The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since August 17, 1987, licensed to practice practical nursing in the State of Florida. She holds license number 0876721. Respondent was employed for more than a year as a nurse at Martin Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "hospital"), a private nonprofit community hospital located in Stuart, Florida. She was suspended from her position for three days on October 25, 1988, for suspected diversion of drugs and falsification of medical records. Upon the expiration of her suspension, she was terminated. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was assigned to the hospital's sixth floor oncology unit and she worked the day shift (7:00 a.m. to 3:00 pm). Among the patients for whom Respondent cared was S.H. S.H., who is now deceased, had lung cancer. The first five days of S.H.'s stay at the hospital were spent in a room on the hospital's fifth floor. On October 15, 1988, she was moved to the sixth floor oncology unit, where she remained until her discharge at 3:35 p.m. on October 22, 1988. When a patient is admitted to the hospital, the admitting physician provides the nursing staff with written orders regarding the care that is to be given the patient. These written orders, which are updated on a daily basis, include instructions concerning any medications that are to be administered to the patient. The hospital's pharmacy department provides each patient with a twenty- four hour supply of the medications prescribed in the physician's written orders. The supply is replenished daily. In October, 1988, the medications that the pharmacy department dispensed were stored in unlocked drawers that were kept in designated "medication rooms" to which the nursing staff and other hospital personnel had ready access. The hospital's nursing staff is responsible for caring for the hospital's patients in accordance with the written orders given by the patients' physicians. Furthermore, if a nurse administers medication to a patient, (s)he must indicate that (s)he has done so by making an appropriate, initialed entry on the patient's MAR (Medication Administration Record). 1/ In addition, (s)he must note in the nursing chart kept on the patient that such medication was administered. Moreover, if the physician's written orders provide that the medication should be given to the patient on an "as needed" basis, the nursing chart must contain information reflecting that the patient's condition warranted the administration of the medication. The foregoing standards of practice that nurses at the hospital are expected to follow are the prevailing standards in the nursing profession. On October 13, 1988, S.H.'s physician indicated in his written orders that S.H. could be administered Darvocet N-100 for pain control on an "as needed" basis, but that in no event should she be given more than one tablet every six hours. S.H.'s MAR reflects that at 9:00 a.m. on October 18, 1988, the first day that Respondent was assigned to care for S.H., Respondent gave S.H. a Darvocet N-100 tablet. The entry was made by Respondent. Respondent did not indicate on S.H.'s nursing chart that she gave S.H. such medication on October 18, 1988. Moreover, there is no indication from the nursing chart that S.H. was experiencing any pain and that therefore she needed to take pain medication while she was under Respondent's care on that date. S.H.'s MAR reflects that at 10:00 a.m. on October 21, 1988, the day Respondent was next assigned to care for S.H., Respondent gave S.H. a Darvocet N-100 tablet. The entry was made by Respondent. Respondent did not indicate on S.H.'s nursing chart that she gave S.H. such medication on October 21, 1988. Moreover, there is no indication from the nursing chart that S.H. was experiencing any pain and that therefore she needed to take pain medication while she was under Respondent's care on that date. At some time toward the end of her stay in the hospital, S.H. told one of the charge nurses who worked in the sixth floor oncology unit that she had taken very few Darvocet N- 100 tablets during her stay at the hospital and that she had not taken any recently. S.H.'s physician did not prescribe Darvocet N-100 or any other similar pain medication for S.H. upon her discharge from the hospital. Notwithstanding the entries she made on S.H.'s MAR, Respondent did not give Darvocet N-100 to S.H. on either October 18, 1988, or October 21, 1988. Respondent made these entries knowing that they were false. She did so as part of a scheme to misappropriate and divert the medication to her own use.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 464.018(1), Florida Statutes, charged in the instant administrative complaint and disciplining Respondent by taking the action proposed by the Department, which is described in paragraph 9 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of October, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1990.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent should be subjected to discipline for the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner on July 28, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license no. ME 0031639 on October 26, 1977. Respondent is board certified in general surgery and has worked and trained as a general and vascular surgeon. Respondent has practiced medicine in Tampa since 1988. Respondent offered testimony establishing that his peers respect his ability as a surgeon. Until 1996, Respondent had not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine or by any other licensing entity. On January 26, 1996, the Board of Medicine issued a final order in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 95-3925, imposing discipline on Respondent’s license to practice medicine. Case No. 95-3925 involved two separate incidents in which Respondent performed surgical procedures that had not been specifically consented to by the patients. In the first incident, Respondent removed the severely diseased left leg of the patient when the signed consent to surgery was for removal of the right leg. The patient was well known to Respondent, and it was understood between Respondent and the patient that both legs would eventually require amputation. In the second incident, Respondent removed a toe that had become dislocated during a debridement of the patient’s foot. The toe was connected only by ligament and necrotic tissue, and Respondent removed it during the debridement procedure rather than waiting to obtain specific consent for its removal. In the final order, the Board of Medicine concluded that Respondent had violated Sections 458.331(1)(p) and (t), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain proper consent from a patient and by practicing medicine below the standard of care. Based on these conclusions, the Board of Medicine imposed the following relevant disciplinary measures: Respondent’s license to practice medicine is REPRIMANDED. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000 to the Board of Medicine, within one year of the date this Final Order is filed. Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is SUSPENDED for a period of 6 months including the time served under the emergency suspension. Respondent shall submit a practice plan prior to reinstatement to be approved by the Board’s probation committee. Within 6 months of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent shall have an independent, certified risk manager review Respondent’s practice. Specifically, this independent consultant shall review the Respondent’s practice concerning preoperative procedures including patient consent. This consultant will prepare a written report addressing Respondent’s practice. Such report, if necessary, will include suggested improvements of the quality assurance of Respondent’s practice. Respondent will submit this report to the Board’s Probation Committee with documentation that demonstrates compliance with the suggestions enumerated in the consultant’s report. Upon reinstatement, Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: Respondent shall comply with all state and federal statutes, rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of medicine, including Chapters 455, 458, 893, Florida Statutes, and Rules 59R, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent shall appear before the Probation Committee at the first meeting after said probation commences, at the last meeting of the Probation Committee preceding termination of probation, quarterly, and at such other times requested by the committee. Respondent shall be noticed by the Board staff of the date, time and place of the Board’s Probation Committee whereat Respondent’s appearance is required. Failure of the Respondent to appear as requested or directed shall be considered a violation of the terms of this Probation, and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. * * * 6. Respondent shall not practice except under the indirect supervision of a physician fully licensed under Chapter 458 to be approved by the Board’s Probation Committee.... The responsibilities of a monitoring physician shall include: Submit quarterly reports, in affidavit form, which shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Description of probationer’s practice. Brief statement of probationer’s compliance with terms of probation. Brief description of probationer’s relationship with monitoring physician. Detail any problems which may have arisen with probationer. * * * Respondent shall submit quarterly reports in affidavit form, the contents of which shall be specified by the Board. The reports shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Practice location. Describe current practice (type and composition). Brief statement of compliance with probationary terms. Describe relationship with monitoring/supervising physician. Advise Board of any problems. * * * 11. Respondent understands that during this period of probation, semi-annual investigative reports will be compiled by the Agency for Health Care Administration concerning his compliance with the terms and conditions of probation and the rules and statutes regulating the practice of medicine. On January 31, 1996, Respondent submitted to the Board of Medicine the practice plan required by the final order. The practice plan named Joseph Diaco, M.D., as Respondent’s monitoring physician, and stated that Dr. Diaco would review twenty percent of Respondent’s patient charts. The practice plan stated that Respondent would comply specifically with all the terms and conditions of the final order, and with the recommendations of the certified risk manager. The practice plan further stated: ... Dr. Sanchez will have specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered, wherein he will discuss the intended surgical procedure again, and will have the intended surgical site marked with indelible ink. The record does not document that the Board of Medicine’s Probation Committee formally approved Respondent’s practice plan, or addressed the terms of the practice plan in any way. Such approval is presumed from the fact that Respondent appeared before the Probation Committee on several occasions subsequent to filing the practice plan, and the record does not indicate that the Probation Committee registered any objection or suggested any modifications to the practice plan. Respondent made the required appearances before the Probation Committee. Respondent and Dr. Diaco submitted the required quarterly reports to the Board of Medicine, and Dr. Diaco fulfilled the monitoring requirements of the practice plan. Periodically during the probation period, Mr. Richard Hess, an investigator with the Agency for Health Care Administration, would contact Respondent and Dr. Diaco to inquire as to Respondent’s practice and compliance with the terms of probation. Mr. Hess would inquire regarding such matters as the submission of quarterly reports, the payment of the administrative fine, and the current locations at which Respondent was practicing. Mr. Hess would submit his reports to the Agency for Health Care Administration and to the Board of Medicine, and these reports were used to supplement the information submitted directly by Respondent and Dr. Diaco. Based upon the information he was provided by Respondent and Dr. Diaco, Mr. Hess never found Respondent out of compliance with the terms of his probation. On the morning of November 2, 1997, an order was entered at Vencor Hospital by the primary treating physician for placement of a central venous line for patient D.M., an 80 year- old female patient. A central venous line is most often placed for access to the circulatory system for the provision of medications and/or fluids when the peripheral venous system is not available for such use. A central venous line may be ordered if the patient has no veins remaining for the insertion of a peripheral catheter, or for extended access, such as when a patient requires a long-term cycle of antibiotics for a bone infection. Patient D.M. required the central line for antibiotics to treat infected ulcerations on her lower