The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional from June 13, 2001, through July 11, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 710 North Sun Drive, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted a complaint investigation on June 13, 2001 (the "June survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the complaint investigation on the Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "tags"). Each tag of the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F314 is the only allegation at issue in this proceeding. Tag F314 generally provides that a facility must ensure that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless they were unavoidable; and the resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. Tag F314, in relevant part, alleges that the facility: . . . did not insure the prevention of pressure sore development or provide that necessary treatment for pressure sores which had developed in the case of one of four residents. Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign a rating to the deficiency alleged in the 2567. The rating required by federal law is for scope and severity. Petitioner assigned a G rating to Tag F314. A G rating means that the alleged deficiency was "isolated." State law requires Petitioner to assign a class rating. Petitioner assigned a Class II rating to the deficiency alleged in Tag 314. A Class II rating is authorized in Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), for any deficiency that has "compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services." The Class II rating is the only rating at issue in this proceeding. (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.) When Petitioner alleges a Class II deficiency in the 2567, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of the facility's license. Effective June 12, 2001, Petitioner changed to rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey on July 11, 2001 (the "July survey"). Petitioner determined that Respondent had corrected the deficiency alleged in Tag F 314 in June. Effective July 11, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The Class II rating from Petitioner rests on the allegations in Tag 314. The first allegation is that Respondent did not prevent the development of a pressure sore on the right buttock of Resident 1. The second allegation is that the facility failed to provide the treatment necessary to treat the pressure sore. The facility admitted Resident 1 on October 19, 2000. Between the date of admission and June 4, 2001, Resident 1 did not develop any pressure sores. However, on June 4, 2001, a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") noticed an open area on the resident’s right buttock while showering the resident. The CNA notified the attending nurse. A threshold issue is whether the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore or a blister caused by incontinence and chafing from the resident's diaper. The nursing staff described the identified area on a document in the resident’s medical chart called a "pressure ulcer report." Petitioner contends that the use of a "pressure ulcer report" by Respondent is an admission by Respondent and that Respondent has the burden to prove that the area was not a pressure sore. However, the burden of proof is on Petitioner to show that the area of concern is a pressure sore. Petitioner promulgates a written definition of a pressure sore in the guidelines that Petitioner requires its surveyors to use in interpreting the regulatory standard of Tag F314. Petitioner defines a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. Section 120.68(7)(e)3 prohibits Petitioner from deviating from its officially stated policy unless Petitioner explains the deviation. Petitioner failed to provide any evidence for deviating from its written definition of a pressure sore. Ischemic ulceration or necrosis of tissue that has been subjected to pressure, friction, or sheer is not a pressure sore, as defined by Petitioner, if the area does not overlie a bony prominence. The parties disagree as to the location of the area of concern on Resident 1. Petitioner's surveyor is an expert in nursing practices and procedures. She observed the area of concern on Resident 1 during the June survey. The surveyor testified at the hearing that the area of concern was located over the resident’s ischial tuberosity; i.e., the bone on which the resident placed her weight when she sat. The facility's director of nurses is also an expert in nursing practices and procedures. The director observed the area immediately after the survey and testified that it was located in the fleshy part of the resident’s buttocks and was not over any bony prominence. The preponderance of evidence did not show that the area of concern on Resident 1 was located over a bony prominence. The area of concern was located in the same location as the elastic band of the diaper that the resident wore for her incontinence. The area of concern was likely caused by the combination of the resident’s incontinence and chafing from the diaper. The pressure ulcer report prepared by the nursing staff contains the outline of a human body on which the nursing staff marked the location of the area of concern on Resident 1 when staff first identified the area. The report shows that the area of concern is located in the fleshy part of the resident’s right buttock. The report did not indicate that the area of concern was located in the area on which the resident would have placed her weight when she was seated or prone. Even if the area of concern were located at the ischial tuberosity other factors belie a diagnosis of pressure sore. Pressure sores typically involve deep tissue damage, have drainage and odor, and require a long time to heal. The pressure ulcer report indicated that the area identified on the resident was small in size, had scant odor and no drainage, and healed by July 3, 2001. All of the surrounding facts and circumstances indicate that the area of concern on