Findings Of Fact In October 1978 Bonnie Ray Solomon Crawford, LPN was employed at the West Pasco Hospital, New Port Richey, Florida as a licensed practical nurse provided by Upjohn Company's rent-a-nurse program. On 7 October 1978 Respondent signed out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and on 8 October 1973 at 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Demerol 75 mg for patient Kleinschmidt (Exhibit 2). Doctor's orders contained in Exhibit 4 shows that Demerol 50 mg was ordered by the doctor to be administered to patient Kleinschmidt as needed. Nurses Notes in Exhibit 4 for October 7, 1978 contains no entry of administration of Demerol at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m. shows administration of 50 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. Exhibit 3, Narcotic Record for Demerol 50 mg contains two entries at 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 1978 and one entry at 12:30 p.m. where Respondent signed out for Demerol 50 mg. for patients King, Zobrist and King in chronological order. Nurses Notes for King, Exhibit 6, and Zobrist, Exhibit 5, contain no entry that Demerol was administered to patient Zobrist at 8:15 a.m. or to patient King at 12:30 p.m. on 7 October 1978. In fact, the record for Zobrist shows that Zobrist was discharged from the hospital on October 5, 1978. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics constitutes a gross error in patient care and is not acceptable nursing practice. Similarly it is not acceptable nursing practice to withdraw narcotics not contained in doctors orders or administer medication not in doctors orders. When confronted by the Nursing Administrator at West Pasco Hospital with these discrepancies in the handling of Demerol, Respondent stated that she failed to check the identity of the patient before administering medication and that she didn't feel she should be giving medications any more. Following this confrontation with the hospital authorities, Respondent was fired for incompetency. No evidence was submitted regarding Respondent's 1975 disciplinary proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by Petitioner as a licensed practical nurse, License Number 21725-1 and was so licensed during the years 1974 and 1975. Respondent was first employed by Okaloosa Memorial Hospital Crestview Florida in 1965 as a nurse's aide and remained in this capacity until 1968 when she took a leave of absence to attend classes to obtain her license as & practical nurse. She was employed as a licensed practical nurse at the hospital from September 1969 until August 27, 1975. Her primary duty as an LPN was medication nurse on the 7-3 shift. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1) On September 27, 1974, Respondent signed out for 100 mg. of "meperidine inj" at 2:15 P.M. on a hospital Narcotic Administration Record for that drug for Station Number 1. The record reflects that the drug was drawn from hospital stock to be administered to patient Tommy Davis. Demerol is the trade name for meperidine and it is a controlled narcotic analgesic drug. Although the Nurses Bedside Record for the patient for that day should have reflected administration of the drug to the patient by the initials of the Respondent, the record does not show such an entry by her or anyone else. Hospital practice also requires that administration of medication be shown on the nurses progress notes for the patient, but there is no record in such notes for the date in question regarding patient Davis having received the medication in question. (Testimony of Bronson, Mitchell, Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 5). A hospital Narcotic Administration Record for "meperidine, 100 mg., inj." for Station Number 1 reflects that on February 8, 1975 at 2:00 P.M. Respondent withdrew 100 mg. of the drug for patient Roy Bringhurst. However, neither the Nurses Bedside Record nor the nurses progress notes reflect that the drug was administered to the patient by Respondent or anyone else at that time. (Testimony of Bronson, Mitchell; Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 6). A hospital Narcotic Administration Record for "meperidine 75 mg. inj." for Station Number 1 shows that on February 23, 1975, at 1:00 P.M., Respondent signed out for 75 mg. of the drug for patient Mary Corbin. Neither the Nurses Bedside Record nor nurses progress notes for the patient reflect that the drug was administered at that time by Respondent or anyone else. (Testimony of Bronson, Mitchell; Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4). In early August, 1975, personnel of the hospital pharmacy brought to the attention of the hospital administrator the fact that a large quantity of the drug, Thorazine, was being used at Station 1 in the hospital. Medical records reflected that the drug had been used only four times during a five day period when ten vials had been issued. Each vial would provide about five to ten normal injections. It was further noted that after Respondent went on a ten day leave of absence, no Thorazine was used during that period at Station 1. When Respondent returned on August 19th, she requisitioned two bottles of Thorazine for Station Number 1 from the pharmacy and these bottles were given to her by pharmacy personnel on that date. During Respondent's noon hour absence, the hospital Administrator and Director of Nursing went to the medication room of Station 1 and observed a partially full bottle of Thorazine which had been there for some time and had been issued to the station on August 8th. The bottle also had been