extremities. The placement of a central line may be performed by any licensed physician, though surgeons are often called in to perform the procedure for primary physicians. Two physicians who teach at the University of Miami testified that third-year residents are allowed to perform the procedure with only indirect supervision. Dr. Diaco testified that nurse practitioners may perform the procedure under the supervision of a physician. The procedure is performed at the patient’s bedside, not in an operating room. No general anesthesia is required. A local anesthetic is administered at the point of insertion. The entire procedure takes two to three minutes to perform. The central line may be placed in at least three locations in the body: the leg, the neck, or the collarbone. In the case of D.M., Respondent placed the line by way of the collarbone. A needle is inserted under the clavicle and into the vein that unites with the jugular vein to form the second largest vein in the human body, the superior vena cava. Using a guide wire, a catheter is threaded through the subclavian vein and placed inside the superior vena cava. Prior to performance of the procedure, the patient’s head is typically placed lower than her feet in what is called the Trendelenburg position. If the patient has a feeding tube, it is typically turned off prior to the procedure to prevent aspiration of tube material. Proper placement of the central line is confirmed by X- ray taken immediately after the procedure. Such confirmation of placement is necessary due to the risks associated with incorrect placement. The most immediate risk is pneumothorax, the puncturing of the patient’s lung. Other less common complications are blood loss, cardiac arrest, infection, and irregular heartbeat. The consensus of the experts who testified at hearing was that the procedure poses no greater risk of complication for elderly patients such as D.M., but that elderly patients who do suffer complications may have a harder time recovering than would younger, more robust patients. D.M. was an 80 year-old female patient who shared Room 218 at Vencor Hospital with J.P., an 89 year-old female patient. D.M. and J.P. were of the same general age, ethnic origin, and gender. They had similar medical problems, including bilateral lower extremity decubiti and ulcerations. D.M. was able to understand conversation and could verbally communicate with staff. D.M. signed on her own behalf the consent form for the insertion of the central venous line. The signature on the consent form was obtained by and witnessed by Elizabeth Rood, a registered nurse on duty during the day of November 2, 1997. Ms. Rood testified that she believed D.M. was rational enough to sign the form on her own behalf. Vencor Hospital policy dictated that informed consent be obtained from the patient by the surgeon who was to perform the procedure. The nursing employees of Vencor Hospital and Respondent all testified that, despite the stated policy, it was common practice at the time for nurses to obtain the signatures of patients on the consent forms. The express terms of Respondent’s practice plan also required Respondent to have “specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered. ” J.P. suffered from organic brain syndrome and was generally unable to communicate verbally. J.P. was unable to give consent for surgical procedures on her own behalf. Ms. Rood obtained D.M.’s signature on the informed consent form at about 10:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter, hospital staff contacted Respondent to inform him of the order and request that he perform the placement of the central line. Respondent replied that he was unable to perform the procedure at that time because of a more urgent consultation at St. Joseph’s Hospital, but would come to Vencor Hospital later to perform the procedure. Shortly before the start of the nursing night shift, the central line cart with supplies for the procedure was brought by the day supervisor to the second floor of Vencor Hospital and placed outside Room 218. Lisa Cotroneo was the night charge nurse. When she arrived for her shift, she received report from the day charge nurse. That report indicated that D.M. was to receive a central line placement at some time during the evening. The nursing staff at Vencor was divided into teams of two or three nurses assigned to particular rooms on the floor. Team three was responsible for Room 218. At the start of the night shift, Nurse Cotroneo informed two of the three nurse on team three, Donna Maranto and Fortune Ndukwe, that a central line was to be placed on patient D.M. that evening. Nurse Cotroneo did not inform the third nurse, Mary Shogreen, because Nurse Shogreen was a pool nurse called in to work on short notice and had not yet arrived for her shift. Nurse Shogreen was the nurse on team three who was assigned primary care duties for the patients in Room 218. Nurse Shogreen was later informed by Nurse Ndukwe that one of her patients would be receiving a central line placement that evening. Nurse Shogreen testified that she intended to check with the charge nurse to confirm the order for a central line placement, but that she never did so. At around 8:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned the nursing unit to inform the charge nurse that he was on his way to perform the placement of the central line. Nurse Cotroneo conveyed this information to Nurses Maranto and Ndukwe, and told them to be sure everything was ready for Respondent’s arrival. Respondent arrived at Vencor Hospital shortly after 8:00 p.m. and proceeded to the second floor nursing station, where he asked for and received the chart for patient D.M. He reviewed the chart, which contained the signed consent form and the order for placement of the central line. After reviewing the chart, Respondent inquired as to the location of D.M. and the nurse who would assist him in the procedure. Respondent was told that D.M.’s nurse was down the hall. Respondent walked down the hall and approached a group of three or four nurses. Respondent did not know any of them. He informed the group that he was Dr. Sanchez and was there to perform the central line placement. One of the nurses, later identified as Mary Shogreen, told him she was ready for him. She led him down the hall toward Room 218. Respondent paused at the central line cart outside Room 218 to pick up a pair of surgical gloves and the kit used for the central line placement. When Respondent entered the room, he observed Nurse Shogreen already at the bedside. The