The Issue Whether Rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a., Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board to adopt rules establishing the standards of practice and care for particular physician practice settings. The Board is the agency that adopted Rule 64B8-9.009, Florida Administrative Code, regarding standards of care for office surgery. Petitioner, Victor Ortiz, is a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA), and is licensed by the Board of Nursing pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Mr. Ortiz is not a member of the Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists or the Florida Nurses Association. Mr. Ortiz provides anesthesia care to patients in various settings under the supervision of physicians licensed pursuant to Chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes. Among other functions, Mr. Ortiz orders preanesthetic medications; administers regional, spinal, and general anesthesia under protocol and the supervision of a physician; provides life support functions; and monitors patient condition during surgery and in the recovery room. Prior to April 15, 2002, the effective date of Rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a., Florida Administrative Code (the Rule), Mr. Ortiz administered anesthesia under the supervision of operating physicians for all types of office surgeries, including surgical procedures classified by the Board of Medicine as "level III." Mr. Ortiz provided anesthesia services to patients in level III office surgeries under the supervision of M.D. or D.O. operating physicians four or five days per week on average. The Rule requires that if the anesthesia provider is a CRNA, there must be a licensed M.D. or D.O. anesthesiologist, other than the surgeon, to provide direct supervision of the administration and maintenance of the anesthesia in level III office surgeries. Since the adoption of the Rule, the physicians for whom Mr. Ortiz previously provided anesthesia services will no longer employ him for level III office surgeries because they believe that it is unnecessary and cost-prohibitive to pay Mr. Ortiz to provide the actual anesthesia services and an anesthesiologist to directly supervise him. Consequently, Mr. Ortiz' revenues have been reduced and his office practice has been substantially and adversely affected.
The Issue The issues under consideration concern the request by Petitioner, Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) to be granted a certificate of need for dual certification of skilled and immediate care nursing home beds associated with the second review cycle in 1987. See Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) , Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1987 Brookwood filed an application with HRS seeking to expand its facility in Graceville, Jackson County, Florida, one with 120 licensed beds and 30 beds approved effective June 12, 1986, to one with 30 additional beds for a total of 180 beds. Beds being sought in this instance were upon dual certification as skilled and intermediate nursing home beds. The nursing home is located in Subdistrict A to District II which is constituted of Gadsden, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties. This applicant is associated with Brookwood, Investments, a Georgia corporation qualified to do business and registered in the State of Florida and other states in the southeastern United States. That corporation has as its principal function the development and operation of nursing homes and other forms of residential placement of the elderly. The actual ownership of the applicant nursing home is through a general partnership. Kenneth Gummels is one of two partners who own the facility. The Brookwood group has a number of nursing home facilities which it operates in the southeastern United States. Florida facilities that it operates are found in DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida; Panama City, Bay County, Florida; Chipley, Washington County, Florida; Homestead, Dade County, Florida; Hialeah Gardens, Dade County, Florida, as well as the present applicant's facility. The applicant as to the beds which it now operates, serves Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran Administration, private pay and other third party pay patients. The number of Medicaid patients in the 120 licensed beds is well in excess of 90 percent. The ratio of Medicaid patients with the advent of the 30 approved beds was diminished. As to those beds, 75 percent were attributed to Medicaid. If the 30 beds now sought were approved, the projection is for 87 percent private pay and 13 percent Medicaid for those new beds. The nursing home administration feels that the new beds must be vied for under those ratios in order for it to continue to be able to serve a high number of Medicaid patients, an observation which has not been refuted by the Respondent. Nonetheless, if these beds are approved the percentage of Medicaid patients would be reduced to the neighborhood of 80 percent within the facility which compares to the approximately 81 percent experience of Medicaid beds within the district at present and the approximately 88 percent of Medicaid beds within the subdistrict at present. The cost of the addition of the 30 beds in question would be $495,000. Financial feasibility of this project has been stipulated to by the parties assuming that need is found for the addition of those beds. The basic area within the Florida panhandle wherein the applicant facility may be found, together with other facilities in the Florida panhandle is depicted in a map found at page 101 of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. This map also shows that a second licensed nursing home facility is located in Jackson County in Marianna, Florida, known as Marianna Convalescent Center. The applicant facility is directly below the Alabama-Florida border, immediately south of Dothan, Alabama, a metropolitan community. The significance of the relative location of the applicant's facility to Dothan, Alabama concerns the fact that since 1984 roughly 50 percent of its nursing home patients have been from out-of-state, the majority of those out-of-state patients coming from Alabama. Alabama is a state which has had a moratorium on the approval of new nursing home beds for eight years. The proximity of one of that state's relatively high population areas, Dothan, Alabama, has caused its patients to seek nursing home care in other places such as the subject facility. The applicant has encouraged that arrangement by its business practices. Among the services provided by the