The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the State Agency charged with the regulation of the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapters 20,456 (formerly Chapter 455, Part II; see Chapter 2000-160, Laws of Florida) and 464, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils or boards, as appropriate, including the issuance of emergency orders of suspension or restriction. Respondent is Cynthia Chance. Respondent is a Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. PN 0855441. On or between March 1997-May 1997, Respondent was employed by Health Force, a nurse-staffing agency. In or about March 1997, Respondent was assigned to work various shifts at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 18, 1997. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time-slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 21, 1997. Findings of fact based on the evidence of record Missing Drugs On May 13, 1997, Health Force received a "late call" from Cathedral Gerontology Center (Cathedral) needing a "stat" nurse because one of their nurses had not come to work. Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), administrator for Health Force, called Respondent who reported to Cathedral at 6:50 p.m. Kim Harrell, R.N., a supervisor at Cathedral, was the nurse who stayed until Respondent arrived. Also at 6:50 p.m. on May 13, 1997, Barbara Kelley, R.N., received and signed for a delivery of medications for residents from American Pharmaceutical Services. Included in that delivery was an order of Alprazolam (Xanax) and an order of Diazepam (Valium) for two residents on the floor where Respondent was working that evening. The delivery came with a separate medication or narcotics card for each medication. There were two floors of residents at Cathedral. Each floor had its own medication cart and its own nurse assigned to the floor. Controlled medications have a separate box in the medication cart with a separate key. The nurse on each floor had a key to her own medication cart but did not have a key to the medication cart of the other floor. The Director of Nursing (DON) also had a key to both medication carts in the event of an emergency such as a lost key. After receiving and signing for these drugs, Nurse Kelley locked the medications that belonged to her medication cart in it and inserted the narcotic cards for those medications into the notebook that corresponded to her cart. She then gave the medications and control sheets that belonged to Respondent's medication cart to Respondent, placing them in Respondent's hand. Nurse Kelley told Respondent that these were controlled drugs and instructed Respondent to lock up the medications in Respondent's medicine cart. There is conflicting testimony as to what happened next. Respondent admits to receiving the medications and the control cards. However, Respondent maintains that she placed the medications in the locked drawer of the medication cart and inserted the cards into the notebook in front of Nurse Kelley, whereas Nurse Kelley maintains that she walked away immediately after giving the drugs and cards to Respondent and did not see her place the drugs in the controlled drug lock box or the cards in the notebook. It was a policy at Cathedral for the out-going nurse to count controlled drugs with the on-coming nurse. When Respondent arrived on the night in question, she counted the controlled medications with Nurse Harrell. The narcotics count for both narcotics cards and actual doses was 16. At the end of her shift, Respondent counted the controlled medications with the on- coming nurse, Pamela Schiesser. The number of narcotics cards and tablets or doses was 16, the same as when Respondent came on duty. Nurse Schiesser was scheduled to work a double shift, 11 to 7 and 7 to 3. During the 11 to 7 shift, Nurse Schiesser was the only nurse for both floors of residents and she, therefore, had the key to both medication carts. Sometime during the 7 to 3 shift on May 14, 1997, Nurse Schiesser called the pharmacy to find out about a medication order she had placed for two residents so they would not run out. She was informed by the pharmacy that the drugs had been delivered the evening before and that they had been signed for by Nurse Kelley. She checked the delivery sheets and confirmed that Nurse Kelley had signed for the medications. After determining that there were no cards for the missing drugs and the drugs were not in the cart, she then reported to her supervisor, Kim Harrell, that the medication had been delivered but could not be located. Nurse Schiesser and Nurse Harrell checked the entire medication cart, the medication cart for the other floor and the medication room but did not find the missing medications. Nurse Harrell then notified the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Lu Apostol, and the Director of Nursing (DON), Fely Cunanan, regarding the missing medications. The ADON began an investigation and secured written statements from all of the nurses on her staff who had access to the drugs: Nurses Kelley, Harrell, and Schiesser. She called Nurse Kelley to confirm that she had received the medications from the pharmacy and confirmed that the two missing medications, Alprazolam (Xanax) and Diazepam (Valium), were given by Nurse Kelley to Respondent. The ADON also called Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), the administrator of Health Force for whom Respondent worked to notify her of the missing medications. On May 14, 1997, Ms. Streeter (Calfee) called Respondent and informed her about the missing drugs. On May 15,2000, Ms. Streeter and Respondent went to Cathedral for a meeting. They were informed that the two missing drugs had not been located and they were shown the written statements of the other nurses. Respondent admitted that the drugs had been given to her the night before by Nurse Kelley, but stated that she had locked the drugs in her cart. She denied any further knowledge about the drugs. At Ms. Streeter's suggestion, Respondent took a blood test on May 15, 2000.1 The drug test result was negative thus indicating that the drugs were not in her blood at the time of the test, which was two days after the drugs were missing. No competent evidence was presented as to how long it takes for these drugs to leave the bloodstream. Cathedral had a policy that required that all controlled substances be properly accounted for and secured by each nurse responsible for the drugs. This policy was verbally communicated from the off-going nurse to the oncoming nurse. When Nurse Kelley gave the drugs and drug cards in question to Respondent, she specifically instructed Respondent to lock up the drugs in the narcotics drawer. Respondent maintains that other people had keys to her medication cart and could have taken the drugs after she put them in the locked narcotics box. This testimony is not persuasive. Every witness from Cathedral testified unequivocally that there was only one key in the facility for each medication cart and that key was in the possession of the nurse assigned to that cart. The only other key, which was in the possession of the Director of Nursing, was not requested or given to anyone at anytime material to these events. The persuasive testimony is that Respondent was the only person during her shift with a key to her medication cart. That key was passed to Nurse Schiesser who discovered that the drugs and narcotics cards were not in the medication cart or notebook. The count of the drugs and the cards on hand did not show that anything was missing at the change of shift from Respondent to Nurse Schiesser as the count was 16, the same as when Respondent came on the shift. If Respondent had put the drugs and corresponding cards in the medication cart, the count should have been 18. The only logical inference is that Respondent did not put the drugs or cards in the cart. In the opinion of the two witnesses accepted as experts in nursing and nursing standards, Respondent's failure to properly secure the narcotics and to document the receipt of these controlled drugs constitutes practice below the minimal acceptable standards of nursing practice. Time-Slips While employed by Health Force as an agency nurse, Respondent was assigned at various times to work at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches (Beaches). Respondent submitted time cards or slips for each shift she worked to Health Force so that she would be paid for the work. Respondent submitted time-slips for working at Beaches on March 18 and 21, 1997. When Health Force billed Beaches for these two dates, Anne Hollander, the Executive Director of Patient Services, the person responsible for all operations at Beaches since 1989, determined that Respondent had not