Resident 1 was not a pressure sore but was a blister caused by chafing from the diaper the resident wore for her incontinence. The "pressure ulcer report" for Resident 1 classified the area of concern as a stage II. A stage II involves a partial thickness loss of skin layers either dermis or epidermis that presents clinically as an abrasion, blister or shallow crater. The area was further described in the report as being 0.7 by 0.7 centimeters in size with scant serous drainage, no odor, and pink in appearance. The director of nurses testified that the area presented as a "dry blister." Assuming arguendo that the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore, there are two additional issues to be determined. One issue is whether development of the alleged pressure sore was unavoidable due to the resident’s clinical conditions. The other issue is whether the facility failed to provide the treatment and services necessary to promote healing after the alleged pressure sore developed. Petitioner promulgates guidelines for Tag F324 for use by surveyors in determining whether a pressure sore is unavoidable. The guidelines state in relevant part: . . . a determination that development of a pressure sore was unavoidable may be made only if routine preventative and daily care was provided [by the nursing home]. The guidelines define routine preventative care as: . . . turning and proper positioning, application of pressure reduction or relief devices, providing good skin care, providing clean and dry bed linens, and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration as possible. The guidelines instruct surveyors to determine whether a facility complies with the foregoing standards "consistently" rather than one hundred per cent of the time. When the facility admitted Resident 1 in October, 2000, she was immobile and had several compromising diagnoses. They included atrial fibrillation; chronic ischemic heart disease and coronary atherosclerosis (diseases of the heart and arteries); abnormal loss of weight; angina pectoris; senile dementia; a kidney infection; and incontinence of both bowel and bladder. The clinical conditions placed Resident 1 at high risk for the development of pressure sores. The surveyor guidelines for Tag F314 state that a resident who is immobile, has continuous urinary incontinence, chronic bowel incontinence, and chronic heart disease is at high risk for the development of pressure sores. At the time of admission, the nursing staff at the facility assessed Resident 1 as being at risk for the development of pressure sores due to her incontinence and immobility. They designed a care plan to prevent the development of pressure sores. The care plan included frequent turning and repositioning of the resident, weekly skin assessments by a nurse, skin checks during care and bathing, and prompt incontinence care. The parties agree that the interventions in the care plan met the regulatory requirements for preventative care under Tag F314. With one exception, Petitioner does not allege that the facility failed to provide routine preventative care to the resident. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not perform weekly skin checks for three weeks in May preceding the identification of the area of concern on Resident 1. However, the failure to perform those skin checks did not cause Resident 1 to develop a pressure sore. A weekly skin check is a head-to-toe assessment of a resident’s skin by a nurse. Since a nurse can only observe a pressure sore after it has appeared on a resident, this assessment is not preventative in nature. Instead, it is designed to assure that appropriate and immediate treatment can be provided to the area after a reddened area develops. Even if weekly examinations of a resident’s skin were an integral part of a plan intended to prevent the development of pressure sores on Resident 1, the facility necessarily exceeded this standard with regard to the resident’s right buttock where the area of concern actually occurred. Facility staff observed the resident’s buttock more than once a day when the resident received incontinence care, bath, or showers. Consistently through May and June, the resident’s chart shows that the resident was incontinent at least three times a day and that she received a partial bath or full shower at least once a day. On June 4, 2001, facility staff in fact observed a reddened area during the resident's shower. Petitioner submitted no evidence that the facility could or should have been observing the resident’s buttock more frequently than its staff actually did or that the area could have been identified any earlier. The preponderance of evidence shows that the facility consistently implemented the component of its care plan that required monitoring of the resident’s buttock. The care plan for Resident 1 included two other primary components to prevent pressure sores. One component was prompt incontinence care. The other was turning and repositioning of the resident every two hours to relieve pressure over areas susceptible to breakdown. Petitioner alleges that the facility failed to comply with these components during the June survey. Proving that a facility consistently turns and repositions a resident and provides prompt incontinence care is problematic for a facility. Those interventions are routine care. There is no regulation or standard that requires nurses to chart routine care. Because these interventions are not typically charted, a nursing home will not typically have documentary evidence to demonstrate that the interventions were provided to a resident. The facility provided sufficient evidence to show that the interventions of repositioning and prompt incontinence care were provided to Resident 1 during the June survey. The facility provided incontinence care to the resident at least three times a day. With regard to turning and repositioning the resident, the director of nursing testified that she saw staff turning and repositioning the resident prior to the survey. Resident 