The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed; and whether Respondent should be issued a Standard or Conditional license rating.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed nursing home located in Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioner is charged with, among other things, periodically evaluating nursing home facilities and making a determination as to the degree of compliance with applicable federal regulations, and state statutes and rules. The evaluation or survey of a facility includes a resident review or survey. A resident survey consists of record review, resident observation, and interviews with family and facility staff. Review of a clinical record includes the review of a document referred to as minimum data set or MDS Assessment. The MDS Assessment is a record, in summary fashion, of information or data that a facility gathers to prepare a care plan for a resident. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "tags." Petitioner's surveyors document the tags on a form prepared by Petitioner. Petitioner's surveyors use the "State Operations' Manual" (SOM) as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated the federal regulation 42 CFR Chapter 483. The October 1998 Survey On October 8-9, 1998, Petitioner conducted an appraisal survey of Respondent, which is not a full survey. In an appraisal survey, Petitioner's focus is on quality of care issues, making sure that the quality of care standards are met. Petitioner used nursing home survey protocols prescribed by the federal government. Petitioner's surveyor performed a resident review of Resident No. 5. Tag F309 Tag F309 incorporates the requirement of federal regulation 42 CFR Subsection 483.25, which provides that "each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care." The SOM provided, regarding 42 CFR Section 483.25, that a facility must ensure that its residents obtain optimal improvement or does not deteriorate. Therefore, the surveyor must first determine whether a resident has declined or optimally improved, and if the resident has suffered a decline or lack of improvement, determine whether the decline or lack of improvement was avoidable or unavoidable. A decline or failure to reach the highest practicable well-being is unavoidable only if: (1) the facility has an accurate and complete assessment; the facility has a care plan which is consistently implemented and based on the assessment; and (3) the facility has an evaluation of the results of the interventions and revising the interventions when necessary. Resident No. 5 was admitted to Respondent on July 9, 1998. The diagnosis for Resident No. 5 included dementia, but not severe because he could understand and follow directives, aggressive behavior, and agitated depression. He used a wheelchair and could ambulate with assistance. Respondent was required within 14 days, by July 23, 1998, to complete a MDS Assessment of Resident No. 5. Respondent assessed Resident No. 5 as being at risk for falls. Respondent was required within 21 days, by July 30, 1998, to develop a comprehensive care plan to address Resident No. 5's risk for falls. On July 29, 1998, Respondent completed and implemented the comprehensive care plan, containing interventions which included encouraging Resident No. 5 to use his call light; counseling him about his risk for falls and the need to request assistance in transfers; assisting him with transfers; instructing him about proper transfer techniques; using a night light; monitoring him for fatigue; and providing proper positioning while he was in bed or in a chair. Petitioner's surveyor reviewed, among other things, the nurses' notes and the care plan for Resident No. 5. The surveyor determined that Resident No. 5 had fallen seven times since his admission: July 18, July 23, August 7, August 14, August 17, September 26, and October 5, 1998. Two of Resident No. 5's falls occurred during the period for his MDS Assessment: July 18 and 23, 1998. Resident No. 5 suffered a skin tear to his elbow from the fall on August 14, 1998. On August 11, 1998, after his third fall on August 7, 1998, a wheelchair alarm was initiated to reduce the risk of falls. After Resident No. 5's fall on August 17, 1998, Respondent obtained an order for a lap tray. On September 28, 1998, after his sixth fall on September 26, 1998, a physical therapy screen was performed and a lap buddy was to be used in conjunction with the wheelchair alarm to reduce the risk of falls. The wheelchair alarm was to be used when the lap buddy was not in use. During the October survey, which was only three to four days after Resident No. 5's most recent fall, Petitioner's surveyor observed on two occasions that Resident No. 5 was without either a wheelchair alarm or a lap buddy. Before using the lap buddy, Resident No. 5 used a lap tray. He did not want to give-up the lap tray. Even when he was informed that the lap tray was restrictive, Resident No. 5 wanted to continue using the lap tray. A wheelchair alarm is a device, which attaches to a resident's wheelchair and is connected to the resident by a string. When the resident stands or otherwise moves from the wheelchair, the alarm sounds. The alarm's primary function is to alert the staff, not to ensure that falls will not occur, but the alarm's function is also an inhibitor and assists the staff to prevent the resident from causing himself or herself to fall. The wheelchair alarm is used only when there is a clearly demonstrated need. A lap buddy is much more restrictive than the wheelchair alarm. The lap buddy is a pillow-like device that rests in the resident's lap and discourages the resident from getting up, but the lap buddy can be removed by the resident. A more restrictive device than the lap buddy is the lap tray. The lap tray is a thin plywood board that is placed across the arms of the wheelchair and is secured to the wheelchair. The resident is capable of sliding underneath the lap tray and getting out of the wheelchair. In addition to the skin tear that Resident No. 5 suffered in his third fall on August 14, 1998, he experienced a decline in mobility requiring two people for assistance in walking instead of one person as he had before the many falls. Even though Resident No. 5 had a decline in his mental status as he had to begin taking a medication again that he stopped taking, the evidence does not demonstrate that the falls caused the decline in his mental status. Respondent failed to develop a care plan expeditiously and timely in order to address Resident No. 5's risk for falling. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Resident No. 5 was resistant to using the interventions. Respondent had no documentation showing that the wheelchair alarm was sounding or in place at the time of Resident No. 5's fifth fall on August 17, 1998. Respondent had no documentation showing that the wheelchair alarm was in consistent use. Such documentation would have indicated that the care plan was being implemented. Respondent had no documentation showing that Resident No. 5 removed either the lap tray or lap buddy. When he fell on October 5, 1998, his seventh fall, the intervention for Resident No. 5 was the lap tray. The documentation showed that the lap tray had to be re-secured. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the lap tray was not in place when Resident No. 5 fell and that, therefore, the intervention was not consistently used. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent evaluated the results of the interventions which were used with Resident No. 5 and that Respondent revised the interventions as necessary. However, the evidence also demonstrates that the interventions were not consistently implemented. The evidence, in totality, demonstrates that Resident No. 5's decline was avoidable. Petitioner cited Respondent for committing a violation of Tag F309 and classified the violation as a Class II deficiency. Further, Petitioner assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "G" to the Tag F309 deficiency. Corrective Action After the October survey, Respondent was required to submit a plan of correction regarding Tag F309. Respondent submitted the plan of correction, indicating corrective action by October 10, 1998. The deficiency was corrected on October 10, 1998. Penalty Based upon the Class II deficiency of Tag F309, Petitioner imposed a fine of $5,000 upon Respondent. The April 1999 Survey On April 19-21, 1999, Petitioner conducted an annual survey of Respondent. An annual survey is performed at least once every 15 months. Again, the SOM was used by Petitioner's surveyors. Decisions, regarding violations, are made by the survey team. One surveyor is responsible for the resident review of a particular resident. Resident No. 3 Petitioner's resident surveyor reviewed documents and information, regarding Resident No. 3, including hospice care plan and social service notes; nurses' notes; physician orders; nurses' treatment notes; medication records; physician progress notes; comprehensive care plan, monthly summary comments; dietician's assessment; nutritional assessment; and the SOM for the pertinent tags. Petitioner's resident surveyor also made personal observations, interviewed staff, and had a consultation with a registered dietician, who was Petitioner's consultant. The survey team leader conducted the family interview. On December 10, 1998, Resident No. 3 was admitted to Respondent's facility from an acute care hospice facility. She was terminally ill and doctors were of the opinion that her clinical conditions would cause her death within six months. As a result, Resident No. 3 remained on hospice care at Respondent's facility. Resident No. 3 suffered from end-stage cardiovascular disease and congestive heart failure. She was incontinent with an indwelling Foley catheter and had contractures of the legs and Parkinson's disease. As a result of a stroke, Resident No. 3 was without speech. She was being fed through a PEG tube, which was inserted into her abdomen. Medication and hydration was also provided to her through the PEG tube. Resident No. 3 had several decubiti (pressure sores) at various stages of severity, including one at Stage IV and two at Stage III. She was receiving a continuous dose of morphine for pain caused by her compromising conditions. Resident No. 3 required total and complete assistance with all her activities of daily living (ADLs). She was completely dependent. The family of Resident No. 3 made the health care decisions for her, in particular, her son. Regarding the pressure sores, a Stage IV pressure sore had gone completely through the skin and muscle down to the bone, with nerve endings exposed. The pressure sore was open, raw, and very painful. Often the pain of such a pressure sore is described as being like very severe sun burns or almost like a bone racking kind of pain. In treating pressure sores, nutrition is one of the key components and one of the most important aspects of healing them. Development of pressure sores is related to malnutrition. During Resident No. 3's stay at the acute care hospice facility, before being admitted to Respondent's facility, Resident No. 3 experienced fluid build-up in her lungs, which was related to her end-stage cardiovascular disease and congestive heart failure. The hospice facility effectively eliminated the fluid build-up by reducing the amount of fluid intake to one can per day, which provided Resident No. 3 with 240 calories per day. For most healthy adults, 240 calories per day is insufficient to maintain body weight or promote healing of wounds or diseases. Resident No. 3's overall condition stabilized on the 240 calories per day. Upon admission to Respondent on December 10, 1998, a nutritional assessment of Resident No. 3's nutrition needs was performed by Respondent's dietician. A determination was made that, in order to meet her nutritional needs and promote weight gain and healing of her pressure sores, Resident No. 3 required 1,424 calories per day and between 37 and 56 grams of protein per day, in addition to multivitamins, vitamin C, zinc, and iron. In January 1999, Respondent's dietician reassessed Resident No. 3 for her nutritional needs. The dietician determined that no change existed in the nutritional needs for Resident No. 3, and recommended an additional, but slight, increase in the feeding amount. Around mid-January 1999, after the nutritional assessment, Resident No. 3 went into crisis care. While in crisis care, Resident No. 3's family expressed concern that she was receiving too much fluid through her feeding. Resident No. 3's physician ordered a reduction in her tube feeding to 720 calories (720 cc) per day, from six cans to three cans of formula per day. On January 25, 1999, Resident No. 3's family again expressed concern that she was receiving too much fluid through her tube feeding. The next day, Respondent's dietician and the hospice nurse met to discuss Resident No. 3's situation regarding the tube feeding. The hospice nurse informed Respondent's dietician that, during Resident No. 3's acute care at the hospice center, Resident No. 3 had experienced increased congestion and her tube feeding had been reduced to one can of formula per day and that, presently, Resident No. 3 was again experiencing increased congestion. Based upon Resident No. 3's prior experience at the hospice center with increased congestion and reduction in the amount of formula, upon the family's concern that three cans of formula per day was too much, and upon the dietician's opinion that Resident No. 3's comfort would be promoted by reducing the amount of the formula, the dietician decided to recommend reducing Resident No. 3's tube feeding. On January 26, 1999, the dietician recommended reducing the formula from three cans of formula per day to one can per day, from 720 calories (720 cc) to 240 calories (240 cc). No order was given that day by Resident No. 3's physician to reduce the tube feeding from 720 calories. The physician for Resident No. 3 was willing to reduce the formula or even discontinue it if the family of Resident No. 3 agreed. The family of Resident No. 3 were not willing to discontinue the tube feeding. Resident No. 3's physician did not order a reduction of the formula. On January 28, 1999, the physician diagnosed Resident No. 3 with pneumonia and recommended that the pneumonia be allowed to overcome her because of her terminal illness. Resident No. 3 improved and was taken off crisis care on February 3, 1999. Shortly thereafter, she began experiencing audible congestion. On February 12, 1999, Resident No. 3 was suffering from congestion, respiratory distress, and edema in her arms and thighs. On February 16, 1999, 13 days after Resident No. 3 was taken off crisis care, her physician ordered a reduction of the tube feeding to one can per day. Resident No. 3's respiratory problems became non-existent and she was removed from crisis care. Resident No. 3 remained on one can of formula, 240 calories, per day for a little over two months, from February 16, 1999, until the survey in April 1999. During that period of time, either the physician or his assistant reviewed Resident No. 3's condition and did not change her feeding order of one can per day. On February 26, 1999, Resident No. 3 was no longer congested. Her reduced feeding was not re-evaluated by Respondent to determine its necessity until the April survey. At the initial tour of Respondent by Petitioner survey team, the team member who was responsible for resident review of Resident No. 3 and who was a registered nurse observed Resident No. 3, who appeared to be a quite frail, thin and ill female, being tube fed. The feeding bag indicated that Resident No. 3 was receiving 240 calories (240 cc) per day. Resident No. 3's room had a strong odor, which the team member suspected was indicative of a skin infection, and a deodorizer can was on the floor next to Resident No. 3's bed. Respondent had no policy or procedure in place to monitor the continued necessity or advisability of such a condition as Resident No. 3's reduced feeding. The failure to have such a policy in place potentially put other residents at risk, which is a consideration of the surveyors when they make their decisions regarding the existence of a deficiency. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent obtained informed consent from Resident No. 3's family for the reduced feeding. Respondent failed to fully inform the family of the effects or risks of reduced feeding on the healing of Resident No. 3's pressure sores. Respondent conducted planning meetings regarding Resident No. 3's care plan, but her health care surrogate, her son, was not invited to attend; whereas, if he was invited to attend, he would have had full knowledge of the effects or risks of the reduced feeding on the healing of her pressure sores. The evidence demonstrates that the reduced feeding in Resident No. 3's situation was not compatible with the standard of palliative care and was inconsistent with acceptable end-of- life care practices. Tag F224 Tag F224 incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), which requires, in pertinent part, Respondent to "develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents." Neglect is defined by the SOM guidelines as "failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness." The SOM guidelines further provide that, on an individual basis, neglect occurs "when a resident does not receive a lack of care in one or more areas (e.g., absence of frequent monitoring for a resident known to be incontinent, resulting in being left to lie in urine or feces)." The intent of the federal regulation is provided in the SOM guidelines, which provide, in pertinent part, that the intent is "to ensure that the facility has in place an effective system that regardless of the source (staff, other residents, visitors, etc.) prevents mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents . . . . However, such a system cannot guarantee that a resident will not be abused; it can only assure that the facility does whatever is within its control to prevent mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents." Petitioner's survey team determined that Respondent did not have procedures and policies in place to prevent the "neglect" of Resident No. 3. It was within Respondent's control to attempt to ascertain medically the causative agent of Resident No. 3's congestion. Respondent failed to seek a cause, medically, of the congestion but relied upon what was related to Respondent's staff as to what occurred at the hospice facility when the hospice facility was faced with Resident No. 3's congestion. Resident No. 3's tube feeding was drastically reduced based upon this reliance. It was within Respondent's control to fully inform Resident No. 3's health care surrogate of the effects of the drastically reduced tube feeding. The evidence failed to demonstrate that her health care surrogate was fully informed by Respondent regarding the effects of the reduced feeding on her pressure sores. Resident No. 3's physician indicated that he would agree with reducing the feeding if the family agreed to the reduction. The health care surrogate, not being informed of the full ramifications, agreed to the reduction in the tube feeding. Whether Respondent provided Resident No. 3 the necessary goods and care was indeterminable by the survey team. Respondent failed to provide goods and services to Resident No. 3 necessary to avoid physical harm or mental anguish. Respondent failed to have written policies and procedures that would have prohibited neglect to Resident No. 3; however, in accordance with the SOM guidelines, the written policies and procedures could not have guaranteed that she would not have been neglected. Petitioner cited Respondent for committing a violation of Tag F224 and classified the violation as a Class II deficiency. Petitioner also assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "G" to the Tag F224 deficiency. Tag F280 Tag F280 incorporates the requirement under federal regulation 42 CFR 483.20(k)(2), which requires, in pertinent part, the development of a comprehensive care plan (Plan) within seven days of the completion of the comprehensive assessment; the Plan to be prepared by an "interdisciplinary team," which includes "the attending physician, a registered nurse with responsibility for the resident, and other appropriate staff in disciplines as determined by the resident's needs, and to the extent practicable, . . . the resident's family or . . . legal representative"; and periodic review and revision by a team of qualified persons after each assessment. Respondent failed to update or revise Resident No. 3's care plan to address the symptom of congestion, which led to the reduced feeding. Respondent failed to invite or include Resident No. 3's health care surrogate to participate in any planning of Resident No. 3's care or in any decisions regarding her nutritional needs. Petitioner cited Respondent for committing a violation of Tag F280 and classified the violation as a Class II deficiency. Petitioner also assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "G" to the Tag F280 deficiency. Tag F314 Tag F314 incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.25(c), which requires, in pertinent part, a facility to ensure that a "resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable" and that a "resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing." The SOM guidelines define a pressure sore as "ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or shear." Furthermore, the SOM guidelines provide a "staging system," which is one method of describing the extent of tissue damage, and which provides, in pertinent part, that "Stage III" is described as a "full thickness of skin is lost, exposing the subcutaneous tissues - presents as a deep crater with or without undermining adjacent tissue" and that "Stage IV" is described as a "full thickness of skin and subcutaneous tissue is lost, exposing muscle and/or bone." Pressure sores in a terminally ill patient are unavoidable. Resident No. 3's pressure sores were unavoidable due to her clinical conditions. For Resident No. 3, maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration was necessary to prevent her pressure sores from worsening, to promote healing, and to prevent infection and breakdown. Respondent drastically reduced Resident No. 3's tube feeding to 240 calories (240 cc) per day. One pressure sore had worsened from a Stage III to a Stage IV. The dead tissue in the Stage III pressure sore was removed, and as a consequence, the pressure sore enlarged to a Stage IV pressure sore. No clinical measurements were available to indicate whether the reduction in the tube feeding negatively affected Resident No. 3. Petitioner cited Respondent for committing a violation of Tag F314 and classified the violation as a Class II deficiency. Petitioner also assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "G" to the Tag F314 deficiency. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent committed a violation of Tag F314. Tag F325 Tag F325 incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 4483.25(i), which, in pertinent part, requires a facility to ensure that a resident "maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible." Resident No. 3's clinical condition had a great impact on her nutritional status. Her tube feeding was reduced drastically to 240 calories (240 cc) per day. Respondent failed to properly discuss with and fully inform Resident No. 3's health care surrogate of the impact or effects of such a reduction. Moreover, no periodic review of the reduction was performed by Respondent, which was responsible for a care plan for Resident No. 3. The periodic examination of Resident No. 3's physician or the physician's assistant is no substitute for Respondent's responsibility for periodic review and update or revision, if necessary, of Resident No. 3's care plan. Respondent failed to "ensure" that Resident No. 3's nutritional status was maintained. Petitioner cited Respondent for committing a violation of Tag F325 and classified the violation as a Class II deficiency. Petitioner also assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "G" to the Tag F325 deficiency. Resident No. 1 Resident No. 1 was admitted to Respondent in September 1998, with a Stage IV pressure sore. Full thickness of skin and subcutaneous tissue was lost, exposing muscle and/or bone in a Stage IV pressure sore. To aid the healing of the pressure sore, Resident No. 1's physician ordered a variety of interventions, including ordering that she be given a protein supplement, Promod, in her juice twice a day. Petitioner's registered dietician, who was a member of the survey team, personally observed Resident No. 1 during at least two meals in which Resident No. 1 did not ingest the Promod. Respondent had no system in place to track whether the physician's order was being implemented. Having no such system in place, Respondent was unable to inform the physician of the ineffectiveness of the treatment modality addressing the pressure sore to enable the physician to implement a more effective alternative. During the initial tour of the facility, Petitioner's dietician noticed that Resident No. 1 had a large bruise on the left side of his forehead. The bruise was approximately the size of a quarter to a half-dollar and was a recent bruise that could have been sustained minutes or hours prior to its discovery by Petitioner's dietician. Resident No. 1 was confused and could not inform Petitioner's dietician how his forehead sustained the bruise. Respondent was unaware of the bruise until Petitioner's dietician brought the bruise to Respondent's attention. Respondent had no documentation or information on the bruise. An unknown injury report was completed after Petitioner's dietician brought the bruise to Respondent's attention. Tag F225 Tag F225 incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR 483.13(c), which provides, in pertinent part, that the facility "must have evidence that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated, and must prevent further potential abuse while the investigation is in progress; and that the "results of all investigations must be reported to the administrator or his designated representative and to officials in accordance with state law " Respondent should have been aware of the bruise prior to the bruise being brought to Respondent's attention by Petitioner's dietician. The bruise was quite obvious and not hidden. Respondent failed to investigate the bruise, an injury of unknown origin. When Respondent failed to investigate the bruise, a potential risk of continued harm to Resident No. 1 and of harm to other residents existed. After Petitioner's dietician, a member of the Petitioner's survey team, reported the bruise to Respondent, an investigation by Respondent ensued. Afterward, the requirements for the investigation and reporting were complied with and adhered to. Petitioner cited Respondent for committing a violation of Tag F225 and classified the violation as a Class II deficiency. Petitioner also assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "G" to the Tag F225 deficiency. Tag F314 Tag F314 incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.25(c), which requires, in pertinent part, a facility to ensure that a "resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable" and that a "resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing." Resident No. 1's physician ordered the ingestion of Promod. Respondent failed to ensure that Resident No. 1 ingested the Promod in accordance with the physician's order. Further, Respondent had no system in place to track whether the physician's order was being implemented, and, therefore, the physician was unable to determine the type of intervention needed, if any. Petitioner cited Respondent for committing a violation of Tag F314 and classified the violation as a Class II deficiency. Petitioner also assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "G" to the Tag F314 deficiency. Corrective Action Respondent received Petitioner's survey report on April 29, 1999. The survey report contained the date by which Respondent had to correct the deficiencies, which was by April 27, 1999. The time period for Respondent to correct the deficiencies had elapsed before Respondent was notified of the date for correcting the deficiencies. Respondent submitted a plan of action to correct the deficiencies. On April 27, 1999, Petitioner visited Respondent to determine the status of the Class II deficiencies. All of the deficiencies were not corrected, but, as a result of the visit, Petitioner changed Tags F224, F225, and F280 to Class III deficiencies. On July 2, 1999, Petitioner re-surveyed Respondent. Petitioner determined that Respondent had corrected all of the deficiencies. Conditional License Based upon the Class II deficiencies of the April 1999 survey, Petitioner issued Respondent a Conditional license, effective April 21, 1999, through July 2, 1999, from the date of the survey to the date the deficiencies were corrected. Penalty Based upon the Class II deficiencies of Tags F224, F225, F314, and F325, cited as a result of the April 1999 survey, Petitioner imposed a fine of $20,000 upon Respondent.