worked on either March 18 or 21, 1997. Ms. Hollander faxed the time-slips back to Health Force for verification. She advised Health Force that Respondent was not on the schedule as having worked on either of those dates. She also advised Health Force that the supervisor's signatures on the two time-slips did not match anyone who worked at Beaches. Ms. Hollander is intimately familiar with the signatures of all the supervisors who are authorized to sign time-slips at Beaches and none of them have a signature like the signatures on the two time-slips. Health Force did an investigation and ended up paying Respondent for the two days, but did not further invoice Beaches. Health Force was never able to determine whose signatures were on the time-slips. Health Force did have Respondent scheduled to work at Beaches on March 21, 1997, but not on March 18, 1997. Beaches keeps a staffing sheet for every day and every shift. The supervisors are responsible for completion of the staffing schedules to ensure that the necessary staff is scheduled to work on each shift. These staffing sheets are used for both scheduling and doing the payroll. According to Ms. Hollander, it is not possible that Respondent's name was just left off the staffing sheets. The staffing sheets are the working sheets. If a person works who is not originally on the staffing sheet, the supervisor writes that person's name into the correct column at the time they come to work. Ms. Hollander has been familiar with these staffing sheets for 12 years and does not recall any time when someone's name has been left off the staffing sheet when he or she had worked. The two supervisors who testified, Erlinda Serna and Carol Lee, are equally clear that in their many years of experience as supervisors at Beaches, no one has worked and not been on the staff schedules. Anybody who worked would show up on the schedule. Every shift and every day should be on the staffing schedules. Ms. Serna is unaware of any time in her 10 years at Beaches that someone's name was left completely off the schedules, but that person actually worked. Respondent's name was on the staffing schedule for March 21, 1997, but it was crossed out and marked as cancelled. When agency nurses are scheduled at Beaches, but are not needed, they are cancelled with the agency. If the agency fails to timely notify the nurse and the nurse shows up for work, the agency must pay her for two hours. If the hospital fails to notify the agency timely and the nurse shows up for work, then the hospital must pay the nurse for two hours. In no event is a nurse who is cancelled paid for more than two hours. There are times when a nurse is cancelled and shows up for work, but the hospital has a need for the nurse either as a nurse or in another capacity such as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). If that happens, the nurse's name is again written into the nursing unit staffing schedule. For March 18, 1997, Respondent's name is not on the schedule for Beaches. She did not work in any capacity on March 18, 1997. For March 21, 1997, Respondent's name was on the schedule, but she was cancelled. Even if she had not been timely notified that she was cancelled and she showed up for work, the most she could have billed for was two hours. If she had stayed and worked in a different capacity, her name would have been rewritten into the staffing schedule. Beaches is very strict and follows a specific protocol. No one except the supervisors is allowed to sign time cards. The signatures on these two time cards do not belong to any supervisor at Beaches. Therefore, it can only be concluded that Respondent did not work on March 18 or 21, 1997, at Beaches and that she submitted false time-slips for work she did not do on March 18 and 21, 1997. In June 1997, Respondent was also working as an agency nurse for Maxim Healthcare Services (Maxim). On June 8, 1997, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim and to Beaches indicating that she had worked eight-hour shifts at Beaches on June 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1997. All four days were on the same time ticket and purported to bear the initials and signature of Carol Lee. This time ticket was brought to Ms. Hollander's attention because Beaches had a strict policy that only one shift could appear on each time slip. Even if a nurse worked a double shift, she would have to complete two separate time tickets, one for each shift. Under Beaches policy, no time ticket would ever have more than one shift on it. The time tickets are submitted to Ms. Hollander's office daily with the staffing schedules that correspond. Therefore, a time ticket for a person who is not on the staffing schedule would immediately stand out. When Ms. Hollander was given the time ticket for June 2-5, 1997, she investigated and reviewed the staffing sheets for those days. Respondent was not listed on any of the staffing schedules. Ms. Hollander then showed the time ticket to Erlinda Serna, who was the nursing supervisor on the 3 to 11 shift. Nurse Serna verified that Respondent had not worked on the shift any of those days. Ms. Hollander then showed the time-slip to Carol Lee, the 11 to 7 nursing supervisor. Carol Lee verified that she had not initialed or signed the time ticket and that the initials and signature were a forgery. Nurse Lee would not have signed a time ticket with more than one shift per time ticket because she was well aware of the policy prohibiting more than one shift per time ticket. Nurse Lee verified that Respondent had not been scheduled to work any of those days and that Respondent had not worked on June 3, 4, or 5, 1997. These inquiries to Nurse Serna and Nurse Lee took place within a few days after the dates for which Respondent had submitted this time ticket. Therefore, the matter was fresh in the minds of both nursing supervisors. Both are certain that Respondent was neither scheduled nor worked on June 2-5, 1997. Only nursing supervisors at Beaches are authorized to sign time tickets. Maxim Healthcare has a policy of never working a nurse in excess of 40 hours in one week. The same policy was in effect in 1997. Susan Ranson, the records custodian who also staffs for Maxim on the weekends and assists in their billing, indicated that Respondent was paid by Maxim for working at another facility the same week as June 2-5, 1997. June 2-5, 1997, are a Monday through Thursday. Specifically, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim for another facility showing that she worked 12 hours on Saturday, June 7, 1997, and 13 hours on Sunday, June 8, 1997. Maxim pays from Monday through Sunday. If Respondent had worked 32 hours at Beaches on Monday through Thursday and then 25 hours at another facility on Saturday and Sunday, she would have worked more than 40 hours in one week, which would have violated their policy and would have required Maxim to pay overtime. When Maxim gets a request for a nurse and has no one to send who would not exceed 40 hours in one week, rather than exceed 40 hours, the agency does not staff the job. In the disciplinary document from Health Force dated June 18, 1997, Health Force advised Respondent that it would not be scheduling her based on the complaints they received regarding false billing, the missing drugs at Cathedral, and another incident at Beaches that occurred during this same time. Taken in its totality, the testimony of Respondent is not credible. Respondent's explanation of the discrepancy in the count of drugs and corresponding cards is that during her shift "there was [sic] one or two cards that only had one or two pills on them, so you just throw them away. And that's what made it back to 16." This explanation is unpersuasive. If there had been any pills left in the drawer from cards that Respondent threw away, the count would have been off at the change of shift. Moreover, several witnesses testified as to the care that is taken to carefully account for all narcotics. Respondent's assertion that narcotic pills were simply thrown away is not credible. Nurse Schiesser clearly remembered that there were no cards for the medications in question and there were no medications from this delivery in the medication cart. Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Board of Nursing in the Board's case No. 98-20122.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by failing to secure and document receipt of the drugs at Cathedral Gerontology Center; That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and of violating Rule 64B9-8.