The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine, based on alleged violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida. He has been licensed in Florida at all times material to this proceeding. He currently holds license no. ME 0063272. Respondent has been practicing medicine for 20 years. He is certified by the American Association of Physician Specialist in Emergency Room Medicine. He has spent over 50,000 hours working in an emergency room setting and has never had his license suspended, revoked, or otherwise sanctioned. For approximately six to nine months in 1995-1996, Respondent was employed by a company which provided emergency room physicians to hospitals in the Central Florida region. On May 14, 1996, Respondent was providing services through that company at Glades General Hospital's emergency room. S.A.R. is a 69-year-old male. On May 14, 1996, S.A.R.'s wife called Emergency Medical Services (EMS), in connection with her husband, S.A.R. He was experiencing chest and epigastric pains. S.A.R. wore a nitroglycerin patch and had a history of heart disease. In response to the wife's call, EMS arrived at S.A.R.'s home. The emergency medical technicians (EMTs) noted that patient S.A.R. complained of severe chest pain and that he was cool and moist. The EMT's placed S.A.R. on a heart monitor. The heart monitor showed that S.A.R. was experiencing multifocal premature contractions (PVC's). Multifocal PVC's are a sign of an irritated heart. They are a risk factor for sudden cardiac death. S.A.R. was also experiencing abnormal, ectopic heartbeats consistent with heart disease. EMS gave S.A.R. Lidocaine and oxygen to reduce the irritability in his heart muscle and to suppress the abnormal heartbeats. At approximately 9:10 p.m., EMS transported S.A.R. to the emergency room at Glades General Hospital in Belle Glade, Florida. The Emergency Service Record concerning S.A.R. contains the following findings by the nurse who received the patient into the emergency room: Current medications: Axid 150 mg, Minitran 10 mg patch. Heart disease (Myocardial Infarction 20 years prior). Hernia. Patient complaining of epigastric pains since Friday (May 14 was Thursday). Pains come and go and are non-radiating. Skin is warm and dry, lungs are clear, and there is no respiratory distress. Oxygen is at 98 percent and there is strong pulse. Multifocal PVC "noted on cardiac monitor." Respondent was among the admitting team who evaluated the patient. Respondent noted that S.A.R. was experiencing severe pains located in the epigastric area with some radiation to the chest. The pains would last approximately five minutes and then fade away. Respondent also learned that S.A.R. had experienced the pain for approximately one week long and had gone to see his regular physician about the chest pain the day before he came to the hospital. His physician had prescribed Axid. Axid is a medication for indigestion. It takes some amount of time to become effective. Therefore it was not surprising to Respondent that S.A.R. had not gotten any relief 25 hours after he had begun taking the indigestion medication. Respondent took patient S.A.R. off the Lidocaine and ordered a GI Cocktail and a cardiac work-up. A GI Cocktail coats the stomach lining and reduces stomach spasms. It is intended to act quickly. A cardiac work- up consists of placing a patient on a heart monitor, monitoring vital signs, observing for arrhythmias, performing an EKG, and drawing blood tests for abnormal electrolytes and cardiac enzymes. A GI Cocktail will relieve chest pain. However, it will not normally alleviate cardiac pain in the chest area. In this case, all of S.A.R.'s pain and discomfort was relieved by the GI Cocktail, indicating that the epigastric pain was the reason for S.A.R.'s distress. The nurses notes indicate that at approximately 10:15 p.m., S.A.R. was experiencing multifocal PVC's on the monitor. The nurses notes indicate a more serious heart condition. The blood tests showed normal electrolytes and cardiac enzymes, indicating that S.A.R.'s heart was not the problem. Respondent did not find any evidence of a possible cardiac problem from his review of the patient's symptoms, from the test results, or by way of his personal observation of the patient. Respondent did not observe any multifocal PFC. He did observe that S.A.R.'s heart was not normal due to heart disease. Respondent diagnosed the patient with Gastritis, and released patient S.A.R. at approximately 10:30 p.m. The heart strips introduced into evidence did not show multifocal PVCs. They did show an abnormal heart beat consistent with heart disease. However, S.A.R. had numerous risk factors for a heart attack, including: Patient S.A.R. was a 69-year-old male. Patient S.A.R. suffered from coronary artery disease. Patient S.A.R. suffered a myocardial infarction approximately twenty years earlier. Patient S.A.R. was taking nitroglycerin for his heart condition as evidenced by a patch on his arm. Patient S.A.R. experienced multifocal PVC's on the cardiac monitor in the ambulance. Patient S.A.R.'s EKG taken in the hospital displayed unifocal PVC's and was abnormal, showing damage to two of the three electrical conduction bundles. Patient S.A.R. was cold and clammy when EMS first arrived. In this case, there is no way to know if S.A.R.'s pain was related to his heart. However, there is no way to rule out S.A.R.'s pain was caused by his heart. Approximately sixteen hours later, patient S.A.R. returned to the emergency room in full cardiac arrest. On May 15, 1996, seven and one-half hours later, he had another heart attack and died, of a myocardial infarction. There is no evidence that S.A.R.'s earlier emergency room visit was the cause of his later demise or that admission to the hospital would have prevented S.A.R.'s later demise. Petitioner's expert witness found that Respondent's treatment of S.A.R. was appropriate. That is, he ordered the proper test and treated the epigastric pain properly. In fact, his diagnosis that the problem was "GI in origin" was, according to Dr. Edelberg, statistically correct. Petitioner's expert concluded that Respondent could not rule out coronary ischemia and therefore should have tried to admit S.A.R. to the hospital for observation. The standard of care is for an emergency physician to evaluate a patient based on the worst case suggested by the symptoms even if statistically not the most probable. Based on patient S.A.R.'s past history and his current symptoms, the standard of care required Respondent to admit this type of patient into the hospital for observation. In failing to admit patient S.A.R. into the hospital for observation, the Respondent deviated from the standard of care required by a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar circumstances and conditions. Other than this one violation there is no evidence that Respondent is incompetent to practice medicine.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner Department of Health, Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent John Christopher Chauvin, M.D., guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and imposing upon the Respondent the following penalty: A Reprimand from the Board of Medicine and that Respondent, within two years take twenty-five hours of continuing education in the treatment of myocardial infarction in addition to any hours required for license renewal. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 12th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James Morrison, Certified Legal Intern Albert Peacock, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 1301 Miccosukee Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Langue, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue With regard to Count I of the Administrative Complaint, the issue is whether the Respondent possessed a controlled substance for other than a legitimate purpose. The Respondent admits possession; therefore, the issue is whether she possessed the controlled substance for legitimate purposes. Count II alleges 47 specific instances in which the Respondent violated hospital policy by failing to account for a controlled substance by properly recording withdrawals and administrations of the controlled substance. The petitioner alleges that the Respondent made false reports or a record which she knew was false and, by the aforesaid conduct, failed to conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practices. With regard to Count II, both factual and legal issues are controverted. The Petitioner submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact Count I The Respondent is a licensed registered nurse and duly certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) holding license number 40895-A. At all times relating to the charges, the Respondent was so licensed and was employed as a CRNA at Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront), a full-service hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. A CRNA essentially performs the acts of an anesthesiologist, inducing and maintaining in surgical patients a physical state which is appropriate for the particular surgical procedure to be performed through the administration of drugs to the patient. On March 4, 1981, the Respondent had been working in the operating room at Bayfront during her regular shift and had just completed a surgical procedure at 12:00 noon, when at approximately 1:00 p.m. she was called to the administrative offices. She changed from her operating room clothes, took off her warm-up operating room jacket, and put on a long lab coat. The Respondent proceeded to the administrative offices, where she remained until she accompanied Donna Roberts, Manager, Surgical Services, back to Respondent's locker, where a consent search was conducted by Roberts. Roberts' search revealed an ampule which was labeled Sublimaze, a trade name for the controlled substance fentanyl, in the pocket of Respondent's lab coat, which was in the Respondent's locker in the dressing room for female surgical staff at Bay front. Said locker room is located some 25 to 30 feet from the operating rooms. The record reveals that CRNAs and anesthesiologists at Bayfront checked out medications at the beginning of their shifts at approximately 7:00 a.m. and retained these medications throughout the day, returning the remaining medications at the end of the day at approximately 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. The record reveals that CRNAs and anesthesiologists have breaks, eat lunch, and are at the hospital when not involved in surgery. Count II The following procedures were in effect and followed by staff at Bayfront at the time involved in the Administrative Complaint. Although these procedures may not comport with the legal requirements, they were at that time and place the minimal acceptable standards of conduct accepted by the hospital administration. CRNAs and anesthesiologists drew their medications for the day early in the morning from the recovery room nurses in the recovery room. CRNAs and anesthesiologists on the hospital staff frequently drew medications for unknown patients, indicating type of surgery or in some instances giving the patient's name as John Smith. There was no requirement for CRNAs or anesthesiologists to initial narcotics records showing receipt of medications drawn from the recovery room nurse, who was charged with issuing these controlled substances. The names of patients were not required to be entered on the narcotics record. It was not uncommon for CRNAs and anesthesiologists on the hospital staff to be changed from one patient to another prior to the commencement of surgery. It was also not uncommon for one CRNA to relieve another CRNA during a surgical procedure and to finish the procedure. CRNAs and anesthesiologists were not required to show wastage. They used the quantity of drugs necessary during a surgical procedure, and if they ran out they had the circulating nurse in the operating room obtain additional medications from the recovery room nurse. Members of the hospital staff and other anesthesiologists turned in excess medication at the end of the day. Sublimaze or fentanyl was introduced as an anesthetic agent and for many years was treated much like sodium pentathol, which is not controlled. Sublimaze or fentanyl is a controlled narcotic substance. Some of the CRNAs employed at Bayfront use few, if any, controlled substances in their practice. However, many of the anesthesiologists use fentanyl regularly. The Respondent appears to have been the only CRNA who regularly used Sublimaze or fentanyl in her practice. The following findings regarding the lettered paragraphs of the Administrative Complaint are summarized below by date: On 02/02/81, the Respondent had signed out to her two ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Forman. She did not work on Forman. She did work on the patients Kilmark and Whitehead. She administered 3.5 cc (two ampules) of Sublimaze to Kilmark and 4 cc (two ampules) of Sublimaze to Whitehead. On 02/04/81, the Respondent had signed out to her ten ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Warren. She worked on Warren and administered 19 cc (ten ampules) of Sublimaze to him. On 02/06/81, the Respondent had signed out to her two ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Asaro, three ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Mastry, and three ampules of Sublimaze for an unknown patient. The records show that the Respondent administered 9 cc (five ampules) of Sublimaze to the patient McMullen. The Respondent did not turn in or account for three ampules of Sublimaze. On 02/09/81, the Respondent had signed out to her three ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Hull and four ampules of Sublimaze for an unknown patient. The records reveal she participated in three surgeries on this date on patients Braswell, Walker and Morgan. The patient Hill was assigned to another anesthesiologist. The record reveals that the Respondent administered 5 cc (three ampules) of Sublimaze to Braswell, 6 cc (three ampules) of Sublimaze to Walker, and none to Morgan. The Respondent failed to turn in or account for one ampule of Sublimaze. On 02/11/81, the Respondent had signed out to her five ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Brown and three ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Graham. She participated only in the surgery on Graham. It appears that CRNA Kolodzeij may have anesthetized Brown. The Respondent administered 6 cc (three ampules) to Graham. Kolodzeij drew no medications for her surgeries on the date in question. Kolodzeij relieved Respondent during the Graham surgery and finished the procedure. The Respondent left for Kolodzeij to use on Graham all the ampules of Sublimaze which she had checked out. On 02/13/81, the Respondent had signed out to her five ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Smith and five ampules of Sublimaze for an unknown patient. The records reveal no patient Smith. The Respondent's only surgery on this date was the patient Vielhauber. The record reveals that the Respondent administered 6 cc (three ampules) of Sublimaze to Vielhauber. She failed to turn in or account for seven ampules of Sublimaze. On 02/15/81, the Respondent had signed out to her four ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Jocalsky. She participated in no surgeries on the date in question. The Respondent did not turn in or account for four ampules of Sublimaze. On 02/16/81, the Respondent had signed out to her six ampules of Sublimaze for an unknown patient and four ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Smith. The records reveal that the Respondent participated in five surgeries on the date in question. She administered 4 cc (two ampules) of Sublimaze to the patient Harrison, 3.5 cc (two ampules) to the patient Stephens, 6 cc (three ampules) to the patient Miller, 6 cc (three ampules) to the patient Fuldaver, and none to the patient Flournay, for a total of ten ampules. The records reflect that CRNA Robbins participated in surgery on a patient Jacobson, for which Robbins drew no medications. On 02/18/81, the Respondent had signed out to her six ampules of Sublimaze for unnamed patients and five ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Nelson. She participated in two surgeries on the date in question. She administered 3.5 cc (two ampules) of Sublimaze to the patient Rothwell and 12 cc (six ampules) to Nelson. Ford, R.N., as recovery room nurse, received two ampules of Sublimaze on the date in question as turned