Similar Cases - Case Laws -- eLawyers

Florida Laws (5) 120.57, 408.031, 408.035, 408.039, 408.045 Florida Administrative Code (5) 59C-1.002, 59C-1.008, 59C-1.030, 59C-1.036, 59C-1.044

# 4

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs BEVERLY SAVANA CAY MANOR, INC., D/B/A BEVERLY HEALTHCARE LAKELAND, 00-002465 (2000)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Lakeland, Florida Jun. 14, 2000 Number: 00-002465 Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2001

The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases are: as to Case Number 00-3497, whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should impose an administrative fine against the Respondent's license to operate Beverly Savana Cay Manor, a nursing home in Lakeland; and, as to Case Number 00-2465, whether the Agency should issue a conditional license to the Respondent's facility effective April 28, 2000.

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of nursing homes and the regulation of the nursing home industry in this state. It is also the agency responsible for conducting surveys to monitor the compliance of nursing homes with the conditions of Medicare and Medicaid participation. Respondents, Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Healthcare Lakeland, and Beverly Enterprises - Lakeland, are licensed by the Agency to operate a skilled nursing home at 1010 Carpenter's Way in Lakeland. On August 31, 1999, the Agency conducted an investigation into a complaint that Savana Cay had failed to provide sufficient nursing service and related services to allow residents to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required by Federal rules governing Medicare and Medicaid. The Agency surveyor, Patricia Mills, observed several residents who did not have their call buttons within reach so that they could summon help if needed. Ms. Mills also talked with residents and family members and from these interviews determined that even when the resident could reach the call button and summon help, the response time was excessively long or, in some instances, the call went unheeded. This sometimes resulted in resident's suffering from the results of their incontinence because the staff did not timely respond to the help calls. Ms. Mills concluded, based on her extensive experience in surveying nursing homes, that the number of staff on duty was not sufficient to meet the residents' needs. It did not allow for the best possible well-being of the residents. Though the information related by Ms. Mills came from her interviews with residents and their families and was clearly hearsay testimony, it was admissible and considered as corroborative of her direct observation. The parties stipulated that a follow-up survey of the facility was conducted on October 13, 1999, at which time the deficiency described was deemed to have been timely corrected. The Respondent, by stipulation, does not concede the validity of this discrepancy on the August 19, 1999, survey, and the Agency does not rely on it to support the administrative fine sought to be imposed herein. Another survey of the facility was conducted by the Agency on April 26-28, 2000. On this occasion, surveyor Patricia Gold interviewed residents regarding the everyday life of the facility and reviewed resident council reports to follow up on any resident or family concerns which did not appear to have been addressed by the facility staff. During the resident interviews, Ms. Gold was advised that call lights were not answered in a timely fashion. In that connection, early on the morning of April 28, 2000, Ms. Gold observed a resident request a nurse to bring something to drink. The nurse was overheard to tell the resident the request would have to wait until she finished her report. Ms. Gold also noted on April 28, 2000, that dirty dishes were left uncollected over night in the facility common corridor and that one resident had two dirty trays left in the room. The dishes in the corridor were also seen by surveyors Donna Edwards and Marie Maisel. Based on their observations, the interviews, and the review of the council reports, the surveyors concluded that the staff on duty were insufficient in number. Another surveyor, Joanne Stewart, reviewed the resident files and medical reports of several of the residents and determined that in several cases the facility had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent falls and inconsistently applied the interventions that were put in place. For example, Ms. Stewart observed Resident 12 on the floor at 2:40 p.m. on April 27, 2000. This resident, a cognitively impaired individual, had been placed in the facility from the hospital after he had sustained a fracture to his right hip and, at the time of the fall, still had staples in his hip. Ms. Stewart's review of the kardexes maintained by the certified nursing assistant (CNA) revealed there were no entries thereon indicating a need for special care to prevent this resident from falling. Although he was supposed to wear a tab alarm at all times, the facility staff knew the resident would periodically remove it, and when Ms. Stewart saw him prior to the fall, he was not wearing it. No other interventions, such as