nursing home facility are physical therapy, physical examination and treatment, dietary services, laundry, medical records, recreational activity programs and, by the use of third party consultants, occupational and social therapy and barber and beauty services, as well as sub-acute care. The facility is adjacent to the Campbellton-Graceville Hospital in Graceville, Florida. The nursing home was developed sometime in 1978 or 1979 with an original complement of 90 beds expanding to 120 beds around 1983 or 1984. The Chamber of Commerce of Marianna, Florida had held the certificate of need upon the expectation that grant funds might be available to conclude the project. When that did not materialize, the County Commissioners of Jackson County, Florida sought the assistance of Brookwood Investments and that organization took over the development of the 90 beds. The original certificate holder voluntarily terminated and the Brookwood partnership then took over after receiving a certificate of need for Brookwood-Jackson County Convalescent Center. The nursing home in Marianna, Florida which is located about 16 miles from Graceville has 180 beds having undergone a 60 bed expansion several years ago. Concerning the Brookwood organization's nursing home beds in Florida, the Walton County Convalescent Center was a 100 bed facility that expanded to 120 beds at a later date and has received permission to expand by another 32 beds approved in the same review cycle associated with the present applicant. Gulf Coast Convalescent Center in Panama City, is a 120 bed facility of Brookwood. Brookwood also has the Washington County Convalescent Center in Washington County, in particular in Chipley, Florida which has 180 beds. That facility was expanded by 60 beds as licensed in October, 1987 and those additional beds have been occupied by patients. Brookwood has a 120 bed facility in Homestead and a 180 bed facility in Hialeah Gardens. With the exception of its two South Florida facilities in Homestead and Hialeah Gardens, recent acquisitions under joint ownership, the Brookwood group has earned a superior performance rating in its Florida facilities. No attempt has been made by this applicant to utilize the 30 beds which were approved, effective June 12, 1986. Its management prefers to await the outcome in this dispute before determining its next action concerning the 30 approved beds. The applicant asserted that the 30 beds that had been approved would be quickly occupied based upon experience in nursing home facilities within Subdistrict A to District II following the advent of nursing home bed approval. That surmise is much less valuable than the real life experience and does not lend effective support for the grant of the certificate of need in this instance. The waiting list for the 120 licensed beds in the facility has been reduced to five names. This was done in recognition of the fact that there is very limited patient turnover within the facility. Therefore, to maintain a significant number of people on the waiting list would tend to frustrate the sponsors for those patients and social workers who assist in placement if too many names were carried on the waiting list. At the point in time when the hearing was conducted, the facility was not in a position to accept any patients into its 120 licensed facility. This condition of virtually 100 percent occupancy has been present since about 1984 or 1985. The applicant has transfer agreements with Campbellton-Graceville Hospital and with two hospitals in Dothan, Alabama, they are Flower's Hospital and Southeast Alabama Medical Center. The applicant also has a transfer agreement with the Marianna Community Hospital in Marianna, Florida. The referral arrangements with the Alabama hospitals were made by the applicant in recognition of the proximity of those hospitals to the nursing home facility and the belief in the need to conduct its business, which is the provision of nursing home care, without regard for the patient origin. Early on in its history with the nursing home, Brookwood promised and attempted in some fashion to primarily serve the needs of Jackson County, Florida residents, but the explanation of its more recent activities in this regard does not portray any meaningful distinction between service to the Jackson County residents and to those from other places, especially Alabama. This reflects the concern expressed by Kenneth Gummels, owner and principal with the applicant nursing home, who believes that under federal law the nursing home may not discriminate between citizens in Florida and Alabama when considering placement in the nursing home. In this connection, during 1987 the experience within the applicant nursing home was to the effect that for every patient admitted from Florida five Florida patients were turned away. By contrast, to deal with the idea of priority of placing patients some effort was made by Gummels to explain how priority is still given to Jackson County residents in the placement for nursing home care. Again, in the end analysis, there does not seem to be any meaningful difference in approach and this is evidenced by the fact that the level of out-of-state patients in the facility has remained relatively constant after 1984. If there was some meaningful differentiation in the placement of Florida patients and those from out-of-state, one would expect to see a change in the number of patients from out-of-state reflecting a downward trend. As described, historically the experience which Brookwood has had with the facility occupancy rates is one of high utilization except for brief periods of time when additional beds were added at the facility or in the Marianna Nursing Home. At time of the application the primary service area for the applicant was Jackson County with a secondary service area basically described as a 25 mile radius outside of Graceville extending into Alabama and portions of Washington and Holmes Counties. As stated, at present the occupancy rate is as high as it has ever been, essentially 100 percent, with that percentage only decreasing on those occasions where beds come empty based upon transfers between nursing homes or between the nursing home and a hospital or related to the death of a resident. Those vacancies are filled through the waiting list described or through recommendations of physicians who have a referral association with the facility. The patients who are in the facility at the place of consideration of this application were 50 percent from Florida and 50 percent from out-of-state, of which 56 of the 60 out-of-state patients were formerly from Alabama, with one patient being