observed in the medication room by the Director of Nursing at 6:30 A.M. on August 19th before Respondent started her shift. At that time, it also was noted that the trash can in the medicine room was empty. During the noon hour investigation, it was discovered that an empty bottle of Thorazine was in the trash can and another empty bottle was found in general trash outside the hospital. When Respondent returned from lunch, she was asked to step into the medicine room and there the Administrator asked her what had happened to the two bottles of thorazine. Respondent stated that she had administered one injection to patient Barnes and another to patient Nelson and that a third injection had been given to her son. She was unable to account for the remaining amount that had been drawn earlier that day. She consented to the Administrator examining her handbag and therein was found twelve Thorazine tablets in a medicine cup. When asked about them, Respondent admitted that they came from hospital stock supplies and that she had planned to take them home for use by her husband who suffered from heart trouble. Later that day, patient Nelson told the Director of Nursing that he had not received an injection since early in the morning of August 19th and patient Barnes denied having received any injection of the drug that day. Subsequent to August 19, Respondent provided a written statement to hospital authorities in which she said that she gave Thorazine intramuscularly rather than orally to patient Nelson by mistake and that she gave a Thorazine injection to patient Barnes due to her negligence in not ascertaining that such medication had not been ordered for him. Contrary to the statement she had made concerning her son, in fact, the shot which she administered to him at the hospital on August 19 was penicillin which he had brought from home to the hospital on that day. He was then suffering from a cold. The penicillin had been purchased at a pharmacy by Respondent in June, 1975, for possible future use. (Testimony of Mitchell, Howard, Helms, Carl Godwin, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7, Petitioner's Exhibit 8, Respondent's Exhibit 2). Respondent testified as a witness and admitted taking the 12 Thorazine tablets from hospital supplies on August 19, 1975, because her husband was not feeling well and she thought the medication would help him. She conceded that it was wrong for her to take the tablets and offered no other excuse for her action. Although she admitted requisitioning the two bottles of Thorazine on August 19th, she testified that these were not delivered to her but that she saw them in a basket in the medicine room about 10:00 A.M. She further testified that it was entirely possible that she could have made the charting errors, as alleged, due to the fact that frequently she had a large number of patients asking for medication at the same time and she was not able to chart such medication until after her shift had finished. At such times she might have forgotten a particular dosage administered to a patient. She stated that she had ordered the two bottles of Thorazine on August 19th because the Director of Nursing had previously required that two bottles be in stock at Station Number 1 at all times. (Testimony of Respondent). In 1975, it was not uncommon for the hospital's nurses to chart their medication at the end of their shift rather than at the time of administration. Although hospital employees were routinely provided such medications as aspirin or antacid from hospital supplies, there was no authorization for them to take or receive other drugs without a doctor's orders. Although several witnesses testified that there were rather loose practices in the hospital regarding employees receiving medication, no specific instances were cited to establish that taking drugs without permission was the norm. (Testimony of Howard, McLaughlin, Downes, Deaton). In view of the foregoing findings the, following further findings are made: On three separate occasions in 1974 and 1975, while on duty as a medication nurse at the Okaloosa Memorial Hospital, Crestview, Florida, Respondent drew quantities of meperidine (demerol) from hospital supplies for specified patients and failed to chart the administration of such drugs in patient records. On August 19, 1975, Respondent wrongfully took twelve Thorazine tablets from Okaloosa Memorial Hospital supplies for personal use. On August 19, 1975, Respondent received two bottles of Thorazine from the Okaloosa Memorial Hospital pharmacy ostensibly for patient use, but wrongfully disposed of the same in an unknown manner. Respondent enjoys a good reputation as a licensed practical nurse. In fact, the hospital Administrator is of the opinion that she was the best medication nurse in the hospital before she became ill in 1974. Her coworkers attest to her loyalty, honesty, and conscientious work. She enjoys a good reputation in her community where she has lived for a lifetime, and a number of her former patients submitted statements concerning her excellent work while under her care. She has been employed at the Crestview Nursing Convalescent Home, Crestview, Florida, since September 30, 1975 and has performed her duties there in a very commendable manner. Her employer wishes to retain her as a licensed practical nurse due to the fact that she is particularly qualified to handle elderly patients and competent nurses for this type of work are difficult to find. (Testimony of Howard, McLaughlin, Sanford, Downes, Deaton, Baldwin, Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1).