quick-release seat belts or Velcro belts, had been implemented to prevent his falls. It was just the kind of fall that he had which caused his placement in the facility and which gave rise to the need for supervision adequate to prevent further injury. He did not get the needed supervision. In fact, though the resident sustained a skin tear and bleeding of the arm as a result of the fall, the nurse who came to the scene of the fall went back to her desk and did some paperwork for between twenty and twenty-five minutes before the resident was provided any treatment for his injury. Ms. Stewart concluded the facility did not provide adequate supervision and assistance to Resident 12, and it is so found. Due to a cognitive impairment and an inability to ambulate due to an intracerebral hemorrhage, diabetes, and a cardio-vascular accident, Resident 9 was assessed at high risk for falls, and a determination was made that the resident should wear a tab alarm while in bed and in the wheelchair. During the course of her survey, Ms. Stewart observed this resident on several occasions without the tab alarm when she should have been wearing it. The resident had previously sustained falls, one of which occurred while the resident was on leave, on March 31 and April 1, 2000, but the only caveat on the CNA kardex for the resident was the caution not to leave her on the toilet alone. Ms. Stewart did not consider the supervision and assistance rendered Resident 9 to be adequate. It is so found. Ms. Edwards focused her review on the records of Resident 22 who was not at the facility at the time of the survey. The records indicated the resident had been assessed at a high risk for falls at the time of her admission and a tab alarm was used. However, according to the nurse's notes, on April 10, 2000, the alarm went off causing the resident to lose her balance and fall while in the merry walker. She lacerated her scalp and sustained a large swelling in the occipital area. The only fall assessment of this resident was done when she was admitted to the facility. The evidence does not indicate when this was, but presumably, it was not done timely. There is a requirement that fall assessments be done quarterly, but it cannot be determined when it was done here. Even when, on April 11, 2000, the day after the fall, the physical therapy staff re-screened this resident for a merry walker, no change in care notation was noted in her record or implemented. Resident 22 sustained another fall on April 16, 2000. On this occasion, the resident was found on the floor of the day room, out of the merry walker. There was no indication she was being supervised or monitored at the time of her fall. This time she sustained another head injury just above the old one. After this fall, the facility staff ordered a new merry walker even though there was no indication a different one would provide additional protection. The resident sustained a third fall on April 18, 2000, sustaining another injury to the head which resulted in substantial blood loss. As a result of this fall, she was taken to the hospital. Because of this, she was not present when the survey was done, but based on her review of the resident records, Ms. Edwards concluded that the facility did not provide sufficient supervision or assistive devices to this resident. During the period of the survey, Ms. Gold observed Resident 3 on five separate occasions. On none of them was the resident wearing a Tabs alarm even though the facility's care plan called for one to be used. A falls assessment had been started on the resident but not completed. The record also revealed that the resident fell on March 29, 2000, resulting in a skin tear to the right arm. Based on the above, Ms. Gold concluded that the resident was not provided with adequate care and assistive devices. Resident 10 was a resident with a history of falls both before and after admission to the facility. The resident's care plan called for chair alarms, a merry walker, a safety seat belt, a low bed, and a bike horn. Though Ms. Maisel, the surveyor, observed that the resident had a chair alarm, she did not see that any of the other interventions called for in the plan were provided. She did not ever see the resident with a merry walker, and on at least two occasions, she saw the resident when the chair alarm was not in use. In her opinion, the use of one intervention does not make the use of other interventions unnecessary, and she considers the facility's supervision and assistive device provision to be inadequate. Resident 4 was an individual who had sustained a hip fracture, was senile, and was taking pain medications. The resident required help in getting out of bed or a chair. The care plan for the resident called for the use of a Tabs alarm, but on none of the occasions that Ms. Stewart observed this resident was the tabs alarm in use. She considered the supervision and assistive devices provided by the facility to this resident to be inadequate. Respondent does not contest that the incidents cited by the Agency took place. Rather, it contends that the interventions implemented by it were sufficient. It also disputes the effectiveness of some interventions called for, specifically the Tabs