1 was at high risk of developing pressure sores. If staff had not consistently turned and repositioned the resident and provided prompt incontinence care, it is more likely than not that the resident would have developed serious pressure ulcers on most or all of her weight bearing surfaces. The appearance of one small area on the resident and the absence of any other areas over any bony prominence is persuasive evidence that the facility consistently turned and repositioned the resident and consistently provided her with prompt incontinence care. The final issue is whether the facility provided the treatment to Resident 1 that is necessary for healing of the alleged pressure sore. Petitioner agrees that the facility developed an appropriate care plan for the identified area immediately upon its discovery. An order in the care plan developed after discovery of the alleged pressure sore called for application of a duoderm patch to the wound. Petitioner alleges that the facility did not follow the order because the surveyor observed no patch on the resident during the survey. It is more likely than not that the duoderm patch came off of Resident 1 during an episode of incontinence prior to the time that the surveyor observed the resident. Duoderm patches commonly come off when a resident has an incontinent episode. Regardless of why the patch was not on Resident 1 during the survey, the absence of the patch one time during the survey does not demonstrate that staff consistently failed to comply with the order calling for the patch. The instance observed by Petitioner's surveyor was the only instance identified by the surveyor as a failure to follow the resident's care plan. The resident’s medication administration records demonstrate that facility staff applied the duoderm patch in all other instances in compliance with the doctor’s order. Furthermore, the facility continued to provide the routine preventative care called for by the care plan. Petitioner did not show that the facility consistently failed to follow the care plan for Resident 1 as alleged in Tag F314. The area of concern on Resident 1 healed quickly and progressively after it was discovered. Petitioner offered no evidence that the alleged pressure sore did not heal or that the resident was otherwise harmed as a result of the failure to place a duoderm patch on the resident on June 13, 2001. The pressure ulcer report and nurse’s notes indicate that the wound healed by July 3, 2001. The records noted with each successive entry after June 4, 2001, that the area was smaller in size. The area demonstrated characteristics of healing, including the absence of any odor or drainage, and pink granulating tissue. Resident 1 was at high risk for pressure sores, and pressure sores do not typically heal quickly. The progressive pattern of healing indicates that the facility provided the necessary and effective treatment for the area of concern on Resident 1.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order finding that there was no basis upon which the agency could have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on June 13, 2001, deleting the deficiency described under Tag F314, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Eileen O'Hara Garcia Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North Sebring Building, Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue DOAH Case No. 01-3148: Whether the Respondent's licensure status should be reduced from standard to conditional. DOAH Case No. 01-4649: Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 15, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nursing home facilities, including ensuring that nursing homes are in compliance with criteria established by Florida statute. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2001). AHCA is authorized in Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes, to impose administrative fines on nursing home facilities that fail to meet the applicable criteria. Florence Treakle conducted surveys of Life Care on May 9, 2001, and June 12, 2001, as a result of complaints received by AHCA. Because the surveys were conducted as a result of complaints received by AHCA, Ms. Treakle was the only AHCA surveyor conducting the surveys. The results of the surveys were reported on a form identified as "HCFA-2567," which is generated by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, and is commonly referred to as a "Form 2567." Several deficiencies were identified in the Form 2567s completed for the May 9, 2001, and June 12, 2001, surveys, which were each cited to a federal "tag number" designated as "F" tags,1 to the applicable provision of the Code of Federal Regulations, and to the applicable Florida administrative rule. Each deficiency was also classified under Florida law as either a Class II or a Class III deficiency, and a factual narrative was included to support each deficiency cited. May 9, 2001, survey.2 The Form 2567 for the May 9, 2001, survey included a citation for a Class III deficiency under F-279, "Resident Assessment," and Section 483.13(c), Code of Federal Regulations. This citation involved the care provided to residents L.D. and A.M. and was supported by the assertion that, "[b]ased on observation and record review[,] . . . the facility did not have comprehensive care plans in place for healing of the residents [sic] pressure sores." A care plan is a tool used by the nursing staff to ensure that the resident is getting consistent care and is compiled from data included in a resident's Comprehensive Assessment. An entry in a care plan includes the identification of a problem, a goal for resolving or improving the problem, and the approaches, or means, to be used to reach the goal. Resident L.D. L.D. came into Life Care with pressure ulcers, including a Stage IV pressure ulcer3 on his coccyx, which is located at the bottom of the backbone. L.D. was receiving wound care both at Life Care and at a wound care center pursuant to a physician's order dated April 4, 2001, which