The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Melvin Alston, is entitled to insurance coverage under the State of Florida Health Plan for services received at Miracle Hill Nursing Home.
Findings Of Fact Doris Alston, widow of Melvin Alston, is requesting payment for services rendered to Melvin Alston at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. Melvin Alston died on December 31, 1985. Melvin Alston, as a retired state employee, became eligible for coverage under the State Health Plan on July 1, 1985. He was a professor and dean at Florida A&M University from 1946 until 1969, when he retired. Thereafter he became a professor at Southern Illinois University, from which he retired in 1976. Alston was admitted to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center (TMRMC) in September, 1984, and was transferred to the extended care unit on September 20, 1984, because there were no available nursing home beds. On October 31, 1984, a bed became available at Goodwood Manor, a skilled nursing home facility, and Alston was admitted to Goodwood Manor from the TMRMC extended care unit. Alston remained at Goodwood Manor until August 22, 1985, when Mrs. Alston removed him and placed him at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. While at Goodwood Manor, Alston was receiving essentially custodial care. He had a routine diet and simply needed assistance with his activities of daily living, such as bathing and feeding. He was able to take his medications as they were given to him and he could leave the nursing home on a pass basis. While at Goodwood, Alston's medical orders were reviewed monthly and he was not seen daily by a physician. Alston received the same level of care at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. In skilled nursing facilities, the range of services needed and provided goes from skilled through intermediate levels to custodial. Skilled care includes such services as injections or intravenous medications on a daily basis which must be administered by a nurse. Dr. C. E. Richardson became Alston's physician at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. In the course of his deposition, Dr. Richardson testified that Alston received medical level care at Miracle Hill. However, Dr. Richardson stated several times that he did not know the level of care given to Alston under the definitions of the care levels available. He acknowledged that the levels of care ranged from skilled to custodial. Dr. Richardson also did not know the terms of the benefit document for the State Health Plan. Dr. Richardson only provided the medical care, which was the same no matter what level of nursing care he needed or received. According to Dr. Richardson, Alston was on a fairly routine diet, could engage in activities as tolerated, and could go out on a pass at will. One of Dr. Richardson's orders dated 11/27/85 shows that Dr. Richardson did not order a skilled level of care, but instead checked the level of care to be intermediate. Alston did not receive or need skilled nursing care at Miracle Hill. It is more appropriate to classify the level of care as custodial, as that term is defined in the State Health Plan Benefit Document. Alston's primary insurer was Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, based on coverage he had from his employment there. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois denied the claim for services at Miracle Hill because the services were custodial and were not covered by that plan. It also denied the claim because Miracle Hill's services did not fit its criteria for skilled nursing care. William Seaton is a State Benefits Analyst with the Department of Administration and his duties include assisting people who have a problem with the settlement of a claim with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, which administers the State Health Plan. After the claim was denied by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, Mr. Seaton assisted Mrs. Alston by filing a claim under the State Health Plan. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida concluded that no benefits were payable for facility charges at a nursing home and that an extended care or skilled nursing facilities would have limited coverage; however, because Alston was not transferred to Miracle Hill directly from an acute care hospital, no coverage existed. The pertinent provisions of the benefit document of the State Health Plan are as follows: I.G. "Custodial Care" means care which does not require skilled nursing care or rehabilitative services and is designed solely to assist the insured with the activities of daily living, such as: help in walking, getting in and out of bed, bathing, dressing, eating, and taking medications. * * * I.N. "Hospital", means a licensed institution engaged in providing medical care and treatment to a patient as a result of illness or accident on an inpatient/outpatient basis . . . and which fully meets all the tests set forth in ., 2., and 3. below: . . . In no event, however, shall such term include . . . an institution or part thereof which is used principally as a nursing home or rest for care and treatment of the aged. * * * I.AH. "Skilled Nursing Care" means care which is furnished . . . to achieve the medically desired result and to insure the insured's safety. Skilled nursing care may be the rendering of direct care, when the ability to provide the service requires specialized (professional) training; or observation and assessment of the insured's medical needs; or supervision of a medical treatment plan involving multiple services where specialized health care knowledge must be applied in order to attain the desired medical results. * * * I.AI. "Skilled Nursing Facility" means a licensed institution, or a distinct part of a hospital, primarily engaged in providing to inpatients: skilled nursing care . . . or rehabilitation services . . . and other medically necessary related health services. Such care or services shall not include: the type of care which is considered custodial . . . . * * * II.E. Covered Skilled Nursing Facility Services. On or after August 1, 1984, when an insured is transferred from a hospital to a skilled nursing facility, the Plan will pay 80% of the charge for skilled nursing care . . . subject to the following: The insured must have been hospital confined for three consecutive days prior to the day of discharge before being transferred to a skilled nursing facility; Transfer to a skilled nursing facility is because the insured requires skilled care for a condition . . . which was treated in the hospital; The insured must be admitted to the skilled nursing facility immediately following discharge from the hospital; A physician must certify the need for skilled nursing care . . . and the insured must receive such care or services on a daily basis; . . . 6. Payment of services and supplies is limited to sixty (60) days of confinement per calendar year. * * * VII. No payment shall be made under the Plan for the following: * * * L. Services and supplies provided by . . . a skilled nursing facility or an institution or part thereof which is used principally as a nursing home or rest facility for care and treatment of the aged. * * * N. any services in connection with custodial care . . . .