in from an unrecorded source. These are credited against the ampules withdrawn by the Respondent. The Respondent failed to turn in or account for one ampule of Sublimaze. On 02/20/81, the Respondent had signed out to her four ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Baker. She administered 6 cc (three ampules) of Sublimaze to Baker. The Respondent failed to turn in or account for one ampule of Sublimaze. On 02/23/21, the Respondent had signed out to her ten ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Hicks. The record reflects that the Respondent administered 9 cc (five ampules) to Hicks. The Respondent failed to account for or turn in five ampules of Sublimaze. On 02/24/81, the Respondent had signed out to her two ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Jackson, two ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Marlin, and five ampules of Sublimaze for an unnamed patient. She participated in two surgeries on the date in question. She administered 5 cc (three ampules) of Sublimaze to Jackson and 3 cc (two ampules) of Sublimaze to the patient Lumpkin. The Respondent failed to account for or turn in four ampules of Sublimaze. On 02/27/81, the Respondent had signed out to her four ampules of Sublimaze for an obstetrical patient at 6:30 a.m. on the date in question and three ampules of Sublimaze for an obstetrical patient at 6:45 p.m. on the date in question. She participated in two surgeries on this date, one at 9:15 a.m. and one at 9:30 a.m. She administered 4 cc (two ampules) of Sublimaze to the patient Halstead at 11:30 a.m. The Respondent failed to turn in or account for three ampules of Sublimaze drawn at 6:45 p.m. On 03/04/81, the Respondent had signed out to her a total of eight ampules of Sublimaze for the patient Brown. She administered 5 cc (three ampules) to Brown. The Respondent failed to turn in or account for three ampules of Sublimaze. On or about March 4, 1981, the Respondent was discharged from Bayfront. The Administrative Complaint in this cause was issued on September 24, 1981. At the request of the Respondent, the final hearing in this matter was continued on three occasions: March, November and December 1982. Since the filing of the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been unable to work in her profession due to the unresolved charges against her. She has been employed as a secretary since 1981 and has suffered significant reduction in her income.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and considering that she has been effectively denied the right to practice for two years, it is recommended that the Respondent, Carolyn Wilder, be permitted to return to practice and placed on probation for one year. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire 119 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 689 Central Avenue, 2nd Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing Ill East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issues in this case for determination are whether Respondent James C. Dozier, M.D., committed the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2003), as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health on October 3, 2006; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, James C. Dozier, M.D., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 47971. Dr. Dozier’s mailing address of record at all times relevant to this matter is Indian River Memorial Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine, 1000 36th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. Dr. Dozier is board-certified in Emergency Medicine. Dr. Dozier has previously been subject to license discipline in Agency for Health Care Administration Case Number 93-20295. Patient D.C. On September 3, 2003, Patient D.C. was 49 years of age and obese. He was living a largely sedentary lifestyle, having suffered a work-related spinal injury several years before 2003. D.C. did not work. He was taking methadone, a powerful narcotic painkiller used for long-term, chronic pain relief, daily. As a result of his spinal injury, D.C. spent most of his time at home and did not engage in significant physical activity. On September 3, 2003, D.C. experienced an episode of hard coughing, during which he produced brown sputum. At approximately 9:15 a.m., September 4, 2003, D.C. awoke with sharp, left-sided chest and shoulder pain, and shortness of breath. The pain in his chest was excruciating and he had difficulty breathing. Consequently, his wife, S.C., telephoned 911 and requested emergency assistance at approximately 9:19 a.m. Transport of Patient D.C. to the Hospital. Emergency medical services personnel (hereinafter referred to as “EMS Personnel”), arrived at D.C.’s house at approximately 9:25 a.m., September 4, 2003. What transpired beginning with the arrival of EMS Personnel and their delivery of D.C. to Indian River Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “Memorial Hospital”), was documented in an Indian River County EMS report, Incident # 014509 (hereinafter referred to as the EMS Report). A copy of the EMS Report was admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 3. As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the EMS Report indicates the following: D.C.’s lung sounds were decreased on the left side with wheezes in several fields bilaterally and during transport to the hospital there was no change in his pain, although there was a decrease in the wheezing; At 9:27 a.m. D.C.’s pulse rate was 110, respiratory rate was 24 and oxygen saturation level was 92 percent by pulse oximetry; At 9:39 a.m. D.C.’s pulse rate was 116, respiratory rate was 24, and oxygen saturation level was 97 percent after the administration of oxygen by nasal cannula. A copy of the EMS Report was not provided to Memorial Hospital until after the events relevant to this case. While the EMS Report notes that EMS Personnel “[t]ransferred care to ER nurse with report,” the nature of the “report” was not proved during the hearing of this matter. Dr. Dozier was not made aware of the contents of the EMS Report or the “report” purportedly made by EMS Personnel to the emergency room nurse. Nor did he make any effort to inquire about D.C.’s condition during the time he was in the care of EMS Personnel. While the evidence presented at hearing proved that Dr. Dozier should have made an effort to inquire about D.C.’s condition during the time he was in the care of EMS Personnel, the charges in this case are limited to Dr. Dozier’s actions after D.C.’s arrival at Memorial Hospital; there is no allegation in the Administrative Complaint relating to any failure on the part of Dr. Dozier to determine what data EMS Personnel were aware of or ultimately reported. Most importantly, while there are allegations of fact concerning what EMS Personnel determined about D.C.’s condition, the Administrative Complaint does not inform Dr. Dozier of how those facts related to his care of D.C. What was in the EMS Report is, therefore, ultimately not relevant in deciding whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint have been proved. Counsel for the Department has accurately reported parts of the EMS Report in paragraphs 23 through 32 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order and counsel for Dr. Dozier have accurately summarized some of the information contained in the EMS Report in their proposed finding of fact 8. Those proposed findings of fact, although accurate, have not been included in this Recommended Order because they relate to information which Dr. Dozier never had at the times relevant to this case. Dr. Dozier’s Treatment of Patient D.C. EMS personnel delivered D.C. at Memorial Hospital at approximately 9:54 a.m., September 4, 2003. It was documented in the Emergency Room (hereinafter referred to as the “ER”), nurse’s notes, that D.C., upon arrival, reported that he had suffered a severe coughing spell the night before, experienced increased shortness of breath, coughed up dark brown sputum, and had felt sharp left-side chest pain. It was also documented that D.C.’s oxygen saturation was 94 percent on supplemental oxygen; he was experiencing the highest level of left-sided chest pain, pain that increased with deep breaths; he was awake, alert, and oriented; his complexion was normal in color; his