room was dark, save for a single light over the bed of the patient where Nurse Shogreen was working. Respondent saw that Nurse Shogreen was turning off the feeding tube to the patient, a common precursor to performance of a central line placement. Respondent walked to the other side of the patient’s bed and addressed the patient by the name of D.M. He told her that he was Dr. Sanchez and that her physician had asked him to insert a central venous catheter in her. Respondent looked into the patient’s eyes and realized she was not comprehending what he said. Nurse Shogreen was standing directly across the bed and could hear Respondent’s efforts to talk to the patient, including his addressing that patient as “D.M.” Respondent asked Nurse Shogreen if the patient was “always like this,” i.e., unresponsive. Nurse Shogreen answered that she had never had the patient before, but believed that was the usual condition of the patient. It would not be unusual for an elderly patient such as D.M. to be communicative and able to understand and sign a consent form at 10:00 a.m., but then be uncommunicative in the evening. The medical community informally refers to this phenomenon as "sundown syndrome." Respondent told Nurse Shogreen to assist him in placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position, and to get a rolled towel to place between the patient’s shoulder blades. While Nurse Shogreen was getting the towel, Respondent examined the patient’s neck and chest. Nurse Shogreen returned with the towel, but was unable to adjust the bed into Trendelenburg position. Respondent told her to go get another nurse who knew how to work the bed. She brought in Nurse Ndukwe, who was also unable to get the bed into the proper position. At length, they found a certified nurse assistant who was able to place the bed into position. Neither Nurse Shogreen nor Nurse Ndukwe expressed any concern to Respondent regarding the identity of the patient. Nurse Ndukwe had received an explicit report concerning the fact that patient D.M. was to receive a central line placement. Nurse Shogreen had heard Respondent address the patient as D.M. Respondent completed the procedure, which took about one minute. He proceeded to the nurse’s station and ordered the standard X-ray to confirm the proper placement of the central line, completed the consult form, and dicated both his consultation report and operative report. Nurse Shogreen remained behind in the room to clean up after the procedure. She made notations in the bedside chart of patient J.P., the mistaken recipient of the central line. Even at this point, Nurse Shogreen did not realize that the wrong patient had received the central line. The findings as to events in Room 218 on the evening of November 2, 1997, were based on the testimony of Respondent. Nurse Shogreen testified that it was Respondent who led the way into the room, Respondent who proceeded to the wrong bed, and Respondent who prevented Nurse Shogreen from going out to get the patient’s chart to confirm her mental condition after questioning by Respondent. Nurse Shogreen agreed with Respondent’s version of the problems with getting the bed into proper position, but testified that Respondent was so angry and in such a hurry that he performed the central line placement before the staff was able to place the bed in the proper position. Based on both the substance of the testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Respondent’s version of events is more believable, and that Respondent is a more credible witness than Nurse Shogreen. The undersigned is unable to credit testimony that a physician of Respondent’s skill and experience would plunge ahead into the room and commence a procedure on a patient he had never seen, without doing anything to ascertain her identity. The undersigned finds it more plausible that Respondent followed Nurse Shogreen’s lead, observed the visual cues she was providing, and assumed that the patient to whom Nurse Shogreen attended was in fact patient D.M. Respondent's proffer of testimony regarding inconsistencies in Nurse Mary Shogreen's testimony before the Peer Review Committee was disregarded in formulating these findings of fact. Several physicians offered expert testimony as to whether it is within the standard of practice for a surgeon to rely on his assisting nurse for patient identification. Dr. David Shatz, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that any surgeon must be absolutely sure he is working on the right person. He testified that once Respondent was unable to get a verbal response from the patient, he should have asked the nurse if he was speaking to patient D.M. Dr. Shatz concluded that it is a deviation from the standard of care to perform a procedure on a noncommunicative patient without checking the patient’s identification bracelet. Dr. Stephen Michel agreed that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by placing the central line in the wrong patient. Dr. Michel’s other conclusions regarding the events in question cannot be credited because he admitted he was assuming that Dr. Sanchez was not permitted by the terms of his probation to be working in Vencor Hospital at all. This assumption was incorrect, and colored the remainder of his conclusions. Dr. Enrique Ginzburg, also an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that a surgeon is usually unfamiliar with the patient in a central line placement, and stated that he could not remember the last time he checked an identification bracelet when the nurses were in the room with him. He agreed that it would be easy to check the armband, but that physicians simply do not check the armband if nurses are present to identify the patients. Dr. Jerry Diehr, an anesthesiologist at St. Josephs Hospital in Tampa, testified that a reasonably prudent physician would do what Respondent did. He stated that he relies on nurse identifications in similar circumstances, and that it is common practice for physicians to do so. Dr. Diehr testified that physicians rely on nurses for all manner of patient identification. He noted that care is often dictated by telephone calls. When a nurse calls him and tells him about the condition of his patient, the underlying assumption is that the nurse has correctly identified the patient and adequately reported the condition. Physicians may base their entire course of treatment on such reports from nurses, and must be able to rely on the nurses for such identification and reporting. Dr. Diaco strongly opined that physicians must be able to rely