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 and therein: Dismiss the charge, as it relates to Resident No. 3 of the April 1999 survey, that Pinehurst Convalescent Center (Beverly Enterprises-Fla, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast- Florida) violated Tag F314, which incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.25(c). Find that, as to the October 1998 survey, Pinehurst Convalescent Center (Beverly Enterprises-Fla, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida) violated Tag F309, which incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.25, and Rule 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code; and that the violation is a Class II deficiency. Find that, as to the April 1999 survey, Pinehurst Convalescent Center (Beverly Enterprises-Fla, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida): Violated Tag F224, which incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), Subsections 400.022(1)(j), (k), and (l), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A- 4.106(4)(x), Florida Administrative Code. Violated Tag F225, which incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), and Rule 59A- 4.106(4)(cc), Florida Administrative Code. Violated Tag F314, which incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.25(c), Subsections 400.022(1)(j), (k), and (l), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code. Violated Tag F325, which incorporates federal regulation 42 CFR Section 483.25(i)(1), Subsection 400.022(1)(l), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-4.109(2), Florida Administrative Code. Impose a penalty of $2,500 for the violation committed as to the October 1998 survey. Impose a penalty of $5,000 per violation for the four violations committed as to the April 1999 survey, totaling $20,000. Uphold the change in the license rating of Pinehurst Convalescent Center (Beverly Enterprises-Fla, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida) to a Conditional license, effective April 21, 1999, through July 2, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent should be issued a Conditional License rating for the period effective April 9, 1999 through October 31, 1999, because of deficiencies alleged as a result of an Agency survey conducted on April 9, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Agency was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of health care facilities, including long-term care nursing homes in Florida. Respondent, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, operated a licensed long-term care nursing home under the name Emerald Oaks, located at 1507 South Tuttle Avenue in Sarasota, Florida. On April 9, 1999, as a result of a complaint of lack of supervision resulting in injury to residents, Mary Patricia O'Connell, a surveyor for the Agency, visited Respondent's facility to inquire into the injury to two residents that took place in early April 1999. Ms. O'Connell is a registered nurse with in excess of 25 years' experience in nursing homes, including ten years as a director of nursing. She has been a surveyor for the Agency for the past six years. During the course of her survey of the facility, Ms. O'Connell examined the records pertaining to Residents 1 and 2, the individuals regarding whose injuries the complaint was filed. Ms. O'Connell's review indicated that the incidents in question constituted failures to meet the standards set up under Tags F224 and F324, as identified on the Form 2567-L of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Health Care Financing Administration. Tag F224, reflecting the requirements of Section 483.13(c)(1)(I), Florida Statutes, requires a facility to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents. Tag F-324, reflecting the requirements of Section 483.25(h)(2), Florida Statutes, requires a facility to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Petitioner limited its evidence to the facts and circumstances surrounding Tag F324, contending that the evidence regarding this tag applies to Tag F224 as well. Ms. O'Connell, the only witness for the Petitioner, was asked her opinion only regarding the facility's compliance with the requirements of Tag F324. The nursing notes and medical records upon which she relied in part were not written by her, and were, in some cases, not the personal knowledge of the author. As such they are clearly hearsay evidence. Resident 2 was, at the time of the incident, an 85-year- old female suffering from hypertension and dementia. On February 10, 1999, the facility completed a Minimum Data Set (MDS) on the resident which described her as requiring extensive assistance with one person to physically assist for transferring and dressing, using full bed rails on all open sides of her bed. Her medical records reflected that she had fallen on March 12, April 13, April 25, May 9, May 14, July 24, August 16 and 23, November 19, and December 11, 1998, and on March 12, 1998, her physician ordered two bed rails as an enabler while the resident was in bed. The doctor subsequently also directed the use of a wedge cushion for wheelchair positioning on April 12, 1998, and a TABS unit an alarm system in bed and in the wheelchair, in the event the resident tried to get out of the chair or bed unassisted. During the course of her investigation, Ms. O'Connell spoke with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assigned to care for Resident 2 on April 3, 1999, who related that she had removed the TABS unit and placed Resident 2 on the side of the bed with the bed rails down and turned away from the resident to call out to another CNA for help in moving Resident 2 to her chair. When the assigned CNA turned back to the resident, she found the resident on the floor. The resident did not complain at the time, and the only injury found at that time was a light abrasion to both knees. She was placed into her wheel chair. The resident's records reflect that although she was observed several times in the interim, as late as 2:00 a.m., on April 6, 1999, without complaint or evidence of any problem, at 9:30 a.m., on April 6, 1999, a swelling in the area of the resident's knees was noticed. X-rays of both legs were taken which reflected fractures of both femurs. The resident was taken to the hospital where surgery was done to reduce the fractures. In Ms. O'Connell's opinion, and based on the information the facility had on the resident to the effect she had a low safety awareness and needed total supervision, the facility, through its employee, was negligent in placing the resident on the side of the bed with the rails down and thereafter turning away from her. Amy Weyant, the facility’s assistant director of nursing, also reviewed the facility’s records regarding the residents in issue here. These records, as to Resident 2, reflect that on February 12, 1999, when she first came to the facility, she was evaluated for risk of falls and found to be at risk. A care plan was developed for this resident which provided that whenever the resident was to be moved, two individuals were required to do so. The evaluation also considered the resident’s stability while in a sitting position and it was noted that the resident maintained her balance for sitting without any difficulty, but had poor standing balance and was unable to walk. Resident 3 was also, at the time of the incident, an 85-year-old female diagnosed with osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease. A quarterly MDS was completed for this resident on January 29, 1999, which described her as requiring extensive assistance with one person to physically assist with transferring and ambulation. The care plan developed for this resident on November 13, 1998, noted the resident had a history of falls and was a risk for further falls due to her poor safety awareness and chronic pain in her back and knees. After the resident sustained a fall on August 24, 1998, an approach calling for her to be supervised when out of bed was identified. The resident was to be placed in a wheel chair when out of bed so that she could be kept at or near the nurses’ station. Unfortunately, this procedure was not added to the prevention care plan. Review of the nurses’ notes regarding this resident reveals that she fell in the bathroom on March 5, 1999. Investigation into the incident indicated that the CNA responsible for this resident was in the resident’s room getting clothes for her from her closet at the time of the fall. As a result of this fall, the resident sustained a fractured hip, for which she was transported to the hospital. According to Ms. Weyant, this resident was also assessed for stability in a sitting position prior to the fall and was found to require physical support because she was unable to follow directions. The resident’s rest room was equipped with hand rails and a call bell. Since the incident in question, the resident has again been evaluated for stability in a sitting position and found to be able to sit without fear of falling. Ms. Weyant also noted that both the residents in issue sustained their falls from a sitting position. While their stability while sitting was questionable, at no time, prior to the falls in issue here had either fallen from a sitting position. Ms. Weyant reports that even notwithstanding the falls sustained, the families or doctor/caregivers of these residents considered the facility reliable enough for the residents to be returned there after release from the hospital. The facility was resurveyed on May 17, 1999, and was found to have cleared all deficiencies as of that date or even earlier. The facility earlier had made a "credible allegation" that it would be in compliance by May 9, 1999. On the May 17, 1999, follow-up, it was found to be in compliance with an effective date of compliance of May 9, 1999. It is a goal of nursing homes to provide necessary care in an environment that is "as normal as possible." The facility must balance the residents’ need for care with the residents’ desire for independence. One of the issues faced by nursing home personnel is to balance restraint against freedom. This requires the facility to develop a method of care designed to prevent falls and injury. Respondent contends that the Administrative Complaint is based on the fact that two falls occurred, and urges that falls are common in nursing homes. The mere fact that an fall occurred does not form the basis for an inspection write-up. The write-up, when done, is based on the qualified surveyor’s determination that there was a lack of necessary supervision. If a facility has done an appropriate assessment and developed a plan to provide necessary supervision, and if the facility has complied with all the provisions called for in the care plan, a subsequent injury to a resident would not result in a deficiency write-up. To ensure as best as is possible against injuries, most nursing homes assign a CNA to every resident. In both cases in issue here, a CNA was assigned to each resident. Sometimes a CNA remains assigned to a particular resident for an extended period. When that happens, a relationship often develops between them through which the CNA gets to know the needs and peculiarities of the resident. In these cases, Ms. O’Connell opines that the facility’s fault lay in its failure to use its own identified interventions: In the one case, the failure to use side rails as called for in the care plan; and in the other, the failure of the CNA to remain in the bathroom with the resident providing the constant supervision called for. In both cases, this translates to an inappropriate lack of supervision, and Ms. O’Connell classified both incidents as Class II deficiencies.
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 rescinding the issuance of the Class II deficiencies noted and the Conditional license issued, and determining that Emerald Oaks is entitled to the issuance of a standard rating for the period from April 9, 1999 to May 9, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 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 26th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel L. Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 60127 Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6127 Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Main Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration (AHCA) is responsible for the administration of certificate of need laws for health care services and facilities in Florida. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (Life Care) owns, leases and/or operates 157 nursing and retirement facilities in 27 states. It is one of the largest nursing home companies in the United States. AHCA considers Life Care a "major health care provider" for CON review purposes. In response to the fixed need pool published by AHCA in October 1993, Life Care filed a CON application, subsequently numbered CON 7501, for a 34-bed addition to a previously approved 77-bed nursing home in Clay County in AHCA District 4, Subdistrict 2. The Letter of Intent ("LOI") deadline for Life Care's application for the December, 1993 batching cycle was November 1, 1993. Rule 59C-1.008(5)(h), Florida Statutes, requires a listing of the total approximate amount of capital projects at the time of letter of intent deadline. The application filing date for this batching cycle was December 1, 1993, with an omissions response deadline of January 14, 1994. Section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires a complete list of capital projects at the time of application. Life Care application 7501 was deemed complete by AHCA on January 14, 1994. AHCA preliminarily denied Life Care's application for CON 7501 for failing to include the total project costs attributable to CON applications which were preliminarily denied by AHCA, but pending due to administrative challenges filed by Life Care. The amount listed on Schedule 2 of Life Care's application on the line described as "allowance for projects denied and appealed various" is $6,020,387. In the May, 1992 nursing home batching cycle, Life Care applied for a CON to build a 120-bed nursing home in Orange County, AHCA District 7, Subdistrict 2. That application (CON 7028) was preliminarily denied and, by Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated June 25, 1993, Life Care challenged AHCA's action. Life Care failed to include CON 7028 based on pending settlement negotiations on November 1, 1993, which resulted in the filing on January 12, 1994, of a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its challenge to the denial of CON 7028. See, DOAH Case No. 93-3912. Life Care's CON 7028 proposed total project cost was $5,644,047. In the June, 1993 nursing home batching cycle, Life Care applied for a 69-bed nursing home addition in Citrus County, AHCA District 3. That application (CON 7322) was subsequently denied and by Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing dated