pulse rate was 99 beats per minute; and his respiratory rate was 22 breaths per minute. An ER nurse noted that D.C. had a history of spinal surgery and was taking methadone. Another ER nurse saw D.C. at approximately 10:00 a.m. The nurse noted in the record that D.C. was suffering sharp pain on inspiration, his oxygen saturation had increased to 97 percent on two liters of supplemental oxygen, and that he had decreased breath sounds on the left side of his chest. One of the nurses who saw D.C. ordered blood tests, including a complete blood count, cardiac markers, a differential, and a complete metabolic panel. The blood tests were subsequently cancelled. The only documentation in D.C.’s medical records at Memorial Hospital indicates that the tests were cancelled at 10:15 a.m. with a notation “Cancelled Requested by Nurse/MD PER DR DOZIER,” although Dr. Dozier did not first see D.C. until approximately 10:15 a.m. Dr. Dozier testified at final hearing that the tests had been cancelled at D.C.’s request. There are no medical notes to substantiate this testimony. Dr. Dozier documented his care of D.C. in an “Any Complaint Template” form with a time stamp of 10:17:33 a.m. Dr. Dozier noted in the Any Complaint Template that D.C. was suffering from sharp, left-sided chest pain of several hours duration with splinting (stiffening of the body to avoid pain caused by movement) and decreased breath sounds on the left side. Dr. Dozier also documented that D.C.’s past medical history included chronic pain that was being treated by methadone. Dr. Dozier ordered a chest X-ray and an EKG. He also started D.C. on Toradol, a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug used for pain relief, and Levaquin, an antibiotic. The chest X- ray and EKG were documented in the Any Complaint Template. The EKG performed on D.C. was normal. His chest X-ray was interpreted by the radiologist as normal, except that he was exhibiting poor inspiratory effort. Dr. Dozier, under “differential diagnosis,” listed pleurisy (an inflammation of the lining of the chest wall and lungs marked by chest pain that increases on inspiration) first and pneumonia (an infection of the lungs marked by a severe cough, chest pain, and fever) second. A “differential diagnosis” was explained by Dr. Murray: Differential diagnosis is when you have a patient that comes into the emergency room and he has this constellation of signs and symptoms and risk factors. You try to put it together, you make a list, here’s all the possible things that could be wrong with this guy. So that’s your differential diagnosis. What are the possibilities here with what I have to look at. So you list our differential diagnosis. Transcript, page 39, lines 22-25, and page 40, Lines 1-4. Based upon the information which Dr. Dozier had concerning D.C., while pleurisy and pneumonia were reasonably included in his differential diagnosis, he should have also considered myocardial infarction, bronchitis, and, most significantly, pulmonary embolus. Of significance in this case, is Dr. Dozier’s failure to include pulmonary embolus in his differential diagnosis. Pulmonary embolus is a condition whereby the arteries in the lungs are blocked by one or more blood clots. A pulmonary embolism usually occurs when blood clots that have formed in the veins of a person’s extremities dislodge and are transported by the blood stream to the lungs where they become trapped by smaller arteries. The formation of blood clots in the extremities is called deep vein thrombosis (hereinafter referred to as the “DVT”). When blood clots become lodged in the lungs, the lungs can be damaged or, if blood flow becomes too constricted, the person can die. Pulmonary embolisms are encountered in emergency rooms with some frequency. In determining whether a person is suffering from pulmonary embolus, the common risk factors must be considered. Those risk factors include a history of previous pulmonary embolus or DVT; immobilization (the person is confined to bed, sedentary, or has recently taken a long trip); smoking; obesity; hypercoagulablity (increased tendency of the blood to clot); and cancer. The most common signs of pulmonary embolus are chest pain, usually of sudden onset and which becomes worse with deep breathing or coughing; shortness of breath, again of a sudden nature; sweating; nausea; rapid breathing or tachypnea; increased heart rate or tachycardia; low oxygen saturation; and hemotysis or coughing up blood. Making it difficult to diagnose, a patient with a pulmonary embolism may present with various combinations of symptoms, and the symptoms are often similar to those of other ailments, such as heart attack, bronchitis, pleurisy, pneumothorax, acid reflux, dissecting thoracic anerurysm, and pneumonia. Tests which can assist a physician in the either confirming or ruling out a pulmonary embolism, include ventilation/perfusion scanning (hereinafter referred to as “V/Q Scanning”), d-dimer testing, spiral computerized axial tomography, pulmonary angiography, and Doppler ultrasound. While not all of these tests were available to Dr. Dozier, V/Q Scanning was. Pulmonary embolus should have been included in Dr. Dozier’s differential diagnosis of D.C. because D.C. arrived at the ER with a chief complaint of chest pain and, as explained by Dr. Murray because of the following: Now, what would even make [pulmonary embolus] more likely, and perhaps having to pursue a little bit more, is the type of pain that he had, which is important to tell the difference between a lot of those conditions. He had pleuritic pain. That’s the classic type of chest pain that somebody with a pulmonary embolus has as classically described as pleuritic sharp chest pain. That’s what this patient had. Then what was the onset? Was this gradual onset or sudden? P[ulmonary] E[mbolism]s are sudden onset. As far as I can tell, when it says in timing, it says symptoms for, now I can’t read that, how many that is, but he had circled hours. So I can just assume that he told Dr. Dozier that he was having these symptoms just for however many hours that stands for. So I was worried about the chest pain, the nature of the chest pain, the short duration of it, that I think it says brownish – or I’m not even – I would cough brownish sputum. I think that’s what it says, but I couldn’t say for sure under history of present illness, which would make me worry about that. Transcript, page 85, lines 3-23. D.C.’s history of acute onset shortness of breath and severe left-side pleuritic chest pain, his possible hemoptysis the night before his arrival at Memorial Hospital, and his elevated pulse and respiratory rates, all facts that were documented in the medical records for D.C. at Memorial Hospital, should have caused Dr. Dozier to include pulmonary embolus in his differential diagnosis. As a result of the fact that he did not consider pulmonary embolus as a possible ailment, Dr. Dozier failed to order tests which could have helped him to rule out pulmonary embolus or led him to conclude that D.C. was suffering from the ailment. In particular, he failed to order a V/Q scan. Ultimately, Dr. Dozier released D.C., listing as his final diagnoses pleurisy and bronchitis (inflammation of the bronchial tubes marked by painful cough and fever). Dr. Dozier prescribed Vioxx, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Levaquin, and Flexeril (a central nervous system depressant, commonly referred to as a “muscle relaxer”). Cancellation of the Blood Tests. As noted in Findings of Fact 19, blood tests ordered for D.C. were ultimately cancelled. According to Dr. Dozier, they were cancelled because D.C. refused the tests, a suggestion that was not documented by Dr. Dozier in D.C.’s medical records, despite the seriousness of a patient refusing tests which a physician prescribes. Given the significance of the consequences of such a refusal, Dr. Dozier’s testimony on this point is questionable and rejected as not convincing. Other facts also raise concerns about the credibility of Dr. Dozier’s testimony concerning the cancellation of the blood tests. For example, S.C. saw D.C. approximately an hour after his arrival at the hospital and found him quiet, pale, and looking very ill. At no time did D.C. or Dr. Dozier, whom she had spoken with, inform S.C. that D.C. had refused