from Ohio and three others from Georgia. More specifically, related to the history of out-of-state patients coming to reside in the nursing home, in 1984 basically 25 percent patients were from Alabama, moving from there into 1985 at 47 percent of the patient population from Alabama, in 1986 50 percent from Alabama, in 1987 48 percent from Alabama and in 1988 the point of consideration of the case at hearing the figure was 47 percent of Alabama patients, of the 50 percent patients described in the preceding paragraph. Of the patients who are in the facility from Florida, the majority of those are believed to be from Jackson County. Those patients who come to Florida from Alabama, by history of placement, seem to be put in the applicant's facility in Graceville as a first choice because it is closest to the Dothan, Alabama area. The next preference appears to be Chipley and the Brookwood nursing home facility in Chipley, and thence to Bonifay and then to other places in the Florida panhandle, in particular Panama City. In the Brookwood-Washington County facility at Chipley, Florida 35 percent of the patients are from Alabama which tends to correspond to the observation that the Alabama placements as they come into Florida are highest in Graceville and decrease in other places. This is further borne out by the experience in the Brookwood-Walton County facility at DeFuniak Springs, Florida which has an Alabama patient percentage of approximately 10 to 12 percent. When the nursing home facilities in Chipley and Bonifay received 60 additional beds each in October, 1987, they began to experience rapid occupancy in those beds as depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1 at pages 228 through 230. The other facility in Jackson County, namely Jackson County Convalescent Center, within the last six months has shown an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent, thereby being unavailable to attend the needs of additional Jackson County patients who need placement and other patients within the subdistrict. This same basic circumstance has existed in other facilities within Subdistrict A to District II. When the applicant is unable to place patients in its facility it then attempts placement in Chipley, Bonifay, DeFuniak Springs, and Panama City, Florida, and from there to other places as nearby as possible. The proximity of the patient to family members and friends is important for therapeutic reasons in that the more remote the patient placement from family and friends, the more difficult it is for the family and friends to provide support which is a vital part of the therapy. Consequently, this is a significant issue. Notwithstanding problems in achieving a more desirable placement for some patients who must find space in outlying locales, there was no showing of the inability to place a patient who needed nursing home care. Most of the Alabama referrals are Medicaid referrals. Those patient referrals are treated like any other resident within the nursing home related to that payment class for services. Effectively, they are treated in the same way as patients who have come from locations within Florida to reside in the nursing home. Notwithstanding the management choice to delay its use of the 30 approved beds dating from June 12, 1986, which were challenged and which challenge was resolved in the fall, 1987, those beds may not be ignored in terms of their significance. They must be seen as available for patient placement. The fact that the experience in this service area has been such that beds fill up rapidly following construction does not change this reality. This circumstance becomes more significant when realizing that use of the needs formula for the project at issue reveals a surplus of 19 beds in Subdistrict A to District II for the planning horizon associated with July, 1990. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The 19 bed surplus takes into account the 30 approved beds just described. Having recognized the inability to demonstrate need by resort to the formula which is found within the rule's provision referenced in the previous paragraph, the applicant sought to demonstrate its entitlement to a certificate through reference to what it calls "special circumstances." Those circumstances are variously described as: Patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. Lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds. High rate of poverty, Medicaid utilization and occupancy. Jackson County Convalescent Center utilization by out-of- state patients. The applicant in asking for special relief relies upon the recommendation of the Big Bend Health Council, District II in its health plan and the Statewide Health Council remarks, whose suggestions would modify the basis for calculation of need found in the HRS rule with more emphasis being placed on the adjustment for poverty. Those suggestions for health planning are not controlling. The HRS rule takes precedence. Consequently, those suggestions not being available to substitute for the HRS rule, Petitioner is left to demonstrate the "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the HRS rule and Section 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1985). Compliance per se with local and statewide planning ideas is required in the remaining instances where those precepts do not conflict with the HRS rule and statute concerning the need calculations by formula. Turning to the claim for an exception to the rule on need, the first argument is associated with the patient wishing to be located in Jackson County. This would be preferable but is not mandated. On the topic of this second reason for exceptions to the need formula, the matter is not so much a lack of accessibility to currently approved CON beds as it is an argument which is to the effect that there are no beds available be they licensed or approved. This theory is not convincing for reasons to be discussed, infra. Next, there is an extremely high rate of poverty in District II. It has the highest rate of poverty in the state. Moreover Subdistrict A to District II has an even greater degree of poverty and this equates to high Medicaid use and contributes to high occupancy. This coincides with the observation by the Big Bend Health Council when it takes issue with the HRS methodology rule concerning recognition of the significance of poverty within the HRS rule and the belief by the local health council that given the high poverty rates in District II some adjustments should be made to the need formula in the HRS rule. Under its theory, 161 additional beds would be needed at the planning horizon for July 1990 in