetical situation, she concludes that the Respondent in that case was negligent because: (1) when the nurse in question arrived on the scene, he should have gone into the dialysis unit, assessed the situation, and made staffing changes to help out and meet the situation, all of which he failed to do (he needed to gain the knowledge of what the needs were and to take action to meet those needs); (2) he improperly attempted to get the nurse (Ms. O'Brien) to come out of the dialysis room without assessing the situation and its needs (by the time he knew that the blood pressure was low and communicated this information to Dr. Mendez-Vigo, he surely must have known there was a problem); (3) while it would not have been proper for him to leave the floor to go to the blood bank himself, it was unprofessional of him not to arrange for someone else to go in light of the fact that he could have done so; (4) as to the monitor situation, he should have followed up on the request for an additional monitor to see why the request was made (If he had done so, it would have shown that the monitor was not working and he would have provided a replacement sooner. His failure to follow up on the request and his rejection of it without further inquiry was unprofessional); (5) his failure to communicate effectively in all these respects hindered the staff in their treatment of the patient and was unprofessional conduct. Much the same approach is taken by Dr. Eileen K. Austin, also an expert in the field of nursing, who indicated that nursing education generally teaches that first and foremost the interest of the patient takes precedence over policies and regulations which may be ignored if necessary. Also, the nurse must assess the situation and either provide the needed service or get someone else who can provide it. Emergency procedures care is taught as a part of several courses in nursing education. Nurses are also taught generally that if the need is there, the nurse acts regardless of where the patient is assigned and once in the picture, retains treatment status until relieved. As to the response to physicians, nurses are taught they are to respond promptly unless they suspect it is an improper order which would endanger the patient. Nursing assessment includes observing the patient for signs and condition, to take vital signs, to ensure there is an airway for breathing, and once having made an assessment, either provide or secure help. These basic concepts are universal to nursing training. The course title may vary among nursing schools and among nursing programs, but the subject matter is basically the same and these subjects are, in substance, on the nursing licensing examination. The primary difference between the two-year associate of arts program in nursing and the four-year bachelor program is in the other primarily non-nursing, non-scientific curriculum. Basic nursing material is the same in both. The requirements for the registered nursing license requires certain basic information be taught, and it does not matter through which program these requirements are met. Respondent's reputation is good among the people with whom he currently works. For example, Respondent has worked for JoAnn Hahn at Methodist Hospital as a staff nurse for one year and she has observed his work in both routine and emergency situations in the accomplishment of his duties which are equivalent to being the charge nurse on a particular shift. She finds Respondent to have a very good knowledge of critical care situations and to her knowledge, he has never mis-diagnosed a case. He anticipates medications correctly and has them ready, and he also knows what lines are needed and has them ready. In critical care his performance is above the standards she has observed in other hospitals. In responding to requests from supervisors or doctors, if he agrees with the request, he speaks out, somewhat abruptly sometimes, but this is what she wants her nurses to do. Above all, however, Respondent never lets the patient down, and Ms. Hahn has no reservations whatsoever about his training, ability or performance. When he is on duty, she feels quite safe. Ms. Hahn is aware of the incident in question here, having reviewed the statements regarding it and her knowledge is consistent with the facts in evidence. She has also reviewed the hypothetical situation and based on this, she feels that Respondent's actions in question were not a violation of the Nursing Practices Act. In Ms. Hahn's opinion, Respondent was not incorrect in calling Ms. O'Brien out of the dialysis room because the ICU was, in her opinion, under-manned in light of the serious condition of the patients on the floor, and Respondent did not have a report on the condition of the patient in the dialysis room. As to the monitor situation, she feels the patient should not have been put on the dialysis machine in this case without being put on a monitor as well from the very beginning. Also, the needed IV lines should have already been started prior to the dialysis in case of need. As to Dr. Mendez-Vigo's telephone request to the Respondent to start an IV line, since Ms. O'Brien was already trying to get it started and Respondent could see this, it was not necessary for him to go in and attempt the same thing. The fact that Ms. O'Brien could not accomplish the start and it was necessary for the doctor to start a sub-clavian line is immaterial since a registered nurse would not do that procedure anyway. In short, in light of the condition of the patients on the ICU, Ms. Hahn feels Respondent could not have properly left the unit. He also could not have gotten the blood because he did not have the patient's proper plates or bands as required by the lab. As for the portable monitor, he could have asked why they did not use the monitor they had, but, Ms. Hahn feels the delay based on his understanding of the monitor being in there was "just common sense." Cathy Carvery has known Respondent from the time she hired him at University Hospital. She observed him in his work there in the handling of patients and feels that his competence, training, and other skills are very good. He handled crisis situations very well and knew what he was doing. She, too, has reviewed all the background information on the situation and is familiar with the dialysis room and equipment at University Hospital. In light of the staffing in the ICU at the time, in her opinion, it was not at all improper for the