blood tests. It is also noted that D.C. did not refuse other tests, including the chest X-ray and EKG ordered by Dr. Dozier. Ultimately, Dr. Dozier’s explanation concerning the cancellation of the blood tests was not convincing, based upon findings made in this Recommended Order and because of the troublesome aspects of his testimony as explained in paragraph 51 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order, which is incorporated by reference. Despite this conclusion, ultimately, it was the Department’s burden to prove why the blood tests were cancelled. This the Department simply did not do. Ultimately the evidence simply proved that the tests were ultimately cancelled. Regardless of why the blood tests were cancelled, Dr. Dozier violated the standard of care, as found, infra. Instructions on Discharge. On discharge, D.C. was given the following written instructions on a pre-printed form: The doctor thinks your symptoms may be due to: PLEURISY. Keep this in mind: DIAGNOSIS WITH 100% CERTAINTY IS NOT POSSIBLE in the Emergency Department. Therefore, if you find you are not getting better, another diagnosis is possible, and you must see your doctor or return here. After you leave, you must properly care for your problem and observe its progress. If you do not improve as expected, or are worse, do one of the following. Immediately: contact your doctor or follow up doctor or call here [the ER]. Contact your doctor, call, or return here if you experience any of the following: A) high fever or chills B) difficulty breathing C) difficulty; swallowing or drooling D) pain or tightness in chest or neck E) thick green or bloody sputum F) fast pulse (more than 100 a minute at rest) G) vomiting. Your symptoms should improve within 4-6 days and should not worsen. You should be able to breathe comfortably when sitting or lying down, and should not be struggling to breathe. You should be able to eat, drink, and swallow without pain or drooling. Rest, drink plenty of fluids, and eat regular well-balanced meals. Use Acteminophen (Tylenol, etc.) for pain or fever, and take any prescribed medications. A cool-mist vaporizer may help decrease cough and discomfort. DO NOT use a hot mist vaporizer of hot steam. DO NOT smoke during your illness; smoking will delay your recovery. The forgoing instructions were consistent with Dr. Dozier’s diagnosis of pleurisy or bronchitis. Having failed to consider pulmonary embolus, the instructions were inadequate in failing to address this possible condition. The Standard of Care. The Department's expert, John V. Murray, M.D., credibly opined that Dr. Dozier failed to practice medicine in accordance with the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health care licensure in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard of Care"), in his treatment of D.C. In particular, it was Dr. Murray’s opinion that Dr. Dozier violated the Standard of Care by failing to recognize the possibility that D.C. was experiencing a pulmonary embolism and, as a consequence, by failing to include pulmonary embolus in his differential diagnosis; and by failing to order diagnostic tests, in particular V/Q Scanning, which may have either ruled out or confirmed the existence of a pulmonary embolism. Dr. Murray’s opinions are credited and accepted. The opinions to the contrary offered by Dr. Dozier and his expert witness are rejected as not convincing and as not addressing the issues precisely enough. Too much was made of facts which were not available to Dr. Dozier at the time he made his differential diagnosis and the consequences thereof, unlike Dr. Murray, who specifically testified, when asked whether he attempted “to put yourself in Dr. Dozier’s shoes on the day these events occurred,” as follows: A. Yes, sir. I think that’s necessary. If you’re going to make a finding that was the standard of care, I think the standard of care relates to what would the prudent physician in the same circumstances on the same day do. In order to do that, you put yourself in those shoes. Say if I was there what would I do and what would be the standard of care for that, the minimum. Transcript, page 33, lines 22-25, and page 34, lines 1-3. Dr. Murray went on to explain that, although he had learned from the documents presented to him, information that Dr. Dozier did not have available while caring for D.C., he was able to limit his opinions appropriately to the time of the actual events and the information which Dr. Dozier was presented with. The opinions offered on behalf of Dr. Dozier were not so precisely limited. Medical Records. Dr. Dozier failed to document in his medical records for D.C. whether D.C. was a smoker or had recently taken any long trips, both facts which are relevant bits of information when considering pulmonary embolus. Dr. Dozier’s medical records were, therefore, inadequate in this regard. Dr. Dozier also failed to give adequate follow-up instructions for pulmonary embolus upon discharge. Dr. Dozier’s actions, however, were the result, not of his failure to include pulmonary embolus in his differential diagnosis, but in the failure to accurately diagnosis D.C.’s condition, a failure for which Dr. Dozier has not been charged. I. D.C.’s Demise. On September 6, 2003, D.C. died in his sleep. A postmortem autopsy of D.C. revealed that he died of “massive pulmonary thromboembole due to phlebothromboses of lower extremities.” It was found that D.C. had an abdominal malignancy, a significant contributing factor in the death of D.C. What role, if any, that Dr. Dozier’s failures in his treatment of D.C. contributed to D.C.’s ultimate demise was not proved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that James C. Dozier, M.D., has violated Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; issuing a reprimand; imposing a fine of $10,000.00; requiring that he complete the Florida Medical Association’s “quality Medical Record Keeping for health Care Professionals” course or a Board-approved equivalent; and requiring that he complete five hours of continuing medical education in diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolus. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 20th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Freeman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3250 Barry A. Postman, Esquire Lee Cohen, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Second Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent based upon the allegation that she failed to meet minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice in violation of Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2002)?
Findings Of Fact STIPULATED FACTS: Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Complaint, Respondent was licensed to practice as a certified registered nurse anesthetist ("C.R.N.A.") within the State of Florida. Respondent's address of record is 4409 Hoffner Avenue, Suite 328, Orlando, Florida 32812. On or about March 13, 2003, Patient M.M. presented to Endosurg Outpatient Center (Endosurg) for a colonoscopy. The colonoscopy began at or about 7:16 a.m. According to the Respondent's Anesthesia Record, Patient M.M. had a blood pressure of 120/70 at 7:30 a.m., and a blood pressure of 140/84 and an oxygen saturation of 96 percent "at the end of case." Respondent began mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and CPR at or about 7:46 a.m., then provided oxygen via a bag-valve mask at or about 7:48 a.m., and then provided oxygen by intubation at or about 7:50 a.m. Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2002), subjects a licensed nurse anesthetist to discipline for failing to meet minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. ADDITIONAL FACTS: The indications for the endoscopic procedure performed on Patient M.M. were in relation to bright red blood per rectum and anemia. The endoscopic diagnosis confirmed by the procedure was diverticulosis and internal hemorrhoids. According to Patient M.M., this was the first colonoscopy she had ever had. In the history reported by Patient M.M. prior to the procedure, there was no report of chest pain, indigestion, heart burn, or nausea. The patient did report rectal bleeding. Patient M.M. provided a history of bronchitis, but it was noted that there were no recent problems with the bronchitis. In the recount of her past medical history, she made no reference to congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, angina, heart murmur, heart valve problems, or irregular heart. She did have a history in her family of heart disease; the family member was her father. By history, the patient suffered from high blood pressure. At the time the patient was seen at Endosurg she was 67 years old, 5 feet 5 inches tall, and weighed 215 pounds. Respondent has practiced for 30 years in numerous settings. Respondent was an independent contractor recently employed at Endosurg. Over time she has met her obligations in relation to continuing education for her profession. When Respondent first saw Patient M.M. on the date in question, the patient was in the holding area adjacent to the procedure room. Respondent introduced herself to the patient and checked the intravenous access. The line had been placed and Respondent checked to make certain that the line was patent. Respondent explained to the patient that the patient would be given sedation. In particular, Respondent told the patient that she would be placed under conscious-sedation during the procedure. The patient responded that her son had had post- operative nausea and vomiting, having undergone sedation, but that the patient had experienced no problems with anesthesia in the past. Respondent listened to the patient's chest. The heart was regular, in that there were no audible sounds of irregularity or murmur at that time. The patient's chest was clear. No signs of wheezing or bronchi or rales were present that would indicate upper-respiratory difficulties. Respondent was aware that the patient suffered from hypertension. Before the procedure Respondent did not observe anything in the patient's demeanor which suggested that the patient was overly anxious. As the anesthesia record reflects, the administration of anesthesia by Respondent commenced at 7:15 a.m. and ended at 7:26 a.m. The procedure commenced at 7:16 a.m. and concluded at 7:25 a.m. Before providing the anesthesia, Respondent placed a blood pressure cuff on the patient, a pulse oximeter, an EKG monitor, and a pre-cordial stethoscope. The patient was anxious and Respondent administered a total of 2 mg of Versed. The Versed was administered twice. After waiting to see the reaction to the first administration, a second administration was provided. During the administration of this medication, Respondent discussed its subjective influence with the patient. Two other persons were in the procedure room with Respondent. They were the physician gastro-endrologist, who was performing that procedure, and an anesthesia technician. The doctor involved was Dr. Nehme Gebrayel. When the scope used to perform the procedure was inserted the patient winced. In response to those circumstances Respondent provided Fentanyl, an ultra-short acting narcotic in an amount considered appropriate to the circumstances. When the scope reached the area within the colon where the scope needed to be turned, the patient grasped the arm of the technician and dug her nails into his forearm. The physician called upon Respondent to provide other sedation to allow him to continue the procedure while providing some comfort to the patient. In response Respondent gave the patient 30 mg of Propofol, an hypnotic sedative with a short half-life. Later the patient began to dig her nails into the technician's forearm once more, which the technician reported to the physician. The physician told Respondent to provide additional sedation. Respondent gave the patient 30 mg more of Propofol. While the procedure was ongoing Respondent monitored the patient's vital signs. Before the procedure, the blood pressure was 142/100, the heart rate was 72. The second reading on blood pressure taken by Respondent during the procedure occurred between 7:18 a.m. and 7:20 a.m., with a reading of 126/66. Pulse oxygen readings that were recorded at the beginning and during the procedure reflected 98 percent and 95 percent saturation respectively. When the physician began to withdraw the scope at the end of the procedure, Respondent told the patient that the procedure was being finished and that the physician was taking the scope out. The patient responded by giving a "thumbs up" gesture. When the Doctor finished the procedure, Respondent asked the patient if the patient was doing "O.K." Respondent asked the patient if the patient was experiencing discomfort, the patient responded "not really." Respondent told the patient that the patient was being taken back to the holding area where she had been picked up before and brought into the procedure room. While the physician was still in the procedure room, Respondent went to the door and opened it into the holding area, and the nurse from the PACU at Endosurg came into the procedure room. Maureen Mayhew, R.N., was that nurse. When nurse Mayhew entered the procedure room, the vital signs in relation to blood pressure, pulse, and the pulse oximeter reading were still displayed on the monitor in the procedure room. Those readings at the end of the case were blood pressure 140/84, heart rate 74, respiratory rate 16 per minute and the saturated oxygen level 96 percent. At that time the patient responded to queries and stimuli. The reference to responding to queries means that the patient was able to converse with the Respondent. When Respondent turned over the care to nurse Mayhew, she told the other nurse that the patient had high blood pressure and a history of bronchitis but that the chest was clear when listened to prior to the procedure. Respondent explained that the patient had undergone a colonoscopy, in which 2 mg of Versed, 50 mg of Fentanyl, which is the equivalent to 1 cc and a total of 60 mgs of Propofol, divided into two doses had been provided. Respondent told nurse Mayhew that the patient was awake and talking and that her blood pressure had started at 140, had drifted down to 120 and was back at 140, as to systolic readings. After Respondent released the patient to the care of nurse Mayhew, she proceeded to address the next case. The administration of anesthesia to that patient commenced at 7:27 a.m. At about 7:45 a.m. a C.N.A. at Endosurg came into the procedure room where the next case was underway. The C.N.A. stated that there was a problem with Patient M.M., in that the patient was not responding as she had been. The C.N.A. asked that the doctor and Respondent come and see the patient. After arranging for someone to continue to monitor the patient that was being examined at that moment and with the placement of intravenous fluid with that patient to keep him hydrated, Respondent and the doctor left the procedure room and entered the holding area where Patient M.M. was found. When Respondent and the physician approached the patient, the patient was alone, flat on the bed. Respondent checked the patient's pulse at her neck, while the physician checked the patient's pulse at the wrist. Respondent called the patient's name and rubbed on the patient's chest. The patient made no response. The patient had no pulse. Respondent told the doctor "I don't have a pulse here." The doctor responded "Neither do I." When Respondent and the doctor addressed the patient in the holding area, they were uncertain when the patient had stopped breathing. The doctor commenced chest compressions as a form of CPR. Respondent leaned over the patient and breathed two quick breaths into the patient through mouth-to-mouth CPR. Respondent asked someone else employed at Endosurg to bring the CODE cart. Someone asked the Respondent if they needed to call 911. Respondent said, "yes" and the call was placed. Respondent was handed an ambubag with a valve mask to assist the patient in breathing. To check the bag's operation Respondent squeezed twice and found that the bag was not working. This bag belonged to Endosurg, and by inference Endosurg, not the Respondent is found to be responsible for its maintenance. During the inception of the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation provided by her, Respondent noticed that the patient's chest rose which is an indication that the patient was being ventilated. By contrast, the initial ambubag provided no evidence that ventilation was occurring. When the facility ambubag