The Issue Whether petitioner has good cause, within the meaning of Rule 10D- 29.128(6), Florida Administrative Code, to revoke respondent's superior rating, for the reasons alleged either in Ms. Cheren's letter or in the statement of deficiencies?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a license to operate a 120-bed (T. 186) nursing home at 6535 Chester Avenue in Jacksonville, and does so under the name of Taylor Care Center (TCC). Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), which issued the license, later gave TCC a superior rating, the rating it had in March of 1988. On March 28, 1988, a Monday, Joanna T. Warfel, R.N., Edward Melvin and Richard Gerard undertook an annual "combined Medicare/Medicaid licensure survey" (T. 39) at TCC on behalf of HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification. The surveyors produced a statement of deficiencies on Form HCFA-2567 (10-84), the same form on which TCC responded with its plan of correction. HRS' Exhibit No. 1. If TCC, "a community-based nursing facility . . . [with] probably . . . 80 percent or more . . . Medicaid residents," (T. 186) loses the superior rating and receives instead only a standard rating for the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989, TCC "is projected . . . [to sustain] a loss of at least $50,000 in revenue." Pre-hearing Stipulation. Infection Control TCC "had a policy and procedure manual for infection control," (Dep. 20) with which HRS does not find fault. In practice, if a floor nurse suspects an infection, she tells the charge nurse, who asks a doctor to order laboratory analysis of a culture. (T. II. 38) The laboratory furnishes the physician, the floor and TCC's infection control nurse copies of its reports, which form the basis for a log the Infection control nurse keeps. In addition, TCC's Ms. Jarrett took "environmental" samples and sent them for cultures sporadically, although no law or rule requires this, in terms. In part, the HRS team's statement of deficiencies alleged the following: INFECTION CONTROL NH-445: The condition is out of compliance because there was no system in operation to prevent the spread of infections. Ref: 405.1135, 10D-29.123 Class III 4/23/88 NH-452: Infection Control Standards not met. Ref: 405.1135(b) Class III 5/31/88 F-339/122 NH-454, 458, 116, 99: Observation revealed the following: Five residents with draining wounds not on any type of Isolation precautions. Drainage from a supra pubic catheter insertion site without a dressing. 5-7 residents with Staph Aureus eye Infections not on any type of isolation precautions. Dressings from at least 3 draining wounds were removed without gloves by the facility's nurse. One dressing to a draining wound was applied without gloves. Nurse placing gloved hand into medication jar after being in contact with infected wound. Whirlpool cleaned only with Betadine between residents. Resident with stage 2 decubiti on both feet, one of which was draining purulent material, placing both feet in the whirlpool at the same time. Pictures of a stasis ulcer healing well in August 1987, currently infected with a heavy growth of pseudomonas and much larger in size. When isolation precautions were posted, there were no isolation bags for linen and trash and no gloves left available in the room. Review of documentation revealed: Residents with positive cultures for known pathogans such as staph aureus and pseudomonas were not on isolation precautions. All draining wounds had not been cultured. All positive cultures and wounds with purulent drainage were not included in the infection log. The written infection report by nursing was prepared quarterly rather than monthly as required by state regulations. Environmental cultures collected 11/24/87 revealed "unsatisfactory" results on 5 of 5 sources cultured i.e., Pseudomonas from the whirlpool tub and water fountain. The quarterly infection control meeting minutes did not contain any plan of correction or any mention of the environmental culture results. There were no environmental culture reports since 11/24/87. Of the 39 infections recorded in the last 3 months 100% were nosocomial. There was no documented evidence of isolation being instituted for the last 12 months. Ref: 10D-29.123(3)(b), 10D-29.123(3)(f) 10D-29.108(5)(b), 10D-29.108(3)(e) 405.1135(b) Class III 5/31/88 * * * INFECTION CONTROL/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS F-342/343 NH-490: Infection Control/Disaster Preparedness Standards not met. Ref: 405.1135(d), 442.327 Class III F-345 NH 493: Observation revealed that linen, contaminated with known pathogens, specifically, Pseudomonas was removed from the resident's roe without gloves and deposited with the regular laundry. Observation further revealed that laundry personnel were handling soiled linen without gloves on the first day of the survey. Ref: 405.1135, 442.327, 10D-29.124(2)(b)1 Class III 5/31/88 * * * INFECTION CONTROL/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS F-345 NH-453: Infection control committee has not approved policies and procedures for the laundry operation. Ref: 405.1135(d), 10D-29.124(2)(b) Class III 5/31/88 The "NH" references in the statement of deficiencies are set out in Part B of the nursing home licensure survey report received as HRS' Exhibit 2, and include the following: XIII. INFECTION CONTROL. 10D-29.123. The nursing facility establishes an infection control committee, appointed by the Administrator, of representative professional staff with responsibility for overall infection control in the facility. Necessary staff are provided to maintain a sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of infection. (b) STANDARD: Infection control committee policies and procedures. The policies and procedures developed by the committee include, at a minimum, policies and procedures governing the following: NH454 Monitoring of the methods of maintaining sanitary conditions no less often than quarterly. 10D-29.123(3)(b) * * * NH458 Infection control measures, which include, at a minimum, the following: Isolation procedures for residents in communicable stage of disease. Specifics of nursing care for residents with infection. NH116 Nursing care includes control of occurrence of infection through the use of aseptic techniques, surveillance of personnel and environmental conditions, identification of high-risk, infection prone residents, health education, counseling, and practicing health promoting habits. 10D-29.108(5)(b) * * * NH99 The DON ensures that the facility's resident care policies and procedures and the policies and procedures developed by the pharmaceutical services committee and the infection control committee, which relate to nursing services are implemented. (e) STANDARD: Linen and laundry * * * NH493 The responsible person ensures that written policies and procedures for linen and laundry services, including methods of collection, storage, transportation are developed, implemented and maintained in conjunction with the policies and procedures developed by the infection control committee. 