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, by falsifying employment and time records on multiple occasions; and That a penalty be imposed consisting of a fine of $1000 and payment of costs associated with probation, together with a reprimand and a three-year suspension of license to be followed by a two-year probation with conditions as deemed appropriate by the Board of Nursing. Reinstatement of Respondent's license after the term of the suspension shall require compliance with all terms and conditions of the previous Board Order and her appearance before the Board to demonstrate her present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing, which shall include a demonstration of at least three years of documented compliance with the Intervention Project for Nurses. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 29th day of December, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Avante was licensed by Petitioner as a skilled nursing facility. Avante operates a 116-bed nursing home located in Leesburg, Florida. On or about March 28, 2002, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. On or about May 13, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the May 13, 2002, survey, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. Resident E.S. was admitted to Avante on March 11, 2002, with diagnoses including e. coli sepsis, anemia, and schizophrenia with an order for serum albumin levels to be performed "now and yearly." Resident E.S.'s resident chart failed to reflect that a serum albumin test had been performed for Resident E.S. at any time from the date of his admission on March 11, 2002, until March 28, 2002. Avante failed to follow the orders of Resident E.S.'s physician due to its failure to perform a serum albumin test on Resident E.S. at any time between March 11, 2002, and March 28, 2002. Resident R.L. was admitted to Respondent's facility on May 6, 2002 with diagnoses including gastrointestinal hemorrhage, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, A-fib, pneumonia, diverticulitis, gout, fracture of right arm, and cancer of the prostate. Resident R.L.'s resident chart reflects that Resident R.L. was neither offered or administered Tylenol by Avante's staff at any time between May 9, 2002, and May 13, 2002. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record The correction date given to Respondent for the deficiency cited, Tag F281(D), as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation was April 28, 2002. Respondent does not dispute the deficiency cited by AHCA as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation. Thus, facts and circumstances surrounding the May 13, 2002, survey visit to Avante is the source of this dispute. The purpose of the May 13, 2002 survey visit to Avante by AHCA was for annual certification or licensure. In an annual license survey, a group of surveyors goes to a facility to determine if the facility is in compliance with state and federal requirements and regulations. Part of the process is to tour the facility, meet residents, record reviews, and talk to families and friends of the residents. During the licensure visit on May 13, 2002, the records of 21 residents were reviewed. Stephen Burgin is a registered nurse and is employed by AHCA as a registered nurse specialist. He has been employed by AHCA for three years and has been licensed as a nurse for six years. He also has experience working in a hospital ER staging unit and in a hospital cardiology unit. Nurse Burgin has never worked in a nursing home. Nurse Burgin conducted the complaint investigation on March 28, 2002, and was team leader for the licensure survey visit on May 13, 2002, at Avante. He was accompanied on the May 13, 2002, visit by Selena Beckett, who is employed by AHCA as a social worker. Both Nurse Burgin and Ms. Beckett are Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT) certified. During the course of the May 13, 2002, licensure survey visit, Ms. Beckett interviewed Resident R.L. As a result of this interview, Ms. Beckett examined Resident R.L.'s medication administration record (MAR) to determine whether he was receiving pain medication for his injured left elbow. As a result of reviewing Resident R.L.'s record, Ms. Beckett became aware of a fax cover sheet which related to Resident R.L. The fax cover sheet was dated May 8, 2002, from Nancy Starke, who is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse, to Dr. Sarmiento, Resident R.L.'s attending physician. The box labeled "Please comment" was checked and the following was hand written in the section entitled "comments": "Pt refused Augmentin 500 mg BID today states it causes him to have hallucinations would like tyl for pain L elbow." According to Nurse Starke, the fax to Dr. Sarmiento addressed two concerns: Resident R.L.'s refusal to take Augmentin and a request for Tylenol for pain for Resident R.L.'s left elbow. She faxed the cover sheet to Dr. Sarmiento during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on May 8, 2002. Despite her fax to Dr. Sarmiento, which mentioned pain in R.L.'s left elbow, her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002, reflect that Resident R.L. was alert, easygoing, and happy. He was verbal on that day meaning that he was able to make his needs known to her. Her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002 contain the notation: "Pt refused augmentin today. Dr. Sarmiento faxed." According to Nurse Starke, she personally observed Resident R.L. and did not observe any expression of pain on May 8, 2002, nor did Resident R.L. request pain medication after she sent the fax to Dr. Sarmiento. The fax cover sheet also contained the hand written notation: "Document refused by PT. OK 5/9/02" with initials which was recognized by nurses at Avante as that of Dr. Sarmiento. The fax sheet has a transmission line which indicates that it was faxed back to Avante the evening of May 9, 2002. Nurse Starke also provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11, 2002. According to Nurse Starke, Resident R.L. did not complain of pain on May 11, 2002. Theresa Miller is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Miller provided care to Resident R.L. on May 9 and 10, 2002, during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Nurse Miller's nurses notes for May 9 and 10, 2002, reflect that she observed Resident R.L. to be alert, easygoing, and happy. Her notes also reflect that Resident R.L. was verbal on those dates, meaning that he was able to tell her if he needed anything. She did not observe Resident R.L. to have any expression of pain on those dates, nor did Resident R.L. express to her that he was in any pain. Vicki Cannon is a licensed practical nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Cannon has been a licensed practical nurse and has worked in nursing homes since 1998. Nurse Cannon provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11 and 12, 2002, on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Her nurse's notes for May 11, 2002 reflect that Resident R.L. was sullen but alert and verbal. Resident R.L. had blood in his urine and some discomfort. Nurse Cannon contacted Dr. Sarmiento by telephone on May 11, 2002, to inform him of Resident R.L.'s symptoms that day. Nurse Cannon noted on Resident R.L.'s physician order sheet that she received a telephone order from Dr. Sarmiento to give Resident R.L. Ultram PRN and Levaquin, discontinue Augmentin, order BMP and CBC blood work, and a urology consult. Ultram is an anti-inflammatory and a pain medication. Ultram is stronger than Tylenol. The notation "PRN" means as requested by the patient for pain. Levaquin is an antibiotic. Nurse Cannon faxed the order to the pharmacy at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. By the time Nurse Cannon left Avante for the day on May 11, 2002, the Ultram had not arrived from the pharmacy. On May 12, 2002, Resident R.L. had edema of the legs and blood in his urine. Nurse Cannon notified Dr. Sarmiento of Resident R.L.'s symptoms. Resident R.L. was sent to the emergency room for evaluation based on Dr. Sarmiento's orders. Additionally, Nurse Cannon called the pharmacy on May 12, 2002, to inquire about the Ultram as it had not yet arrived at the facility. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002. Alice Markham is a registered nurse and is the Director of Nursing at Avante. She has been a nurse for more than 20 years and has been employed at Avante for a little over two years. She also has worked in acute care at a hospital. Nurse Markham is familiar with Resident R.L. She described Resident R.L. as alert until the period of time before he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. She was not aware of any expressions of pain by Resident R.L. between May 9, 2002 until he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. Nurse Markham meets frequently with her nursing staff regarding the facility's residents. During the licensure survey, Nurse Markham became aware of Ms. Beckett's concerns regarding Resident R.L. and whether he had received Tylenol. She called Dr. Sarmiento to request an order for Tylenol for R.L. The physician order sheet for R.L. contains a notation for a telephone order for Tylenol "PRN" on May 14, 2002, for joint pain and the notation, "try Tylenol before Ultram." The medical administration record for R.L. indicates that Resident R.L. received Ultram on May 13 and and began receiving Tylenol on May 15, 2002. AHCA 's charge of failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement physician orders is based on the "OK" notation by Dr. Sarmiento on the above-described fax and what AHCA perceives to be Avante's failure to follow and implement that "order" for Tylenol for Resident R.L. AHCA nurse and surveyor Burgin acknowledged that the "OK" on the fax cover sheet was not an order as it did not specify dosage or frequency. He also acknowledged that the nursing home could not administer Tylenol based on Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" on the fax cover sheet, that it would not be appropriate to forward the "OK" to the pharmacy, that it should not have been placed on the resident's medication administration record, and that it should not have been administered to the resident. However, Nurse Burgin is of the opinion that the standard practice of nursing is to clarify such an "order" and once clarified, administer the medication as ordered. He was of the opinion that Avante should have clarified Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" for Tylenol on May 9, 2002, rather than on May 14, 2002. Nurse Burgin also was of the opinion that it should have been reflected on the resident's medication administration record and treatment record or TAR. In Nurse Markham's opinion, "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet does not constitute a physician's order for medication as it does not contain dosage or frequency of administration. Nurse Markham is also of the opinion that it should not have been forwarded to the pharmacy, transcribed to the medication administration record, or transcribed on the treatment administration record. According to Nurse Markham, doctor's orders are not recorded on the treatment administration record of a resident. Nurse Markham is of the opinion that the nursing staff at Avante did not deviate from the community standard for nursing in their care of Resident R.L. from May 8, 2002 to May 14, 2002. Nurse Cannon also is of the opinion that the "OK" by Dr. Sarmiento does not constitute a physician's order for medication. The Administrative Complaints cited Avante for failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement a physician's order. Having considered the opinions of Nurses Burgin, Markham, and Cannon, it is clear that the "OK" notation of Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet did not constitute a physician's order. Without Dr. Sarmiento's testimony, it is not entirely clear from a review of the fax cover sheet that the "OK" relates to the reference to Tylenol or the reference to Resident R.L.'s refusal of Augmentin. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to follow a physician's order in May 2002. As to AHCA's assertion that Avante failed to meet professional standards by not clarifying the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento, this constitutes a different reason or ground than stated in the Administrative Complaints. Failure to clarify an order is not the equivalent of failure to follow an order. There is insufficient nexus between the deficiency cited on March 28, 2002 and the deficiency cited on May 13, 2002. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to correct a Class III deficiency within the time established by the agency or commit a repeat Class III violation. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff responded to the needs of Resident R.L. Resident R.L. expressed pain in his left elbow to Nurse Starke on May 8, 2002. Resident R.L. was alert and could make his needs known. He did not express pain or a need for pain medication to Nurse Miller on May 9 or 10, 2002 or to Nurse Cannon on May 11 or 12, 2002. Rather, Nurse Cannon noted a change in his condition, notified Dr. Sarmiento which resulted in Resident R.L. being sent to the emergency room. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002, and received Ultram for pain on May 13, 2002, when the medication reached Avante from the pharmacy. The evidence presented does not establish that Avante deviated from the community standard for nursing in its actions surrounding the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento. In weighing the respective opinions of Nurses Burgin and Markham in relation to whether the community standard for nursing was met by the actions of Respondent, Nurse Markham's opinion is more persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued against Respondent, Avante at Leesburg. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jodi C. Page, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis 2180 Park Avenue North, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valinda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Petitioner was in violation of 42CFR 483.25(l)(1), 42CFR 483.60(d), Rules 59A-4.112(5) and 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of its annual survey in July 2000, and, if so, whether those violations were uncorrected at the time of resurvey in September 2000, in order to justify the issuance of a Conditional licensure rating.
Findings Of Fact Tampa Health Care Center (Petitioner) is a licensed nursing home in Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, Respondent surveys Petitioner to determine whether it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If there are deficiencies, it determines the level of deficiency. When Respondent conducts a survey of a nursing home, it issues a survey report, commonly called by its form number, a "2567." The particular regulation, and the allegedly deficient practices which constitute a violation of that regulation, are cited in a column on the left side of the paper. After receiving the 2567, the facility is required to develop a plan of correction which is put in the right hand column corresponding to the alleged deficiency. The facility is required to develop this plan regardless of whether it agrees that it is in violation of any regulations, and it is prohibited from being argumentative. Respondent conducted its annual survey of Petitioner, ending July 27, 2000, and issued a 2567 survey report noting certain deficiencies. The deficiencies are designated as tag numbers. Among those noted were Tag F329, which is the shorthand reference to 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.25 (1)(1), and Tag F431, which incorporates 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d). Respondent rated these deficiencies as Class III deficiencies. Respondent conducted a follow-up survey on September 5, 2000, and determined that the deficiencies under tags F329 and F431 were uncorrected, and, as a result, issued a Conditional rating to the facility. On December 2000, Respondent conducted another follow- up survey and determined that all deficiencies had been corrected and therefore issued a Standard license to Petitioner effective that date. The 2567 constitutes the charging document for purposes of issuing a Conditional license. No other document was offered to describe the offenses, or deficiencies, which resulted in imposition of the Conditional license. The parties stipulated at the hearing that Tags F329 and F431 were the only ones at issue in this proceeding. In conducting its survey, Respondent uses a document developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), called the State Operations Manual. It indicates guidance on how are to interpret regulations. TAG F 329 The 2567 from the July survey asserts, under Tag F 329, that the facility "failed to monitor psychotropic medications for 5 of 5 sampled residents." The regulation states that residents are to be "free from unnecessary drugs," and elaborates that a drug given without adequate monitoring is considered unnecessary. The guidelines establish that monitoring is expected only for residents on psychotropic medications. Therefore, for a violation to occur, there must first be a resident who is receiving psychotropic medications, and secondly, a lack of monitoring of the use of that drug. Respondent alleged and put on evidence that certain residents (numbers 1, 9, 19, and 21) identified in the July survey did not have "behavior monitoring records" in their files. Specific forms are not mandatory, and evidence of monitoring can be documented elsewhere in a