Subdistrict A. Concerning the attempt by the applicant to make this rationalization its own, the record does not reflect reason to defer to the Big Bend Health Council theory as an exception to the normal poverty adjustment set forth in the HRS rule. When the applicant describes the effects of the out-of-state patients, in particularly those from Alabama in what some have described as in-migration, it argues that Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code makes no allowance for those influences. The applicant chooses to describe these beds, the beds used by out-of-state residents, as unavailable or Inaccessible. This concept of inaccessibility is one which departs from the definition of inaccessibility set forth at Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code. The specific exception to the requirement for compliance with the numeric need methodology in demonstration of a net need is set forth in that reference, and the proof presented did not show entitlement to the benefits of that exception. That leaves the applicant arguing in favor of recognition of its entitlement to a certificate of need premised upon a theory not specifically announced in that reference. This is the in-migration idea. It ties in the basic idea of poverty but does not depend on rigid adherence to the Big Bend Health Council idea of a substitute element in the HRS needs formula related to poverty. It also promotes the significance of problems which a number of physicians, who testified by deposition in this case, observed when attempting to place patients in the subject nursing home and other nursing homes in the surrounding area. They found high occupancy rates in the present facility and others within Subdistrict A to District II. These problems with placement as described by the physicians can have short term adverse effects on the patient and the family members, but they are not sufficient reason to grant the certification. In considering the formula for deriving need as promulgated by HRS, the proof does not seem to suggest that the nursing home residents themselves who came from out-of-state are excluded from the population census for Florida. On the other hand, unlike the situation in Florida in which the population at large is considered in trying to anticipate future nursing home bed needs, it make no assumptions concerning the Alabama population at large. Ultimately, it becomes a question of whether this unknown factor, given the history of migration of patients from Alabama into Florida and in particular into the subject nursing home, together with other relevant considerations, may properly form the basis for granting the certificate of need to the applicant. It is concluded that there is a fundamental difference in the situation found within this application compared to other planning areas within Florida which do not have to contend with the level of poverty, the proximity to Alabama and the advent of Alabama placements in this nursing home, the high occupancy rates in the subdistrict and the resulting difficulty in placement of patients near their homes. Posed against this troublesome circumstance is the fact that the applicant has failed to use its 30 approved beds or to make a decision for such use, that it had invited and continues to invite the placement of Alabama residents through the referral arrangements with the two Dothan, Alabama hospitals, realizing that such an arrangement tends to exclude opportunities for Florida residents to some extent, and the recognition that patients are being placed; that is patients are not going without nursing home care. The two Alabama hospitals with whom the applicant has referral agreements provide a substantial number of the patients who are admitted. This recount acknowledges what the ownership considers to be their obligation in law and morally to serve the interest of all patients without regard for their home of origin; however, the thrust of the certificate of need licensing process in Florida is to develop the apparatus necessary to service the needs of Florida residents, not Alabama residents. This does not include the necessity of trying to redress the circumstance which appears to exist in Alabama in which the government in that state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its citizens. On balance, the applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient reason to depart from the normal requirements of statute and rule, which departure would have as much benefit for Alabama residents as it would for Florida Residents. Contrary to the applicant's assertions it could legitimately de-emphasize its association with Alabama. It has chosen not to and should not be indulged In this choice in an enterprise which is not sufficiently related to the needs of Florida residents to condone the licensure of the beds sought, even when other factors described are taken into account. The applicant has also alluded to a certificate of need request made by Walton County Convalescent Center, a Brookwood facility in District I which sought a certificate of need in the same batch which pertains to the present applicant. The application and the review and comment by HRS may be found within Composite Exhibit 2 by the Petitioner admitted as evidence. Petitioner asserts that the Walton County experience in which 32 beds were granted is so similar to the present case that it would be inappropriate for the agency to act inconsistently in denying the present applicant after having granted a certificate of need to the Walton County applicant. Without making a line-by- line comparison, it suffices to say that in many respects these projects are similar. In other respects they are not. On the whole, it cannot be found that the agency is acting unfairly in denying the present applicant while granting a certificate to the applicant in the Walton County case. The differences are substantial enough to allow the agency to come to the conclusion that the present applicant should be denied and the applicant in Walton County should have its certificate granted. Likewise, no procedural impropriety on the part of HRS in its review function has been shown.