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be suspended for a period of six months, but that the enforcement thereof be suspended for a like period during which time Respondent should be placed on probation. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1977, 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 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville Florida 32202 Ernest L. Cotton & Woodburn S. Wesley, Jr., Esquires 88 Eglin Parkway Fort Walton Beach Florida
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and , if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dalia V. Gonzalez, was at all times material hereto, licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 88664-2. On August 16, 1988, Respondent was employed as a charge nurse for the skilled unit portion of a floor at Coral Gables Convalescent Center. The remaining portion of the floor was a long term intermediate care unit with a licensed practical nurse, Ms. Jane Reilly Perkins, serving as charge nurse for said unit. During the change of shifts and between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. on August 16, 1988, a threatening argument, over the number of personnel assigned to each portion of the floor, arose between Respondent and Ms. Reilly who was accompanied by another licensed practical nurse. Ms. Reilly is a female of physically imposing stature; therefore, Respondent, reasonably fearing her safety, locked herself in her office and called her supervisor to ask for assistance. Respondent remained locked in her office for approximately two hours awaiting the arrival of her supervisor. During this time, Respondent was in constant contact with the other medical personnel on her floor. Although she was the only registered nurse present, her personal service as a registered nurse was not required at the time nor was she prohibited from giving it had the necessity arisen. When Respondent's supervisor, a registered nurse, arrived, they discussed the situation with Ms. Reilly. During this discussion, Respondent gave her first notice of intent to leave her position. After being informed that if she left, she would lose her position at Coral Gables Convalescent Center, Respondent handed her keys to her supervisor and left the facility not completing her assigned shift. While Respondent was available to her patients, although locked in her office during her shift, she did leave her nursing assignment without notifying her supervisor of her intent to leave within sufficient time to allow substitute arrangements to be made. Respondent's notice was improper Consequently, Respondent acted with unprofessional conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the a final order be entered reprimanding Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19 day of June 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 Administrative Hearings this 19 day of June 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-325 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Not necessary to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. To the extent supported by competent proof, addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 6. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraph 5. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraph 6. Addressed in paragraph 6. Addressed in paragraph 5. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraph 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Basset, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Santiago Pellegrini, Esquire 1570 Northwest Fourteenth Street Miami, Florida 33125 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 =================================================================
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a registered nurse's license, No. RN 1992962, and has at all material times. In May of 1989, as an employee of Kimberly Nurse Travelers, an agency with whom Bay Medical Center had contracted for his services, he worked as a nurse at Bay Medical Center in Panama City, Florida. While working the night shift as the triage nurse on May 12, 1989, respondent helped himself to a Darvocet N-100, a pill he ingested 20 minutes later. At the time and at hearing under oath, he said he took the pill because he had a headache. Darvocet is a prescription drug, and respondent had no prescription for it. But petitioner's own witness conceded that Darvocet "is not considered a drug of choice for people that have a problem with drugs" (T.61) and should not, in the dosage respondent took, "impair someone's judgment and ability to perform." T.66. A co-worker reported respondent, who was in plain view when he took the pill from the cart. Later the night of May 12, 1991, at the behest of supervising personnel, respondent supplied a urine specimen, which tested positive for benzodiazepine, possibly the residue of the 15-milligram Dalmane tablet respondent took the night before, when he was off duty. Respondent's co-workers who testified found no fault with his performance as a nurse, this incident aside. But theft of the Darvocet pill, and its ingestion on duty without a prescription, violated hospital policy and fell below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, Rule 21O- 10.011(2)(j), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes penalties for infractions of Rule 21O-10.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, of reprimand, fine, probation and/or suspension. Nothing was proven in aggravation. In mitigation, it was shown that this was a first offense, apparently an isolated occurrence. It is, accordingly, recommended that petitioner reprimand respondent, and levy an administrative fine against him in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500). RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 323990-0792 Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Carol C. Murphy, Esquire Post Office Box 1084 Lakeland, FL 33802
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice nursing in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Teresa Iva Smith Lobato (Lobato) was licensed as a Registered Nurse in the state of Florida, holding license number RN-1655102, and was employed by the Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront) located in St. Petersburg, Florida as a Registered Nurse. On May 13, 1990 Lobato was to work the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, and upon arriving for work was told that she was being "floated" from the Coronary Care Unit (CCU) where she regularly worked to the Progressive Care Unit (PCU) where she had never worked. Bayfront had a policy whereby nurses were "floated" from one unit to another, and at the time Lobato was employed by Bayfront she was made aware of this "floating" policy. Floating means that a nurse is assigned temporarily to a unit other than the nurse's regularly assigned unit. On May 12, 1990 Lobato was aware that she was to be "floated" on May 13, 1990, but had informed the Acting Director of CCU that she would rather cancel her work assignment than be "floated". However, upon arriving for work on May 13, 1990, and being told that she was being "floated" to PCU she accepted the assignment on