10D-29.124(2)(b)1 The rule provisions on which HRS relies are set out in the conclusions of law. Decubiti, called pressure sores or bed sores after their wonted etiology, advance through four stages, if not checked. In stage one, the skin is intact, but "remains red after approximately 30 minutes of pressure relief." (T. II. 117-8) In stage two, the skin is "open," and the sore moist, but superficial and devoid of infection. Muscle and necrotic tissue may be seen in stage three, when open lesions are deeper. Stage four lesions go to the bone. Clear serous drainage from a stage two decubitus facilitates healing. While purulent drainage from more advanced lesions may also be of some benefit, this yellowish or greenish fluid contains pathogenic organisms which pose the danger that infection will spread. (T. I. 69-70) Stasis ulcers, attributable to poor venous circulation, and eyes in which antibiotic resistant staphylococci aurei have established themselves are other sources of infection in nursing homes. In the course of the survey, Ms. Warfel observed three decubiti on the feet of the resident who slept in bed 101-A at TCC, including a stage two decubitus, TCC's Exhibit No. 2, "with small amount of drainage, half-inch in diameter on the left inner ankle." (Dep. 22) Any discoloration of the drainage (Dep. 25, 31) was apparently due to medication. (T. 11, 33) She saw a sore of similar size "with a slight amount of drainage," (Dep. 23) on the outside of the left foot of the man who slept In bed 210-B, who also had an undressed suprapubic catheter with a "strand of mucous . . . between the catheter tubing and the skin." (Dep. 25) The resident who slept in bed 301-B "had a stage two on the left hip, one inch in diameter, and had a positive culture for staph in March of '88." (Dep. 23) The woman who slept in bed 316-B had both "a draining area on her left thigh . . .from a previous hip pin" (Dep. 23) and a "small stage two decubitus on the coccyx." Id. The drainage from the surgical incision was clear, and, when analyzed after the survey (in response to Ms. Warfel's characterization) proved noninfectious, just as the resident's physician had earlier advised TCC. (T. I. 44-45) One nurse placed a gloved hand into a medication jar after contact with a stasis ulcer the woman in Room 115 had. (Dep. 29) Room 115 is private. What became of the medication thereafter the record does not reveal. The woman's ulcer was heavily infected with pseudomonas, although it had been reported to be healing well in August of 1987. She told Ms. Warfel it had gotten [re]infected from the whirlpool." (Dep. 31) Ms. Warfel saw the resident who slept in bed 101-A with both feet in the whirlpool, then saw a staff person dry both feet with the same towel. (Dep. 31) On March 24, 1988, her physician had ordered "sterile WP to [both] feet." TCC's Exhibit No. 2. The physical therapist regularly disinfected the whirlpool with Wescodyne. (T. II. 34) As far as the evidence revealed, she did so after each use. On her initial visit, Ms. Warfel did not see precautions posted for Room 210 "but on the fourth day . . . went back and checked, and that was on the door then." (Dep. 22) The man who slept in bed 210-B had been placed on secretion precautions the week before the survey, when a culture revealed that he suffered from an infection of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. Perhaps because the sign posted on his door was not the customary green, Ms. Warfel overlooked it originally. In rooms in which isolation procedures are in effect, soiled linen is placed in "a double red bag or a water soluble bag." (T. II. 30) Water soluble bags go "directly into the hamper . . . [while the contents of each] double red bag . . . [go] into a separate laundry from the regular linen." (T. II. 30) Gloves at the nurse's desk were available to the nursing staff. (Dep. 28) Although the "director of nurses wore gloves part of the time when she was handling dressings . . . [t]he nurse who did the treatment on the pseudomonas infection wore gloves while she was doing the dressing only." (Dep. 27) TCC terminated that nurse's employment. (T. II. 32) Because Jackie Williams, TCC's infection control nurse who began at TCC not long before the survey, listed all urinary tract infections as nosocomial, the infection control log grossly overstated the number of nosocomial infections occurring at TCC during the three months before the survey took place. HRS' Exhibit No. 4. If evaluated against accepted criteria, Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1, the actual number was on the order of six. Of these, four were urinary tract infections in which only pathogens present at admission were implicated. The infection control log was updated continuously, as information was received, but monthly reports as such were not prepared. Dr. Tremble, who attends the woman who sleeps in Room 115, "does his very own cultures himself." (T. II. 38) No laboratory or other report of the results of cultures done for this resident reached TCC's infection control nurse nor were any deflected in the infection control log. As far as the record reveals, environmental cultures were denominated "unsatisfactory if there was any bacteria count," (Dep. 39) however small. The evidence did not establish that the environmental culture results reflected conditions about which TCC should have done anything it failed to do. Guidelines The CDC Guideline for Isolation Precautions in Hospitals published in 1983, excerpts from which were received as HRS' Exhibit No. 6, say the following about gowns, gloves, bagging of articles, linen and dressings: Gowns In general, gowns are recommended to prevent soiling of clothing when taking care of patients. Gowns are not necessary for most patient care because such soiling is not likely. However, gowns are indicated when taking care of patients on isolation precautions if clothes are likely to be soiled with infective secretions or excretions, for example, when changing the bed of an incontinent patient who has infectious diarrhea or when holding an infant who has a respiratory infection. Furthermore, gowns are indicated, even when gross soiling is not anticipated, for all persons entering the room of patients who have infections that if transmitted in hospitals frequently cause serious illness, for example, varicella (chickenpox) or disseminated zoster. When gowns are indicated, they should be worn only once and then discarded in an appropriate receptacle. Clean, freshly laundered or disposable gowns may be worn in most circumstances. In some instances, as with extensive burns or extensive wounds, sterile gowns may be worn when changing dressings. Gloves In general, there are 3 distinct reasons for wearing gloves. First, gloves reduce the possibility that personnel will become infected with microorganisms that are infecting patients; for example, gloves should prevent personnel from developing herpetic whitlow after