October 5, 1993, Life Care challenged that preliminary agency action. By Notice dated March 7, 1994, Life Care voluntarily dismissed its challenge to the denial of CON 7322. See DOAH Case No. 93-6009. Life Care's CON 7322 proposed total project cost was $1,473,000. However, Life Care entered into a settlement for a 9-bed partial award for a total project cost of $82,100. In June 1993, Life Care also applied for a CON to build a new 120-bed nursing home in Flagler County, in AHCA District 4, Subdistrict 4. That application (CON 7330) was subsequently denied and, by Petition dated October 6, 1993, Life Care challenged that preliminary agency action. Life Care failed to list CON 7330 on its Clay County application, based on pending settlement negotiations which resulted in its voluntary dismissal of its petition on January 14, 1994. See, DOAH Case No. 93-6011. Life Care's CON 7330 proposed total project cost was $5,656,000. In the same June 1993 cycle, Life Care applied for a CON to construct a new 42-bed nursing home in Polk County, AHCA District 6, Subdistrict 5. That application (CON 7355) was subsequently denied, and the denial challenged by Petition dated September 27, 1993. As of the date of this hearing, that application was pending at DOAH. See, DOAH Case No. 93-5747. Life Care's CON 7355 proposed total project cost was $2,925,871. Life Care also applied, in June 1993, for a CON to construct a new 120-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 4. That application (CON 7386) was subsequently denied, and that denial challenged by Petition dated October 6, 1993. At the time of this hearing, that application was pending at DOAH. See, DOAH Case No. 93-6006. Life Care's CON 7368 proposed total project cost was $6,101,000. The combined total of the projects costs equals $21,799,918 for CONs 7028, 7322, 7330, 7355 and 7368, not $6,020,387 as Life Care reported for "allowance for projects denied and appealed." Life Care also reported $15,000,000 as "other capitalization." Accepting AHCA's claim that $21,799,918 in project costs should have been reported, Life Care asserts that the total of $21,020,387 ($6,020,387 + $15,000,000) is available to fund the five projects, leaving an insignificant omission of 9/10 of 1 percent of total reported projects and expenditures, or $779,531 of $92,709,260. The Clay County CON application described the line item of $6,020,387 as "Allowance for projects denied and appealed" as follows: (3) An allowance for potential approval of a portion of the Life Care projects applied for in Florida for the batching cycles May 1992, November 1992, and May 1993 which were denied by the Agency and have been appealed by Life Care. These projects are for Orange County, Polk County (second project), Citrus County, Palm Beach County, and Flagler County. All of these projects were anticipated to be funded through a combination of Life Care equity and bank loans as outlined in the individual CON applications. Life Care described "Other Capitalization" as follows: (4) To be conservative, an allowance of $15,000,000 for currently unidentified capital projects which may occur over the next three years, including items such as facility renovations or additions, acquisitions, and exercising purchase options for leased facilities. These projects will be funded as they materialize, as it is anticipated that funding will be primarily through bank loans. Life Care also listed separately the costs for projects in eleven Florida counties for which AHCA had indicated an intent to issue it CONs or for which applications were filed simultaneously with the Clay County application. These project costs total $47,830,873. All together, approved Florida projects, other states projects, CONs with intents to deny but appealed, renovations, projects exempt from CON review and other capitalization cost reported by Life Care on Schedule 2 total $92,709,260. The notes drafted by Life Care to explain schedule 2 make it clear that Life Care did not expect to use the additional $15,000,000, reported to AHCA, to cover denied but appealed projects. The same is true of the other itemized projects listed on Schedule 2. Life Care clearly states which line item was intended to apply to Orange, Polk, Citrus, Palm Beach and Flagler Counties. On the date that Life Care filed its letter of intent the total amount of these pending projects was $21,799,918 not $6,0202,387, as reported. The notes indicate that the cost estimates are based on expectations of potential approvals of the denied but appealed CONs. In effect, as Life Care's witness testified, it expected to prevail in 25 percent of its pending administrative challenges. The notes attached to Schedule 2 do support Life Care's claim that $15,000,000 designated as "other capitalization" is available for an additional projects approved after administrative proceedings. By describing its availability for "unidentified projects," Life Care demonstrated that no obstacle exists to the use of the additional $15,000,000 on preliminarily denied CON projects if Life Care is more successful in administrative proceedings than it anticipates. Life Care's claim that it does not have to apply these funds to any planned capital expenditures, is also supported by an additional note attached to Schedule 2 explaining how estimated capital budget expenditures would be funded, which is as follows: (5) Estimated capital expenditures for 1995 at Life Care facilities and the corporate, regional and divisional offices to be funded through a combination of operating cash flow and bank loans. These expenditures are pending approval when they are incorporated into the annual budget prior to each respective year. Life Care has established that the $15,000,000 for unidentified capital projects is not otherwise committed and is available to fund preliminarily denied, but challenged CONs, if more than the expected potential projects are approved. If Life Care prevails on all pending challenges, then its projections of capital project costs fall short by $779,531. If Life Care's projections of its commitments are inaccurate by $779,531, with total project costs of $92,709,260, then the omission does not render Life Care's application incomplete for failing to include the total approximate amount of capital projects. AHCA gives a preference for expanding nursing homes with fewer than 120 beds for enhanced efficiency and economics of scale. AHCA also agreed that if the $15,000,000 had been identified as available for the denied but challenged capital projects, it would have been considered by AHCA, and that Life Care has the financial resources to complete the 34-bed addition. For these reasons, Life Care's proposed 34-bed addition to its approved 77-bed construction CON is financially feasible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Life Care for CON No. 7501 to construct a 34-bed nursing home addition in Clay County, AHCA District 4, Subdistrict 2, be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 15th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2409 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6. 10-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 13. 14-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-17. 16-(16-B) Accepted in Findings of Fact 17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and subordiante to preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. 23-24. Issue not reached. 25. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20. 26-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 14 and 23. Issue not reached. Accepted in Finding of Fact 21. 34-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14 and 23. 40-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 24. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 8-10. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 13-24 and rejected in part. 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire PENNINGTON & HAVEN, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 301 The Atrium, 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Nursing should discipline the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on charges contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, DPR Case No. 0111292.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed practical nurse who was working as a nurse at Seminole Nursing Pavilion in Seminole, Florida, in January, 1989. She holds Florida license number PN13417. The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on the evenings of January 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, 22, 25 and 26, 1989. On the evenings of January 3, 4 and 28, 1989, another nurse dispensed Mellaril to the patient. On the other 15 evenings in January, 1989, the Respondent was not on duty, and Mellaril was not dispensed to the patient. The doctor's orders for the patient, L. W., were: "Mellaril concentrate 25 mg. give two (2) times daily as needed for agitation." The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on at least one occasion--on January 5, 1989--when the patient was not agitated and showed no sign of becoming agitated. The patient was "calm to the point of being almost placid." The Respondent went in and roused the patient to give her the medication. The Respondent explained to other witnesses that she dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., without symptoms of agitation because the patient ate better and with less agitation at meal time after administration of Mellaril, and also because the patient's family favored this course. The evidence proved that it was below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing for the Respondent to administer Mellaril to this particular patient, L. W., for the stated purpose. It is possible for a patient regularly to become agitated at about meal time. This is not uncommon with some nursing home patients; it is commonly referred to as "sundowner syndrome." In the case of "sundowner syndrome," administration of the medication just before meal time to prevent agitation, so that the patient would eat better and with less agitation, could be in compliance with the doctor's orders, as written, and not below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing. But, in this case, the evidence proved that the patient did not have "sundowner syndrome." On only three of the 16 evenings in January, 1989, when the Respondent was not on duty did the on-duty nurse administer Mellaril for agitation. The Respondent has a history of recurring episodes of major depression. She was fired from her job at the Seminole Nursing Pavilion on or about January 27, 1989. She became angry and then deeply depressed. On or about February 28, 1989, the depression became so severe that the Respondent attempted to end her life, or at least made a suicidal gesture, by an overdose of valium and wine. Fortunately, she recovered and received treatment in various clinical settings through approximately April 24, 1989. She continued to receive therapy, particularly to deal with the stress of this proceeding. But by the time of the hearing, she was fairly stable, and her recurrent depression was in remission. She now is able to work and, in fact, has been working as a nurse without any apparent incapacity. The opinion testimony of the Department expert witness that the Respondent is now incapable, by reason of mental illness, to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients was not persuasive. The testimony was based solely on a review of the records in evidence as part of the Department's case in chief. The witness did not examine the Respondent and had no knowledge of the Respondent's employment history before about 1982 or after her employment at Seminole Pavilion ended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order placing the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on probation for one year, during which time the Respondent's current mental condition can be evaluated and her practice closely monitored to insure that she is rehabilated enough to be able to continue to practice nursing safely. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4. Rejected as not proven that agitation necessarily results in harm to the patient or others. Agitation could result only in what is called resistance to care. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 5.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The Respondent believed that the patient ate better and with less agitation after being given Mellaril, not that the Mellaril "made the patient eat better" in the sense that it increased her appetite. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The evidence suggested that the family approved of the use of Mellaril to counteract anticipated agitation; it did not prove that the family asked the Respondent to keep the patient sedated, as implied by this proposed finding. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 21. Accepted and incorporated. 22.-25. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected. See 22-25, above. 29.-33. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. See 22-25, above. Accepted and incorporated. First clause, accepted. However, the same records indicate that the Respondent's major depression is in remission. The Respondent's history is that her major depression alternately recurs and goes into remission depending on what is happening in her life and what kind of treatment she gets. Therefore, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Findings, the rest is rejected as not proven. 38.-41. Generally accepted but unnecessary. These are vague generalities; no specifics were proven. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 42.-43. Rejected as not proven. 44.-46. The Respondent was not charged with untruthfulness. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 47.-50. The Respondent was not charged with breach of a contractual agreement. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. Proposed finding 50 is based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 51.-52. Rejected as based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 53.-57. Subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 58.-60. The Respondent was charged with only one med pass error--dispensing Mellaril to the patient, L.W. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 61. Rejected as not proven. 62.-72. Rejected as not proven. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Nursing has some unique stresses. It has more stress than some jobs and less stress than other. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. As found, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent is now unable, by reason of her mental condition, to practice nursing safely. However, the Respondent's evidence on this point consisted only of medical records and progress notes created by the Respondent's therapist. Without any testimony to explain these records, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent was more than "fairly stable" at the time of the hearing. On the other hand, the evidence did prove that the Respondent has a history of recurrent major depression, a legitimate concern to the Board of Nursing after the February 28, 1989, suicide attempt. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christina M. Ippolito, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 6 South Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, should grant the application of Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Hillsborough (HCR), Petitioner in Case No. 85-3217, or Forum Group, Inc., sponsor of Retirement Living of Hillsborough County (Forum), Petitioner in Case No. 85-3376, or both, for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 60-bed nursing home in Hillsborough County. Paddock Meadows Convalescent Centers, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., and Angel1 Care, Inc., petitioners in Case Nos. 85-3362, 85-4124 and 86-0905, respectively, voluntarily dismissed their petitions shortly before the final hearing in this case. (Health Quest Corporation and Health Quest Realty (Hillsborough County), petitioners in Case No. 85-2923, voluntarily dismissed their petition on or about April 1, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The HCR Proposal. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Hillsborough (HCR), Petitioner in Case No. 85-3217, has been in the business of nursing home construction and operation for over 20 years. HCR currently operates approximately 10,000 beds in 17 states. It has developed over 200 facilities. HCR's proposed project would benefit financially to some extent from economies of scale of having a network of similar facilities. HCR originally applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in Hillsborough County. During the pendency of this proceeding, HCR down-sized its proposed project to 60 beds and made other amendments. The down-sizing and amendments are reflected in a supplemental application which was served on Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), but was not filed with the local health council. It is not clear whether the supplemental application was filed with HRS's Office of Community Medical Facilities. The supplemental application adopts by reference but does not re-type certain portions of the original application. Those portions of the original application were not introduced in evidence or otherwise made a part of the record of this proceeding. In HCR's supplemental application, the down-sized 60-bed nursing home is accompanied by a 60-bed adult congregate living facility housed in the part of the building originally proposed to house another 60 nursing home beds. In addition, the supplemental application reflects a new emphasis on treatment of patients with Alzheimer's and related diseases (dementia). HCR proposes a facility which will include a 60-bed nursing home, an adult congregate living facility, and an adult day-care component. The facility will offer programs specially designed for Alzheimer's disease victims, and, in its adult day care and assisted living areas, will provide programs which are designed to delay institutionalization as long as possible. The facility will provide staffing and special capabilities to accommodate the unique characteristics of dementia (Alzheimer's) patients, to allow the wandering Alzheimer's patient more freedom, and to shelter the non-dementia (non-Alzheimer's) patient from unnecessary contact with the dementia (Alzheimer's) patient. Alzheimer's disease is a progressive, organic brain disease which causes brain cells to die at a rate much more rapid than in the normal aging process. As the brain slowly dies and degenerates, other functions of the body dependent upon the brain's messages begin to deteriorate. The initial effects of the disease, such as forgetfulness and disorientation, are subtle, but the disease progresses through several stages where, increasingly, the disease victim is unable to perform normal daily functions or care for himself and, ultimately, loses the ability to control basic bodily functions and becomes bedridden. Alzheimer's disease is a disease of the elderly victims at two levels of the disease require inpatient care. Some victims develop psychiatric manifestations of the disease and short-term hospitalization or stabilization to enable the family caregiver to manage the patient still in the home setting. As victims reach the later stages of the disease, caregivers must consider institutional placement in a setting where there is a 24-hour-a-day care, seven days a week. In these later stages, the patients require total care which usually cannot be managed on a full-time basis at home, particularly by persons without significant resources. The primary caregiver of Alzheimer's disease patients is an older spouse, but in some instances it may. be an adult child. Ideally, inpatient programs for Alzheimer's disease victims would be designed with a continuum of care to minimize frequent changes in the victim's environment. In other words, the Alzheimer's care program would offer a range of care for patients who move through the various stages of Alzheimer's disease, from ambulatory to bed bound. Day care is an important component of the continuum development of Alzheimer's components for day-care programs in of care in an Alzheimer's program, because it offers rest to the family by placing the victim in a special care facility for a full day. The State of Florida allocated resources for the 1985 legislative session. Sophisticated, high-tech nursing care is required for patients in the later stages of the disease who have lost the ability to swallow, feed themselves, and perform other necessary/ bodily functions. Providing care from day care through high-tech care in the same facility minimizes frequent relocation of the Alzheimer's patient and facilitates the family coming to terms with the final outcome of the disease, where the family must relinquish total care to an institution. Alzheimer's disease victims in the middle and late stages of the disease who are still ambulatory exhibit the tendency to wander aimlessly. Nursing home care for such victims must provide a safe and secure environment in which the Alzheimer's patients may wander without endangering themselves or others. Otherwise, these patients will wander away from the facility and get lost or wander into dangerous traffic situations. Alzheimer's victims often disrupt the routine of non- Alzheimer's patients and the staff of the facilities by their constant wandering and by entering other patients' rooms and going through other patients' belongings. Special Alzheimer's units expect this behavior and make provisions to control it without physical or chemical constraint. In state-of-the-art Alzheimer's care, the physical nature of the decor and design of a nursing home appropriate for Alzheimer's care ideally would provide a safe and secure environment for the wandering, unstable Alzheimer's victim and provide a pleasant, therapeutic environment which copes with the patient's lost ability to synthesize data. Fixtures in the nursing home would be appropriately designed to enable the Alzheimer's patient to distinguish between significant fixtures, such as commodes, sinks, and wastebaskets. Ideally, activity areas for Alzheimer's patients would be separate from other nursing home patients, because of the Alzheimer's patient's disruptive wandering, absence of inhibitions and short attention spans which require a variety of activities and programs to accommodate. The staff of an Alzheimer's care program must be able to deal with the Alzheimer's patient. The staff will seldom see any improvement in the condition of the patient and will seldom get any positive feedback from the patient. Staffing patterns in Alzheimer's programs need to be more intense than average because the staff must deal with patients who have lost the ability to care for themselves. There is a need for closer supervision than is needed by the typical nursing home patient. Such a program also requires a social worker to develop the individual treatment plan for the patient and an occupational therapist to teach the patients those functions which the patients are continually losing. An Alzheimer's program within an adult congregate living facility is within the continuum of care required for some patients. The care provided here is less intense than that provided in a nursing home. However, once the victim loses basic bodily functions and begins wandering, the adult congregate living facility is no longer able to deal with these patients. Adult congregate living facilities and boarding homes in Hillsborough which accept Alzheimer's victims are frequently required to discharge such victims when the care becomes too difficult. In Hillsborough County, there are no nursing homes which provide state-of-the-art inpatient care designed for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease patients. Although there are two adult congregate living facilities in Hillsborough County which accept Alzheimer's disease patients, these facilities do not have safeguards for the wandering patient. Nursing homes traditionally deal with wandering Alzheimer's patients by physically restraining the patients or by chemically restraining the patients through the use of drugs. A state-of-the-art program designed to meet the special needs of Alzheimer's disease victims eliminates or reduces the need for physical and chemical restraints. HCR intends to offer a service, from day care through inpatient nursing care, that is designed for the needs of the typical Alzheimer's patient. In addition to the Alzheimer's patient, many patients not diagnosed as Alzheimer's disease victims but who are cognitively impaired (suffering from dementia) would also benefit from the service designed for the Alzheimer's patient. The adult day-care portion of the facility will allow the Alzheimer's victim to remain at home much of the day but allow the family and the well spouse to have time to provide for their own personal needs. The assisted living (adult congregate living) portion of the facility would be available for Alzheimer's victims not requiring advanced nursing care and would be available as a facility where the well spouse and the Alzheimer's victim could live together and both benefit from support services. The nursing home portion of the facility would offer special designs and programs to meet the needs of a maximum of 15 Alzheimer's patient in the middle stages, where wandering is a particular problem, as well as the needs of patients in the latter stages and death. The care available for the Alzheimer's disease victim in the latter stages of the disease (high-tech care) will also be available and appropriate for patients discharged from acute care hospitals who still need nursing care prior to returning home. The level of staffing provided in the HCR facility is higher than one would expect to find in the typical nursing home. The staffing proposed assumes that 15 of the patients will be Alzheimer's wanderers. HCR proposes a staffing higher than the typical nursing home because of the personal attention required for state-of-the-art Alzheimer's patient care and HCR's intent to reduce the amount of medication and physical restraint imposed upon the Alzheimer's patient. Increased staffing will encourage the Alzheimer's patient to retain whatever cognitive capabilities they have for as long as possible and will reduce the disruption experienced in a normal nursing home when the Alzheimer's disease patients wander, disrupt other patients, and generally disrupt the nursing home. The HCR facility will provide an area for wandering patients and a fenced courtyard which will allow wandering patients to have outside activity without danger of leaving the facility. The facility includes a therapeutic kitchen important to the Alzheimer's patient who retains some cognitive recognition of kitchen activities. A separate dining room for the Alzheimer's patient will be provided in order to accommodate the increased spillage experienced by Alzheimer's patient and the risk of incontinence, which is very disruptive and disturbing to non-Alzheimer's patients. wandering patients will be continuously monitored through the use of an electronic wristband which will prevent the patient from wandering outside of the facility and those areas where the wandering patient could cause problems. Dementia patients are now being cared for and treated in existing nursing homes in Hillsborough County. There was no persuasive evidence that patients have been denied access to nursing home beds in Hillsborough County. The features proposed in HCR's supplemental application would allow HCR to provide better quality care and treatment for those patients. However, HCR has only committed to treat up to 15 Alzheimer's patients in the "wandering" stage. That degree of commitment and the extent to which those special features for the care and treatment of dementia patients are needed would not themselves justify the proposed project absent an overall need for additional nursing home beds. HCR is in the process of purchasing four existing. nursing homes from Care Corporation. HCR did not prove that it has studied whether renovation of those facilities to accommodate special features for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's patients would not be less costly, more efficient or more appropriate alternatives to this proposed project or that they are not practicable. The project proposed in HCR's supplemental application is immediately and long-term financially feasible. HCR is a subsidiary of Owens-Illinois. On December 31, 1985, Owens- Illinois had total assets of approximately $3.3 billion, total current assets of approximately $903 million, and cash of approximately $47 million. Meanwhile, current liabilities were approximately $723 million and total shareholders' equity was approximately $1,559,000,000. In addition, HCR proved that it would be able to finance the approximately $2.2 million total project costs by borrowing 75% at favorable interest rates and funding the remaining 25% out of HCR's equity. Making reasonable, conservative assumptions--including an 11.5% interest rate, a January 1989 opening of the facility, and 40% Medicaid utilization on a patient day basis--the project can be anticipated to break even during year two of operation and earn approximately $158,000 during year two of operations. The nursing home portion of the facility