PCU although she was not pleased about the situation. Bayfront has a policy that requires the outgoing nurse to audiotape a report for the oncoming nurse regarding the condition of the patients and any events occurring during the outgoing nurse's shift or if no tape is made to give report verbally to oncoming nurse. Upon arriving at PCU Lobato, along with PCU Charge Nurse (CN), listened to the audiotaped reports from the outgoing nurse on the following patients D. L. L., A. S., E. H., C. L. S., and H. K. As the morning progressed, Lobato became more and more displeased with her assignment, and let her displeasure be known to the PCU Charge Nurse. However, Lobato did not ask to be relieved from her assignment, although there was testimony that she indicated to the CN that she wanted to go home. Although the record is not clear as to the time the following events occurred, the sequence of those events are as follows: Around 9:00 a.m. Lobato was offered help by the CN but declined; Around 9:30 Lobato went on break, and again was offered help but declined; While on break Lobato talked to the Assis- tant Director of Nursing (ADON) about her under- standing of not being required to "float", and became upset with the ADON's response; After returning from break Lobato was again offered help by the CN which she accepted. The CN brought Michelle Nance, Medical Surgical Technician, and two RNs whose first names were Jessica and Melinda to the unit to assist Lobato. Around 10:30 a.m. Lobato and the CN dis- cussed Lobato's patient assignments, and Lobato advised the CN that everything was done, in- cluding all a.m. medication, other than the missing vasotec doses, and that she had some charting to do. Also, the patient's baths had been completed. Shortly after Lobato and the CN discussed her patients' assignments, the ADON came to the unit to determine what was troubling Lobato. The ADON and Lobato met and there was a confrontation wherein Lobato advised the ADON that she was quitting and the ADON advised Lobato that she was fired. After Lobato's confrontation with the ADON, Lobato left the unit and Bayfront without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes, and without giving the CN a report of the patients even though the CN requested her to do so. Lobato's reasons for not giving the CN a report was that she had discussed the patients with the CN throughout the morning, and that the CN knew as much about the patients as did Lobato at that time, and therefore, she had made a verbal report. Lobato's reasons for not completing the charting of her patients' notes was that when the ADON fired her on the spot the ADON accepted full responsibility for the patients, and Lobato's responsibility to both Bayfront and to the patients assigned to her ceased at that time, notwithstanding her understanding of the importance of charting so that appropriate care could be given to the patients on the next shift. By her own admission, Lobato left Bayfront around 10:30 a.m. on May 13, 1991 before the end of her shift without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes and without giving a report to the CN, other than the ongoing report given during the morning. Earlier while Lobato was still on the unit working the CN had obtained two registered nurses (RN) and a medical surgical technician to assist Lobato. One of the nurses whose first name was Jessica (last name not given) was the RN assigned to Lobato's patients by the ADON when Lobato left and she received a report on the patients from Janice Ritchie, CN. (See Respondent's exhibit 1, and Petitioner's exhibit 1 and Janice Ritchies' rebuttal testimony.) Although Lobato's failure to chart the balance of her patients' notes and make a report to the CN before she left may have caused some problems, there was no showing that any patient failed to receive proper care or suffered any harm as a result of Lobato leaving. While some of the patients may not have received all their medication before Lobato left, the record is not clear as to whether the medication was made available to Lobato to administer or that she was shown where the medication was located in the floor stock. The patient is the nurse's primary responsibility, and the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires the nurse, even if fired (unless prevented by the employer from performing her duties), to perform those duties that will assure the patient adequate care provided for after her absence. In this case, the failure of Lobato to compete the charting of her patients' notes and the failure to make a report to the CN, notwithstanding her comments to the CN upon leaving, was unprofessional conduct in that such conduct was a departure from and a failure to conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and that she be given a reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7828 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. 3.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4, respectively. 5.-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 and 5. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 11.-12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 18.-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 and 12, as modified. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Findings of Fact 10, 11, 13 and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 25.-27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 15 and 15, respectively. Paragraph 28 is ambiguous and, therefore, no response. Rejected as not being Finding of Fact but what weight is to be given to that testimony. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Rejected as being argument rather than a Finding of Fact, but if considered a Finding of Fact since there was other evidence presented by other witnesses. The first sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence. The balance of paragraph 3 is neither material nor relevant. Neither material nor relevant, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Neither material nor relevant since the Respondent assisted in selecting those items to be included in Respondent's exhibit 1. First sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 8. The balance of paragraph 7 is argument more so than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 12 and 14. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(c), 12 and 14. 9.-11. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 7(d) and 13. More of a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 8 and 9. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(e) and 9. Not necessary to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. 17.-19. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 20. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. 21.-23. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Teresa Iva Smith Lobato 6870 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastliinne Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Ms. Battaglia is guilty of violations of the Nursing Practice Act by being unable to account for controlled substances at the close of her shift at a nursing home and by being under the influence of controlled substances during her shift.