alarms, suggesting that the alarm does not prevent falls and often contributes to them by startling the wearer. There is some evidence to support that claim. Respondent further contends that the safety provided by the use of an intervention device, such as the Tabs alarm, straps, bed rails, or the merry walker, restrictive as they are, must be weighed and evaluated against the loss of dignity of the resident caused by their use. It is also urged by the facility that the use of certain interventions such as Tabs alarms is made unnecessary when the resident is immobile and safety is provided by the use of other interventions such as bed rails, which are more pertinent to the condition of the resident. In the case of Resident 9, the failure to provide for the use of a Tabs alarm when the resident was on leave with her husband was off-set by the one-on-one supervision she received during that period. Respondent contends that falls will occur among residents of the type in issue here regardless of the planning to identify the risks of fall, the efforts made to prevent them, and the implementation and use of interventions designed to avoid them. While this may be so, the facility nonetheless has a duty to provide necessary and adequate supervision and assistive devices to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the risk of injury as the result of falls. In some cases, this was not done here. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of Theresa Vogelspohl, a nursing home consultant and an agreed expert on falls, issues of the elderly, issues of care of the elderly, and nursing practices and standards in nursing homes. Ms. Vogelspohl indicated that as a general practice when patients are admitted to a nursing home they are considered at risk for falls until the facility staff gets to know them. Each facility sets its own standard as to the length of the observation period, during which the residents are studied for their gait and safety awareness. In addition, the residents are evaluated for safety awareness by the staff of the physical and occupational therapy departments. Ordinarily, the assessment includes only the minimum data set (MDS) criteria, but increasingly during the last few years, a separate falls assessment has become common. In addition to the initial assessment, the attending nurses do an independent admissions assessment, and Ms. Vogelspohl found that such an assessment process was followed as to each of the residents in issue here. Ms. Vogelspohl found that an incomplete falls assessment had been done on Resident 3. Based upon her own review of the resident's records, however, had the full assessment been completed, other than the fact that she was a new resident, the resident would have been classified as a low risk for falls. She opines that the failure to complete the falls assessment did not deny the resident any care or a care plan for falls. Ms. Vogelspohl determined that the facility had opted, instead, for a more cautious approach to this resident in the care plan which, in her opinion, was appropriate for a new admission. A care plan is a map for the staff to be made aware of the care being provided and the specific interventions pertinent to the resident. If the resident is at increased risk for falls, the care plan would list the interventions designed to decrease the risk of falls. One of the most significant risk factors for falls is increase in age. Others are disease conditions, medications, cognitive functioning levels, eyesight, and other impairments. The interventions available to a facility to address the issue of risk of falls depend upon the condition of the resident. The first consideration should be the need to maintain a safe physical environment for the resident. Appropriate footwear is important as is the availability of assistive devices such as a cane or walker. If the resident has a history of falls, consideration should be given to changing those factors which were related to the prior falls. Included in that is consideration of different seating or a more frequent toileting schedule. According to Ms. Vogelspohl, the last thing one would want to do is to apply physical restraint, but, if all else has failed, the least restrictive physical or chemical restraint may be necessary to decrease the likelihood of falls. Ms. Vogelspohl emphasizes that only the likelihood of falls can be reduced. It is not possible to prevent all falls. Room cleanliness is not something which should appear in a care plan. It is a given, and nurses know to place furniture in such a way and to reduce clutter to the extent that the resident can safely navigate the room either with a walker or a wheelchair. Obviously, in this case the survey staff concluded the placement of the dirty trays in the hallway and in the resident's room constituted a hazard. In Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, supervision and monitoring of residents in a nursing home is a basic. That is generally the reason for the resident's being admitted in the first place. While they should be done on a routine basis, supervision and monitoring are still sometimes placed in a care plan, but the failure to have the requirements in black and white is not a discrepancy so long as the appropriate supervision and monitoring are accomplished. The residents most at risk for falls, and those who are the most difficult to manage, are those who have full physical functioning yet who have almost nonexistent cognitive functioning. Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that for these residents, the best intervention is the merry walker. This is better than a regular walker because the resident cannot leave it behind. If the resident is one who falls from bed, then a low bed, with rails if appropriate, is the primary option. A low bed was called for for Resident 10 but was not provided. Ms. Vogelspohl does not have a high opinion of the Tabs alarm because it can cause as many falls as it prevents. It has a place with the cognitively aware resident who will sit back down if she or he hears the alarm sound. More often than not, however, the routine resident will automatically react by trying to get away from the noise, and, thus, be more likely to engage in rapid, impulsive behavior that can lead to a fall. Ms. Vogelspohl considers the use of the Tabs alarm as only one factor in assessing the degree of supervision provided. She looks at the care plan to see if the Tabs alarm even meets the needs of the resident. If the resident is cognitively alert and at no risk of falls, a Tabs alarm is not appropriate. There are other interventions which can be used such as quick release, velcro seat belts which better prevent falls because they provide a resistance when the resident attempts to stand up. To determine whether a care plan has been developed and implemented, Ms. Vogelspohl reviews the record. She looks at the nurse's notes and those of the social services personnel. She evaluates the records of the physical, occupational, and recreational therapy staff. Finally, she reads the resident's chart to see what staff is actually doing to implement the interventions called for in the care plan. However, on the issue of supervision, she does not expect the notes or the record to affirmatively reflect every incident of supervision. There is no standard of nursing practice that she is aware of that calls for that degree of record keeping. What she would expect to see is a record of any kind of unsafe behavior that was observed. By the same token, Ms. Vogelspohl would not expect a facility to document every time it placed an alarm unit on a resident. The units are applied and removed several times a day for bathing, clothing changes, incontinence care, and the like, and it would be unreasonable, she opines, to expect each change to be documented. Further, she considers it inappropriate and insulting to the resident to require him or her to wear an alarm when cognizant and not displaying any unsafe behavior. If a resident who is not cognitively impaired declines intervention, it would, in her opinion, be a violation of that resident's rights to put one on. In that regard, generally, interventions are noted in the resident records when initiated. Usually, however, they are not removed until the quarterly assessment, even though the intervention may be discontinued shortly after implementation. Ms. Vogelspohl took exception to Ms. Edwards' finding fault with the facility for the three falls experienced by Resident 22. The resident was under observation when the first fall occurred, but the staff member was not able to get to the resident quickly enough to catch her when she stood up and immediately toppled over in her merry walker. The resident had been properly assessed and proper interventions had been called for in the care plan. Ms. Vogelspohl attributes the fall to the resident's being frightened by the Tabs alarm going off when she stood up and believes she probably would not have fallen had she not had the tab unit on. The second fall took place while the resident got out of her marry walker in the day room. Though the day room was visible to anyone out in the hallway, the fall was not witnessed, but Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that it is not reasonably possible to keep every resident under constant visual supervision unless an aide can be assigned on a one-on-one basis to every resident. On the third fall, which occurred at about 10 p.m., the staff had put the resident to bed and had put a Tabs unit on her at that time, but the resident had detached the unit and gotten out of bed. There was nothing the staff could do to prevent that. The resident was able to remove the unit no matter how it was affixed to her. Taken together, the actions taken by the facility with regard to this resident were, to Ms. Vogelspohl, appropriate. Some things could have been done differently, such as perhaps using a heavier merry walker, but she did not consider these matters as defects in the care plan, in assessment, in design, or in application. Further, she concluded that the actions taken by the facility subsequent to the first fall on April 10, 2000, wherein the resident's medications were adjusted to compensate for their effect on the resident, constituted a recognition of a change in the resident's condition which was properly addressed. Too much supervision becomes a dignity issue. There is no formula for determining how