Respondent to have refused to send any more of his staff to the dialysis room. Also, in her opinion, though he could have tried to get the blood as requested, he would not have been able to do so without more information on the patient, which was not available to him. In addition, even if he had tried to insert the IV line as requested by the doctor, the likelihood is great he would not have been able to get it started. What is overlooked by both Ms. Hahn and Ms. Carvery in their exulpatory comments regarding Respondent's failure to assist, failure to go for blood, and failure to attempt to start the IV line as requested, is that though what they say may well be true and that Respondent could not have accomplished anything, the fact is he did not even try. With regard to assisting or providing more help, a telephone call to the supervisor of nursing would have resolved that situation without either he or any more of his people being required. Though he called Ms. Lee, he did so to report what he considered to be Ms. O'Brien's improprieties and at no time requested any help. Though he most likely could not have accomplished getting the blood as requested because of the lack of plates, the fact is that though asked to do so, he did not even try and the same is true with regard to the IV line. It does not matter that the sub-clavian insertion was done by the doctor. Respondent was not asked to insert a sub-clavian catheter. He was asked to attempt an intravenous line and did not even try. It is impossible to say what he would have done if he had attempted to assess the situation and find out what the condition of the patient was as he should have done. He did not, and it this particular especially, he was deficient. With regard to the incident in question, when Respondent came back from dinner he was told by one of the LPN's on staff that Ms. O'Brien was in the dialysis room because a patient was bleeding from an arterial line. In his experience, this was not too serious and in light of the fact that Ms. O'Brien was off the ward, one nurse was out to dinner, another was on duty, and he did not know here the fourth was, he was miffed. As a result of this, he called Ms. O'Brien out of the dialysis room to talk to her and she did not respond to his request. This made him angry. He did not have any responsibility for dialysis patients and his understanding of support to be furnished to the dialysis unit was that he was not to take any equipment in there. In light of his previous chastisement for doing so, he was upset. Though he denies refusing to convey Dr. Mendez-Vigo's message to Ms. O'Brien unless she came out of the dialysis room to get it, it is clear that in light of his admittedly poor frame of mind at the time, he did just that. He also admits to first suggesting, when requested to get another monitor, that they use the one in the dialysis room. Nonetheless, he says he went and got the portable within just a few minutes and hooked the patient up to it. Since Dr. Mendez-Vigo did not ask for any further assistance or give him any additional orders thereafter, he went back to work. When Dr. Curran asked him for the blood from the lab, he asked for a charge plate and was told it was in the dialysis room. He found, however, that the patient had not been admitted and did not have a charge plate, and he would therefore be unable to get the blood requested. He then started the admission process because he felt that when that was accomplished, within a 30-minute period or so, he could then get the blood as requested. As for the MAST trousers, when asked by Dr. Curran to get them, he, because of other duties, could not respond immediately, but did so several minutes later, at which time the request was refused. Dr. Curran, parenthetically, also was refused when she requested the trousers. When, as stated before, Respondent called Ms. Lee, the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. supervisor, to report Ms. O'Brien, he was told to let her stay there. No request for assistance, equipment or supplies was made. On the basis of the investigation by Ms. Kamienski and after consultation with Mr. Bellamy, a recommendation of termination was prepared and delivered to the Respondent. In accordance with the procedures that were in effect at the time, he requested a hearing and one was afforded him. Respondent contends that the hearing was a farce and he was not given the opportunity to confront any of the witnesses or evidence against him. After the hearing was over, he was offered the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination and did so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED, that Respondent's license as a registered nurse in the State of Florida be suspended for one year and that upon completion of the period of suspension, he be reinstated and placed on probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Board of Nursing. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. Haldane Taylor, Esq. 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license to practice nursing should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(h),Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Department of Health (Petitioner) is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapters 20, 120, 455 and 464, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer (Respondent), is now and was at all times material hereto a Licensed Practical Nurse (L.P.N.) in the State of Florida having been issued license no. PN 0448611 in accordance with Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent was employed at Imperial Village Care Center as a L.P.N. for approximately three and one-half years prior to February 21, 1996. Sometime in December 1995 or January 1996, while working the day shift as the floor nurse on Canterbury Hall of the Care Center, Respondent was assigned to care for patient, G. C. Patient, G. C., was an elderly patient who suffered from dementia and other ailments and was not ambulatory. G. C. had contractions of her left leg and left arm and any movement of those extremities caused her pain. G. C. was transported in a wheelchair and screamed, kicked, yelled, hit,and pinched anyone who tried to move her or give her treatment. On the date of the alleged incident, Respondent was ordered to medicate G. C., because she suffered from decubites (bed sores) on the heel of her foot. Respondent was assisted by a C.N.A. who picked up G. C. and placed her on