and the day- care element adjacent to the nursing home portion will comprise 25,000 square feet; the nursing home portion alone will contain 23,000 gross square feet, or 383 gross square feet per bed. The construction costs for the nursing home and day-care portion of the facility will be $1,458,000, or $58.32 per square foot for the 25,000 square foot area; the cost of construction for the 23,000 gross square foot for the nursing home portion is $1,341,360. The cost per bed for construction of the nursing home portion of the facility is $22,356. The total project costs for the facility estimated by HCR and the cost per bed of the facility includes both the nursing home and adult day-care portion of the facility; when the adult day-care portion of the facility (8 percent of the construction costs) is taken into consideration, the total project cost becomes $2,083.360, at a cost per bed of $34,722. The estimated project cost for the nursing home portion of HCR's proposed facility is as follows: Feasibility studies $15,000; legal and accounting fees $32,000; plan review $8,000; subtotal of project development costs (the foregoing three items) $55,000; costs for financing $120,000; architectural and engineering fees $15,000; site survey and soil investigation $5,000; subtotal of the foregoing professional services $20,000; construction costs $1,458,000 (which includes the day-care portion of the facility but would be reduced to $1,341,360 for the nursing home portion alone); equipment costs $222,000; land acquisition costs $200,000; interest during construction $125,000; total project costs $2,200,000 ($2,083,360 when the adult day-care portion of the facility is excluded). All 60 of the nursing home beds in HCR's proposed facility will be certified both for Medicare and Medicaid utilization. However, in its supplemental application, HCR limits its commitment to serve Medicaid patients to 40% of its patient days. The increased cost of special features for Alzheimer's patients influenced HCR's financial decision not to commit to a higher percentage of Medicaid utilization. HCR has received approximately 13 certificates of need to develop nursing homes in Florida. HCR has completed three nursing homes, and HCR has seven projects under construction. Various difficulties prevented HCR from initiating construction of three projects for which it received certificates of need in 1981 and 1982. HCR has experienced no problems in initiating construction of its certificates of need obtained since that time, and its experience in Florida renders it unlikely that its previous failure to commence construction of facilities will reoccur. HCR acknowledges that it has previously sold and does not now operate nursing homes for which it had obtained certificates of need in Florida. However, these sales were facilities in the same building as the nursing home. A dietician and central kitchen and central laundry will serve all three levels. Housekeeping, building supervision, building plant, and other building maintenance operations will be centralized, saving some expenses. The Forum Proposal. Forum Group, Inc., sponsor of Retirement Living of Hillsborough County (Forum), Petitioner in Case No. 85-3376, is a general partner in a Florida partnership named Retirement Living of Hillsborough County. Forum originally applied for and continues to apply for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 60-bed nursing home. Like the project proposed in HCR's supplemental application, Forums proposal includes aspects in addition to the nursing home. Forum's proposed nursing home would be connected to a 15-bed wing of private rooms for patients who need assistance in their personal care and access to some of the capabilities of a nursing home on an intermittent basis but do not need nursing home care full-time. This is-bed wing would have separate dining facilities. This "personal care unit" will cost patients approximately $40 to $60 a day. In Forum's proposed nursing home, three wings, like the "personal care unit," would radiate from a hub where the nursing station would be located. Twenty of the sixty beds would be in private rooms occupied by private patients. Ten of those beds would be designated for skilled nursing care and ten for intermediate care. Of the 40 beds located in 20 semi-private rooms, 36 would be certified for Medicaid use, leaving 4 to be certified for Medicare use. Eighteen of the 40 beds would be for intermediate care, and 22 of the 40 beds would be for skilled nursing care. Forum's skilled nursing care would include "hi- tech" skilled nursing comparable to HCR's. A central corridor with central kitchen facilities and building maintenance facilities connects the three nursing home wings and the personal care unit wing with a retirement living center. The retirement living center will be able to accommodate 120 residents. Residents will be under a one year lease arrangement instead of an endowment-type arrangement. Monthly lease payments will probably fall between $950 and $1700 per month. The rental includes one meal a day in the retirement living center's dining room, weekly house cleaning, 24-hour security, transportation by automobile to appointments, banks, and doctor's offices and by mini-bus to shopping and theatres, availability of an on-call nurse, utilities, taxes, and the. services of a social director. The retirement living center will be marketed as a luxury facility to elderly persons approximately 75 years of age with an annual income of between $15,000 and $35,000. Forum projects initial utilization of all 36 Medicaid certified beds by Medicaid patients, resulting in 60% Medicaid utilization by patient day. However, that percentage would change with time. At first, residents of the retirement living apartments would not be expected to move immediately to the nursing home portion of the facility. The projected fill-up for the nursing home portion initially would not be derived from the initial fill-up of the retirement living apartments. Eventually, however, 10 to 15% of the residents of the retirement living apartments would require nursing home care, and approximately 50% of the patients in the nursing home will be, former residents of the retirement living section. In 10 to 12 years, the percentage of Medicaid utilization can be expected to drop, with a floor of approximately 45% Medicaid utilization by patient day. Like HCR's proposed project, Forum's proposal will benefit financially to some extent from the location of other facilities in the same building as the nursing home. A dietician and central kitchen and central laundry will serve all three levels. Housekeeping, building supervision, building plant, and other building maintenance operations will be centralized, saving some expenses. Like HCR, but probably not to the same extent, Forum would be able to benefit financially to some extent from the economies of scale of having a network of similar facilities (including approximately 11 facilities like the proposed project and approximately 20 free-standing nursing homes.) Location of the retirement center and the personal care unit in the same building with the nursing home will afford Forum some advantages in caring for its nursing home patients. First, some of the patients can be expected to use two or all three of the levels of care available in the complex as their medical condition worsens or, in some cases, improves. This would aid in the continuity of Forum's care and reduce the emotional strain of changing levels of care (since the patients do not have to move to a totally new location and environment.) Second, to the extent nursing home patients continue to have an independent means to pay to reside in the retirement living center or the personal care unit, those patients will have an incentive to improve their health so as to be able to move back to the retirement living center or personal care unit from the nursing home unit. (Obviously, these benefits would not apply to Medicaid patients in the nursing home.) Third, general education in health and hygiene of persons residing in the retirement living center and personal care unit will help to some degree in keeping them out of the nursing home or aiding their recovery if in the nursing home for short-term care. Like HCR, Forum also has the ability to provide quality nursing home care. However, Forum's proposal does not have the special features for care of Alzheimer's disease and other dementia patients proposed by HCR in its supplemental application. While some of those state-of-the-art special features could be incorporated by Forum during construction of its proposed nursing home, others could not, and Forum does not have the overall emphasis or commitment to provide those special features that HCR does. The total cost of Forum's nursing home proposal is approximately $2,200,000. This includes no interest cost during construction since Forum has decided to, and has the financial ability to, pay for the construction entirely out of its cash reserves. Forum has approximately $40,272,000 in cash assets. It has approximately $69,210,000 worth of current assets and only approximately $23,192,000 worth of current liabilities. Its total assets are approximately $290,747,000 and it has approximately $151,155,000 worth of common shareholders' equity. Its net income for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, was approximately $15,012,000. As a result, Forum's nursing home proposal is immediately financially feasible. Making reasonable, conservative assumptions including 13% interest on borrowed capital, late 1987 or early 1988 occupancy and 60% Medicaid utilization by patient day, Forum's nursing home proposal probably will break even in mid-year two and will earn approximately S69,000 net income in year two of operations. The following are Forum's final project development costs: feasibility studies $20,000, legal and accounting fees $30,000, development expenses $10,000, subtotal of the foregoing three categories $60,000; architectural and engineering fees $70,000, site survey and soil investigation $15,000, for a total cost for professional services total of $85,000; site preparation work $40,000, construction costs of $1,345,598, and contingency fees of $45,661, for a total construction cost of $1,390,258; fixed equipment cost of $65,998, moveable equipment cost of $128,850, tax-freight contingency and escalation provisions of $44,160 for a subtotal of equipment costs of $239,000; land acquisition of costs of $400,000, no interest costs during construction, pre-opening expenses' of $25,000, and, finally, a total project cost of $2,199,258. The expected construction cost per bed comes to approximately $23,171, and the total cost per bed comes-to approximately $36,165. HRS Rule Need Methodology. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides the HRS bed need rule methodology for determining projected need for new or additional community nursing home beds. The methodology provided in Rule 10-5.11(21) is as follows: Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. Need Methodology. In addition to other relevant statutory and rule criteria to be used in considering the allocation of new or additional community nursing home beds, the Department will determine if there is a projected need for new or additional beds three years into the future according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10. This methodology provides for adjustments to current community nursing home bed rates based upon expected changes in the proportion of district residents age 75 + and the current utilization of community nursing home beds in the subdistricts designated by local health councils. In districts with a high proportion of elderly residents living in poverty, the methodology specifies a minimum bed rate. A = (POPA X BA) + (POPB X BB ): Where: A is the district's age-adjusted Number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made. POPA is the population age 65-74 years in relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. BA is the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years and over in the relevant district. BB is the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district. BA=LB/POPC + (6 X POPD): Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. BB = 6 X BA SAA X (LBD/LB) X (OR/.90): Where: SA is the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds. LBD is the number of licensed community Nursing beds in the relevant subdistrict. Or is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of October through March preceding that cycle; applications submitted for the January batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months of April through September preceding that cycle. For the purposes of this rule, the occupancy data to be considered shall be that collected by the Department's Office of Healthcare Planning and Development or a contractor assigned to collect the data. In departmental districts where the percentage of persons age 65 and older living in poverty, according to the latest available U.S. census, exceeds the statewide average poverty rate for the 65 and older population and the sum of the currently licensed and certificate of need approved beds for community nursing homes within a district is less than 27 beds per thousand residents age 65 and older, the district shall be allocated a total of 27 community nursing home beds per thousand residents age 65 and older in the current year. This allocation is expressed as follows: If (Ls + AB ) /POPE is less than 27/1000 and PBD is greater than PBS, then: PA(27 X POPE)/1000 Where: AB is the number of certificate of need approved beds for community nursing homes in the relevant district. PBD is the percentage of persons age 65 and older below the poverty level within the district. PBS is the percent of persons age 65 and older below the poverty level within the state. PA is the poverty-adjusted number of beds in the relevant district. POPE is the sum of POPC and POPD. * * * 9. The net bed allocation for a sub-district which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90% of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs 1 through 9 unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80%, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. Prior to August 20, 1985, HRS had a long-standing policy interpreting the methodology as requiring use of population and occupancy rate at the time of the formal administrative hearing, if any, as the current population (POPC and POPD) and occupancy rate (OR) in the formula. HRS also subtracted the number of nursing home beds licensed and approved as of the date of the formal administrative hearing, if any, from the gross number of nursing home beds needed to determine