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying the request for benefits for services rendered to Melvin Alston at Miracle Hill Nursing Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 24th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-4674 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Melvin Alston 1 . Proposed findings of fact 1-3 and 5 are rejected as being subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Additionally, proposed findings of fact 3 and 5 contain argument which is rejected. 2. Proposed finding of fact 4 is irrelevant to the resolution of this matter. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Administration Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 4(2); 5(2); 6(11); 8(11); 9(12); 10(3 & 4); 11(5); 12(4); 14(5); 15(7); 19- 21(8 & 9) 23(13); and 24(13). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 16 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 7, 13, 18, 26, and 27 are rejected as being irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 17 and 22 are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 2. Proposed finding of fact 25 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Mahorner Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 682 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrea Bateman Attorney-at-Law Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Villa, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner meets the academic requirements to sit for the practical nursing equivalency examination in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended the registered nursing program at HCC. On or about March 1, 2007, Petitioner applied to sit for the practical nursing licensure examination. By letter dated May 8, 2008, the Board notified Petitioner that additional information was required to complete her application. According to the letter, two submissions were required. First, the director of nursing at HCC needed to submit a letter stating that Petitioner's coursework meets the practical nursing educational equivalency. Second, Petitioner needed to submit verification that she completed coursework in medical-surgical nursing (oxygenation, circulation and hematology). Rise Sandrowitz, program manager of the nursing program at HCC, submitted a letter to the Board. In the letter dated June 8, 2008, Ms. Sandrowitz stated that while Petitioner was a student at HCC, she "twice attempted but was unsuccessful in Adult Health III." The Adult Health Care III course is a 5.5 credit hour course and covers topics of oxygenation, circulation and hematology. Ms. Sandrowitz' letter does not state that the courses Petitioner completed in the professional nursing program at HCC met the requirements for the practical nursing equivalency. Ms. Sandrowitz testified credibly that the intent of her letter was to recommend that Petitioner be allowed to sit for the examination, if the Board determined that Petitioner's coursework met the practical nursing equivalency requirements. The Board determined that Petitioner's failure to successfully complete the course that covered the oxygenation (respiratory), circulation, and hematology systems demonstrated that she did not meet the practical nursing equivalency requirements. Petitioner testified credibly that each time she took the Adult Health Care III course, she attended "all lectures and every clinical," took every test and quiz, and completed all assignments. Nevertheless, Petitioner did not successfully complete the course. Each time Petitioner took the course, she was "just short of the 80%" needed to pass the lecture part of the course. Despite her failure to pass Adult Health Care III, Petitioner argues that she has adequate knowledge in all nursing areas, including those systems covered in that course and, thus, should be allowed to sit for the practical nursing examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which denies Petitioner, Angela Sessa's, application to sit for the examination for licensure as a practical nurse in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angela Sessa 3505 Sandburg Loop Plant City, Florida 33566 Rick Garcia, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Patricia Dittman, Chairman Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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
Findings Of Fact Valerie Humphrey is a Licensed Practical Nurse holding License No. 27860-1 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. Notice of the formal hearing in the above style cause was provided to the parties in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On October 25, 1975 Valerie Humphrey was employed as a Licensed Practical Nurse at Florida Convalescent Home, Melbourne, Florida. On that date, Valerie Humphrey was observed by Alma Bourne, then employed as a Nurses' Aide at Florida Convalescent Home, attempting to give medication, to wit, an aspirin, to a patient at said convalescent home. When the patient refused to take the medication, Mrs. Humphrey took the patient's walker away from her. The patient was eighty (80) years old and needed the walker to move about. On the same date, Mrs. Bourne observed Valerie Humphrey attempt to administer a laxative to a male patient, Ernest Price, who spit out the laxative twice, whereupon Valerie Humphrey slapped him hard enough to bring a welt to the side of his face. After striking the patient, Humphrey did not try to administer the laxative again. The Director of Nursing at Florida, Convalescent Home testified that physical injury and intimidation were not necessary or appropriate to force medications on patients at the nursing home. Other means of administering the medications to include giving them in combination with foods or drinks, were generally used with uncooperative patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Valerie Humphrey, L.P.N., License Number 27860-1, be suspended for a period not to exceed six (6) months; further, that the order of the Florida State Board of Nursing be communicated to any other State or territory of these United States in which Valerie Humphrey is also licensed. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway - Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Valerie E. Marsh Humphrey, L.P.N.
Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
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 The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That Manor Care be issued a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Palm Bay Care Center be awarded a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Forum Group be awarded a CON for a 40 bed nursing home and Courtenay Springs be awarded a CON for 36 nursing home beds. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-99675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 180 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Suite 100 Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan G. Tuttle, Esquire 402 South Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Suite B 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties herein. 1-13 Accepted. 14 & 15 Accepted. 16-18 Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. 19-23 Accepted. 24 Accepted. 25-29 Accepted. 30 & 31 Accepted. 32 Irrelevant. 33-34 Accepted. 35-37 Accepted. 38-46 Accepted. 47 & 48 Accepted. 49 & 50 Accepted. 51 Discussion, not Finding of Fact. 52-56 Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted to the fact that there were no sheltered beds in existence. Irrelevant. 61-63 Accepted but not of substantial positive value. 64 & 65 Accepted. Opinion not Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68-75 Accepted. 76-80 Irrelevant based on part operation and evidence shows facility is to be sold. 81-85 Irrelevant - see next 86-90 Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a Finding of Fact. 91 Not a Finding of Fact. 92-94 Accepted. 95 Irrelevant as to local district. 96-103 Accepted. 104-105 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman supported. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman indicated. 108-110 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact. 114-118 Accepted. 119&120 Not a Finding of Fact. 121&122 Accepted. 123 Accepted as to the one facility currently operated. 124-127 Accepted. Speculation insufficient to support a Finding of Fact. Argument, not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 131-133 Accepted. 134 Not a Finding of Fact. 135-137 Accepted. 138 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139-147 Accepted. 148&149 Not a Finding of Fact. 150-164 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony, not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. 167-176 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a summary of testimony. Accepted. 180&181 Accepted. 182 Irrelevant. 183&184 Accepted. 185 Rejected as a conclusion. 186&187 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. As to Manor Care 1 Accepted. 2&3 Rejected as not a part of the case. 4 Accepted. 5-7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 10-11 Accepted. 12 Accepted. 13-19 Accepted. 20-22 Accepted. As to Forum 1-13 Accepted. 14-16 Accepted. 17-22 Accepted. 23&24 Accepted. 25-27 Accepted. 28-31 Accepted. 32 Accepted. 33-35 Accepted. 36 Rejected as speculation. 37-42 Accepted. 43 Accepted. 44-47 Accepted. 48&49 Accepted. 50-55 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion not consistent with the evidence. Accepted. 58&59 Accepted. 60-64 Accepted. 65-69 Accepted. 70&71 Irrelevant. 72&73 Accepted. 74-76 Accepted. Accepted as to the first sentence. Second sentence is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. As to PBCC 1&2 Accepted. 3 Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. 46 Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. 10-12 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence except for the first sentence which is accepted. Rejected. 15-20 Accepted. 21-27 Accepted. 28 Rejected as an overstatement and not supported by the evidence. 29&30 Accepted. 31 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 32-38 Accepted. 39-43 Accepted. 44-50 Accepted. 51-57 Accepted. Accepted except for the first sentence which is unsupported by credible evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. As to Courtenay This party failed to number or otherwise identify its Findings of Fact individually. Therefore, no specific ruling as to each Finding of Fact is hereby made. In light of the ultimate recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the party's CON be approved, no prejudice to this party can be said to have occurred. As to DHRS 1-4 Accepted 5 Summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 6-1 Is an argument of the party's position, not a Finding of Fact. 12-14 Rejected as matters not a part of the party's position at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-22 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 25-28 Accepted. 29-31 Accepted.