much supervision is adequate. It is a question of nursing discretion based on the individual resident. An unofficial standard in place within the industry calls for a resident to be checked on every two hours, but rarely will this be documented. Staff, mostly nurses and CNAs, are in and out of the residents' rooms on a regular basis, administering medications and giving treatments. Those visits are documented, but not every visit to a resident's room is. Resident 12, a relatively young man of 62 with several severe medical problems, sustained a fall which resulted in a fractured hip just two weeks after admission to the facility and two weeks before the survey. He was far more mobile than expected. According to the records, he was mostly cognitive intact and had been assessed for falls. As a result of this assessment, the facility developed a care plan to address his risk for falls. Implementation of the plan was difficult, however, because he was aware and could make up his own mind as to what interventions he would accept. As to the resident's April 27, 2000 fall, the only evidence in the file shows that he was found on the floor of his room in front of a straight chair, having sustained a small skin tear in addition to the fracture. From Ms. Vogelspohl's review of the record she could find no indication that the facility had failed to do something that it should have done to prevent the fall. The staff had put a Tabs alarm on the resident, and he removed it. They tried to keep his wheel chair as close to him as possible. They tried to restrict his water intake by giving him thickened liquids to reduce his trips to the rest room. He would pour out the thickened fluids and replace them with water. Because of this resident's mobility, Ms. Vogelspohl does not accept the surveyor's conclusion that the facility did not use Tabs alarms. He was able to get out of them by himself and frequently did. She is also of the opinion, in light of the way the resident behaved, that the blank kardex observed by the surveyor in no way contributed to the resident's fall. The CNA's were aware that the Tabs units were supposed to be used, and Ms. Vogelspohl has concluded that there were no more aggressive interventions that could have been used with this resident. To attempt the use of restraints, either belt or vest, would have been futile because he could have gotten out of them easily. The only other thing Ms. Vogelspohl feels could have been done was to put him in a geriatric psychiatric unit, and this was ultimately done, but not in the Respondent facility. Ms. Vogelpohl also addressed the surveyors' write- ups as they related to Residents 9, 4, 3, and 10. Resident 4 was bed-ridden as a result of Parkinson's Disease and did not need a Tabs alarm, the deficiency cited, while in bed. When seated in a wheel chair, his postural deficits were compensated for by lateral supports and a padded cushion, and she was of the opinion that a Tabs alarm was not required. She opines its absence would not have addressed his risk for falls. His January 2000 fall apparently did not relate to the failure to use a Tabs unit. Resident 3, also the subject of a write-up for failure to use a Tabs alarm, was not, in Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, at risk for falls because she did not move around a lot due to her physical condition. Nonetheless, she experienced a fall in late March 2000 and shortly thereafter, the facility placed a Tabs alarm on her and made the appropriate entry in her care plan. Resident 9 was ambulatory only with assistance and had a special seating device to keep her in her wheel chair. After the resident sustained two falls close together, a Tabs alarm was placed on her, and from that time until the time of the survey she had no further falls. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that it was an appropriate nursing decision not to place a Tabs unit on her. The rationale for this position is not at all clear. The care plan for Resident 10, also one of the residents observed without a Tabs alarm in place, was described as "somewhat cluttered." It showed multiple interventions initiated as early as April 1999. The initial care plan was crossed through and a new one substituted in September 1999 with the family's concurrence. Nonetheless, Ms. Vogelspohl did not find it too cluttered to be understood. The evidence shows that the resident's chair was outfitted with a soft seat belt and a pressure-sensitive alarm, both of which are considered to be more effective than the Tabs alarm. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that the facility did not ignore the requirement to assess the residents for falls or the requirement to address that issue in care planning. She admits that in some cases, the plan addressing falls prevention was covered in another assessment than the one wherein it might most likely be expected, but it is her contention that if the subject is properly and thoroughly addressed somewhere in the resident's care record, that is sufficient. She considers placing it in several areas to be a redundancy and though it is frequently done so, it is done to meet a paper compliance without having any impact on the quality of care provided.