the net need for nursing home beds proposed in a pending certificate of need application. Since the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), modified on rehearing (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), HRS adopted a new policy interpreting its rule methodology and the Gulf Court decision. HRS now interprets Gulf Court's reference to a "fixed pool of beds.' available in a given certificate of need application batching cycle to fix the health planning horizon in the rule methodology at three years into the future from the filing deadline for the certificate of need application batching cycle in question. Accordingly, POPA and POPB under the rule methodology represents the most current projection of population in the respective age cohorts on the fixed planning horizon. As before the Gulf Court decision, all other elements of the methodology including the figures for POPC, POPD, and OR are updated to the time of the formal administrative proceeding. Under its policy interpreting the rule methodology and the Gulf Court decision, HRS obtains the subdistrict occupancy rate (OR), by taking the average occupancy rate during the most recent six-month period for which data is available--in this case, from October 1, 1985 through March 31, 1986. However, the current population figures (POPC and POPD) HRS uses are the figures available closest to the date of the formal administrative hearing in this case on July 1, 1986. Under its policy, the occupancy rate (OR) does not relate to the figures for current population (POPC and POPD) to which it logically should relate. HRS did not satisfactorily explain the rationality of its policy. Meanwhile, there was ample evidence supporting the rationality of using as POPC and POPD the population at the midpoint of the time period used force determining occupancy rate (OR). In this case, since occupancy rate (OR) is determined by averaging the occupancy rates during the period from October 1, 1985 through March 31, 1986, the current population (POPC and POPD) should be the populations of the respective age cohorts on January 1, 1986. Otherwise, HRS' policy interpreting its rule methodology and the Gulf Court decision is a rational effort to reconcile the Gulf Court decision with the certificate of need statute, other conflicting court decisions and principles of sound health planning. It suffices here to say that, notwithstanding the Gulf Court decision, the evidence in this case does not establish the existence of a "fixed pool" of needed nursing home beds for which the applicants in this case applied. See Conclusions of Law 1 through 13 below. In addition, sound health planning not only dictates the use of the most recently available population projections (POPA and POPB) and the most current data (POPC, POPD, and OR) for determining current bed rates (BA and BB) under the rule methodology, but also would counsel against relying on state or district health plan determinations of a "fixed pool of beds" based upon inferior data and evidence. Departure from these sound health planning principles is likely to result in certificates of need for nursing home beds that are not needed or, in some cases, the denial of certificates of need for nursing home beds that are needed. See Appendix, paragraph B.4, below. For purposes of calculating need under the HRS rule need methodology, the appropriate health planning district is District VI, and the appropriate subdistrict is Hillsborough County. There currently are 5,617 licensed nursing home beds in District VI (LB). The District VI population for persons aged 65 to 74 on January 1, 1986 (POPC) is 131,501. The District VI population for persons aged over 75 for January 1, 1986 (POPD) is 91,433. The bed rate for the portion of the current population aged 65 to 74 (BA) is 0.008259. The bed rate for the portion of the current population aged over 75 (Bs) is 0.049554. The projected District VI population for persons aged 65 to 74 on January 1, 1988 (POPA) is 139,903. The projected District VI population for persons aged over 75 on January 1, 1988 (POPD) is 100,175. Using the bed rates for the two age cohorts (BA and BB) and the projected populations for those age cohorts on January 1, 1988 (POPA and POPB), the gross projected District VI nursing home bed need for January 1, 1988 (A) is 6,119.6. The occupancy rate for District VI nursing home beds between October 1, 1985 and March 31, 1986 (OR) was 93.3646%. This was the most current figure available at the time of the hearing. At the time of the formal administrative hearing, there were 2,512 licensed beds in Hillsborough County (LBD). At the time of the formal administrative hearing, there were 368 approved nursing home beds for the Hillsborough County subdistrict (AB). Using the figures for projected District VI bed need (A), licensed beds in District VI (LB), licensed beds for the Hillsborough County subdistrict (LBD) and the occupancy rate (OR), the allocation of nursing home beds for the Hillsborough County subdistrict (SA), is 2,839. The beds that will be available in Hillsborough County on January 1, 1988, is 2,843 (LBD plus .9 AB), leaving a surplus of 4 nursing home beds in Hillsborough County on January 1, 1988 under the HRS rule need methodology, as properly interpreted. In District VI, the percentage of persons aged 65 and older living in poverty, according to the latest available. U.S. census, exceeds the statewide average poverty rate for the 65 and older population, but the sum of the currently licensed and certificate of need approved beds for community nursing homes within District VI is approximately equal to 27 beds per thousand persons aged 65 and older, and no poverty adjustment is required under Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)5., Florida Administrative Code. State Health Plan. The State Health Plan endorses the concept of an integrated continuum of long-term care services. Forum's proposal integrates retirement living with minimal skilled nursing care needs, skilled and intermediate nursing care in a nursing home setting, and personal assistance care a middle ground between the two. Similarly, HCR's proposal integrates (1) adult congregate living with minimal requirement for skilled nursing care to limited nursing care provided to an Alzheimer's patient being primarily cared for by a spouse, and (2) skilled and intermediate nursing care in a nursing home setting, and (3) a range of specialized nursing services for the Alzheimer's patient in the second and third stages of the disease. The HCR proposal also integrates day care and respite services for Alzheimer's patients being cared for primarily for by relatives in their own homes. Addressing a related concern, the State Health Plan also endorses pre-admission screening to determine the level of care needed by a potential nursing home patient. This serves to foster a system of health care that seeks to promote "wellness" and independence of the patient. Both applicants will have some type of pre-admission screening process. Both applicants' proposals include on-site non-nursing home living facilities, and a decision would have to be made which of those two environments are appropriate for a particular patient. Forum also has personal assistance care which would require more precise screening, and Forum appeared more intent on establishing effective pre-admission screening procedures and cooperating with the state-sponsored CARES (Comprehensive Assessment and Review for Extended services) program aimed at diverting potential patients who do not truly need nursing home services. Both proposals also seek to promote "wellness" and independence of the patient. Both include less restrictive settings than nursing home care for patients who do not yet need full-time nursing services. For some patients, the less restrictive setting can serve as an incentive to recover from illnesses and shorten short-term nursing home stays. Again, Forum's proposal, with its three levels of care and more attractive retirement living setting, better fosters these objectives. Finally, the State Health Plan highlights the elderly's need for information on providers' charge structures and acceptance of Medicaid/Medicare assignment. It expresses a goal of availability of services to the medically indigent, and recommends adherence to the applicable local health plan's expectations. See Finding Of Fact 61 below. District VI Health Plan. As its second priority, the District VI Health Plan states that applicants for a certificate of need for nursing home services in the Northwest subdivision of the Hillsborough County subdistrict should commit, at minimum, 18.6% of its services to the care of Medicaid eligible patients. Forum's application commits 60% of its patient days to Medicaid during the first year of operation. HCR's commitment is only 40%. However, HCR's commitment is on a permanent basis, and Forum's actual Medicaid utilization can be expected to drop over the first ten years of operation with a floor of approximately 45%. The actual percentage of Medicaid days for the period January to March 1986, for Hillsborough County was 70%. The District VI Health Plan also ranks the Northwest subdivision of the Hillsborough County subdistrict as the first priority for location of new or additional nursing home services when needed in District VI. Both applicants propose to locate their projects in the Northwest subdivision of the Hillsborough County subdistrict. Another priority in the District VI Health Plan is to give preference to applicants with a documented history of implementing their certificates of need within the statutory time frames. Forum had no history in Florida but a good record of follow-through elsewhere. HCR has a history of mixed results in Florida but offered good explanations for the instances of delay in implementing certain certificates of need in earlier years, and the evidence was not persuasive that either Forum or HCR should be given a competitive advantage regarding this priority. The District VI Health Plan sets a 90% occupancy threshold for the continuous period of six months before additional beds are approved. This threshold has been met in Hillsborough County for at least three years. Current occupancy in Hillsborough County is 93.3646%. The District VI Health Plan states that applications for additional nursing home beds in a subdistrict should be considered against the availability of alternative forms and settings for long-term care. In this case, there was no evidence of alternatives to nursing home services other than the alternatives within the proposed projects. However, neither of the applicants will go forward with the retirement living or personal assistance care or adult congregate living alternatives without the attached nursing home. No specialized state-of-the- art Alzheimer's disease programs are now available in District VI. See Finding Of Fact 71 below. The District VI Health Plan states that applications should be reviewed with the goal that nursing home services be within 30 minutes travel time of 90% of urban residence and 45 minutes of 90% of rural residents. There was no evidence in this case regarding geographic access of the urban and rural populations or that the proposed projects would make Finally, the District VI Health Plan states that applicants should be evaluated as to their achievement of superior quality ratings by HRS and other indications of quality as available. Both applicants adequately establish that they will be able to provide quality nursing home services. It can be anticipated that both will seek and obtain a superior rating for its proposed facility. Other Pertinent Criteria. Both applicants propose projects which will be accessible to schools for health professions in Hillsborough County, such as colleges and trade schools for training and teaching purposes. In addition to its Medicaid utilization commitment previously discussed. Forum will establish a $10,000 fund, to be replenished annually, for indigent patients to draw upon as necessary for payment of nursing home services. This fund is intended to address, for example, the circumstance that could arise if a private pay nursing home patient runs out of money and all 36 Medicaid-certified nursing home beds are occupied. Unless the fund pays for the patient, the patient would have to be transferred to another nursing home. However, Forum does not yet nursing home services accessible to residents now outside the applicable travel time have any guidelines or criteria for the operation of the fund. Both Forum and HCR propose facilities to provide nursing home services. Neither applicant seeks to justify the need for its proposed nursing home on need for services that can be provided other than through a nursing home. No applicant in this batching cycle seeks to add beds as an alternative to new construction. Existing nursing home beds are alternatives to the proposals only if there is no need for additional nursing home beds. There is no existing alternative to the special Alzheimer's program proposed by HCR. Existing nursing homes serve Alzheimer's patients but not with state-of-the-art nursing home care. However, renovation of facilities HCR is in the process of purchasing from Care Corporation to accommodate special features for the treatment of Alzheimer's patients might be an alternative to the construction of a new nursing home for the purpose of providing those services. HCR did not prove that it has studied those alternatives and found either that they would not be less costly, more efficient or more appropriate or that they would not be practicable. Both HCR and Forum, through their network of retirement centers and nursing homes, generate economies of scale in centralized operations and management functions and in acquisition of equipment. As a larger nursing home company, HCR's economies of scale would be greater than Forum's. In addition, by combining different levels of care on one campus, both applicants can enjoy further economies in dietary, laundry, medical supply and bookkeeping operations. Both HCR and Forum can adequately meet manpower requirements for their proposed facilities with a combination of in-house transfers and recruiting from the local community. There was no evidence that approval of a new 60-bed nursing home facility in Hillsborough County would have a significant negative impact on the financial viability of existing nursing homes. Current occupancy rates are high, reducing patients' choice in the selection of a nursing home. The last 240 nursing home beds opened to patients in Hillsborough County quickly were absorbed by the demand for those services. Neither HCR nor Forum now own or operate a nursing home in the Tampa Bay area. However, HCR is in the process of acquiring four nursing homes from Care Corporation. As a result, HCR would have more control over the market than Forum and would have the potential eventually to use its market power to decrease competition. But at this time, it can be anticipated that either proposal would foster competition and promote quality assurance and effectiveness. Balanced Consideration of the Criteria. HCR and Forum are worthy applicants who have conceived and proposed nursing home projects worthy of consideration. However, balancing consideration of all of the criteria, and giving due weight to the HRS rule need methodology, it is found that there is no need at this time for a new 60-bed nursing home in Hillsborough County. There is no numeric need under the rule, and no special circumstances were proved by documentation of denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or of need exceeding the number of licensed unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Meanwhile, the special Alzheimer's program HCR proposes does not independently support construction of a new 60-bed nursing home. Renovation of the four nursing homes HCR is in the process of purchasing from Care Corporation might be a less costly, more efficient and more appropriate alternative to construction of a new 60-bed nursing home to provide special Alzheimer's programs in Hillsborough County. However, if there were a need for 60 additional nursing home beds, HCR's Alzheimer's program would be enough to give it a competitive advantage over Forum's proposal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order denying the applications of both Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, Petitioner in Case No. 85-3217, CON Action No. 3818, and Forum Group, Inc., Petitioner in Case No. 85-3376, CON Action No. 3817, for a certificate of need to construct and operate a new 60-bed nursing home in Hillsborough County. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, 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 3rd day November, 1986.