Findings Of Fact All findings have been adopted except proposed findings 27 through 33, which are generally rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith V. Battaglia 7819 Blairwood Circle North Lake Worth, Florida 38087 Lisa M. Bassett, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that: Ms. Battaglia be found guilty of the charges of unprofessional conduct in the delivery of nursing services, unlawful possession of controlled substances and impairment; She be fined $250, that she be required to participate in the treatment program for impaired nurses, that her licensure be suspended until she successfully completes that program, and demonstrates the ability to practice nursing with safety, and that she be placed on probation for a period of five years. DONE and ENTERED this 11 day of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 11 day of October, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I and II of the administrative complaint except as to paragraphs 15 and 16 which should be dismissed. It is further recommended that respondent's two nursing licenses be suspended for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Newell, Jr., Esquire 200 South Monroe Street, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James J. Boczar, Esquire 3100 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 33579 Ms. Nancy E. Redfern 155 Magnolia Street Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 APPENDIX PETITIONER Partially covered in the background. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 2. Partially covered in the finding of fact 14. Partially covered in the background. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in findings of fact 4-6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Partially covered in the background. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joyce D. Coburn, is and at all times relevant to this matter was licensed as a registered nurse, holding license number RN 1070822. In May and June, 1985, the Respondent was employed as the three to eleven shift supervisor at the Pensacola Cluster Facility. She was responsible for supervising the entire staff on this shift, and she had the ultimate nursing responsibility for all the patients at this facility during her shift. The patients at Pensacola Cluster Facility are non ambulatory, and they have problems with the regulation of their bowels. This facility has a bowel training program whereby Bisacodyl tablets are administered to patients after a set period of days, and a suppository is also used if the tablets do not work within a specified time period. If the problem has not been relieved after the tablets and the suppository have been used, the physician is called, and an enema might be ordered or the suppository might be repeated. Bisacodyl is one of the strongest bowel irritants, and as many as five tablets can traumatize the bowel. Severe cramping can result from the use of only two tablets. There is a potential danger to any patient who receives an excessive dosage of Bisacodyl when a bowel movement has not taken place for several days. In June of 1985, one of the patients at the facility had not had a bowel movement in seven days. When a nurse asked the Respondent what the protocol was in this situation, she was told by the Respondent to give the patient three to five Bisacodyl tablets. When the nurse informed the Respondent that only one Bisacodyl tablet was ordered by the physician, the Respondent told her that three to five tablets were what is usually given, and that is how such a situation is handled. When the nurse asked how to chart the medication, the Respondent advised her that the chart should reflect what medication was ordered, rather than what was given. The subject patient's physician had ordered that one Bisacodyl tablet was to be given to the patient every third day the patient went without a bowel movement, and that a suppository was to be given every fourth day if the patient's bowels still had not moved. Acting pursuant to the instructions given by the Respondent, the nurse administered five Bisacodyl tablets to the subject patient, who became sick. The nurse reported this incident to the day supervisor. The day supervisor reported the incident to the Director of Nursing. After an investigation, the Respondent's employment was terminated. The investigation had been initiated because of several factors surrounding the subject incident, namely, the patient had been allowed to go seven days without a bowel movement, the patient's physician had not been called, too much medication had been given, and the chart had been falsified so as not to reflect that five Bisacodyl tablets had been administered. After the subject incident, the patient's physician changed the order for medication so that two Bisacodyl tablets could be given every fourth day, a suppository on the fifth day, and a soapsuds enema given on the sixth day without a bowel movement. After this change the maximum number of Bisacodyl tablets ordered by the physician was two. At the time the nurse had been told by the Respondent to administer three to five tablets, the maximum dose ordered was one tablet. The incident described was not the first time the Respondent had administered or advised her staff to administer dosages of Bisacodyl exceeding that ordered by the physician. She had told or had been overheard telling more than one nurse that three to five Bisacodyl tablets was what should be given to patients because one or two will not work, and calling the physician was not what was done. When a nurse advises other nurses over whom she has supervisory authority to administer dosages of medication that are more than ordered by the physician, without first checking with the physician, the nurse engages in unprofessional conduct which departs from the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