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 sustaining the Conditional license for the Respondent effective April 28, 2000, and, based only on the conditions observed at the facility on that date, imposing an administrative fine of $700.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, 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 22nd day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308

CFR (3) 42 CFR 483, 42 CFR 483.25(h)(2), 42 CFR 483.30 Florida Laws (3) 120.57, 400.23, 483.30 Florida Administrative Code (2) 59A-4.108, 59A-4.1288

# 5

CHARLOTTE HARBOR HEALTHCARE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 02-001917 (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Punta Gorda, Florida May 03, 2002 Number: 02-001917 Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2003

The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance

Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 13th day of February, 2003.

CFR (2) 42 CFR 483, 42 CFR 483.15(b) Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 400.23, 409.175

# 6

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF PHARMACY vs GUY HENDRICKS, III, R.PH., 00-004311PL (2000)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Oct. 19, 2000 Number: 00-004311PL Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2004

The Issue Whether Respondent, Guy Hendricks, III, R.Ph., is subject to discipline pursuant to Subsection 465.016(1)(e), Florida Statutes, for violating Rule 64B16-28.120(2), Florida Administrative Code.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges against Respondent in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 28th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Guy Hendericks, III Post Office Box 4173 Sebring, Florida 33871 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 John Taylor, R.Ph., Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701

Florida Laws (5) 120.57, 20.43, 465.003, 465.016, 465.019 Florida Administrative Code (2) 59A-4.112, 64B16-28.120

# 7

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A LRMC NURSING CENTER, 04-002869 (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Wildwood, Florida Aug. 16, 2004 Number: 04-002869 Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2025

# 8

BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS vs. MARGARET A. MARTIN, 85-002478 (1985)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 85-002478 Latest Update: Mar. 26, 1986

The Issue Whether or not Respondent's nursing home administrator's license may be disciplined by reprimand, fine, restriction, suspension; or revocation for acts alleged in the administrative: complaint, specifically the alleged violations of Sections 400.022(1)(d), 400.162(1)and (2), 468.1755(1)(e), 468.1755(1)(g), 468.1755(I)(k), and 468.1755(1)(m) Florida Statutes (1983), and Rules 10D-29.104 and 10D-29.118(1) Florida Administrative Code.

Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing Home Administration enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of simple negligence and incompetence within Section 468.1755(1)(g) in signing the write-off slip, reprimanding her therefor, and dismissing all other charges. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, 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 26th day of March, 1986.

Florida Laws (6) 120.57, 400.021, 400.022, 400.162, 468.1655, 468.1755

# 9

SEBRINA CAMERON, N.H.A. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS, 21-001349F (2021)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Apr. 20, 2021 Number: 21-001349F Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2025

The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (the “Department”), was “substantially justified” under section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes,1 in initiating the underlying action against the nursing home administrator license of Petitioner, Sebrina Cameron, N.H.A. (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Cameron”).

Florida Laws (10) 120.569, 120.68, 400.011, 400.021, 400.141, 468.1655, 468.1685, 468.1755, 57.105, 57.111 Florida Administrative Code (3) 59A-4.103, 59A-4.1075, 59A-4.108 DOAH Case (4) 2020-12066, 20-3025PL, 20-3026PL, 21-1349F

# 10

Find Similar Cases by Filters

BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS vs MARY ALICE DESSASAU, 96-001712 (1996)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES vs. LAKEVIEW NURSING HOME, 79-002407 (1979)

FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION, D/B/A SPRING HILL HEALTH vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 84-002206 (1984)

ST. JOSEPH`S HOSPITAL, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 94-006236CON (1994)

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs BEVERLY SAVANA CAY MANOR, INC., D/B/A BEVERLY HEALTHCARE LAKELAND, 00-002465 (2000)

CHARLOTTE HARBOR HEALTHCARE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 02-001917 (2002)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF PHARMACY vs GUY HENDRICKS, III, R.PH., 00-004311PL (2000)

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A LRMC NURSING CENTER, 04-002869 (2004)

BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS vs. MARGARET A. MARTIN, 85-002478 (1985)

SEBRINA CAMERON, N.H.A. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS, 21-001349F (2021)

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.