The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 3rd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Wright is a licensed practical nurse in Florida, holding license number PN 185281. In accordance with her licensure, Wright worked as a practical nurse at Manor Care Nursing Center in Jacksonville, Florida. On January 15, 1991, patient R.B. was admitted to Manor Care for recovery from multiple factures and organic brain damage. R.B. was receiving nourishment, Jevity, through a nasogastric tube (NGT). On January 18, 1991, at approximately 5:00 p.m., R.B. removed the NGT. R.B.'s mental confusion was such that she would attempt to remove the NGT regularly and mittens were used to prevent this behavior. Wright was the nurse responsible for R.B.'s care from approximately 4:00 p.m. to midnight on January 18, 1991. She recorded R.B.'s removal of the NGT. At some point thereafter, registered nurse Rosalina Harrell came and reinserted the NGT. At 9:30 p.m., Wright's notes indicate that R.B. was coughing and that she checked the placement of the NGT. Placement is checked to insure that the tube is inserted into the stomach and not into the trachea and lungs. According to Wright's notes and testimony, she discontinued feeding to give R.B. a rest, even though the placement checks were negative, meaning that the checks did not show that the tube was in the trachea or lungs. Wright restarted the feeding of Jevity (a white liquid food supplement). At 10:30 p.m., Wright's notes showed that R.B. was coughing up "large" amounts of white frothy phlegm. Wright again held the tube feeding for a short time. Another practical nurse, Margaret Patti, came on duty to replace Wright as the nurse in charge of R.B.'s care. In discussing R.B.'s condition with Wright, Wright informed Patti that R.B. had been coughing since the tube was inserted by Harrell. Wright said she did not remove the tube because she was not sure it was indeed in the wrong place. Wright and Patti then both did one test for placement and it was negative to show that the tube was incorrectly placed . Wright then did two other tests while Patti was out of the room, but she reported to Patti that those tests were also negative. Because of the concerns expressed by Wright, Patti monitored R.B. closely after Wright left around midnight. Patti observed some coughing and white sputum between 11:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., January 19, 1991. Again at 2:00 a.m. Patti recorded the R.B. was coughing and there was a moderate amount of white sputum present. Then the coughing became continuous and Patti removed the NGT. At 4:00 a.m., Patti recorded that R.B.'s respirations were even and unlabored and that tube feeding remained discontinued. At 5:00 a.m., Patti was advised by the nursing assistant that R.B. had no respiration or heartbeat. Patti called the doctor at 5:40 and R.B. was dead. An autopsy revealed that R.B. had died from asphyxia due to aspiration of Jevity. The lungs were full of Jevity and the bronchioles were plugged by the soft white material. There was nothing in R.B.'s stomach. As it relates to Wright's actions that night, at no time did Wright call a supervisor, registered nurse or doctor to express concern about the placement of the NGT or to indicate the presence of coughing or a white frothy substance around R.B.'s mouth. The presence of coughing and white frothy sputum or phlegm around the mouth is a danger sign that the NGT is in the trachea instead of the stomach. The minimum standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires that a licensed practical nurse report coughing or frothiness to her supervisor or to an R.N. If the practical nurse did not place the tube, she should contact the person who did insert the tube. If no one is available, then the practical nurse should remove the tube and contact the supervisor, an R.N., or the doctor, by telephone. There is no other acceptable level of care except to stop the food immediately and then report the coughing and presence of white frothy sputum to the appropriate person. At Manor Care that night, no supervisor or R.N. was on the premises, but Wright made no attempt to reach anyone by telephone regarding the situation. Wright's failure to meet these minimum standards of care constitutes unprofessional conduct as that term is defined in Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1991).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Issue a reprimand to Geraldine McNeal Wright. Place Wright on probation for six months subject to attendance at continuing education courses relative to the omissions in this case, to include a review of danger signs and appropriate responses in patients with nasogastric tubes and a refresher on the appropriate administration of procedures for checking the placement of such a tube. Impose a fine of $100. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4573 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-7(1-5); 7(7); 9(12); 10(10); 11(11); 12(11); and 15(12 & 16). [Note--There are two different sets of paragraphs numbered 7, 8, and 9. A review of the actual Finding of Fact will clarify to which paragraph these specific rulings apply.] Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 8, and 14 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13 and 16 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Geraldine McNeal Wright As indicated above, Wright's proposed findings of fact are in a form which does not permit clear specific rulings. Those proposed findings of fact which are based on the documents attached to the proposed order, which were not part of the evidentiary record, are rejected. Additionally, those proposals which constitute argument are rejected. The proposed findings of fact which are consistent with the facts found herein are adopted. All other proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Faircloth Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Geraldine McNeal Wright 7925 Merrill Road, Apt. 216 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 E. Coastline Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to practice nursing 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 Rita Flint (Flint) was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number PN0655201. Flint's last known address is 6494 South West 8th Place, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. At all times material to this proceeding Flint was employed by North Broward Medical Center (NBMC) located in Pompano Beach, Florida, as a practical nurse. On August 3, 1990, Flint was assigned to care for patients J. C. and J. K. including administering their medications and charting same on their Medication Administration Record (MAR). On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed one (1) nitroglycerine patch each day. Flint failed to administer the patch on this date. On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed 100 mg. of Norpace every six (6) hours. Flint failed to administer the 2:00 p.m. dosage of Norpace to J. C. On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed 120 mg. of Inderal each