contained the following requirement: "[O]ffload[] all boni [sic] prominences as much as possible." In accordance with this order, L.D. was turned and repositioned in bed every two hours, and he was provided with a special, pressure-relieving mattress. L.D. was a very quiet person, but he had no cognitive impairment and was able to communicate his needs to staff. L.D.'s wife visited him every day; she usually arrived in mid-morning and left in mid-afternoon, and she returned for a few hours in the evening. Both L.D. and his wife made it clear to the Life Care staff that L.D. wanted to sit in a wheelchair as much as possible so that he could move around the facility, take walks outdoors with his wife, and have his meals sitting up. L.D. used a special, high-backed wheelchair that he provided for his use while he was a resident of Life Care. The chair reclined so that pressure on his coccyx could be relieved somewhat, and Life Care furnished him a gel cushion for his wheelchair, also to help relieve pressure on his coccyx. On May 9, 2001, Ms. Treakle observed L.D. sitting in his wheelchair for over two hours, from 10:20 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. She found nothing in L.D.'s Care Plan regarding the amount of time L.D. would be permitted to sit in a wheelchair. Resident A.M. A.M. entered Life Care with a Stage III pressure ulcer on his left buttock. A.M. was receiving wound care at Life Care in accordance with the approaches included in his Care Plan. A.M. was not cognitively impaired, and he could communicate his needs to staff. His granddaughter and one year-old great-grandson visited him every day, and he enjoyed sitting outside in a wheelchair with his great-grandson on his lap. A.M. also liked to spend most of his time outside his room, moving himself around the facility in a wheelchair. Life Care provided a gel cushion for his wheelchair to help relieve pressure on A.M.'s buttock. On May 9, 2001, Ms. Treakle observed A.M. sitting in a wheelchair from 2:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. A.M.'s Care Plan did not contain an entry establishing the amount of time A.M. would be permitted to sit in a wheelchair. Summary. AHCA has failed to establish by even the greater weight of the evidence that the Care Plans developed for L.D. and A.M. were deficient. AHCA failed to present credible evidence of the contents of L.D.'s Care Plan,4 but the evidence is uncontroverted that L.D.'s wound care orders contained approaches for healing his pressure sores. A.M.'s Care Plan included several approaches for healing his pressure sores, and AHCA has not alleged that the required wound care was not provided to either L.D. or A.M. Rather, AHCA's specific complaint regarding the Care Plans of L.D. and A.M. is that there was no approach specifying the amount of time L.D. and A.M. would be permitted to sit in their wheelchairs. This complaint is based exclusively on the expectations of Ms. Treakle. Ms. Treakle expected to find this approach in the Care Plans because, in her opinion, pressure on the coccyx and buttocks can never be completely relieved when a resident is sitting,5 and any pressure on a pressure ulcer impedes healing because it decreases blood flow to an area. Accordingly, Ms. Treakle "would expect good practice would [sic] be for the Care Plan to indicate how long the resident was going to sit on this pressure sore."6 AHCA did not, however, submit any evidence of a standard of care requiring that the duration of time a resident can sit in a wheelchair be included as an approach in the care plan of a resident with a pressure ulcer, especially when the resident is alert, mobile, and able to communicate with staff. June 12, 2001, survey. The Form 2567 for the June 12, 2001, survey cited Life Care for three deficiencies: A Class II deficiency was cited under F-224, "Staff Treatment of Residents," and Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), Code of Federal Regulations, involving the care provided to residents E.G. and N.D. and supported by the assertion that "[b]ased on observation, record review and interview[,] the facility did not monitor and supervise the delivery of care and services." A Class III deficiency was cited under F-279, "Resident Assessment," and Section 483.20(k), Code of Federal Regulations, supported by the assertion that, "[b]ased on review of the care plan for resident #1 [N.D.], . . . the facility did not complete a comprehensive care plan that was revised to reflect all fall risks." A Class II deficiency was cited under F-281, "Resident Assessment," and Section 483.20(k)(3)(i), Code of Federal Regulations, supported by the assertion that, "[b]ased on citations at F 224[,] F 279 and F 324[,] the facility nursing staff did not provide care that met professional standards for residents #1 [N.D.] and #2 [E.G.]." Resident E.G. Diabetes management. Pertinent to these proceedings, E.G. was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes; his blood sugar generally ranged from 150 to 270, which is in the mid-range, although it once reached 348. E.G. was alert, oriented, self-ambulatory, and somewhat grouchy. E.G.'s brother visited him about three times each week, and E.G. often left the facility with his brother for a meal. He did not adhere strictly to his diet, but often ate fried foods when he went out with his brother, and he kept a supply of orange juice in the small refrigerator in his room. Both fried foods and orange juice are contraindicated for diabetics. Pursuant to physician's orders, E.G.'s blood sugar was to be monitored four times a day, before each meal and at bedtime,7 and insulin was to be administered on a sliding scale, in an amount to be determined based on his blood sugar level. This order was transcribed on E.G.'s Medication Record, which, for each day of the month, included spaces for the time, the blood sugar level, the insulin coverage (the dosage expressed in number of units administered), and the site of injection, together with the initials of the staff member providing the