giving oral care or suctioning a patient with oral herpes simplex infections. Second, gloves reduce the likelihood that personnel will transmit their own endogenous microbial flora to patients; for example, sterile gloves are used for this reason when personnel perform operations or touch open surgical wounds. Third, gloves reduce the possibility that personnel will become transiently colonized with microorganisms that can be transmitted to other patients. Under most conditions, such transient colonization can be eliminated by handwashing. Thus, in hospitals where handwashing is performed carefully and appropriately by all personnel, gloves are theoretically not necessary to prevent transient colonization of personnel and subsequent transmission by them to others. However, since handwashing practices are thought to be inadequate in most hospitals, gloves appear to be a practical means of preventing transient hand colonization and spread of some infections. Therefore, for many diseases or conditions listed in this guideline, wearing gloves is indicated for touching the excretions, secretions, blood, or body fluids that are listed as infective material. Gloves may not be needed if "no touch" technique (not touching infective materials with hands) can be used. When gloves are indicated, disposable single-use gloves (sterile or nonsterile, depending on the purpose for use) should be worn. Used gloves should be discarded into an appropriate receptacle. After direct contact with a patient's excretions or secretions, when taking care of that patient, gloves should be changed if care of hat patient has not been completed. Bagging of Articles Used articles may need to be enclosed in an impervious bag before they are removed from the room or cubicle of a patient on isolation precautions. Such bagging is intended to prevent inadvertent exposures of personnel to articles contaminated with infective material and prevent contamination of the environment. Most articles do not need to be bagged unless they are contaminated (or likely to be contaminated) with infective material. (See the Tables, which contain an alphabetical listing of diseases for identification of the infective material for each disease.) A single bag is probably adequate if the bag is impervious and sturdy (not easily penetrated) and if the article can be placed in the bag without contaminating the outside of the bag; otherwise, double bagging should be used. Bags should be labeled or be a particular color designated solely for contaminated articles or infectious wastes. * * * Linen In general, soiled linen should be handled as little as possible and with a minimum of agitation to prevent gross microbial contamination of the air and of persons handling the linen. Soiled linen from patients on Isolation precautions should be put in a laundry bag in the patient's room or cubicle. The bag should be labeled or be a particular color (for example, red) specifically designated for such linen so that whoever receives the linen knows to take the necessary precautions. Linens will require less handling if the bag is hot-water-soluble because such bags can be placed directly into the washing machine; however, a hot-water soluble bag may need to be double-bagged because they are generally easily punctured or torn or may dissolve when wet. Linen from patients on isolation precautions should not be sorted before being laundered. If mattresses and pillows are covered with impervious plastic, they can be cleaned by wiping with a disinfectant-detergent. (See Guideline for Hospital Environmental Control: Laundry Services.) * * * Dressings and Tissues All dressings, paper tissues, and other disposable items soiled with infective material (respiratory, oral, or wound secretions) should be bagged and labeled and disposed of in accordance with the hospital's policy for disposal of infectious wastes. Local regulations may call for incineration or disposal in an authorized sanitary landfill without being opened. (See Guideline for Hospital Environmental Control: Housekeeping Services and Waste Disposal.) The same document also specifies "secretion precautions" and "bodily fluid precautions" for certain hospital patients: Drainage/Secretion Precautions Drainage/Secretion Precautions are designed to prevent infections that are transmitted by direct or indirect contact with purulent material or drainage from an infected body site. . . . Infectious diseases included in this category are those that result in the production of infective purulent material, drainage, or secretions, unless the disease is included in another isolation category that requires more rigorous precautions. For example, minor or limited skin, wound, or burn infections are included in this category, but major skin, wound, or burn infections are included in Contact Isolation. . . . Specifications for Drainage/Secretion Precautions Private room is not indicated. Masks are not indicated. Gowns are indicated if soiling is likely. Gloves are indicated for touching infective material. Hands must be washed after touching the patient or potentially contaminated articles and before taking care of another patient. Articles contaminated with infective material should be discarded or bagged and labeled before being sent for decontamination and reprocessing. * * * Blood/Body Fluid Precautions Blood/Body Fluid Precautions are designed to prevent infections that are transmitted by direct or indirect contact with infective blood or body fluids, unless the disease is included in another isolation category that requires more rigorous precautions, for example, Strict Isolation. For some diseases included in this category, such as malaria, only blood is infective; for other diseases, such as hepatitis B (including antigen carriers), blood and body fluids (saliva, semen, etc.) are infective. Specifications for Blood/Body Fluid Precautions Private room is indicated if patient hygiene is poor. A patient with poor hygiene does not wash hands after touching infective material, contaminates the environment with infective material, or shares contaminated articles with other patients. In general, patients infected with the same organism may share a room. Masks are not indicated. Gowns are indicated if soiling of clothing with blood or body fluids is likely. Gloves are indicated for touching blood or body fluids. Hands must be washed immediately if they are potentially contaminated with blood or body fluids and before taking care of another patient. Articles contaminated with blood or body fluids should be discarded or bagged and labeled before being sent for decontamination and reprocessing. Care should be taken to avoid needle-stick injuries. Used needles should not be recapped or bent; they should be placed in a prominently labeled, puncture-resistant container designated specifically for such disposal. Blood spills should be cleaned up promptly with a solution of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite diluted 1:10 with water. TCC has incorporated