failed, Respondent asked another employee at Endosurg to go and pick up her personal ambubag that was located in another part of the procedure room. While someone went to retrieve Respondent's personal ambubag, the Respondent continued to provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation while the physician gave closed chest compressions to the patient. During that time the chest was rising, indicating that the patient was making ventilatory efforts. When the second ambubag, belonging to Respondent, was handed to her, it was connected to oxygen and it performed as expected. The patient was given several quick breaths of the oxygen through the ambubag. Respondent then used a laryngoscope and an endotracheal tube to intubate the patient and the patient was intubated. While being ventilated through the endotracheal tube, Respondent used a stethoscope to listen to the breath sounds of the patient and she found evidence that the endotracheal tube was secure. While this was occurring the physician continued chest compressions. The physician also administered certain drugs to the patient to assist the patient. One drug being administered to the patient at the time was Epinephrine. The patient was then defibrillated. The defibrillator did not have a separate monitor. It was one in which the paddles associated with the defibrillator were not hooked to a device that would produce print strips of the results when the paddles were applied. This defibrillator belonged to Endosurg. The Respondent and the physician relied upon the EKG monitor hooked up to the patient to gain information and her status. When the Respondent and the doctor had come into the holding area, the patient was not on the monitor. The physician placed the leads on the chest of the patient to connect the monitor to reflect the pulse rate, if any were present. When the patient was first defibrillated and there was no change in the heart rhythm, another dose of Epinephrine was administered. About that time the fire rescue unit that had been summoned by the 911 call arrived. That was at 7:51 a.m. The fire rescue personnel included an EMT paramedic qualified to maintain the airway for the patient. Those persons took over the patient and prepared the patient for transfer. Respondent asked the doctor if it was acceptable to return to the procedure room and check the status of that patient. The physician gave her permission but Respondent did not return to the procedure room until the EMT paramedic had checked the position of the endotracheal tube in Patient M.M. Through the efforts made by Respondent and the physician the patient regained her pulse. A note in the patient's records refers to the existence of the heart rate and pulse when the patient was turned over for transport to a hospital. That hospital was the Villages Regional Hospital. There the patient was diagnosed with cardiac arrest and anoxic brain damage, encephalopathy. Subsequently the patient was transferred to Leesburg Regional Medical Center. The decision was eventually made to remove the patient from life support, given her condition. In an interview nurse Mayhew gave to an investigator with the Department of Health, relied upon by the parties at hearing, Ms. Mayhew told the investigator that five patients were in the PACU at Endosurg when Patient M.M. was transferred to that unit. At the time there was only one registered nurse and a single C.N.A. in the unit. Liz Singleton was the C.N.A. Ms. Mayhew told the investigator that Ms. Singleton indicated to Ms. Mayhew that the patient was alert and talking when the patient entered the unit. Ms. Mayhew said that she gave Patient M.M. a rapid assessment shortly after the arrival of the patient in the unit. Ms. Mayhew told the investigator that she noted that the Patient M.M. had declined from alert to responsive at that time. When checking the color and vital signs, a decrease in blood pressure was noted and the patient was placed in the Trendelenberg position (head down, feet raised) to try to increase the blood pressure. Ms. Mayhew mentioned giving Patient M.M. a sternal rub. The patient was noticed to blink her eyes and move her shoulder. Fluids were started, and the patient was given Romazicon intended to reverse the effects of anesthesia that had been provided to the patient during the procedure. Ms. Mayhew told the investigator that she gave C.N.A. Singleton instructions not to leave the patient's bedside and to give the patient one-on-one care. Ms. Mayhew then went to arrange for another C.N.A. to assist in the PACU. At some time during the care provided by nurse Mayhew, she indicated that there was a monitor for blood pressure, oxygen saturation, respiration and pulse and that the alert alarms were set. Nurse Mayhew told the investigator that she was starting an IV two beds away and heard the second C.N.A. talking to Patient M.M. just before the alarms went off. She said that Patient M.M. was in respiratory arrest and that she called a CODE, meaning nurse Mayhew called a CODE. Any entries concerning the vital signs in relation to Patient M.M. that were made following the procedure while the patient was in the holding area were made by C.N.A. Singleton, according to nurse Mayhew's statement. The monitor had printout capabilities at the time but was not activated. Notwithstanding these remarks attributed to nurse Mayhew in the interview process, it is found that when Respondent and the doctor addressed the patient in the holding area the monitor was disconnected. Although in her remarks made to the investigator nurse Mayhew said that the vital signs were recorded by the C.N.A., the record of nursing assessments reflecting the recording of the vital signs was signed by nurse Mayhew. They show that at 7:30 a.m. the patient's blood pressure was 78/46, with a pulse rate of 52, and a respiratory rate of 12. At 7:35 a.m. the blood pressure was 74/42, with a pulse rate of 40, and a respiratory rate of 14. The physician gave certain post-op orders concerning Patient M.M. which were noted by nurse Mayhew when she affixed her signature. One of those orders indicated that Ms. Mayhew was obligated to "notify physician for blood pressure less than 90/60, pulse >110." This order was not followed. EXPERT OPINION: Cenon Erwin Velvis, C.R.N.A., has been licensed in Florida for eleven years. He was called as an expert for Petitioner to testify concerning Respondent's care rendered Patient M.M. in this case. The witness was received as an expert. Both the Respondent and Mr. Velvis have provided anesthesia on numerous occasions while patients were undergoing colonoscopies. To prepare himself for the testimony, nurse Velvis reviewed medical records pertaining to Patient M.M. and the investigative report of the Department of Health. His opinion is that Respondent in caring for Patient M.M. fell below the standards expected of a C.R.N.A. when considering acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. Concerning his opinion, nurse Velvis believes that Patient M.M. was transferred to the PACU in an unstable condition, that Respondent did not remain with the patient long enough to ascertain this instability and the need for treatment and to conduct an ongoing evaluation secondary to the side effects of the anesthesia, and that once the patient experienced difficulties, the airway and circulatory system were not secured by Respondent in a timely manner. Nurse Velvis believes that the blood pressure reading at 7:30 a.m. of 78/46 and heart rate and pulse of 52 are low, dangerously so. According to nurse Velvis the normal range is 120/80 for blood pressure. There can be an acceptable 15 to 20 per cent departure from what is considered normal. This takes into account that nature of the procedure that the patient had undergone. The vital signs that were reflected at 7:30 a.m. demonstrate patient instability at 7:30 a.m., in Mr. Velvis' opinion. The Romazicon administered to the patient would not ordinarily be used given the amount of anesthesia provided the patient in the procedure. The patient's responsiveness had progressed to a point from what was initially assessed as responsive or responding to queries, to an unresponsive state. This would account for the administration of Romazicon, a reversal agent to the tranquilizer that had been used during the procedure. Nurse