resident's clinical record. Monitoring can be documented in nurses' notes, and those notes were not thoroughly reviewed, as Respondent's surveyors only had limited time for the survey. Respondent presented no evidence that Residents 9, 19, or 21 were receiving psychotropic medications. Petitioner presented evidence of numerous systems in place to monitor residents, including those receiving psychotropic medications. Residents are given a complete clinical assessment within 24 hours of admission; there is then a 14-day more thorough observation and assessment process, culminating in the development of care plans which address particular issues and direct staff to care for residents in particular ways. Nurses regularly document issues or concerns in nurses notes; a physician visits the residents at least once a month, which, as all drugs are ordered by the physician, includes review of the resident's medication. If necessary, a psychiatric evaluation is completed. Once a week a transdisciplinary team meets to discuss any residents "at risk," which includes those receiving psychotropic medications. Additionally, a consultant pharmacist reviews all residents' medications once a month. This review is to determine how well the resident is doing on the drug regimen. It includes reviewing nurses' notes, physicians' notes, the medication administration record, the record of dosages taken on an "as needed" basis, and discussions with nursing staff. The pharmacist reviews whether there are medications administered in excessive doses, in excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, or in the presence of adverse consequences. With regard to the September survey, Respondent alleged in the Form 2567 that "Residents numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 lacked Behavior Monitoring Forms in their records" and that all were on psychotropic medications which required monitoring. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara Bearden who stated that Residents 3 and 4 were on psychotropic medications, and that there were no behavior monitoring forms. With regard to Resident 4, Respondent asserted that there was no assessment of behaviors in any records after August 14. Bearden acknowledged that both Residents 3 and 4 received reasonable doses, and that there was no reason to believe the level of medication was too high. Respondent's witness also asserted that there was no "AIMS" assessments, no initial assessment, and no indication of the reason for or effectiveness of the medications. These matters were not alleged in the charging document, which only asserted the lack of behavior monitoring forms. During her testimony, Respondent's witness acknowledged that there was no standard to determine how often there should be behavior monitoring. Marie Maisel testified for Respondent regarding Residents 9, 11, and 13. With regard to Resident 9, she testified that the resident received Restoril, a sleeping medication, and also Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and that there was no "systematic behavior monitoring." Sleeping medications do not require behavior monitoring, according to the State Operations Manual, and at deposition, the surveyor indicated that the only medication the resident received was Restoril. Petitioner therefore had no notice of the additional allegation regarding Zoloft and this fact cannot be considered. With regard to Resident 11, Maisel testified that the resident received Risperdal, a psychotropic medication, and that, in her opinion, the behavior monitoring was not adequate. At hearing the surveyor testified that Resident 13 was receiving Haldol and there was no systemic behavior monitoring. However, the witness acknowledged that when her deposition was taken, she did not know why Resident 13 had been cited. Petitioner therefore had no notice of these allegations regarding Resident 13. Petitioner presented evidence, including excerpts from the resident's clinical record, that Resident 3 had been assessed for drug use, and that behaviors were monitored. The resident had been admitted less than three weeks before the September survey, which means that an initial assessment had been performed, as well as the complete 14-day assessment, just prior to survey. Respondent admitted that it would be inappropriate to reduce medication soon after admission. There was a care plan which addressed the resident's use of Risperdal, and another which addressed the resident's ability to function with the activities of daily living. These care plans directed staff to monitor the resident's condition and behavior. Numerous nursing notes documented the resident's condition and behaviors. Resident 3 was not noted in the pharmacist's monthly report, meaning the review revealed no problems with medications. Furthermore, the resident's medications were significantly reduced while in Petitioner's care, and her condition improved dramatically, from being nearly comatose, to being alert and oriented, and needing only limited assistance with mobility. Resident 4 had been admitted just a month before the survey and had also just undergone an extensive assessment process. Her medications were also reduced from those she had been receiving on admission, and nurses notes clearly documented her condition and behaviors throughout the period up to the survey. These notes document not only the monitoring of behaviors, but the reason and need for the medication, as she exhibited combative behaviors. Resident 4 also did not appear on the pharmacist's report. With regard to Resident 9, Petitioner presented evidence that there was a care plan specifically addressing the resident's use of Zoloft, that there were other care plans which addressed behaviors and condition which required that the resident be monitored, and that there was periodic consideration of reductions. Resident 9 did appear on the pharmacist's report, suggesting consideration of a reduction in dosage; thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the system. Resident 11 had a care plan addressing her use of Risperdal, which required monitoring and other interventions. Monthly nursing summaries reflected that she was monitored, as did nursing notes. Generally, nurses notes indicate when there are problems or unusual occurrences, not when everything is routine. Petitioner also presented evidence with regard to Resident 13's use of Haldol, which showed the reason for its use (wandering, verbal abusiveness), numerous efforts to reduce the dosage, review by the pharmacist, a care plan to address its use, which required monitoring, and monthly summaries summarizing her condition and behaviors. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to show that Residents 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13, cited in the September survey, were appropriately monitored and were not receiving unnecessary drugs. TAG F431 Respondent charged in the September 2000 survey that several insulin vials in the medication room were not marked with the date they were opened. The regulation under Tag F431, 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d), requires that drugs be labeled "in accordance with currently accepted professional principles" and "the expiration date when applicable." The surveyor guidelines indicate that the critical elements of labeling are the name of the drug and its strength. Additionally, the guidelines advise that drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration (F.D.A.) must have expiration dates on the manufacturer's container. Respondent's witness acknowledged that all insulin had the manufacturer's expiration date. Although there is a chance of contamination after opening a vial of insulin, it was acknowledged that it is customary to have a policy allowing use for six months after opening. Petitioner has a policy of discarding insulin 60 days after opening. While it is customary to write the opening date on the vial, a failure to do so will only reduce the amount of time it can be used, because of other systems in place. The pharmacy which dispenses the insulin puts a dispensing date on it, and the pharmacist reviews, monthly, stored medications. Within every three months, all medications are checked, and if there is no date of opening, the pharmacist looks to the dispensing date. If the vial was dispensed more than 60 days prior, it is given to the nurse for discarding. Instead of being able to be used for six months beyond the date opened, the medication is discarded sixty days, or at most ninety days, after it was dispensed. Writing the date opened on the vial is not an item encompassed by the regulation as explicated in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is no potential for harm, as there are redundant systems in place.