on nurses for patient identification. It is the nurse’s responsibility to identify the correct patient when the physician does not know the patient. Dr. Diaco testified that if physicians cannot rely on nurses for such basic information as the identity of their patients, they may as well live in the hospital and administer their own medications. Peter Shute, an expert in general nursing practice, opined that the three nurses on duty at Vencor Hospital on the evening of November 2, 1997, were negligent in their duty to know the patients on their assigned unit. He testified that Nurse Shogreen was particularly negligent, because she had not received full report on her patients, found out that one of her patients was to receive a central line placement that evening, but did not immediately obtain a full report and take steps to ensure that all preparations had been made. The weight of the evidence is that it was within the standard of care under the conditions and circumstances for Respondent to rely on Nurse Shogreen’s identification of the patient. This finding does not minimize the fact that Respondent bears ultimate responsibility for the performance of an invasive procedure on a patient who did not give informed consent. After Respondent dictated his notes and left the hospital, David Vallejo, the X-ray technician, came to the floor to obtain the X-ray ordered by Respondent. He discovered that the patient who received the central line was J.P., not D.M. Mr. Vallejo went to the nurse’s station and informed Nurse Cotroneo, who called the nursing supervisor to come to the room with her. Nurse Cotroneo and the supervisor confirmed that both patients in Room 218 were wearing their identification bracelets. The nursing supervisor called J.P.’s primary physician, who ordered an X-ray, which confirmed that J.P. suffered no ill effects from the placement of the central line. He also ordered removal of the central line, which was accomplished without incident. Respondent was informed of the error by telephone. He came to Vencor Hospital the next day, November 3, 1997, and documented the error in the medical records of both D.M. and J.P. On that day, a different surgeon performed the central line placement on D.M. All of the expert witnesses agreed that Respondent’s charting and recording of the incident, both before and after he learned of the error, were adequate and indicated no effort to conceal the facts of the situation. The experts also agreed that marking the intended surgical site with indelible ink serves no purpose in a central line placement. Petitioner's own expert, Dr. Shatz, stated that marking the site of a central line placement would be "silly." On November 3, 1997, Vencor Hospital suspended Respondent’s hospital staff privileges pending an investigation of the incident. Respondent immediately contacted Dr. Diaco, his indirect supervisor, as soon as he learned of the error. Respondent fully informed Dr. Diaco of the facts of the situation. Dr. Diaco told Respondent that he did nothing wrong and that “the nurse is in big trouble.” Respondent also sought the counsel of his attorney, Michael Blazicek. Mr. Blazicek conferred with Dr. Diaco, and also concluded that this was a nursing problem, not a standard of care problem for Respondent. The results of the hospital’s internal Peer Review Committee review seemed to bear out the opinions of Dr. Diaco and Mr. Blazicek. On November 26, 1997, Respondent was restored to full privileges at Vencor Hospital. Nurse Shogreen received verbal counseling and a one-day suspension for failure to render proper treatment to the correct patient. Vencor Hospital’s “Root Cause Analysis Team” found that nursing protocols should be changed to prevent a recurrence of patient misidentification. Patients would henceforth be identified by bed letter designation. Identification of the patient and consent to treatment would be verified by two people, one of whom must be a hospital employee. On November 17, 1997, the quality review manager of Vencor Hospital submitted an Adverse or Untoward Incident Report (Code 15) regarding the incident, pursuant to Sections 395.0197(6) and 641.55(6), Florida Statutes. A Code 15 Report is a report of serious adverse incidents in licensed facilities. The Code 15 Report identifies the physicians and nurses involved by their license numbers, and identifies the patient and facility. It describes the nature of the incident and all actions taken by the hospital in response to the incident. The purpose of the Code 15 Report is to notify the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Health within 15 days of a serious adverse incident so the Agency may review the incident and begin an investigation. Respondent appeared before his Probation Committee on November 13, 1997. At this time, Respondent knew that the hospital would be filing a Code 15 Report, though it had not actually done so. Respondent was still on summary suspension at Vencor Hospital, pending review. Prior to his Probation Committee appearance, Respondent conferred with his attorney, Mr. Blazicek, who counseled him to answer any questions forthrightly, but not to volunteer information about the incident to the Probation Committee. This advice was based on the facts that the incident was still under investigation, that there had been no finding of wrongdoing by Respondent, and that summary suspension was a standard procedure for such incidents indicating no conclusions as to ultimate responsibility. Mr. Blazicek testified that he knew Respondent still had one more written quarterly report to file in January 1998. He reasoned that if the hospital's investigation resulted in adverse findings, Respondent could report the incident in that later filing. The Probation Committee raised no questions as to the Vencor Hospital incident, and determined that Respondent’s probation would terminate as scheduled upon payment of the administrative fine. Respondent did not volunteer information about the incident or the summary suspension. Respondent and Dr. Diaco filed their final quarterly reports in January 1998. Neither of them reported the Vencor Hospital incident. Respondent reported that he was in full compliance with all probationary terms. By the time the final quarterly reports were received, the Department of Health was aware of the Code 15 Report. Nonetheless, the Department issued an Order of Termination on February 2, 1998, finding that Respondent had satisfactorily completed the term of his probation as of January 26, 1998.