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are uncontroverted. Meridian's original application for a 120-bed nursing home was updated to seek instead approval for a 60-bed freestanding nursing home. This facility will be located at the southern end of the county, near the communities of Palm Bay and Malabar. The applicant has agreed to provide services to Medicaid-eligible persons at a percentage reflecting the previous year's county average, up to a rate of 50 percent of patient days. HRS' computation of nursing home bed need for Brevard County projects a need for 68 beds in July 1988, the relevant planning horizon. The witnesses for both parties concur that the application, as updated, meets all relevant criteria for approval. Although the latest financial statement relates to the company's fiscal year ending August 31, 1985, the firm commitments and the pro formas included within the application leave no question as to the financial feasibility of the proposed facility. Meridian maintains a good line of credit to handle cash flow at start up and reasonably projects a positive net income for the second year of operation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting a certificate of need to Meridian for a 60-bed nursing home in Brevard County and reflecting the voluntary dismissal of the petition filed by Beverly Enterprises in this consolidated proceeding. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARK CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 200 South Monroe Street Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard 4th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 E. G. Boone, Esquire Robert T. Klingbeil, Jr., Esquire 1001 Avenida del Circo P. O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The broad issue for resolution is whether FHFC's application meets the criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. FHFC contends that its application meets all the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S., and when (1)(k) of Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. is properly applied, a net need for at least 93 beds results. DHRS contends that a need for only 17 beds exists when the numerical need methodology is applied consistent with its current policy. DHRS did not present any evidence on any criteria other than need. The more specific issue to be determined in this proceeding is focused on the data for current and future population used to calculate numerical need under Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. FHFC contends that the most recently released population estimates and projections should be used; DHRS asserts that the data available at the time of the application should be used. The parties' differing results in the net bed need (93 beds, as opposed to 17 beds) are based upon those separate theories for application of the rule.
Findings Of Fact FHFC currently operates a 120-bed nursing home in Polk County, on the northeastern outskirts of the City of Lakeland. Its application for an additional 60 beds was submitted in July 1985, in time for the July 1985 batching cycle. The application was deemed complete and was later denied in December 1985. The cover letter from HRS dated December 9, 1985, accompanying the State Agency Action Report, "SAAR", states the basis for denial: "There is insufficient need for the project proposed for this subdistrict at this time." Comments within the SAAR explain that the application of the methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. results in insufficient need for the project proposed by the applicant. "...Further, nursing home utilization within Polk County does not warrant the addition of nursing home beds at this time." (SAAR, P. 9, Petitioner's exhibit No. 2) Walter Eugene Nelson is a health planning consultant and former administrator of the HRS Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, the office responsible for administering the certificate of need program. He was tendered by Petitioner and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in health care planning and nursing home CON reviews. Mr. Nelson prepared a break-out of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. With one significant exception, his application of the methodology conforms to that of Herbert Straughn, HRS' expert witness. For the factors related to current and projected population (POPA, POPB, POSC and POSD), Mr. Nelson used data released from the Office of the Governor in January 1987. Mr. Straughn used data available as of the date of the application, that is, data released on July 1, 1985. Both parties agree that "current population" is that population at the time of application, July 1985. The projected horizon year population is three years later, or July 1988. Both parties agree that the source of the data is the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. Actual population census counts are made every ten years. During the decennium, population figures are extrapolated and updated through current data on utility hook-ups, building permits, employment, school enrollment and similar sources. When the data is applied to population in a future date, the resultant population count is called a "projection"; when the data is applied to population for a current or past date, the population count is called an "estimate". The Office of the Governor revises and updates its population estimates and projections every six months. Sometimes the figures are adjusted upward, sometimes downward. In the opinion of Eugene Nelson, the later-released figures are more accurate. In this instance, as to the figures released in July 1985, for the current (July 1985) population, the "estimates" were really projections since the data was collected in Spring 1985, before the relevant period. By January 1987, the estimates for the July 1985 population had the advantage of hindsight and the projections for the population in July 1988 had the advantage of data collected between July 1985 and January 1987. Herbert Straughn contends that the estimates and projections released in July 1985 are more appropriate. His explanation is best expressed in his own words: * * * [direct examination by Mr. Powell] Q What set of population figures did you use in your calculations? [response by Mr. Straughn] A I used the populations that were current at the time of the submission of the application, that being of July, 1985, and then the proper planning horizon of July, 1988. Q Why did you use those figures? A Because it more truly reflects the entire set of data that the Department sees fit to use on calculating bed need during or prior to, an administrative hearing. Q Why do you-all consider that to be more appropriate? A Because, well, because it more truly reflects the entire set of data by which to derive the methodology, that, you know, including the population, the occupancy, the number of licensed beds, and the number of approved beds. Q Well, just referring to the population, which Mr. Nelson has used a different set of figures, which set is the better set of figures to use, current as of the date of the application? A Well, I know it could be the current, or the date of the application, because then it truly reflects the input of the other set of data to derive the methodology to come up to the number of beds either needed, or not needed. Q Which figures do you consider more accurate, so far as population figures? A I would consider these that were current at the time that we did the analysis. Q Why? A Well, contrary, I think, to what Mr. Nelson says, that the closer that you can get to the population at the time you do the review, based on the ten-year span of when the population, or census, is taken, because it's taken every ten years, the further you get away from the base year, I think that the calculations that get further away from the base year, therefore, become less accurate. Q Would you say less reliable? A And less reliable. * * * (transcript, pgs. 89-90) As recently as September 1986, HRS used the most current available population data in its bed need methodology. Even now HRS still uses the approved bed figures available at the time the SAAR is signed, rather than at the time the application is submitted. Herbert Staughn's break-out of the methodology, Respondent's exhibit No. 1, reflects on its face the updated adjustment of another variable: "licensed beds" ("LBD" in the rule formula). His break-out initially included 1685 licensed beds, but shortly before the hearing this figure was adjusted downward to 1655 licensed beds after it was determined that Johnson Health Center's 30 beds were sheltered nursing home beds which are not applied in computing net need for community nursing home beds. Both parties apply an occupancy rate in the Polk County subdistrict of 84.9 percent. Herbert Straughn contends that this rate indicates lack of need, as it is less than an alleged minimum standard of 90 percent occupancy. This "minimum standard" is not described by rule or statute, nor was it adequately explained by the HRS expert. The CON review criteria listed in the SAAR correspond, in substance, to the review criteria in Section 381.494(b)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. The SAAR is used by the agency as a convenient check list to inform an applicant of the extent to which the criteria are satisfied. There are criteria, other than need, identified in the checklist. In its case FHFC presented affirmative testimony that each criteria was met by the applicant. The only evidence presented by HRS related to need as addressed in paragraphs Nos. 8, 9 and 10, above. FHFC presented no evidence of special circumstances pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j. F.A.C. This provision applies in the event that the net bed allocation is zero. FHFC's break out of the bed need methodology yielded a net bed allocation of 93 beds for the planning horizon year 1988. HRS' break out yielded an allocation of 17 beds.
The Issue Whether petitioner should be granted a certificate of need to build a 120- bed nursing and extended care facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application be denied for failure to meet licensing criteria contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 8th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Health Quest Realty XII, filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), in November, 1982 seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida. The original estimated cost of the project was $3,108,000; however, due to the passage of time since the original filing, petitioner now anticipates the cost to be $4,488,000. The proposal will be financially guaranteed by Health Quest Corporation, a corporation with principal offices in South Bend, Indiana. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action advising petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The proposed agency action was not introduced into evidence, but based on the stipulation of the parties, the denial was apparently predicated upon the lack of need for any additional beds in Broward County, Florida. The determination of need for nursing home beds is made pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Under the formula contained in that rule, only 101 additional nursing home beds were needed in Broward County, Florida, at the time of final hearing. However, HRS recently granted this allocation of beds to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America in DOAH Case No. 83-882, Final Order entered on April 4, 1984. Accordingly, no need for any additional beds exists at the present time under the rule. Petitioner principally contended that non-rule factors must be considered in evaluating its application because Broward County is not "normal" within the meaning of the rule. In this regard, it offered evidence to show that Broward County has the fewest beds per capita of the eleven service districts in the state, that the county has a relatively low use of nursing home services by its indigent population, and that the county has a greater number of Medicaid patients per 1,000 indigent elderly than other counties. From this, it concluded that Broward County is abnormal to the extent that more nursing home services must be made available to the elderly indigent. However, these factors are incorporated within the rule and accordingly taken into account when determining need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Realty XII for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HEALTH QUEST REALTY XII, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-1892 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. /
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