Recommendation Based of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 27 and September 5, 2000, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F329 and F431, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 22nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a Licensed Practical Nurse should be suspended or revoked for alleged violation of Sections 464.21(1)(b) and (d), F.S., as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated August 3, 1978. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing. Notice of Hearing was issued by the Hearing Officer under date of October 25, 1978, to the address provided by Petitioner, 7124 Bay Drive No. 1, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. This is the address reflected on the envelope which enclosed Respondent's request for hearing on the Administrative Complaint sent to Petitioner under postmark August 28, 1978. It being determined that adequate notice had been provided to Respondent, the hearing was conducted as a uncontested proceed, pursuant to Rule 28-5.25(5), Florida Administrative Code. (Exhibit 5)
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michaela Fives holds License No. 27554-1 as a Licensed Practical Nurse and was so licensed in November, 1977. (Testimony of Johnson) On November 5, 1977, Detective Kenneth Valentine, Hialeah Police Department, was acting in an undercover capacity on an investigation of narcotics. Pursuant to his investigation, he met with Respondent at her apartment located at 5960 NW 38th Street, Apartment 210, Virginia Gardens, Miami, Florida. Lynn Sampson and Danny Cundiff were also present in Respondent's apartment at the time. Cundiff and Sampson wrote out a prescription of 60 300 mg. Quaalude tablets on a printed prescription form. The top of the form showed the name Lacy, Adler, M.D., P.A., followed by "Andrew P. Adler, M.D., Ray C. Lacy, M.D., 221 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130, Telephone: 887-9339." The prescription was handed to Valentine and Respondent gave him $15.50 to have it filled at the My Pharmacy, 1550 West 84th Street, Hialeah-Miami Lakes, Florida. By pre-arrangement with the pharmacist, Valentine had the prescription filled there and took the pills back to the apartment. Sampson divided them among Respondent, Cundiff and herself, and each of them ingested one tablet. Valentine purchased ten tablets from Sampson and Cundiff for $35.50. (Testimony of Valentine) On November 9, 1977, Valentine again met with the three individuals at Respondent's apartment and was provided another prescription for the same amount of drugs. It reflected the patient's name as Robert Southern, and registration number 178855. It was purportedly signed by "S. Adler, M.D." Prior to this meeting, the Hialeah police had determined that Doctors Adler and Lacy were not listed in the telephone book nor were they located at the address shown on the prescription form. They also determined that the phone number shown on the prescription form was a pay telephone located in Hialeah, Florida. After the individuals at the apartment discussed the fact that the pharmacist would probably call the phone number listed on the prescription form to verify its authenticity, Valentine took the Prescription to the My Pharmacy and had it filled, using his own money for the purchase. At this time, another police officer present at the pharmacy called the phone number listed on the prescription form to ostensibly verify the prescription. Lieutenant Paul Gentesse of the Hialeah Police Department had previously placed himself in a position to observe the pay telephone. He saw the Respondent answer the telephone and then followed her back to her apartment. When Valentine returned with the filled prescription, he gave it to Cundiff who divided the tablets among Respondent, Sampson and Valentine Valentine paid $30.00 for ten tablets. Other police officers then arrived at the apartment and Respondent, Cundiff and Sampson were placed under arrest. (Testimony of Valentine, Gentesse, Exhibit 3) The tablets taken from the possession of Respondent and the others were analyzed by a chemist in the Crime Laboratory of the Dade County Public Safety Department and were found to contain Methaqualone, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Quaalude is a common tradename for Methaqualone. (Testimony of Lynn, Exhibit 2, supplemented by Exhibit 1) On January 9, 1975, Petitioner had suspended the license of the Respondent for period of two years as a result of prostitution charges. The record of that proceeding contained the testimony of Respondent that she had been involved In the illegal use of controlled drugs and had been attending a drug rehabilitation program for the treatment of drug abuse as a result of court order. Respondent thereafter petitioned for reconsideration of the suspension and, on June 29, 1976, Petitioner stayed its order of suspension and placed Respondent on probation for the remainder of the period of suspension. (Testimony of Johnson, Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a Licensed Practical Nurse be revoked for violation of Section 464.21(1)(d) , Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Coordinator 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Michaela Fives, L.P.N. 7124 Bay Drive No. 1 Miami Beach, Florida 33141
Findings Of Fact On March 27, 1979, at 3:30 or 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, respondent entered Ashton Pharmacy in Kissimmee, Florida, and asked Keith W. Lawhorne, the pharmacist on duty, to fill a prescription for 40 tablets of Demerol 50 mg. The prescription was on a Community Hospital form, purportedly signed by A. N. Feir, M.D. Mr. Lawhorne filled the prescription and respondent left with the pills. Later, Mr. Lawhorne telephoned Dr. Feir who said he had not prescribed anything for respondent. Mr. Lawhorne then telephoned Geraldine Francis, Director of Nursing Services at the Community Hospital in Kissimmee, where respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse. Ms. Francis arranged a meeting the following day, March 28, 1979, with Mr. Lawhorne, respondent and herself. At this meeting, respondent admitted forging Dr. Feir's signature on the prescription form with which he had obtained Demerol the day before. He made the same admission to Mary L. Willis, a nursing practice consultant in petitioner's employ, on April 2, 1979. On April 4, 1979, respondent signed a written confession to the same effect, after talking to Lt. Charles Lee Cecil of the Kissimmee Police Department. In his written statement respondent said, "I realize that I have a drug problem and am seeking help for it, and will never make a mistake like this again." Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. He also stated that the forgery occurred "while under the influence of a Class II Narcotic (Percocet-5) . . ." Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. Demerol, a trade name for meperidine, is also a class II controlled substance. On April 3, 1979, respondent "began voluntary participation in Thee Door's (out-patient) drug abuse program . . . [and, by April 16, 1979] had successfully withdrawn . . ." Letter of Muse/Pollack dated September 10, 1979.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for six (6) months. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. James E. Davis 6331 Spanish Oak Drive Orlando, Florida 32309
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Carmalita Thomas, was licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, license number RN 1329552. From November 11, 1987, to September 1988, respondent was employed as an independent contractor by Hi-Tech Medical Services, Inc., (the Agency), a comprehensive health maintenance organization. Pursuant to the terms of her employment, respondent was responsible for the Agency's pediatric program, and was to provide skilled nursing visits in homes where ill or disabled persons were receiving care from the Agency. Regarding compensation, their agreement provided: The Contractor will be paid for Agency authorized visits. The Agency will not pay nor be responsible for visits rendered or expense incurred due to the Contractor's execution of unauthorized visits. The Agency will pay the Contractor 30 days after receipt of a statement reflecting number of authorized visits rendered during the previous period at the prevailing rate of 22/27 per visit. The Contractor will prepare and submit a written clinical report for each visit in keeping with Agency policy and requirements. The Agency's written policy regarding the preparation and submittal of written clinical reports required, for verification of visits and billing purposes, that respondent, for each visit, prepare and sign a written nurses progress report. Respondent was aware of this policy, but did not consistently present such reports with her billing form by which she received her compensation. Notwithstanding such failures the Agency routinely paid respondent upon presentation of her billing form. During the period of May 23, 1988, through June 17, 1988, respondent prepared and signed four progress notes reflecting nursing care rendered to pediatric patient Jessica Metzel, and submitted a billing form to the Agency for payment at $27.00 per visit. Respondent was compensated by the Agency, who in turn billed the patient's insurance carrier for the services. While requesting and receiving payment for four visits, the proof demonstrates that respondent was only at the Metzel residence on two occasions. The first occasion was to have Jessica's father sign some paper work, and the occasion was to insure that the family was satisfied with the respiratory therapist that was treating Jessica. At no time did respondent examine or otherwise treat Jessica, and the progress notes prepared by respondent were a fabrication. Respondent also submitted billing forms to the Agency on at least two occasions, which resulted in her being compensated twice for the same working hours. More particularly, respondent billed the agency in December 1987, and was paid, for having worked from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (3 hours) on December 21, 1987, and from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. (4 1/2 hours) on December 24, 1987. Thereafter, by separate billing, she also billed the Agency, and was paid, for services purportedly rendered from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (3 1/2 hours) on December 21, 1987, and from 10:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (3 1/2 hours) on December 24, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 464.018(1)(d) and (f), Florida Statutes, as heretofore found in the conclusions of law, and that respondent's license be suspended for 90 days, followed by a two (2) year term of probation upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Nursing deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of February 1991.