care. Life Care staff also maintained glucose monitoring sheets, which included spaces for the date, the time, the blood sugar level, the dosage of insulin administered, and the initials of the staff member providing the care. There is no documentation in E.G.'s Medication Records, his glucose monitoring sheets, or the Nurses Notes that his blood sugar was checked at 11:30 a.m. on June 7, 2001. When his blood sugar was checked at 4:30 p.m. on June 7, it was 317, which is substantially higher than usual. For the 6:30 a.m. checks on June 2, 3, and 8, 2001, E.G.'s blood sugar level was documented and there are notations that insulin was given, but the dosages and sites of injection were not noted; E.G.'s blood sugar at the 11:30 a.m. checks on these days was either virtually the same as, or less than, the levels noted at the 6:30 a.m. checks. For the 6:30 a.m. check on June 4, 2001, E.G.'s blood sugar level was documented, but there is no notation that insulin was given; E.G.'s blood sugar at the 11:30 a.m. check on June 4 was less than the level noted at the 6:30 a.m. check. Wound Care. On June 5, 2001, a dermatologist removed a lesion from the top of E.G.'s left hand. The dermatologist prescribed Bactroban ointment, which was to be applied to the wound twice a day. Wound care instructions were included with the prescription, which provided as follows: Leave bandage on for 24 hours only without getting wet. Remove bandage after 24 hours and then do not apply another bandage. Leave the area open and clean the wound twice daily with warm water. Pat the wound dry and then apply Bactroban Ointment. Bactroban Ointment is a topical antibiotic that can be purchased without a prescription. Continue to do this until the wound has healed. Normal bathing can be resumed after the bandage is removed. Some redness and swelling are normal in the immediate area of the wound. If the wound develops significant redness, tenderness or a yellow drainage, please contact this office immediately . . . . A physician's order dated June 5, 2001, was written for E.G. for "Bactroban oint to wound on L hand, 45gm." The order did not state how often the ointment was to be applied or include the other instructions accompanying the prescription. The order was transcribed on E.G.'s Treatment Record on June 5, 2001, but the entry provided only that Bactroban ointment was to be applied to the wound once a day. There is nothing in E.G.'s Care Plan, Treatment Record, or Medication Record to document that his wound was treated between June 5 and June 12, 2001, nor was there any indication in E.G.'s chart that anyone signed for the Bactroban ointment. Marion Neuhaus, the Director of Nursing at Life Care at the times pertinent to these proceedings, observed E.G.'s wound every day because E.G. came to her office to show her the wound and other bumps and scrapes he accumulated as he walked around the facility. Ms. Neuhaus noted that the wound was scabbed, that there was a pink area around the wound, and that there was no swelling or drainage. Treatment was begun on the wound on June 12, 2001, and it healed without any complications. Summary. AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that Life Care did not provide E.G. with the wound care that was ordered by his physician. AHCA has, however, failed to establish by even the greater weight of the evidence that the healing process of E.G.'s wound was compromised by this lack of treatment. Ms. Treakle observed E.G.'s wound on June 12, 2001, and noted that it was scabbed and red around the edges. Ms. Treakle concluded that this redness alone indicated that the wound was infected. This conclusion is undermined by the notation in the wound care instructions included with E.G.'s prescription from the Dermatology Center that "[s]ome redness and swelling are normal in the immediate area of the wound." Furthermore, Ms. Treakle did not follow E.G.'s wound after June 12, 2001, and the evidence presented by Life Care that E.G.'s wound healed in a timely manner is uncontroverted. AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that there are several omissions in the documentation of Life Care's monitoring of E.G.'s blood, but these omissions do not reasonably support the inference that Life Care failed to monitor E.G.'s blood sugar and administer insulin on these dates as required by the physician's orders; rather, Life Care's failure on these occasions was inadequate documentation, not inadequate care. AHCA has, however, established clearly and convincingly that Life Care did not monitor E.G.'s blood sugar as required by his physician's order at 11:30 a.m. on June 7, 2001; this inference may reasonably be drawn based on the lack of documentation and E.G.'s elevated blood sugar at the next check at 4:30 p.m. Ms. Treakle assumed that E.G. suffered actual harm as a result of this omission because, in her view, hyperglycemia, or elevated blood sugar, always causes damage to the body; Ms. Treakle could not, however, identify any specific harm to E.G. caused by this one omission. AHCA has failed to establish by even the greater weight of the evidence that E.G.'s physical well-being was compromised by Life Care's failure to monitor his blood sugar on this one occasion. Resident N.D. Fall from Shower Chair.8 At the times pertinent to these proceedings, N.D. was a 79 year-old woman who had been a resident of Life Care since October 26, 1999. According to the assessment of N.D. included in the Minimum Data Set completed on May 3, 2001, N.D. suffered from Alzheimer's disease, had long- and short-term memory problems, and was severely impaired and unable to make decisions; as of June 12, 2001, N.D. was almost entirely dependent on staff for all of the activities of daily living. N.D.'s Care Plan for November 6, 2000, which was updated with handwritten notes, reflects that she had poor safety awareness. The Interdisciplinary Notes maintained by Life Care reflect that, on June 5, 2001, a nurse observed N.D. leaning forward in her wheelchair at breakfast; this was the first