day. Flint failed to administer the 9:00 a.m. dosage of Inderal until 1:30 p.m. without noting any explanation on J. C.'s MAR. On August 3, 1990, Flint failed to document the administration of J. K's own medications on the MAR. On August 3, 1990, Flint failed to sign the MARs for J. C. and J. K. as required by hospital policy. On August 15, 1990, Flint left an intravenous bag with an exposed needle hanging at the bedside of a patient. On August 29, 1990, Flint was assigned to care for patient R. R. including administering his medications. Flint failed to administer the following medications leaving all of them at R. R.'s bedside: (a) Timolo (9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. doses); (b) Mixide (9:00 a.m. dose); (c) Zantac (9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. doses); (d) Lasix (9:00 a.m. dose); and, (e) Entozyme (8:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon doses). On August 30, 1990, NBMC terminated Flint's employment as a result of the aforementioned conduct. There is no evidence that any patient suffered any actual harm as a result of Flint's errors. In September of 1990, NBMC referred Flint to the Intervention Project for Nurses. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Flint's job performance was adversely affected by long work schedules necessitated by severe financial problems. During the week of August 3, 1990, Flint worked a ninety-two-hour week. The acute financial stress was due to domestic problems including the breakup of her twenty-two-year-old marriage. Flint had no problems involving substance abuse. Flint attended individual therapy sessions with a clinical psychologist, Priscilla Marotta, Ph.D., and participated in group therapy designed primarily for persons with substance abuse problems. Flint attended weekly therapy sessions for approximately one month after which she could no longer afford treatment. Even though Flint was financially unable to continue treatment with Dr. Marotta or any other counseling program recommended by the Intervention Program for Nurses, she diligently undertook a self-help program to educate herself on stress management techniques, to develop self-reliance, and to improve self-esteem. Flint's effort to participate in therapy, to the extent financially possible, and to rehabilitate herself shows a strong commitment to her profession. Flint has been licensed to practice nursing since May 31, 1982. There is no evidence of any disciplinary action against her license prior to or after the incidents herein described. Flint is currently employed as a nurse in a hospice. Her recent performance appraisal reports indicate that, on an average, she fully meets all job requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 464.018(h), Florida Statutes (1989), as defined in Rule 210-10.005(1)(e)1 and Rule 210-10.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, and not guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Board's final order: (1) place the Respondent on probation for one year subject to such requirements as the Board may require; and (2) require the Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250). DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November 1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 21st day of November 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-2715 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Incorporated into Findings of Fact 1. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 6. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 7. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 8. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 9. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 10. The first sentence is incorporated into Findings of Fact 13. The remaining portion of this proposed fact is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Furthermore, Respondent's Exhibit 3, as it relates to a diagnosis of a mental condition, is hearsay which does not supplement or explain any other psychological or medical evidence. Thus, any reference in Exhibit R3 to a generalized anxiety disorder is insufficient to support Petitioner's proposed finding. Unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Unsupported by competent substantial evidence. See number 10 above. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. Respondent did file proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura Gaffney, Esquire Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rita Flint 3313 South East Second Street Pompano, Florida 33063 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing AHCA 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harold D. Lewis General Counsel The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's license as a registered nurse should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for submitting employment applications which contained false information and for unprofessional conduct in the performance of her duties as a nurse. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses Janet Brown, Wilma Green, E. Jean King, Susan Coffin Brennan, Mary Ann Cottrell, and Mary Sheffield. The Respondent testified on her own behalf and was the only witness called by the Respondent. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence, ten exhibits and the Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence, seven exhibits. Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are consistent with the findings made in this order, the proposed findings were adopted by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions of law are not consistent with this order, they were considered by the Hearing Officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The facts set-forth in paragraphs 1 through 4 below were stipulated to by the parties and are found as facts: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 67142-2. Respondent filled out and filed the applications for licensure as a registered nurse, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent did fill out and file the applications for employment as a nurse, Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 2 through 9. Respondent did falsify her date of birth, age, and date of graduation from nursing school on her applications for employment as a nurse, Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 2 through 9. This was done by Respondent on the recommendation of an employment agency initially, and was done in order to obtain employment. On or about April 8, 1982, Respondent filled out and submitted an employment application for work as a nurse to Lakeview Nursing