The Issue The matters presented for consideration in this instance concern an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent seeking to suspend, revoke or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's license, in particular, against her license as a Registered Nurse. The substance of the Administrative Complaint is contained in five (5) counts. Count I to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about March 10, 1981, Respondent signed out a controlled substance, to wit: two (2) ampules of Demerol, between the approximate hours of 7:00 P.M. to 7:15 P.M. for a patient, DeFrisco [sic]. DeFrisco [sic], reputedly states that she did not receive the Demerol. Based upon the foregoing alleged facts, Respondent has purportedly violated Subsection 464.018 (1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), by making a false report of record which she knew was false and in addition has violated Subsection 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to conform with the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. 1/ Count II to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about March 5, 1981, the Respondent administered a controlled substance, to wit: Demerol, in excess of that ordered by the attending physician and for that reason violated Subsection 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), in that she failed to conform with the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. 2/ Count III alleges that the Respondent wasted, without a witness, certain controlled substances, in violation of hospital policy, as follows: On 2/28/81 Dilaudid, 1 mg On 2/23/81 Demerol, 100 mg. On 2/22/81 Demerol, 50 mg. On 2/16/81 Demerol, 100 mg. On 2/22/81 Morphene Sulphate 3 mg. On 1/28/81 Demerol, 25 mg. On 1/22/81 Demerol, 100 mg. Based upon these alleged facts, the Respondent purportedly violated Subsection 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), by failing to conform with minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. Count IV to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about March 5, 1981, Respondent signed out a controlled substance, to wit: Demerol, at approximately 9: 02 A.M., and at 12:15 P.M., for the use of patient Theodora Durham. It is further alleged that patient Durham states that she did not receive the above mentioned Demerol. Based upon those alleged facts Respondent purportedly violated Subsection 464.018(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), in that she made a false report of record which she knew was false. Further, Respondent, based upon those facts, has allegedly violated Subsection 464018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1919), by failing to conform with minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice Count V alleges that on or about April 12, 1981, the Respondent reported to her place of employment, Beaches Hospital, under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it affected her body coordination Further, it is contended that Respondent's supervisor; Joyce Strarnes, did not allow her to complete her work shift because she, Respondent was unable to function safely and to conform with minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice Based upon these allegations, the Respondent has purportedly violated Subsection 464018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), for failure to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, in which case actual injury need not be established. 3/
Findings Of Fact This case is presented for consideration based upon the aforementioned Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, against the Respondent, Rebecca Lael Calhoun. The Petitioner, agency, is a regulatory body which has been granted the authority by the State of Florida to license, regulate and discipline those persons who practice nursing in the State of Florida. The Respondent Rebecca Lael Calhoun has been issued a license to practice as a Registered Nurse in the State of' Florida and at all times pertinent to this Administrative Complaint, has held that license issued by the Petitioner. Calhoun was employed at St. Luke's Hospital, in Jacksonville, Florida, between the months of December, 1980, and March 10, 1981. Her position with that institution was that of Registered Nurse. On March 10, 1981, the Respondent worked at the St. Luke's Hospital on Ward 1-C. In that capacity, she had responsibility for the medication cart where controlled substances and other medications were kept for patient use. One of the patients who was on Ward 1-C on March 10,1981, and for whom controlled substances and other medications were made available by physician's orders was one Barbara L. DiFrancesco. On that date, DiFrancesco had an operative procedure known as dilatation and curettage performed and after the procedure, was brought to room 161, which was a room on the ward where the Respondent was on duty. It was 4:30 P.M. when the patient was placed in that room. After DiFrancesco returned to her room, between the hours of 4:30 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. on March 10, 1981, she did not receive any form of controlled substance, in particular, Demerol. The Demerol was in fact removed from the hospital inventory in DiFrancesco's name and Respondent knew that the patient did not receive the Demerol. Nonetheless, the Respondent documented that the patient DiFrancesco had the substance withdrawn for the patient's benefit and had received such a controlled substance. The false documentation was discovered by Kathleen Lawson, Assistant Director of Nursing at St. Luke's Hospital who was investigating possible "discrepancies" on the part of the Respondent in the recordation of entries on the controlled substance forms kept by the hospital. On the evening of March 10, 1981, Lawson checked the controlled substance form at approximately 7:00 P.M., which pertained to Ward 1-C where the Respondent was working. This controlled substance form may be found as a part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. (The entries on that form pertain to the time of the sign-out, name of patient, room number, nurse's signature, dosage amount, amount of wastage, if any, and signature of a witness to wastage, and the description of the medication or controlled substance signed out by the practitioner) Lawson's review of the controlled substance form on March 10, 1981, at around `1:00 P.M. did not indicate that Demerol had been signed out for the benefit of DiFrancesco; however, when Lawson returned to Ward 1-C at approximately 7:15 P.M. on that same evening, she observed an entry on the controlled substance form which had been made by the Respondent. This entry indicated that Demerol in the amount of 50 mg. had been signed out for the benefit of DiFrancesco at approximately 5:30 P.M. When confronted with the discrepancy of having failed to make a timely entry of the sign-out of the controlled substance, Demerol, for the benefit of the patient DiFrancesco, that is to say the fact that the 7:00 P.M. check revealed no sign-out and a 7:15 P.M. check revealed a sign-out post-timed to 5:30 P.M.; the Respondent was than asked to perfect all necessary documentation to conform all records on the question of the administration of a controlled substance for the benefit of the patient DiFrancesco. In response to this request, the Respondent made an entry on the nurse's notes portion of the patient DiFrancesco's medical chart, to the effect that at 5:00 P.M. Demerol in the amount of 50 mg., IM, intramuscular, was administered to the patient DiFrancesco for "cramping." A copy of those nurse's notes may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. Some of the aforementioned "discrepancies' that officials at St. Luke's Hospital had been concerned about in terms of the Respondent's reporting procedures pertained to the controlled substance form, related to wastage of Schedule II controlled substances. St. Luke's Hospital had a written policy dealing with this subject as may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, which is a copy of that policy related to unit doe drug distribution. That written policy was to the effect that when Schedule II controlled substances are wasted, or partially administered to the patient, the wastage or partial administration is recorded on the controlled substance form through the name of the patient; room number; the nurse who wasted material; the material; the amount injected and/or the amount wasted. The substance is shown to a witness in the process of recording the incident description as set forth herein. Pursuant to the written policy, there is also a line on the controlled substance form for the placement of . Off initials of that person who witnessed the accountability of the wasted Schedule II controlled substance, when the substance is only partially administered. In addition, the Respondent and other nurse practitioners in the hospital underwent an orientation which apprised the Respondent and others of the matters pertaining to wastage of Schedule II controlled substances as set forth in the written procedures and the utilization of the controlled