mention of this behavior in N.D.'s chart. Dr. Gil, N.D.'s physician, included a notation in the Physician's Progress Notes for June 8, 2001, that he observed N.D. leaning forward but was unable to assess her abdomen because of her anxiety. The Interdisciplinary Notes reflect that Dr. Gil visited N.D. on Saturday, June 9, 2001, and that she was again leaning forward in her wheelchair, "almost falling out of [her] chair." Dr. Gil ordered an ultra-sound of N.D.'s abdomen and a "lap buddy while in w/c [wheelchair] to prevent falls." Dr. Gil's order was noted in the Interdisciplinary Notes for June 9, 2001, as well as on a physician's order form signed by Dr. Gil on June 10, 2001. According to Life Care's written policy, physician orders are to be transcribed into a patient's care plan, treatment plan, or medication administration record, depending on the nature of the order. Dr. Gil's order for a lap buddy had not been transcribed into N.D.'s November 6, 2000, Care Plan at the time Ms. Treakle conducted her survey on June 12, 2001.9 A lap buddy was used on N.D.'s wheelchair beginning on the morning of June 11, 2001. On the evening of June 11, 2001, CNA Nova Coleman was caring for N.D. Ms. Coleman had been working for Life Care for only a short time, and N.D. was one of the first patients Ms. Coleman cared for after finishing her initial training. Ms. Coleman was, however, not an inexperienced CNA, having previously worked at another nursing home. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Ms. Coleman and another CNA had just finished showering N.D., and N.D. was sitting in a shower chair; her hair had been toweled dry, and she was dressed in her night clothes. The second CNA left the room, and Ms. Coleman, who had been standing in front of N.D., moved to the back of the shower chair so she could push N.D. out of the shower area. As she moved around the chair, N.D. pitched forward and fell face-first onto the floor. Ms. Coleman tried to grab N.D. to stop her from falling, but N.D. toppled over so quickly that Ms. Coleman could not reach her. N.D. suffered severe bruises to her face and a laceration on her lip as a result of the fall, but she did not break any bones. Ms. Coleman had not been advised prior to the fall of N.D.'s tendency to lean forward in her chair. N.D.'s tendency to lean forward in her wheelchair should have been entered in her Care Plan, together with the requirement that a lap buddy was to be used whenever she was in a wheelchair. In addition, Ms. Coleman should have been briefed on N.D.'s condition, including her tendency to lean forward, before Ms. Coleman was allowed to care for N.D. Although a lap buddy was not ordered for the shower chair and, in fact, could not appropriately have been used on a shower chair, the former Nursing Director of Life Care conceded that there were other means by which N.D.'s fall could have been prevented.10 The former Nursing Director also conceded that the failure to brief Ms. Coleman on N.D.'s condition probably contributed to the fall from the shower chair. Summary. AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that Life Care failed to provide N.D. with the services necessary to prevent her from falling from the shower chair and injuring herself, that Life Care failed to provide services that met professional standards, and that Life Care failed to revise N.D.'s Care Plan to include the risk of her falling forward while seated and the approaches Life Care would take to prevent her from injuring herself. Life Care conceded that the Care Plan should have included N.D.'s tendency to lean forward while seated and Dr. Gil's order of June 9, 2001, that N.D. be provided with a lap buddy when she was in the wheelchair. Life Care also conceded that the CNA should have been briefed on N.D.'s condition before she was assigned to care for N.D. Life Care further conceded that, even though Dr. Gil did not specifically prescribe a restraint to be used in the shower chair, measures could have been taken to ensure that N.D. did not fall out of the shower chair. AHCA has also established clearly and convincingly that Life Care's failure to provide proper care to N.D. resulted in her suffering significant injuries to her face. Although the injuries were to soft tissue and ultimately healed, N.D.'s physical well-being was adversely affected. In addition, AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that, even had N.D. not fallen and suffered injuries, the failure to include in N.D.'s Care Plan her tendency to lean forward and its failure to transcribe the physician's orders regarding the lap buddy into the Care Plan could have caused a lapse in the care provided to N.D. that could have possibly resulted in injury.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order Sustaining the reduction in the licensure status of Life Care Center of Port Saint Lucie to conditional for the period extending from June 12, 2001, to August 17, 2001; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 15th day of May, 2002.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was constructively terminated from her employment with Respondent because of her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female of German and Turkish descent and has a somewhat heavy German accent. In 1995, Petitioner was employed with Bay Medical Center, a hospital in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner was employed as a unit secretary for one of the hospital units. She voluntarily resigned that position in 1997. In March of 1998, Petitioner was again employed by Bay Medical Center as a unit secretary. She was a member of a secretarial float pool and floated from one unit of the hospital to another as needed. Later, due to a hospital reorganization, the unit secretarial position was reclassified to a Clerical Support Associate (CSA) position. The CSA position included more duties than the unit secretary position and had a higher wage. As a CSA, Petitioner was responsible for providing essential clerical support as required by