Findings Of Fact In October 1978 Bonnie Ray Solomon Crawford, LPN was employed at the West Pasco Hospital, New Port Richey, Florida as a licensed practical nurse provided by Upjohn Company's rent-a-nurse program. On 7 October 1978 Respondent signed out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and on 8 October 1973 at 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Demerol 75 mg for patient Kleinschmidt (Exhibit 2). Doctor's orders contained in Exhibit 4 shows that Demerol 50 mg was ordered by the doctor to be administered to patient Kleinschmidt as needed. Nurses Notes in Exhibit 4 for October 7, 1978 contains no entry of administration of Demerol at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m. shows administration of 50 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. Exhibit 3, Narcotic Record for Demerol 50 mg contains two entries at 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 1978 and one entry at 12:30 p.m. where Respondent signed out for Demerol 50 mg. for patients King, Zobrist and King in chronological order. Nurses Notes for King, Exhibit 6, and Zobrist, Exhibit 5, contain no entry that Demerol was administered to patient Zobrist at 8:15 a.m. or to patient King at 12:30 p.m. on 7 October 1978. In fact, the record for Zobrist shows that Zobrist was discharged from the hospital on October 5, 1978. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics constitutes a gross error in patient care and is not acceptable nursing practice. Similarly it is not acceptable nursing practice to withdraw narcotics not contained in doctors orders or administer medication not in doctors orders. When confronted by the Nursing Administrator at West Pasco Hospital with these discrepancies in the handling of Demerol, Respondent stated that she failed to check the identity of the patient before administering medication and that she didn't feel she should be giving medications any more. Following this confrontation with the hospital authorities, Respondent was fired for incompetency. No evidence was submitted regarding Respondent's 1975 disciplinary proceedings.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a registered nurse in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Board of Nursing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of nurses and the regulation of the nursing profession in Florida. Respondent, Drema G. M. Servoss, was licensed as a registered nurse holding license number 1918522. Ms. Servoss holds both an Associate and a Bachelor’s degree in Nursing from the University of Tampa, and is currently completing work on a Master’s degree in family nurse practice, also from the University of Tampa. For several years, she worked weekends at University General Hospital (University), in Tampa, in special care nursing. When she started back to school to earn her Master’s degree, in September 1995, she transferred to the home care unit at University, then identified as Community Home Care Professionals, (CHCP). For the one year leading up to the job change that led to the incident in question, Ms. Servoss worked at CHCP as the weekend scheduler of home health personnel, but made no home visits herself. Finally, because she had worked every weekend for the preceding five years, and wanted to spend more time with her family, and since the remaining classes she needed for her Master’s degree were offered primarily at night, she applied for a weekday field nurse position. She was selected for the position. Though the normal orientation period for new home health nurses normally lasted for approximately two weeks, depending on staffing needs, a part of which included a preceptorship, Ms. Servoss was provided with only four days of orientation, of which two days consisted of following another nurse around. On the Friday before Labor Day, 1996, she was given an assignment of six patients to see starting on Monday, September 2, 1996, which was Labor Day. However, on the Sunday evening preceding Labor Day, when she returned from a weekend trip, Respondent found a message waiting on her answering machine advising her of three more patients to be added to her list. Feeling that nine patients were too many for a new home health nurse, she attempted to contact Ms. Tisdale, her supervisor, to inform her of that and to also advise that Respondent’s husband, Christopher, also a registered nurse and a part-time home health nurse for CHCP, might see some of the nine patients on Labor Day. Ms. Servoss also tried to reach Ms. Watkins, the weekend scheduler, but neither could be reached. Respondent left word for Ms. Watkins to please call her back, but she did not do so, and Watkins did not have a pager through which she could be reached. Respondent’s first patient on September 2, 1997, was P.W., who was to receive medication through an IV medport three times a day. Respondent’s visit was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and the visit included changing the needle in the medport. She did not know how to do this, so she called her husband at home. He worked as a nurse on an intensive care unit and had all the skills required to see the patient received the care she needed. When he arrived at P.W.’s home, Christopher showed Respondent how to do the medport access, which she did, and while she performed the treatment required, he filled out the nursing notes. It was not unusual for this division of labor to take place. Respondent had done it before during her