her bed. G. C. became very agitated and began to scream, yell, scratch, hit and pinch Respondent and the C.N.A. Respondent attempted to apply medication to the affected area. While doing so, Respondent wore a protective mitten, used to protect staff from aggressive patients. During this time, the mitten was seen by the C.N.A. in the patient's mouth. The testimony is unclear if Respondent was wiping the saliva from patient's mouth with it, or if Respondent stuffed it in her mouth. The hearsay statement signed by Respondent, but prepared by the Director of Nursing, who did not testify, is not helpful in clarifying what happened. The statement was prepared approximately two months after the alleged incident by a person not present during the incident, and contained matters extraneous to this matter. Respondent has no prior criminal or disciplinary history and denies that she abused the patient in any way. No qualified testimony was offered to prove that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standard of acceptable nursing practice in the treatment of patient, G. C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing find the Respondent not guilty of the charge in the Administrative Complaint, dated September 20, 1996, and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams, & Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive East Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer Route 2, Box 810 Waynesville, Georgia 31566 Pete Peterson Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marilyn Bloss, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue is whether Ms. Battaglia is guilty of violations of the Nursing Practice Act by being unable to account for controlled substances at the close of her shift at a nursing home and by being under the influence of controlled substances during her shift.
Findings Of Fact All findings have been adopted except proposed findings 27 through 33, which are generally rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith V. Battaglia 7819 Blairwood Circle North Lake Worth, Florida 38087 Lisa M. Bassett, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that: Ms. Battaglia be found guilty of the charges of unprofessional conduct in the delivery of nursing services, unlawful possession of controlled substances and impairment; She be fined $250, that she be required to participate in the treatment program for impaired nurses, that her licensure be suspended until she successfully completes that program, and demonstrates the ability to practice nursing with safety, and that she be placed on probation for a period of five years. DONE and ENTERED this 11 day of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11 day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Between November 30, 1977, and December 6, 1977, Prado completed the Board's application for certification as an advanced registered nurse practitioner, in the category of family nurse practitioner. Prado was under the impression that her application was mailed shortly after its completion, however, the person to whom Prado gave the application for mailing did not do so. The application was discovered in Prado's desk on or about April 16, 1978. The application was then mailed to the Board and it was received on May 2, 1978. Among the requirements for certification of advanced registered nurse practitioners contained in Rule 210-11.04, Florida Administrative Code, is satisfactory completion of a formal education program conforming to program guidelines contained in the appendix to the cited Rule. The appendix provides in part that the program of study shall be at least one academic year in length (9 months full-time). On January 1, 1974, Prado completed the University of Miami School of Nursing and Medicine's six month advanced nursing practice course. At one of its meetings the Board established a policy that nurses completing such a program with all requirements except the one academic year length stipulation would, if otherwise qualified, be accepted if their application was made by March 31, 1978. This policy was never adopted as a rule. In fact, all nurses who had taken the same course as that taken by Prado, and who submitted their applications by March 31, 1978, were accepted for certification as advanced registered nurse practitioners. Thee evidence shows that the only difference between the six month course attended by Prado and others and the one year course now required as a condition for acceptance is its calendar length. The substantive content of the two courses is identical. That is to say, the one year course simply takes three months longer to teach the same subject matter as the six month course. The evidence further indicates that, had Prado's application been timely filed, she most probably would have been certified by the Board.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters under consideration here, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, under license #0692631. Cynthia J. Pagonis entered University Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 11, 1983, for a routine laparoscopy to be performed the following morning. Early on the morning of the day of her surgery, April 12, 1983, Respondent, who was one of her nurses, came into her room with two other nurses, one of whom gave her a shot. While this was done, Respondent stood back and observed. Somewhat later, he again came back into her room with a rolling table onto which he told her to climb so he could take her down to the operating room. By this time she was somewhat drowsy from the shot. She asked Respondent what was in it and he told her, whereupon he wheeled her to surgery. After the procedure, that afternoon, Ms. Pagonis recalls him entering her room several times. One time, he checked her I.V. bottle--other times, he did nothing for her and, sleepy as she was, this concerned her because she wanted to sleep and Respondent's visits disturbed her. During this period, other nurses also came in to check her blood pressure or do something else, but Respondent never did anything--just looked. On the final visit, he came in and said he wanted to check her bandage. With this, he lowered her blanket to below her waist to the extent that her pelvic area was exposed. She was wearing a short hospital gown and nothing else. By this time, several hours after surgery, the anesthetic had worn off so that she knew exactly what was happening. After looking at her bandage, in this case no more than a Band-Aid, he pulled the cover back up and, without warning, bent over and kissed her on the cheek. She was upset when he pulled the blanket down because she felt it was inappropriate for him to do it when her dressing had been checked by another nurse shortly before. She also did not think it was appropriate for a male to be in her room without a chaperone. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, he told her he would be off for a few days and for her to take care of herself. Then he left. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, she got angry. She had said nothing to him to lead him on. She had asked him what cologne he was wearing and when he told her, she said it smelled nice, but nothing more. Mr. Pagonis entered his wife's room on the morning of her surgery, both before and after the operation. When he was there before she was taken to the operating room, he saw Respondent in the room and Respondent asked him to leave so they could get his wife ready for the operation. When he came back later, after this incident, he found her nervous and upset. She looked to him as if she had been frightened. When she told him what had happened, that this "black male nurse had repeatedly come into her room and was doing nothing" for her, and that he had pulled down her covers and "got his eyes full," Mr. Pagonis became angry and went out to look for Respondent. He could not find Mills, however, and went through the nursing chain of command until he got to Mrs. Davis, the Director of Medical Nursing, to whom he told the story. Mrs. Davis found Mr. Pagonis to be upset, but rational and controlled. He was, in her words, restrained, gentlemanly, and "quite heroic" about the whole situation. Mrs. Davis was first contacted about the incident, while in her office, by a call from the floor nurse on Mrs. Pagonis' floor. The nurse alerted her that Respondent had made advances to a patient. She immediately went up to that floor and met with Mr. Pagonis, whom she then took downstairs to her office where he told her what his wife had related. She then went back up to Mrs. Pagonis' room, in an effort to be fair to everyone, to see how alert Mrs. Pagonis was and how accurate her observations were. Mrs. Davis found her alert, and a clearheaded woman who, in her opinion, had been free of the effects of anesthesia for quite awhile. Mrs. Pagonis told her what had happened, that Respondent had made an unnecessary check of her I.V., since another nurse had just checked her, and then checked her dressing, as described. Mrs. Davis verified that another nurse had recently checked on Mrs. Pagonis and, after checking the incision, concluded that because it was so minor, there was no legitimate need for Respondent to have done so also. In her professional opinion, based on service as a licensed practical nurse since 1971 and as a registered nurse since 1974, the way in which Respondent checked Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate. The incision and dressing here were so small, it was not necessary to expose the patient all the way to the mons pubis, as Respondent did. In addition, a male nurse should always have a witness present in a situation such as this. As for the kiss, it is a rare situation when it is appropriate for a nurse to kiss a patient. This may be done only in the care of a very old, very young, very sick, long-term patient, where the parties had a long-standing relationship, and the action would be therapeutic. Under the circumstances here, Respondent's kiss of Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate and unprofessional, notwithstanding Respondent's claim he did it, "but only as a friendly gesture." Mrs. Davis requested Mr. Pagonis to make a written statement. When this was done and signed, Mrs. Davis called for Respondent, who, she found, had signed off his regular shift, but was working overtime. She located him and took him back to her office, where she questioned him about the incident. At first he denied it, but subsequently admitted he had kissed Mrs. Pagonis and pulled down her covers, although he claimed he did this in an appropriate manner. She then sent him back to work and thought about the situation for a while. Having made her decision to discharge the Respondent, she prepared the appropriate paperwork, called him back to her office, and did so. The next day, Mills called her and told her he understood why she had done what she did, told her he loved her, and thanked her. During the period he worked at that hospital, she never had any other difficulty with Respondent. He was cooperative and would come in for extra duty when called. She bad received no direct complaints about his relationship with other patients; and though she was not his immediate supervisor, she understood that his performance of his nursing duties was satisfactory. Somewhat later in the year, in June 1983, Respondent was employed as a Float Nurse at the Jacksonville Convalescent Center, specifically on June 19 and 20, 1983. On those days it was, according to Carol R. Hadnot, Director of Nursing at the Center, his responsibility to change the dressings on certain patients. Respondent was present for duty on those dates. During this period, Fay K.F. Bennett, also a nurse at the Center, as a part of her duties, checked the dressing on several of the patients whose dressings were due to be changed. She found that the dressings had not been changed and that the Patients' charts bore initials and date for the last change, a day or two before. The initials on the charts were D.M., which could have been Respondent or Doris Minard. That initial is not significant, however. What is significant is that there was no note on the chart showing that Respondent had changed the dressings during his duty period as he was required to do. This information was reported to Mrs. Hadnot. It is the general policy at Jacksonville Convalescent Center to counsel an employee before taking discharge action here. This was not done here because before Respondent could be counseled, allegations that Respondent had made sexual advances to three nurses' aids were reported to her. She then discussed the situation with the faculty administrator. They decided that because he was still a probationary employee, the allegations described were sufficient to discharge Respondent without counseling, and this was done.
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be revoked.