patient’s and clinical staff. Her duties included entering physician orders into the hospital’s computer system, scheduling tests and procedures for patients, charging and crediting patient bills, greeting patients and visitors, chart maintenance, and otherwise assisting as needed. Petitioner eventually, was assigned as a full-time CSA in the Critical Care Unit (CCU). The CCU was a very small unit with only eight open beds and was the least active unit in the hospital at that time relative to the duties of a CSA. The lower activity resulted in less work and less stress for the CSAs assigned to the CCU. Because of the light workload and low- stress environment for CSA’s, P.J. Dotson, Petitioner's supervisor in the CCU, used the CCU to train new CSAs. Because Petitioner had experience with the work, she occasionally helped train new CSAs. At some point, Ms. Dotson determined that the CSAs in the CCU were only performing two and a half to three hours of clerical work during an eight-hour period. The small amount of productivity by the CSAs was unacceptable. In order to increase the CSAs’ productivity, Respondent changed the job role of the CSAs in the CCU, including Petitioner's, and added basic patient care tasks. Some of the new tasks included feeding patients and helping patients on and off bedpans. Additionally, the CSAs' hours changed to require them to come in earlier. On December 12, 2000, Petitioner was disciplined by Ms. Dotson for complaining to a physician about Respondent's decision to change the job requirements of the CSAs in the CCU. The physician was Respondent's "customer," not Petitioner's supervisor and Ms. Dotson felt that it was inappropriate for Petitioner to discuss her employment situation with a "customer." Ms. Dotson’s position was a reasonable position by an employer. After the disciplinary action, Petitioner declined the upgraded CSA position because she did not want to change her working hours and did not want to do hands-on patient care. Rather than terminating Petitioner's employment, Respondent allowed Petitioner to transfer to the EKG department to work as an EKG technician which position also included some clerical tasks. Petitioner served as an EKG technician for two months. During those two months, Petitioner experienced numerous performance problems and was disciplined several times by Ms. Dotson. Petitioner admits she simply was not very good at direct patient care and performed poorly as an EKG technician. On February 20, 2001, Ms Dotson issued Petitioner a Notice of Corrective Action based on a number of issues that had arisen beginning around January 15, 2001. The Notice states, "During week two, we started experiencing several problems with the paper work [Petitioner] was doing. Files were not in correct order (alphabetical), Cardiology Associates were complaining about paperwork, [and] the unsigned copies of Echo reports were not getting to M.D.s for their signature.” These problems were detrimental to efficient and timely patient care in an area of health care, cardiology, where efficiency and timeliness of care are very important. Due to these concerns, Ms. Dotson changed Petitioner's orientation schedule and established specific times to achieve performance goals. However, the changed schedule did not help resolve Petitioner's performance problems. After Petitioner was fully trained to perform an EKG procedure, Petitioner "developed the inability to perform this task" within a few weeks. Petitioner also improperly double-billed a large number of Respondent's patients. The double billing was a major oversight on Petitioner's part that could have been seriously detrimental to Respondent's ability to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients if the problem had not been discovered and resolved by Ms. Dotson. On March 8, 2001, Petitioner received a final written warning because her work-related problems persisted. At that time, Ms. Dotson informed Petitioner that she needed to find a different position within Bay Medical Center, resign, or be terminated. Ms. Dotson also took this opportunity to coach Petitioner on how to sell herself to other managers, so Petitioner could acquire another position. One of the areas Ms. Dotson discussed with Petitioner was her communication skills. Ms. Dotson explained that she needed to communicate better because she has an accent, does not articulate well and often speaks with her hands in front of her mouth thereby making it difficult for others to understand her. In addition, Ms. Dotson explained to Petitioner that she demonstrated a somewhat negative attitude and failed to take responsibility for her mistakes. These traits were concerns for managers in the various departments throughout the hospital. These traits were also demonstrated at the hearing. There was no evidence that any action taken by Ms. Dotson was done for discriminatory purposes or that the reasons given for such action were pretextual. Indeed, Petitioner admitted that Ms. Dotson did not discriminate against her. However, because of these traits, Petitioner had a difficult time finding another position within Bay Medical Center, even though there was a high turnover rate among CSAs throughout the hospital. Eventually, Petitioner was accepted by Ms. Pat Owens to serve as a CSA on Three South, a medical/surgery unit at Bay Medical Center. Indeed, Petitioner’s transfer to Three South was against hospital policy since Petitioner was slated for termination from her earlier position and had received her final warning. However, in order to help Petitioner, the transfer was allowed. Although Petitioner had served as a CSA in CCU previously, the working atmosphere of Three South was very different. Three South was, as Petitioner described it, a "very, very busy floor." Three South had 39 beds and over 200 physicians on staff. However, during Ms. Owen’s time as manager of Three South, Ms. Owens did not formally discipline Petitioner regarding her job performance. Ms. Owens did not testify at the hearing. Petitioner admits that