Center. (Petitioner s Exhibit No. 2). The application reflected that Respondent obtained her R.N. degree from Bellevue Hospital in 1948. That information is false. The Respondent received her R.N. degree in 1939. On or about March 11, 1983, Respondent filled out and submitted an employment application for work as a nurse to Leesburg General Hospital, Leesburg, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3). That application reflects a date of birth of December 24, 1932 and the date June, 1948 as the year Respondent received her nursing degree. This information is false in that Respondent's date of birth is September 29, 1918, and the year she received her nursing degree was June, 1939. On or about January 25, 1982, Respondent filled out and submitted an application for employment as a registered nurse to Sanford Nursing and Convalescent Center, Inc., Sanford, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4). That application reflected a date of birth of December 24, 1932 and the year 1948 as the year in which Respondent obtained her R.N. degree. The date of birth and year of graduation are false. On or about May 28, 1980, Respondent filled out and submitted an application for employment as Director of Nursing at Orlando Memorial Convalescent Center, Orlando, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). That application reflected that Respondent graduated from Bellevue Hospital School of Nursing in 1948. That information is false in that she graduated in 1939. On or about February 13, 1980, the Respondent filled out and submitted an application for employment as a nurse to Quality Care, a nursing service (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6). That application contained a false date of birth of December 24, 1932 and a false year of graduation from Bellevue Hospital School of Nursing of 1948. On or about January 23, 1980, Respondent filled out and submitted to the Physician's Registry an application for employment as a nurse (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). That application reflected an age of 47 and date of birth of January 24, 1932. This information is false. On or about January 8, 1980, the Respondent filled out and submitted an application for employment as a nurse to Medox, Inc. That information reflected a birth date of December 24, 1932 and a year of graduation from Bellevue Hospital as 1948 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8). This birthdate and year of graduation are false. On or about January 19, 1978, Respondent filled out and submitted an application for employment as a nurse to Dr. P. Phillips Memorial Nursing Home, Orlando, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9). That application reflected an incorrect birthdate of December 24, 1932 and reflected that Respondent attended Bellevue Hospital School of Nursing from 1945 to 1948. Respondent actually attended Bellevue Hospital from 1936 to 1939. During March, 1982, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. Janet Gillespie Brown, also a registered nurse, was assigned to act as Respondent's preceptor during Respondent's orientation at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. As her preceptor Ms. Brown trained as well as supervised Respondent's work during her orientation period. During the time she was employed at Leesburg Regional Medical Center, the Respondent used improper procedures in attempting to insert a foley catheter into a female patient. in cleansing the meatus to remove bacteria the Respondent used a scrubbing technique rather than a wiping technique. This was improper antiseptic technique. The Respondent then attempted to insert the catheter by probing. This also was improper. Upon observing these improper techniques Janet Brown instructed Respondent to make no further attempts to insert the catheter and told her to wait whale she obtained a sterile foley kit which she would insert herself. Respondent did not do as she had been instructed and inserted the catheter after Nurse Brown left the patient's room to obtain the sterile foley kit. After Nurse Brown returned and discovered the catheter had been inserted against her instructions, she went outside the patient's room with Respondent and explained to her that the catheter she inserted was contaminated as a result of the probing. Respondent agreed and explained that she had not performed this procedure for awhile. The ability to properly insert such catheters is a basic nursing skill. No infection resulted from the improper insertion of the catheter by Respondent. Also while employed at Leesburg Regional Medical Center the Respondent failed to properly chart food intake of patients in that she charted each item of food consumed rather than charting percentages of food consumed as she had been instructed. Respondent also failed to properly chart the progress of a stroke patient by failing to chart that the patient had been making attempts to verbally communicate. The Respondent failed to properly organize her time, appeared unable to properly assess patient progress by asking appropriate questions and recording the patient's response, and failed to complete daily assignments such as bed baths and picking up food trays. Respondent did not feel capable of starting an IV (intravenous). Although starting an IV was not considered to be a skill required of Respondent by Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Respondent was unable to change the tubing on an IV and this was a skill expected of her. Respondent was also unable to give accurate counts of the remaining amount of solution in patients' IVs. On one occasion Respondent failed to properly chart the time of the doctor's visit and apparently "switched" the time. Respondent increased the IV flow for a patient as requested by the doctor, but charted the doctor's visit as having occurred later than the time at which she increased the IV. While working at Leesburg Regional Medical Center the Respondent failed to meet the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. During the first part of February, 1982, Respondent was employed as a relief charge nurse at Sanford Nursing and Convalescent Center, Sanford, Florida. Ms. E. Jean King, R.N. was a charge nurse at Sanford Nursing and Convalescent Center and was assigned to assist in Respondent's orientation. While at Sanford Nursing and Convalescent Center, Respondent was observed by Ms. King to be very confused and very disorganized in her work. She could not remember patients' names and in passing out medications failed to medicate some patients. Then asked whether or not a particular patient had been given medication, Respondent