substance form. Also, a customary practice within the hospital was established in which totally wasted narcotics were witnessed by initials placed by the witness on the controlled substance form, in the same fashion as partially wasted substances. Having been made aware of the requirements of that drug distribution handout, the utilization of the controlled substance form and custom, the Respondent did, in fact, on occasion have wastage which was recorded on the controlled substance form and initialed by another nurse practitioner as may be seen in a review of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, which is a series of controlled substance forms for various dates. Notwithstanding her knowledge of procedures and customs within the hospital, there were a number of dates in which the Respondent failed to have a witness initial the wastage of Schedule II controlled substances Those occasions were as follows: Date: January 28, 1981 Patient: Pinkney Dose: 50 mg. Demerol Waste: 25 mg. Demerol Witness: No entry Date: February 16, 1981 Patient: Gression Dose: 100 mg Demerol Waste: 100 mg. Demerol Witness: No entry Date: February 22, 1981 Patient: Perry Dose: 50 mg. Demerol Waste: 50 mg. Demerol Witness: No entry Date: February 23, 1981 Patient: Fraser Dose: 100 mg. Demerol Waste: 100 mg. Demerol Witness: An entry made to the effect that a witness was unavailable Date: February 28, 1981 Patient: Bergdorf Dose: 1 mg. Dilaudid Waste: 1 mg. Dilaudid Witness: No entry There were no facts presented other than those related to the patient Fraser on the presence of a witness to the events of wastage and destruction of the Schedule II controlled substances. In addition to the incident with DiFrancesco, there were two other occasions in which the Respondent had signed out a controlled substance and indicated giving that controlled substance to a patient, when in fact the patient did not receive the controlled substance. This pertained to incidents on March 5, 1981, involving a patient on Ward 1-C, where the Respondent was employed as a Registered Nurse at St. Luke's Hospital. On the aforementioned date, i.e., March 5, 1981, the patient Theodora Durham was in the hospital for procedures related to curettage and packing of the uterus. She was assigned to Room 158 on Ward 1-C as her patient's room. The controlled substance sign-out form for March 5, 1981, which is found as part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, indicates that at 9:02 A.M. and 12:15 P.M., Demerol in the amount of 50 mg. on each occasion was signed out for the benefit of the patient Durham. The sign-out and other entries were made by the Respondent. The Demerol was in fact removed from the hospital inventory. The patient's chart, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, also indicates nurses notes authored by the Respondent stating that the 50 mg. amounts of Demerol were administered intramuscular to the patient Durham at 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 Noon. In fact, the patient Durham never received the Demerol on either of the occasions referred to herein. The Respondent knew the patient had not received the Demerol. Following her employment at St. Luke's Hospital, the Respondent received employment at Beaches Hospital in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. On April 12, 1981, she reported work as a Registered Nurse at Beaches Hospital for the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift. During the transition from the prior shift into the shift of the Respondent, two (2) fellow employees noticed the aroma of what they felt to be alcohol on the breath of the Respondent. The employees having reported their observation to the nurse supervisor, the Respondent was summoned into the office of the nurse supervisor and under questioning admitted that she had been "drinking." This response was related to the issue of whether the Respondent had been consuming an alcoholic beverage. The nurse supervisor detected an unkempt appearance about the person of the Respondent and the fact that the Respondent's eyes were bloodshot Following this discussion, the Respondent was asked to leave the hospital because she could not afford patient care to those patients on her ward, due to the fact that she had been consuming an alcoholic beverage before coming on duty which was contrary to the policy of the hospital.
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 Whether Respondent violated Subsection 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005(2)(b), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of licensed practical nurses pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. Madeline Chambers is a certified Licensed Practical Nurse (L.P.N.) licensed by the Department under license No. 849561. On June 14, 2004, Ms. Chambers was employed by Staffing Source, a temporary nurse staffing agency, and assigned to work as an L.P.N. at Sun Terrace Health Center (Sun Terrace) in Sun City, Florida. Sun Terrace is a 120-bed skilled nursing facility. Sun Terrace has approximately forty nurses on staff and uses agency nurses when needed. On June 14, 2004, Ms. Chambers was assigned to the 11:00 p.m.-to-7:00 a.m. shift on the 100 wing of Sun Terrace. A female patient identified as M.A.B. was located in the 100 wing of Sun Terrace during the 11:00 p.m.-to-7:00 a.m. shift on June 14, 2004. Apparently a water leak in M.A.B.'s original room caused Sun Terrace to transfer M.A.B. to a room in the 100 wing, which had been previously occupied by a male patient, D.M. D.M. is a diabetic, who requires insulin injections. Each patient has a Medication Administration Record (MAR), which lists the patient's medications, the time for administration, the dosage, and the route. The MAR has the first and last name of the patient listed. The MAR is kept on the medication cart, and the drugs in the medication cart are stored according to the patient's room number. D.M.'s medications were not moved on the medication cart to reflect his new room number, when M.A.B. moved into D.M.'s room. Thus, if one looked only at the room number on the medication cart, it would appear that D.M.'s medications were to be administered to M.A.B. One of Ms. Chambers' duties was to administer medication to patients on the 100 wing. Near the end of her shift on June 14, 2004, she took the medication cart and went to M.A.B.'s room to administer medication. Ms. Chambers looked at the chart and saw the last name of the patient, which was the last name of D.M. D.M.'s first name, which could not be confused as the name of a female, also was on the chart, but apparently did not register in Ms. Chambers' mind. D.M.'s chart showed that he was to receive 34 units of 30/70 insulin. Ms. Chambers went into M.A.B.'s room, and did not check M.A.B.'s arm band, which M.A.B. was wearing. The arm band listed M.A.B.'s name. M.A.B. had a certified nursing assistant (C.N.A.), Lois Ashcraft, who had been hired to sit with M.A.B. during the night. Ms. Chambers did not ask Ms. Ashcraft the identity of M.A.B. Ms. Chambers used an Accu-check to check M.A.B.'s blood-glucose level. After checking the blood-glucose level, Ms. Chambers injected M.A.B. with 34 units of 30/70 insulin. 30/70 insulin consists of 30 percent of insulin which begins to act within 30 minutes and 70 percent of insulin which continues to increase the blood-glucose level of the patient for up to 24 hours. Shortly after giving M.A.B. insulin, Ms. Chambers realized she had made an error and proceeded to give M.A.B. pudding and juice to offset the effects of the insulin. Ms. Chambers claims that she attempted, but failed to provide proper notification to the appropriate supervisors to indicate that she incorrectly gave M.A.B. insulin. Her testimony is not credited. None of the staff, with whom Ms. Chambers claims she spoke, remembers having such a conversation with her. At the end of her shift, Ms. Chambers left Sun Terrace and headed to her employer, Staffing Source, without providing notice of the incident to an appropriate supervisor. Ms. Ashcraft was in the room when Ms. Chambers administered the insulin to M.A.B. Ms. Ashcraft brought the incident to the attention of M.A.B.'s mother shortly after 8:00 a.m. on June 14, 2004. M.A.B.'s mother then notified the staff at Sun Terrace that her daughter may have been given an improper injection of insulin. Rosemary Nunn-Hill, a licensed registered nurse who was qualified as an expert in licensed practical nursing, creditably testified that the proper procedure when giving a patient medication requires an L.P.N. to correctly identify a patient before administering any medication, and report any errors in administering the medication to a supervisor, the relief nurse, or the patient's physician. Ms. Chambers has not had her license disciplined prior to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Madeline Chambers guilty of violating Subsection 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes; imposing an administrative fine of $250; and placing her on probation for one year with terms to be set by the Board of Nursing. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 31st day of August, 2005.