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine enter a final order determining that Rolando R. Sanchez has violated Section 458.331(1)(p), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license for a period of nine months from the date of the Order of Emergency Suspension of License, imposing a fine of $2,500.00 and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years from the date the suspension expires. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of Section 464.21(1)(b) and 464.21(1)(f), Florida Statutes. The Administrative Complaint in this matter charged the Respondent with ten statutory violations. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner withdrew Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner also withdrew Paragraphs 3, 4, 8 & 9 of the Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, License No. RN-41209-2. During the period August 31 - September 1, 1975, Respondent was charge nurse of an 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. shift at Mercy Hospital, Orlando, Florida. A hospital Narcotic and Hypnotic Disposition Record, dated August 28, 1975, Number 13580, for Seconal capsules, 100 mg., reflects that on August 31, 1975 at 12:00 A.M., Respondent signed out for a Seconal capsule for patient John Marks. Hospital records, including Nurse Medication Record, Nurses' Supplementary Medication Record, and Nurses Notes do not reflect that the patient received the aforesaid medication. Hospital policy requires that all controlled drugs such as Seconal be "charted", i.e., shown in the appropriate medical record that the drug was administered to the patient by the nurse. Respondent admits that she failed to "chart" the medication that she gave to patient Marks. A similar Seconal charting omission by another nurse as to patient Marks occurred on September 3, 1975. (Testimony of Werner, Cahill, Mincevich, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3) A hospital Narcotic and Hypnotic Disposition Record for "Meperidine Amp., 75 mg." dated August 28, 1975, Number 46620, reflects that at 1:15 A.M., August 31, 1975, Respondent signed out 75 mg. of the drug for patient Jesse Elfrud. Meperidine is a controlled drug known as "Demerol" and is used for the relief of pain. Hospital records, including Nurse Medication Record, Nurses' Supplementary Medication Record, and Nurses Notes for the patient on that date fail to show administration of the drug. Respondent admits that she neglected to make the required entry on the appropriate record. (Testimony of Mincevich, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 4) A hospital Narcotic and Hypnotic Disposition Record for "Meperidine Amp. 100 mg." dated August 16, 1975, Number 47653, reflects that on September 1, 1975 at 1:30 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. Respondent signed out for 100 mg. of the drug for patient Eugene Catalina. Although the Nurses' Supplementary Medication Record shows that "Demerol, 100 mg." was administered to the patient at 1:30 A.M., hospital records do not reflect that the patient received the drug at 6:00 A.M. on September 1st. A hospital supervisor interviewed Catalina later that day and he informed her that he had had an injection about 5:30 A.M. when he awakened. Respondent admits that she neglected to "chart" the Demerol that she had signed out for at 6:00 A.M., September 1, 1975. (Testimony of Mincevich, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, supplemented by testimony of Reynolds.) On October 14, 1975, Respondent was employed at the Barrington Terrace Nursing Home, Orlando, Florida, assigned to the 4:00 P.M. - 12:00 A.M. shift as nurse in charge. At approximately 3:45 P.M., she arrived for duty and was observed by three licensed practical nurses. She was disheveled, uncoordinated, staggering, and bumping into things as she came down the corridor. Her speech was slurred and her breath smelled of alcohol. She entered the medicine room and had difficulty placing her key in the lock of the narcotics cabinet. She was not in a fit condition to carry out her duties and appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. One of the nurses reported the matter to the hospital Administrator who had the Assistant Administrator meet her in the office of the Director of Nursing and inform her that her employment was terminated. The Respondent had been involved in a similar incident at the nursing home on October 2, at which time she manifested the same appearance, but did not have the odor of alcohol on her breath. At that time, inquiries established that her condition had been brought about by a prior injection of Demerol and Compazine from her physician for the relief of a migraine headache. In spite of the circumstances surrounding the prior incident and the Administrator's knowledge that Respondent suffered from a disease called diabetes insipidus, he did not inquire into the possibility that Respondent might have been ill on October 14th, because of the reports from other employees that she was intoxicated. (Testimony of Cole, Stonecipher, Smith). Respondent testified that she suffers from diabetes insipidus. The illness is controlled by the use of Diaped nasal spray. Occasionally, she takes a shot of Pitressin to restore her hormone balance. The disease manifests itself by dizziness, slurred speech and the presence of a sweetish smelling breath from acidosis. The general appearance of an individual with the disease during an attack is similar to that of intoxication. It is also possible that an observer might mistake the breath odor for that of alcohol if unfamiliar with the disease. Prior to going to work on October 14, Respondent felt herself in the early stages of dehydration from the disease and administered nasal spray to herself. She does not recall the events of that day after arriving at the hospital. Although Respondent's credibility was impaired to some degree by a showing that she had falsified an application for employment at the Barrington Terrace Nursing Home by omitting the fact that she had previously been employed at Mercy Hospital, it is found that, under the circumstances, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Respondent was in an intoxicated condition by reason of alcohol at the time she reported for duty on October 14, 1975. (Testimony of Moore, Morris, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 1). In extenuation of her admitted "charting" errors, Respondent testified that a nurse had difficulty maintaining proper records during the night shift because of the scarcity of support personnel during that period. The Director of Nursing at Medic-home Health Center, Winter Garden, Florida, where Respondent has been employed for the past year, and her present supervisor at that institution, testified that charting errors are common and that such omissions happen more frequently on a night shift due to the heavier patient load. However, Respondent and these witnesses acknowledged that such omissions can have serious consequences if the nurse on the next shift is not aware that medication previously had been given to a patient. Respondent has done an excellent job at her present place of employment under close scrutiny, even though she lost her son in an automobile accident during the period of employment. (Testimony of Moore, Morris, Blackmer).