these provisions in its infection control policy and procedure manual. Joint Exhibit No. 1. More recently, the Centers for Disease Control have prescribed "universal precautions," recommending that hospital personnel proceed as if every patient had acquired immune deficiency syndrome. (T. I. 75-6) No Isolation The TCC resident who slept in bed 306-A had an eye infection which TCC staff began treating with ophthalmic ointment (Gentamycin) on February 3, 1988. "Resolved" by the time of the survey, this infection was caused by staphylococcus aureus, which was methicillin resistant (T. II. 73, 111) and required isolation (secretion precaution) procedures (T. II. 46, 7) which were never instituted. (T. II. 42) "[T]hey should have been wearing gloves. And the linen that they were using should have been placed in isolation bags before washing, labeled and identified". (Dep. 26)(T. I. 70, 73-4) Except for the resident who slept in bed 210-B, TCC had placed nobody in isolation for the six months preceding the survey. (T. II. 42) Other Red Eyes The TCC resident who slept in bed 112A had redness of the eye, from which Ms. Warfel concluded "that it was conjunctivitis and the patient should have been isolated". The patient to whom bed 112A was assigned had no drainage. At the time of the survey, the TCC resident who slept in bed 203B was already receiving medication for an eye infection. A laboratory report dated March 15, 1988, identified the organism as "staph epi," normal skin flora, to be distinguished from the malevolent staphylococcus aureus. The woman who slept in bed 407B also "had light growth of staph epi . . . was on an ointment for seven days and didn't require isolation". (T. II. 47) The women who slept in beds 305A and 316B had red eyes, as well, attributable, it turned out, to glaucoma, and not to staphylococcus aureus. Resident Care Plans and Activities With respect to patient care management and residents' activities, the HRS team alleged, in its statement of deficiencies: F-237/238 NH-136: Patient Care Management Standards not met. Ref: 405.1124(d), 442.341 Class III 5/31/88 F-239/240 NH-138: Observation of patient care and record review revealed that all resident's problems/needs, i.e., decubiti, infections, rehab, etc. were not being addressed in the written plan of care or delivery of services. Goals were not measurable and interventions were limited and inadequate. The evaluations did not address the effectiveness of the interventions or institute appropriate changes in either the goals or approaches. Social Services and Activities in the care plans, also did not have measurable goals and specific approaches to meet the residents identified needs. Also the disciplines did not evaluate the effectiveness of their approaches. Ref: 405.1124, 442.341, 10D-29.109(2) Class III 5/31/88 * * * F-234 NH-324: The facility has two programs implemented for its residents: (1) stroke group, (2) Adventure Group for Alzheimers residents. Surveyor found that these groups had about 20 residents each in the groups. However, surveyor found from interview, observation, and documentation could not ascertain that the residents were receiving benefits from these programs or that these programs were meeting their identified needs. Ref: 442.345, 10D-22.116 Class III 5/31/88 The statement of deficiencies also sets out pertinent standards: STANDARD: Resident care plans NH138 The DON serves as coordinator of an interdisciplinary team responsible for the development, implementation, maintenance and evaluation of each resident's plan of care. Each interdisciplinary team member involved in the resident's care provides input into the development, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of the resident's plan of care. 10D-29.109(2) NH324 The activities program provides diversified independent and group activities for each resident, including those confined to bed, commensurate with each resident's needs, abilities and interests. The rule provisions on which HRS relies are set out in the conclusions of law. TCC provides two programs of group activities as part of the care it affords residents. In specifying which group activities are to be available to a particular resident, the resident's care plan typically listed either the "Stroke Club" or the "Alzheimers Adventure Group," without further elaboration. Only from other documents was HRS' Mr. Melvin able to discern the goals and objectives of the two programs. (T. 117, 119) In reviewing six charts in particular, Mr. Melvin perceived flaws in residents' care plans, plans that may be summarized, as follows: Patient Diagnosis/Problems Goals Approaches No. 361 Alzheimer's disease, Safe and free ADV. group unaware, disoriented unaware of needs and from harm needs will be 24 hour su- pervision of care wants met learn her signals and needs No. 348 Alzheimer's disease, unaware, disoriented will be kept aware of day, time, & place ADV. program No. 368 CVA (new admit) monitor needs get pt. to activities No. 365 Alzheimer's disease, free from ADV. program bladder tumors, con- harm and injury fused, disoriented, wanders ADV. program potential for de- & take to creased social stimula- parties tion & mental status No. 328 OBS, osteoarthritis, will attend encourage periods of confusion and depression memory loss and has good past recall activities, be- come acquainted with others; not to be em- barrassed when she forgets to parti- cipate in activities introduce to other residents; do not argue or dwell on things No. 011 arthritis & hyperten- sion, altered mental status, unaware of needs provide needs keep free from harm and in- jury 24 hour supervi- sion & adv prog. For the most part these plans lack specificity and individualization. They do not specify the severity of Alzheimer patients' disease. They are vague enough that it would be, in many instances, difficult to say whether they had been complied with. Nor was Mr. Melvin impressed with the 20-member Alzheimers Adventure Group in action. When he observed, a woman lay on the floor without participating in the group's activities. But the family of the recumbent resident, well aware of her proclivity to stretch out, agreed with staff that letting her lie was the more sensible and humane course. The other patients sat in rows "for hours in the room . . . [without] any programming . . . except the break at lunchtime". (T 120) Arts and crafts were not available to them.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS revoke respondent's superior rating, until and unless respondent demonstrates its renewed eligibility for the same. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 9th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2326 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 12 and 13 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, merely recite testimony. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5, the infection control log was inaccurate, subparagraphs (c) and (e) are adopted; and the remaining parts of the proposed findings relate to subordinate matters. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been adopted in part only. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 15 is a proposed conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 23, 24 and 27 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, a new infection control nurse began work. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11 (as to individualization) 12, 15, 19 (including secretion precautions) 22 and 26 have been rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 merely recites testimony. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, an HRS witness did cite the patient's opinion. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20, the infection control log was up to date, but inaccurate. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21 is a proposed conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25 relates to subordinate matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32230-0083 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
The Issue This case involved the treatment of and records maintained on Veronica Tuthill while she was a patient at Padgett's Nursing Home from May of 1979, until February, 1980. There were certain factual matters in dispute, to include: Did Veronica Tuthill receive preventive treatment for decubitus ulcers? Did Mrs. Tuthill have a physical-therapy assessment, and was it recorded? Were records on Mrs. Tuthill properly maintained by the nursing staff? Was the transfer document completely prepared when Mrs. Tuthill was transferred from Padgett's Nursing Home to Bay to Bay Nursing Home? Did Mrs. Tuthill receive proper treatment for decubitus ulcers? The primary legal issue is whether the Respondent, Rubin Padgett, is legally responsible for any of the deficiencies alleged. Because of the voluminous quantity of evidence produced and the many proposed findings, the findings herein are limited to those which were at issue. Significantly conflicting testimony regarding issues of fact have been indicated, together with the specific finding. The Board showed that there were certain specific instances when the nursing staff failed to chart or to chart completely the nursing care and treatment rendered Mrs. Tuthill, that a nursing staff member failed to properly complete the transfer document, and that Mrs. Tuthill developed decubitus ulcers while a patient at Padgett's Nursing Home. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence or not being a finding of fact. Only those materials received into evidence at hearing were considered as part of the record and formed the basis for these findings. FINDINGS OR FACT The Respondent, Rubin Padgett, is a licensed nursing home administrator and has extensive experience in this field, to include service on the state regulatory board. Respondent is not a registered nurse, medical doctor or related health care professional. Veronica Tuthill was brought to Florida by her daughter, Barbara Magee, who discovered her mother in a nursing home in Virginia. Mrs. Tuthill had been placed in the Virginia home by an unidentified daughter. Ms. Magee was vague about her mother's past medical history, and Mrs. Tuthill was apparently unable to provide her treating physicians with an adequate medical history. However, Mrs. Tuthill was in poor medical condition with contractures, a poorly healed and misaligned fractured hip, malnutrition, anemia, chronic pulmonary disease, arteriosclerotic heart disease and one decubitus ulcer (bedsore) when Ms. Magee brought her to Florida. On April 18, 1979, Mrs. Tuthill was admitted to Centro Espanol Hospital. She was given treatment for her various problems, to include transfusions and treatment for her decubitus ulcer. She was discharged from the hospital on May 10, 1979, with her condition improved; however, she still had the chronic problems described above and a decubitus ulcer the size of a quarter on her left hip. On May 10, 1979, Mrs. Tuthill was admitted to Padgett's Nursing Home (PNH). During her stay at PNH, Mrs. Tuthill's original decubitus ulcer broke down again. She also developed additional ulcers on her left and right buttocks and on her right foot. In many instances the nursing records for Mrs. Tuthill were not adequate because they did not fully and in every instance reflect the treatment and nursing care given the patient. These deficiencies included failure to chart the size, condition, etc., and treatment given Mrs. Tuthill's decubitus ulcers. However, it is specifically found that Mrs. Tuthill received the ordered treatment and preventive measures regularly taken to prevent the formation of decubitus ulcers. The development of decubitus ulcers on opposite sides of Mrs. Tuthill's body and buttocks while she was at PNH supports the testimony of the nursing staff treating her that she was turned properly as ordered, although said care was not always recorded in the nursing records. The records of treatments rendered also support the staff's testimony. A physical therapy assessment was performed and an appropriate entry charted in the nursing notes. The report of the therapist was not found in Mrs. Tuthill's file when it was reviewed by inspectors from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). When this was reported to the director of nurses, she requested and received a copy of the report from the physical therapist which was placed in Mrs. Tuthill's file. This report reflects that Mrs. Tuthill was assessed for physical therapy and was determined not to be capable of receiving any benefit from physical therapy. Moreover, at the time of her assessment the results were reported to Mrs. Tuthill's physician, who discontinued his orders for physical therapy. This was annotated in the nursing notes at the time. Mrs. Tuthill was transferred from PNH to Bay to Bay Nursing Home on February 25, 1980. The transfer form on Mrs. Tuthill was not properly completed by the nursing staff at PNH at the time she was transferred to Bay to Bay Nursing Home. On March 5, 1980, Mrs. Tuthill was admitted to Centro Asturiano Hospital for surgery on her decubitus ulcers. She was discharged on March 19, 1980, after the ulcers were debrided. On March 24, 1980, Mrs. Tuthill was again admitted for surgical closure of the ulcers as had originally been planned. She was discharged on April 7, 1980, with all her ulcers closed and healed. On August 10, 1980, Mrs. Tuthill was admitted to Centro Asturiano Hospital for surgery to close two decubitus ulcers which had developed during her stay at Bay to Bay Nursing Home. During her hospitalizations, Mrs. Tuthill received blood transfusions to increase her hemoglobin in order that she could receive anesthesia. This also improved her overall health, positively affecting her anemia, nutrition, pulmonary disease and arteriosclerotic circulatory problems, thereby assisting in the treatment of her ulcers. Expert medical testimony was conflicting on whether proper nursing care can prevent