became confused and indicated she could not remember whether or not the medication had been given. In taking a phone order from a doctor the Respondent wrote the wrong order on a sheet of paper and could not then remember what medication had in fact been ordered. This necessitated calling the doctor back and having the order repeated. Respondent also administered medications without first taking the pulse and blood pressure of the patient as required. Respondent required much more supervision than the other nurses under Ms. King's supervision. Respondent's performance and nursing practice at Sanford Nursing and Convalescent Center failed to meet the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice in Florida. On January 12 and January 27, 1980, Respondent as an employee of Medox, Inc., was assigned to Florida Hospital in Orlando, Florida. At the time she reported for work Respondent was informed by Ms. Ann Cottrell, R.N. (Head Nurse in Special Care at Florida Hospital) about what her responsibilities would be during her shift as team leader in the progressive care unit. The duties outlined to Respondent included responsibility for the administration of IV medications, antiequivalent drugs, insulin and any other specific procedures not within the job description of the licensed practical nurses. Respondent was also instructed that she was responsible for ordering IV medications that were to be administered for the next twenty-four (24) hours, that she was to make rounds with the physicians and observe and report the patients' conditions, and that at the end of the shift she was responsible for making certain that all charts were signed off, the doctor's orders were signed off, and any pertinent information included in the nurse's notes. During the course of the day Ms. Cottrell checked back with Respondent several times and asked if she understood her responsibilities and whether she was having any problems. Each time Respondent indicated that she knew what she was doing and had done it many times. During the course of the day the Respondent failed to make a complete report on the patients and as a result, the three to eleven shift was unable to determine what had happened during the day with regard to the patients for which Respondent was responsible. Medications had not been charted properly and many of the notes entered by Respondent were irrelevant to the patient's progress. Respondent also failed to insure that EKG strips for which she was responsible had been read. Ms. Cottrell, a registered nurse, was qualified to express an opinion as to the prevailing standards of nursing practice in Florida. She testified that in her opinion the Respondent was not qualified to work in an acute care area as a nurse and that her performance of her duties at Florida Hospital failed to meet the minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice in the State of Florida. This opinion is accepted by the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license as a registered nurse be suspended for a period of three (3) months. It is further RECOMMENDED that upon completion of the three-month suspension period, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year working only under the supervision of another licensed nurse and upon such other conditions as the Board may specify. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur Baron, Esquire Attorney at Law 14 East Washington, Ste. 623 Orlando, Florida 32801 Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Florida Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license to practice nursing should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(h),Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Department of Health (Petitioner) is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapters 20, 120, 455 and 464, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer (Respondent), is now and was at all times material hereto a Licensed Practical Nurse (L.P.N.) in the State of Florida having been issued license no. PN 0448611 in accordance with Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent was employed at Imperial Village Care Center as a L.P.N. for approximately three and one-half years prior to February 21, 1996. Sometime in December 1995 or January 1996, while working the day shift as the floor nurse on Canterbury Hall of the Care Center, Respondent was assigned to care for patient, G. C. Patient, G. C., was an elderly patient who suffered from dementia and other ailments and was not ambulatory. G. C. had contractions of her left leg and left arm and any movement of those extremities caused her pain. G. C. was transported in a wheelchair and screamed, kicked, yelled, hit,and pinched anyone who tried to move her or give her treatment. On the date of the alleged incident, Respondent was ordered to medicate G. C., because she suffered from decubites (bed sores) on the heel of her foot. Respondent was assisted by a C.N.A. who picked up G. C. and placed her on her bed. G. C. became very agitated and began to scream, yell, scratch, hit and pinch Respondent and the C.N.A. Respondent attempted to apply medication to the affected area. While doing so, Respondent wore a protective mitten, used to protect staff from aggressive patients. During this time, the mitten was seen by the C.N.A. in the patient's mouth. The testimony is unclear if Respondent was wiping the saliva from patient's mouth with it, or if Respondent stuffed it in her mouth. The hearsay statement signed by Respondent, but prepared by the Director of Nursing, who did not testify, is not helpful in clarifying what happened. The statement was prepared approximately two months after the alleged incident by a person not present during the incident, and contained matters extraneous to this matter. Respondent has no prior criminal or disciplinary history and denies that she abused the patient in any way. No qualified testimony was offered to prove that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standard of acceptable nursing practice in the treatment of patient, G. C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing find the Respondent not guilty of the charge in the Administrative Complaint, dated September 20, 1996, and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams, & Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive East Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer Route 2, Box 810 Waynesville, Georgia 31566 Pete Peterson Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marilyn Bloss, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
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