Recommendation That Respondent Jacqueline Carroll Moore, R.N., License Number RN-41209-2, be issued a written reprimand and that her license to practice nursing be suspended for unprofessional conduct in violation of Section 464.21(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold John T. O'Shea 1130 American Heritage MURRAH, DOYLE and O'SHEA, P.A. Building Morse Boulevard Professional Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Center 800 West Morse Boulevard P.O. Box 1328 Winter Park, Florida 32789 =================================================================
The Issue Whether there was negligence involved in treating Lewis Dougal, a patient in the Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home. Whether the Respondent kept records in compliance with the statutes and the requirements of Chapter 10D-29 of the Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home had Lewis Dougal, an adult mentally retarded male, as a patient in January of 1976. On Thursday, January 29, 1976, Mr. Dougal was taken to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for a neurological brain scan. His exact whereabouts have not been established during the period of time from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. on that day, but he was in the emergency room area or in the radiology area of the hospital. At approximately 3:00 p.m. he was returned to the Respondent nursing home. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on January 30, a nurses aide discovered that Lewis Dougal had a reddened and swollen penis, a swollen scrotum and red marks on the buttocks. She called the charge nurse, an L.P.N., who did not call the doctor, but noted on the "nurse's log" that the patient should see a doctor the following day. No notation was made on the patient's individual medical record at that time. Mr. Dougal was transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital late in the morning of January 31, 1976, whereupon he received a 50 mm injection of demerol for pain upon his admission to the hospital. He was released February 25, 1976. An investigative team from the Office of Health Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which consisted of a Hospital Nursing Home Consultant and a Registered Nurse, investigated the circumstances surrounding the incident on February the 25th and 27th, 1976. The injuries sustained by Mr. Dougal and his hospital records from the date of his admission, January 31, 1976, to the hospital, to the date of his release, February 25, 1976, were reviewed. The investigative team thereupon visited the Miracle Hill Convalescent and Nursing Home on February 27, 1976 and requested all medical records of the patient, Lewis Dougal. No medical records had been kept and the only reference to the incident was made on the "nurse's log" January 30 and 31, 1976. These entries were made subsequent to the dates thereof. Other information was placed on the records long after the incident occurred. On March 26, 1976, Petitioner State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued an order charging Respondent with two violations: The first being in violation of Section 400.102(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29.11(7), Florida Administrative Code, to-wit: "1. That the facility failed to protect a patient from neglect and abuse, in that a mentally retarded patient, incontinent of bowel and bladder, was allowed to acquire burns of the scrotal area, genitalia and buttocks, of sufficient severity to require hospitilization, such burns being caused by inadequate and improper nursing care on the part of the nursing service staff of the facility. As a result of the subject burns, the patient was hospitalized for treatment and care during the period January 31, 1976, and February 25, 1976, at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. The admission diagnosis for this patient at the hospital in part was, "burns of the genitalia and buttocks." The admitting physician further noted that the admission examination revealed an obvious burn in the skin from the scrotum which had already desquamated indicating the burn had occurred some time previously, maybe as much as a couple of days. Further, a circular burn involving the buttocks was observed with the notation that it appeared the patient had been sitting in some very hot solution. The second charge was alleged to be in violation of Chapter 10D- 29.11(10) and (13) 1.(c), of the Florida Administrative Code in the following language: "(2) In that the required medical record documentation concerning how or when the above injuries occurred to this particular patient was lacking, and the investigating team was unable to determine just how or when the burns occurred or the specific person responsible for this."
Recommendation Section 400.121(1) (8), Florida Statutes, Denial, suspension, revocation of license; procedure.- (1) "The [department] may deny, revoke, or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine for a violation of any provision of s. 400.102 only after written notice to the applicant or licensee setting forth the particular grounds for the proposed action and a hearing, if demanded by the applicant or licensee." (8) The [department], as a part of any final order issued by it under the provisions of this chapter, may impose such fine as it deems proper, except that such fine shall not exceed $500 for each violation. Each day a violation of this chapter occurs shall constitute a separate violation and shall be subject to separate fine. An action for recovery of the fine may be maintained in the circuit court of the county in which the facility is located, and appeal from any judgment rendered shall be in the manner and within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules for reviewing judgments rendered by circuit courts in action at law." Record keeping is such an important and necessary adjunct to nursing home care the Respondent should suffer a fine of at least $200 for violation of the foregoing statutes and rules. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Health Program Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John K. Folsom, Esquire 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Wright is a licensed practical nurse in Florida, holding license number PN 185281. In accordance with her licensure, Wright worked as a practical nurse at Manor Care Nursing Center in Jacksonville, Florida. On January 15, 1991, patient R.B. was admitted to Manor Care for recovery from multiple factures and organic brain damage. R.B. was receiving nourishment, Jevity, through a nasogastric tube (NGT). On January 18, 1991, at approximately 5:00 p.m., R.B. removed the NGT. R.B.'s mental confusion was such that she would attempt to remove the NGT regularly and mittens were used to prevent this behavior. Wright was the nurse responsible for R.B.'s care from approximately 4:00 p.m. to midnight on January 18, 1991. She recorded R.B.'s removal of the NGT. At some point thereafter, registered nurse Rosalina Harrell came and reinserted the NGT. At 9:30 p.m., Wright's notes indicate that R.B. was coughing and that she checked the placement of the NGT. Placement is checked to insure that the tube is inserted into the stomach and not into the trachea and lungs. According to Wright's notes and testimony, she discontinued feeding to give R.B. a rest, even though the placement checks were negative, meaning that the checks did not show that the tube was in the trachea or lungs. Wright restarted the feeding of Jevity (a white liquid food supplement). At 10:30 p.m., Wright's notes showed that R.B. was coughing up "large" amounts of white frothy phlegm. Wright again held the tube feeding for a short time. Another practical nurse, Margaret Patti, came on duty to replace Wright as the nurse in charge of R.B.'s care. In discussing R.B.'s condition with Wright, Wright informed Patti that R.B. had been coughing since the tube was inserted by Harrell. Wright said she did not remove the tube because she was not sure it was indeed in the wrong place. Wright and Patti then both did one test for placement and it was negative to show that the tube was incorrectly placed . Wright then did two other tests while Patti was out of the room, but she reported to Patti that those tests were also negative. Because of the concerns expressed by Wright, Patti monitored R.B. closely after Wright left around midnight. Patti observed some coughing and white sputum between 11:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., January 19, 1991. Again at 2:00 a.m. Patti recorded the R.B. was coughing and there was a moderate amount of white sputum present. Then the coughing became continuous and Patti removed the NGT. At 4:00 a.m., Patti recorded that R.B.'s respirations were even and unlabored and that tube feeding remained discontinued. At 5:00 a.m., Patti was advised by the nursing assistant that R.B. had no respiration or heartbeat. Patti called the doctor at 5:40 and R.B. was dead. An autopsy revealed that R.B. had died from asphyxia due to aspiration of Jevity. The lungs were full of Jevity and the bronchioles were plugged by the soft white material. There was nothing in R.B.'s stomach. As it relates to Wright's actions that night, at no time did Wright call a supervisor, registered nurse or doctor to express concern about the placement of the NGT or to indicate the presence of coughing or a white frothy substance around R.B.'s mouth. The presence of coughing and white frothy sputum or phlegm around the mouth is a danger sign that the NGT is in the trachea instead of the stomach. The minimum standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires that a licensed practical nurse report coughing or frothiness to her supervisor or to an R.N. If the practical nurse did not place the tube, she should contact the person who did insert the tube. If no one is available, then the practical nurse should remove the tube and contact the supervisor, an R.N., or the doctor, by telephone. There is no other acceptable level of care except to stop the food immediately and then report the coughing and presence of white frothy sputum to the appropriate person. At Manor Care that night, no supervisor or R.N. was on the premises, but Wright made no attempt to reach anyone by telephone regarding the situation. Wright's failure to meet these minimum standards of care constitutes unprofessional conduct as that term is defined in Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1991).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Issue a reprimand to Geraldine McNeal Wright. Place Wright on probation for six months subject to attendance at continuing education courses relative to the omissions in this case, to include a review of danger signs and appropriate responses in patients with nasogastric tubes and a refresher on the appropriate administration of procedures for checking the placement of such a tube. Impose a fine of $100. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4573 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, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Each of the following proposed findings of fact is 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: 1-7(1-5); 7(7); 9(12); 10(10); 11(11); 12(11); and 15(12 & 16). [Note--There are two different sets of paragraphs numbered 7, 8, and 9. A review of the actual Finding of Fact will clarify to which paragraph these specific rulings apply.] Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 8, and 14 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13 and 16 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Geraldine McNeal Wright As indicated above, Wright's proposed findings of fact are in a form which does not permit clear specific rulings. Those proposed findings of fact which are based on the documents attached to the proposed order, which were not part of the evidentiary record, are rejected. Additionally, those proposals which constitute argument are rejected. The proposed findings of fact which are consistent with the facts found herein are adopted. All other proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Faircloth Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Geraldine McNeal Wright 7925 Merrill Road, Apt. 216 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 E. Coastline Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32202