orientation when following Ms. Tisdale. After completing the required treatment on P.W., Respondent assigned her husband several other of her patients to see. She then went to the company office to talk with the supervisor on duty, but it was closed for the holiday. This was a change from previous practice prior to the buyout of the company by Columbia Health Care System. Prior to that, it was company policy to have the office open on holidays. Finding the office closed, she thought about what to do for a while. Mindful of the warning she had received to stay within the boundaries permitted a field nurse and not to act as a supervisor, she decided to visit those patients on her list which she had assigned to her husband. At each of the three patients’ homes, Respondent explained that she was the regular nurse who should have come to see them that day, and that the male nurse who had previously been there, though a nurse, was not the assigned nurse. She assured each patient that they would not be double-billed, but did not leave a second copy of the nursing clinical notes signed by her as required. Aside from B.K., who objected to being seen by a male nurse because of the nature of her problem, none complained about being seen by Christopher or that Respondent made a second visit that day. Petitioner contends that Respondent did not make the visits as she claims, and in support of that position, presented the testimony of B.K. who did not recall Respondent’s being at her home that day. None of the other three patients in issue were present to testify nor were they deposed. In addition, the record of client/family teaching, left with each patient and reflecting the date and subject of each visit, and by whom it was made, which was left with B.K. for the period August 31 through October 14, 1996, fails to reflect a visit by Respondent or any other nurse. By the same token, however, it does not reflect a visit each day, and there is an extended and unexplained hiatus between September 25, 1996 and October 14, 1996. For this reason, it is not given much probative weight. In addition, Respondent described what she said were the residences of each of the patients in issue, and no evidence was submitted by Petitioner to dispute this, save the testimony of B.K. Based on the state of the evidence, it is found that she made the repeat visits as claimed. That evening, after completing all nine visits, Respondent completed the paperwork for the visits she had made on Labor Day, including those patients previously seen by Christopher. In doing so, she utilized the information contained on Christopher’s copies of the unsigned nursing clinical notes, the yellow copies of which he had, as required, left at the house. She supplemented that information with her own memory. Two days later, on September 4, 1996, as Respondent was getting ready to leave for the day, she was paged by Joyce Kovacs, the clinical home care supervisor, who took her to the office of the director of professional services, Ms. Bilgutay. There, Respondent was accused of assigning patients to her husband, which was out of her area of authority. She was also accused of not making any of those visits, and was informed right away that she was fired. Because she was afraid her husband would leave his job in protest over her treatment, she initially did not indicate she had also made the visits. She was humiliated by the way she was treated, and in order to get out of the room as quickly as possible, she did not strenuously contest what her accusers said. During that encounter, nothing was said to her about her signing the nursing notes allegedly prepared by her husband. Later, however, she was again called in and asked to reimburse the company for the tuition assistance she had previously received because, it was alleged, she had fraudulently signed the notes. She was also threatened that the matter might be referred to the Board of Nursing. It was. Several months later Respondent was interviewed by David Berry, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration. During this interview, the investigator would not release to Respondent the names and addresses of the patients in issue. She, therefore, requested he visit the patients and refresh their memories regarding her subsequent visit. During the course of his investigation, on February 21, 1997, in excess of five months after the date in issue, Mr. Berry spoke with three of the four patients to whom the allegations herein relate. All are elderly. Though two of them, including B.W., professed to remember that only a male nurse came to see them on September 2, 1996, neither could identify Christopher from the photograph presented. The third could remember very little of the incident. Only B.W. was present to testify. D.D. could not remember much of the incident, and S.W. declined to appear voluntarily at the hearing. He claimed he was too elderly, and, besides, the day was scheduled for his golfing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the misconduct alleged and dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Cynthia A. Mikos, Esquire A. S. Weekley, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight 510 Vonderburg Drive Brandon, Florida 33511 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewod Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marylin Bloss Executive Director Board of Nursing 4080 Woodcock Drive Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