the formation of decubitus ulcers. It is specifically found that bedridden patients can develop decubitus ulcers while receiving the best of nursing care and treatment. This finding is supported by the fact that Mrs. Tuthill developed ulcers in both nursing homes and under two different treatment regimes. Expert medical testimony was conflicting on the appropriate medical treatment for decubitus ulcers. Mrs. Tuthill's medical treatment at PNH was within the limits of the conservative approach to treatment of decubitus ulcers. Her treating physician altered his treatment, increasing the strength of the medications and efforts to reduce and heal the patient's ulcers. Surgery is also an acceptable treatment for moderate-to-severe ulcers; however, Mrs. Tuthill's ulcers at the time of her discharge from PNH were at the moderate stage of development. Respondent had appointed a qualified medical director and a qualified nursing director, and had developed written procedures as required prior to Mrs. Tuthill's admission. These directors were directly responsible for the supervision of their particular services. Respondent was responsible for the overall administration of the nursing home; however, he was dependent upon the specific professional judgment and knowledge of his subordinate staff directors. Although PNH was inspected annually, and some failings regarding charting of medications were discovered and reported, these failings were not sufficient for HRS to deny licensure. Respondent took remedial action to improve the performance of his staff after these inspections. No evidence was introduced that there were significant departures from the standards of care established by the applicable rules and regulations or prevailing professional standards in the care of other patients. At the time the HRS personnel investigated Mrs. Tuthill's case, they did not investigate other patient files.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the Respondent, Rubin Padgett, is found not guilty of violating Rule 10D-29.38(1), (4), (8), (14) or (16), Florida Administrative Code, or Section 468.1755(1)(k) or (m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against him be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 13th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Mildred Gardner, Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are thus whether the acts and omissions charged occurred, whether they constitute violations of Section 400.022(1)(j) and 400.141, Florida Statutes, and related rules, and whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to 400.102(c) and Section 400.121, Florida Statutes. Upon the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner moved to amend paragraph 8 of its Complaint, so that the date "March 4" would read March 14." The motion was granted on the basis that there was only a clerical error involved and paragraph 8 correctly alleges that there-was a nursing staff shortage from February 20 to March 14, 1980. Eight witnesses were called by the Petitioner, and two by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were adduced as evidence. The Respondent has submitted and requested rulings upon ninety-five proposed findings of fact. In that connection, all proposed findings, conclusions, and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith they have been rejected.
Findings Of Fact Manhattan Convalescent Center is a nursing home facility located in Tampa and licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On January 22, February 20, February 25, March 3, March 6, and March 14, 1980, a number of Department employees representing the Department's medical review team, and the Office of Licensure and Certification, consisting of registered nurses, hospital consultants and Department surveillance team members, made inspections of the Respondent's facility for the purpose of ascertaining whether the premises, equipment and conduct of operations were safe and sanitary for the provision of adequate and appropriate health care consistent with the rules promulgated by the Department and whether minimum nursing service staff standards were being maintained. Thus, on January 22, 1980 a member of the medical review team, witness Maulden, observed a rat run across the floor in one of the wings of the nursing home facility. On February 20, Muriel Holzberger, a registered nurse and surveyor employed by the Petitioner, observed rodent droppings in one of the wings of the facility and on February 20, March 12 and March 14, 1980, numerous roaches were observed by various employees of the Department making inspections throughout the facility. On February 20, 1980 strong urine odors were present on the 200, 300 and 400 wings of the facility as well as in the lobby. The odor was caused by urine puddles under some patients' chairs in the hallway, wet sheets, and a spilled catheter. On February 20 and 25, 1980 the grounds were littered with debris and used equipment, the grass and weeds on the grounds needed cutting and there was a build up of organic material, food spills and wet spots on the floors. The Respondent's witness, Ann Killeen, as well as the Petitioner's hospital consultant, Joel Montgomery, agreed that a general state of disrepair existed at the Respondent's facility, consisting of torn screens, ill fitting exterior doors with inoperative or missing door closers and missing ceiling tile. Interior and exterior walls were in need of repair and repainting. Additionally, eleven bedside cords for the nurse paging system were cut, apparently by patients, and on February 25, 1980, a total of 36 nurse paging stations were inoperative. A substantial number of these cords were cut by a patient (or patients) with scissors without the knowledge of the Respondent and steps to correct the condition were immediately taken. On January 22, 1980 Petitioner's representatives, Mary Maulden and Alicia Alvarez, observed a patient at the Respondent's facility free himself from physical restraints, walk down the hall and leave the facility. A search for nursing staff was made but none were found on the wing. After three to five minutes the Assistant Director of Nurses was located and the patient was apprehended. Nurse Alvarez's testimony revealed that the Respondent's nursing staff was in and out of, and working in that wing all that morning except for that particular point in time when the patient shed his restraints and walked out of the facility. On March 3, 1980 Department employee, William Musgrove, as part of a surveillance team consisting of himself and nurse Muriel Holzberger, observed two patients restrained in the hall of the facility in chairs and Posey vests, which are designed to safely restrain unstable patients. The witness questioned the propriety of this procedure, but could not establish this as a violation of the Respondent's patient care policies required by Rule 10D-29.41, Florida Administrative Code. The witness reviewed the Respondent's written patient care policy required