Velvis notes that the patient had gone from responding to inquiries to a state of unresponsiveness where the patient would only move when given painful stimuli. Mr. Velvis was aware that the blood pressure at 7:35 a.m. was 74/42, with a pulse rate of 40, indicating a further decline. The approximate time of arrest for the patient was 7:45 a.m. from records reviewed by Mr. Velvis. Mr. Velvis believes that the Respondent was responsible for verifying the patient's vital signs upon admission to PACU. He also originally expressed the opinion that Respondent failed to utilize the intubation equipment in a timely fashion to restore breathing following the emergency. Mr. Velvis concedes that if the cardiac arrest that occurred with Patient M.M. were related to anesthesia, the respiratory response by the patient would be lowered. But the recording of a respiratory rate of 12 at 7:30 a.m. and 14 at 7:35 a.m. does not satisfy Mr. Velvis concerning the quality of ventilation in the patient, even with the efforts of the patient being recorded. He also makes mention that the level of oxygen saturation at those times was unknown when reviewing the record. He does acknowledge that a respiratory rate of 14 as such is not consistent with respiratory arrest. Mr. Velvis acknowledges that nothing in the record indicates that nurse Mayhew notified the doctor when the low blood pressure readings were taken at 7:30 a.m. and 7:35 a.m., contrary to post-op orders. When provided a hypothetical under interrogation at hearing, that reflects the facts that have been reported here concerning the Respondent and the doctor in their effort to restore Patient M.M.'s breathing, Mr. Velvis retreated from his opinion that the airway and circulatory system of the patient was not secured in a timely manner when confronted with the crisis. While Mr. Velvis changed his opinion during cross- examination at hearing concerning the response by Respondent leading to the defibrillation, he still continued to express the opinion that Respondent fell below the standard of care and was responsible for hypoxia in the patient, the patient not breathing. He also restated his opinion that Respondent was below the standard of care for her release of the patient from the procedure room into the PACU in an untimely manner. Mr. Velvis expresses the opinion that immediate patient care was the Respondent's responsibility but in the atmosphere of team work the physician was the captain of the ship. Although the physician was the captain of the ship, the Respondent was responsible to do what was most important for the patient, according to Mr. Velvis. Mr. Velvis recognizes that nurse Mayhew would have been more helpful if she had notified Respondent and the physician earlier about Patient M.M.'s condition in the holding area, and Ms. Mayhew's error in leaving the patient when the patient was unstable. Mr. Velvis expresses the opinion that the mechanism behind the cardiac arrest in Patient M.M. was a lack of oxygen, in that the airway was not secure. Mr. Velvis in his testimony concedes that the patient could have had cardiac failure not due to a problem with respiration. Michael A. Binford, M.D., was called by Respondent as an expert. He is a practicing anesthesiologist in Florida who completed his anesthesiology residency approximately ten years ago. He works with C.R.N.A.s in his practice and as such is able to offer opinion testimony about the performance of C.R.N.A.s in their practice. He is familiar with the type of procedure which Patient M.M. was undergoing and the drugs administered to provide anesthesia. Having reviewed the patient's records and the investigative report from the Department of Health, his opinion is that Patient M.M. was stable when transferred from Respondent's care to nurse Mayhew's care. That opinion is based upon vital signs recorded at the commencement, during, and at the end of the procedure. From what he saw in the record concerning the medication administered to the patient during the procedure, it was appropriate. Nothing that he saw in the record made Dr. Binford believe that the Respondent should have stayed with the patient for a longer period of time, given the amount of medication provided. By contrast Dr. Binford refers to the vital signs recorded when the patient was under nurse Mayhew's care at 7:30 a.m. and 7:35 a.m. Those are not vital signs of a patient in a stable condition. Dr. Binford believes that the patient was deteriorating at that time and that nurse Mayhew violated the physician's post-op order by not immediately notifying the doctor of the vital signs she found. Dr. Binford in referring to nurse Mayhew's statement given to the investigator, reads the statement to indicate that the patient was stable when entering the PACU but declined from alert to responsive. To Dr. Binford this reflects a change in mental status in the patient. Definitive evidence in the change in status is borne out by the vital signs taken at 7:30 a.m., and 7:35 a.m., in Dr. Binford's opinion. Although the Romazicon given by Nurse Mayhew would not have been a drug of choice for Dr. Binford, he understands that nurse Mayhew may have considered it appropriate to provide an antidote to the Versed by using Romazicon. Dr. Binford did not believe that the Versed would have caused the low vital signs encountered by nurse Mayhew. Having reviewed the autopsy report related to Patient M.M., Dr. Binford believes that a cardiac event was associated with the lower vital signs. He does not believe that the respiratory rate of 12 and 14 found at 7:30 a.m. and 7:35 a.m. respectively are consistent with respiratory arrest. Dr. Binford explains that the process involved with a heart attack, which is also referred to a myocardial infarction, is in relation to the entire heart or some segment within the heart not getting sufficient oxygen. If the patient is not breathing for a period of time, the total level of oxygen in the blood drops significantly. That is a possibility. The second possibility is that if there is plenty of oxygen in the blood, but one of the blood vessels supplying the heart muscle becomes blocked and no blood can get past the obstruction, this can also cause oxygen deprivation. Either explanation can cause damage to the heart and the brain. The first example is one in which problems are experienced in getting air and oxygen into the lungs, that can be picked up and transported around the body and the second explanation involves a problem with getting the blood flow into the area as needed. The first example related to problems of respiration is referred to by Dr. Binford as a primary respiratory event. The second example is referred to as a primary cardiac event, involving restricted blood flow. In Dr. Binford's opinion if the patient has respiratory difficulty, the respiratory rate ranges from 0 to 8, which was not the case here. In Dr. Binford's opinion neither the Versed or Romazicon were responsible for the vital signs shown in the patient while she was in the holding area. In Dr. Binford's opinion the cause of the patient's decline was indicative of a primary cardiac event, as opposed to a primary respiratory event and the anesthesia as a causative agent would not explain it. He expresses this opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Given his knowledge of the case, Dr. Binford did not find any deficiencies in the way the Respondent treated the patient. Within a reasonable degree of medical certainty Dr. Binford believes that the Respondent met her obligations as to the basic standards for her profession in the pre-operative phase, during the procedure, upon the release of the patient to nurse Mayhew and in response to the emergency in the holding area. Having considered the opinions of both experts, the opinion of Dr. Binford is more persuasive and is accepted as it exonerates Respondent for her conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 8th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Levine Assistant General Counsel Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Damon A. Chase, Esquire Chase Law Offices, P.A. Post Office Box 196309 Winter Springs, Florida 32719 Alex Finch, Esquire 2180 Park Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Dan Coble, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