by that Rule and testified that their policy complied with it and that the policy did not forbid restraining a patient to a handrail in the facility as was done in this instance. The witness was unable to testify whether patients were improperly restrained pursuant to medical orders for their own or other patients' protection. A hospital consultant for the Department, Bill Schmitz, and Marsha Winae, a public health nurse for the Department, made a survey of the Respondent's facility on March 12, 1980. On that day the extensive roach infestation was continuing as was the presence of liquids in the hallways. On February 20, 1980 witness Joel Montgomery observed a lawn mower stored in the facility's electrical panel room which is charged as a violation in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. The lawn mower was not shown to definitely contain gasoline however, nor does it constitute a bulk storage of volatile or flammable liquids. Nurse Holzberger who inspected the Respondent's nursing home on February 20, February 25, March 3 and March 6, 1980, corroborated the previously established roach infestation and the presence of strong urine odors throughout the facility including those emanating from puddles under some patients' chairs, the soaking of chair cushions and mattresses and an excess accumulation of soiled linen. Her testimony also corroborates the existence of 36 instances of inoperative nurse paging devices including the 11 nurse calling cords which had been cut by patients. This witness, who was accepted as an expert in the field of proper nursing care, established that an appropriate level of nursing care for the patients in this facility would dictate the requirement that those who are incontinent be cleaned and their linen changed more frequently and that floors be mopped and otherwise cleaned more frequently. Upon the second visit to the facility by this witness the nurse call system had 9 paging cords missing, 11 cords cut, and 15 of the nurse calling devices would not light up at the nurses' station. This situation is rendered more significant by the fact that more than half of the patients with inoperative nurse paging devices were bedridden. On her last visit of March 6, 1980 the problem of urine puddles standing on the floors, urine stains on bed linen, and resultant odor was the same or slightly worse than on the two previous visits. An effective housekeeping and patient care policy or practice would dictate relieving such incontinent patients every two hours and more frequent laundering of linen, as well as bowel and bladder training. On March 6, 1980 controlled drugs were resting on counters in all of the facility's four drug rooms instead of being stored in a locked compartment, although two of the drug rooms themselves were locked. The other two were unlocked, but with the Respondent's nurses present. Ms. Holzberger participated in the inspections of March 3 and March 6, 1980. On March 3, 1980 there were no more than 14 sheets available for changes on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight nursing shift. On March 6, 1980 there were only 68 absorbent underpads and 74 sheets available for changes for approximately 65 incontinent patients. The unrefuted expert testimony of Nurse Holzberger established that there should be available four sheets for each incontinent patient per shift. Thus, on these two dates there was an inadequate supply of bed linen to provide changes for the incontinent patients in the facility. On March 6, 1980 Nurse Holzberger and Nurse Carol King observed 12 patients who were lying on sheets previously wet with urine, unchanged, dried and rewet again. This condition is not compatible with generally recognized adequate and appropriate nursing care standards. Incontinent patients should be examined every two hours and a change of sheets made if indicated. If such patients remain on wet sheets for a longer period of time their health may be adversely affected. On March 6, 1980 these same employees of the Petitioner inspected a medical supply room and found no disposable gloves, no adhesive tape, no razor blades and one package of telfa pads. There was no testimony to establish what the medical supply requirements of this facility are based upon the types of patients it cares for and the types and amounts of medical supplies thus needed. The testimony of Robert Cole, the facility's employee, who was at that time in charge of dispensing medical supplies, establishes that in the medical supply room (as opposed to the nurses' stations on the wings) there were at least six rolls of tape per station, 50 razors, four boxes or 80 rolls, 300 telfa pads and 200 sterile gloves. Nurses Holzberger and King made an evaluation of the Respondent's nurse staffing patterns. Ms. Holzberger only noted a shortage of nursing staff on February 24, 1980. Her calculations, however, were based on an average census of skilled patients in the Respondent's facility over the period February 20 to March 4, 1980 and she did not know the actual number of skilled patients upon which the required number of nursing staff present must be calculated on that particular day, February 24, 1980. Further, her calculations were based upon the nurses' "sign in sheet" and did not include the Director of Nurses who does not sign in when she reports for work. Therefore, it was established that on February 24 there would be one more registered nurse present than her figures reflect, i.e., the Director of Nurses. Nurse King, in describing alleged nursing staff shortages in the week of March 7 to March 13, 1980, was similarly unable to testify to the number of skilled patients present on each of those days which must be used as the basis for calculating required nursing staff. She rather used a similar average patient census for her calculations and testimony. Thus, neither witness for the Petitioner testifying regarding nursing staff shortages knew the actual number of patients present in the facility on the days nursing staff shortages were alleged. In response to the problem of the roach infestation, the Respondent's Administrator changed pest control companies on March 26, 1980. The previous pest control service was ineffective. It was also the practice of the Respondent, at that time, to fog one wing of the facility per week with pesticide in an attempt to control the roaches. Further, vacant lots on all sides, owned and controlled by others, were overgrown with weeds and debris, to which the witness ascribed the large roach population. The problem of urine odors in the facility was attributed to the exhaust fans for ventilating the facility which were inoperable in February, 1980. She had them repaired and, by the beginning of April, 1980 (after the subject inspections), had removed the urine odor problem. The witness took other stops to correct deficiencies by firing the previous Director of Nurses on March 14, 1980, and employing a new person in charge of linen supply and purchasing. A new supply of linen was purchased in February or March, 1980. The Respondent maintains written policies concerning patient care, including a provision for protection of patients from abuse or neglect. The Respondent's Administrator admitted existence of the torn screens, broken door locks, missing ceiling tiles and the roach infestation. She also admitted the fact of the cut and otherwise inoperable nurse paging cords in the patients' rooms, but indicated that these deficiencies had been repaired. The various structural repairs required have been accomplished. All correction efforts began after the inspections by the Petitioner's staff members, however.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED that for the violations charged in Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX and X of the Administrative Complaint and found herein to be proven, the Respondent should be fined a total of $1,600.00. Counts III, V, VII and VIII of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1981. (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: AMELIA PARK, ESQUIRE JANICE SORTER, ESQUIRE W. T. EDWARDS FACILITY 4000 WEST BUFFALO AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR TAMPA, FLORIDA 33614 KENNETH E. APGAR, ESQUIRE EDWARD P. DE LA PARTE, JR., ESQUIRE 403 NORTH MORGAN STREET, SUITE 102 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
The Issue Whether there was negligence involved in treating Lewis Dougal, a patient in the Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home. Whether the Respondent kept records in compliance with the statutes and the requirements of Chapter 10D-29 of the Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home had Lewis Dougal, an adult mentally retarded male, as a patient in January of 1976. On Thursday, January 29, 1976, Mr. Dougal was taken to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for a neurological brain scan. His exact whereabouts have not been established during the period of time from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. on that day, but he was in the emergency room area or in the radiology area of the hospital. At approximately 3:00 p.m. he was returned to the Respondent nursing home. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on January 30, a nurses aide discovered that Lewis Dougal had a reddened and swollen penis, a swollen scrotum and red marks on the buttocks. She called the charge nurse, an L.P.N., who did not call the doctor, but noted on the "nurse's log" that the patient should see a doctor the following day. No notation was made on the patient's individual medical record at that time. Mr. Dougal was transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital late in the morning of January 31, 1976, whereupon he received a 50 mm injection of demerol for pain upon his admission to the hospital. He was released February 25, 1976. An investigative team from the Office of Health Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which consisted of a Hospital Nursing Home Consultant and a Registered Nurse, investigated the circumstances surrounding the incident on February the 25th and 27th, 1976. The injuries sustained by Mr. Dougal and his hospital records from the date of his admission, January 31, 1976, to the hospital, to the date of his release, February 25, 1976, were reviewed. The investigative team thereupon visited the Miracle Hill Convalescent and Nursing Home on February 27, 1976 and requested all medical records of the patient, Lewis Dougal. No medical records had been kept and the only reference to the incident was made on the "nurse's log" January 30 and 31, 1976. These entries were made subsequent to the dates thereof. Other information was placed on the records long after the incident occurred. On March 26, 1976, Petitioner State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued an order charging Respondent with two violations: The first being in violation of Section 400.102(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29.11(7), Florida Administrative Code, to-wit: "1. That the facility failed to protect a patient from neglect and abuse, in that a mentally retarded patient, incontinent of bowel and bladder, was allowed to acquire burns of the scrotal area, genitalia and buttocks, of sufficient severity to require hospitilization, such burns being caused by inadequate and improper nursing care on the part of the nursing service staff of the facility. As a result of the subject burns, the patient was hospitalized for treatment and care during the period January 31, 1976, and February 25, 1976, at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. The admission diagnosis for this patient at the hospital in part was, "burns of the genitalia and buttocks." The admitting physician further noted that the admission examination revealed an obvious burn in the skin from the scrotum which had already desquamated indicating the burn had occurred some time previously, maybe as much as a couple of days. Further, a circular burn involving the buttocks was observed with the notation that it appeared the patient had been sitting in some very hot solution. The second charge was alleged to be in violation of Chapter 10D- 29.11(10) and (13) 1.(c), of the Florida Administrative Code in the following language: "(2) In that the required medical record documentation concerning how or when the above injuries occurred to this particular patient was lacking, and the investigating team was unable to determine just how or when the burns occurred or the specific person responsible for this."
Recommendation Section 400.121(1) (8), Florida Statutes, Denial, suspension, revocation of license; procedure.- (1) "The [department] may deny, revoke, or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine for a violation of any provision of s. 400.102 only after written notice to the applicant or licensee setting forth the particular grounds for the proposed action and a hearing, if demanded by the applicant or licensee." (8) The [department], as a part of any final order issued by it under the provisions of this chapter, may impose such fine as it deems proper, except that such fine shall not exceed $500 for each violation. Each day a violation of this chapter occurs shall constitute a separate violation and shall be subject to separate fine. An action for recovery of the fine may be maintained in the circuit court of the county in which the facility is located, and appeal from any judgment rendered shall be in the manner and within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules for reviewing judgments rendered by circuit courts in action at law." Record keeping is such an important and necessary adjunct to nursing home care the Respondent should suffer a fine of at least $200 for violation of the foregoing statutes and rules. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Health Program Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John K. Folsom, Esquire 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