she made mistakes while Ms. Owens was her supervisor. She testified that there were "minor things" that Ms. Owens would make her redo. However, under these facts, the fact that Ms. Owens chose not to discipline Petitioner formally is not evidence of discrimination. The hospital was not satisfied with the way Three South was being managed by Ms. Owens. The unit staff were not following various hospital protocols impacting patient care. Numerous complaints were made by both patients and doctors regarding the quality of care being delivered by the unit staff. Therefore, in April, 2002, Ms. Andi Bush was hired as the manager of Three South. She was hired in order “to get Three South into shape.” Ms. Bush also became Petitioner's supervisor and demanded considerably more performance and compliance with protocols of all the employees on Three South. After Ms. Bush became manager, Petitioner claims that Ms. Bush commented on Petitioner's accent and that "[Ms. Bush's] hearing would be perfect if anybody else would talk to her. But whenever I said something to her or tried to quote her [sic] about something, all of a sudden she had this major problem." This alleged evidence is not convincing. Ms. Bush wears a hearing aid and relies on "lip-reading" because she has a significant amount of hearing loss due to nerve damage. She often has difficulty hearing others' words and asks others to repeat themselves. This difficulty was demonstrated at the hearing. In addition, Petitioner did not provide any details about the times Ms. Bush allegedly commented on her accent. There is no evidence in the record about how often or in what context any such comment allegedly happened. Given the facts that Ms. Bush is hearing impaired and reads lips and that Petitioner often speaks with her hands in front of her mouth, has an accent and does not enunciate her words, comments by Ms. Bush regarding Petitioner’s accent do not support a finding of discrimination. Ms. Bush, unlike her predecessor, enforced the hospital protocol’s and demanded that her staff comply with those protocols. It was clear that Ms. Bush's job, as the new manager of Three South, was to impose accountability and discipline on that unit. Indeed, Petitioner testified that, during Ms. Bush's initial meeting with the employees on Three South, Ms. Bush made it clear that she believed Three South was a "mess" and that "she was going to straighten it out." Petitioner failed to provide any evidence that Ms. Bush applied the rules or issued discipline inconsistently among the employees or that employees of other nationalities were treated better than her. There is no comparator evidence in the record to demonstrate that Ms. Bush's discipline of Petitioner was for discriminatory purposes. Under Ms. Bush's administration, Petitioner was disciplined on several occasions for various performance issues. On May 23, 2002, Petitioner was issued a written warning for failing to enter a physician's order. The order requested a consultation with a cardiologist to determine what treatment the patient needed. Because Petitioner did not enter the order, the consultation was delayed for over 24 hours. When the consultation was eventually performed, the cardiologist determined that the patient needed a pacemaker. Petitioner's mistake could have had dire consequences for the patient involved. Petitioner does not deny that she failed to enter the order but claims that she was told by her co-workers that she did not need to enter the order because the patient was going to be transferred to a different floor. However, Petitioner knew that other co-workers could not instruct her not to follow the hospital’s protocol for entering a physician’s order in a timely manner. The discipline she received was clearly not pretextual and was appropriate for her failure to enter the physician’s order. On June 5, 2002, Petitioner received a written warning for excessive absenteeism. Again, Petitioner does not deny that she was excessively absent. Instead, Petitioner alleges that her absences "weren't really more extensive than anybody else's." Petitioner later admits, however, that these other employees were also punished for their tardiness and absenteeism. Petitioner provided no other evidence that Respondent applied its attendance policy inconsistently among the employees. Given these facts, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner’s disciplinary action was discriminatory or pretextual. On July 3, 2002, Petitioner was suspended following two different incidents. First, Petitioner placed several documents in the wrong patient's chart. Second, Petitioner failed to properly consult a physician regarding a patient care issue. Both of these incidents could have had detrimental impact on the health and safety of Respondent's patients. Petitioner offered no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the report of these incidents. On August 7, 2002, Ms. Bush held a corrective action meeting with Petitioner to discuss the following incidents: (1) Petitioner's repeated failure to enter consultations into the computer; (2) Petitioner's repeated failure to consult physicians in a timely manner; (3) a patient complaint that her call light was not being answered during Petitioner's shift; and (4) Petitioner’s failure to file a stack of documents as she was assigned to do, but instead twice sent them to medical records to file. Petitioner denies making these mistakes, but her denial is based on her lack of memory for the events. Indeed, Ms. Bush based the disciplinary action on complaints and witness statements she received form a variety of sources. Again there was no evidence that the Ms. Bush’s actions were discriminatory or pretextual. Finally, on August 14, 2002, Petitioner was given her annual performance appraisal. Petitioner was rated as "unsatisfactory" based on her record of discipline and the real potential of her performance failures to adversely impact patient care. Based on her previous performance problems and the performance appraisal, Petitioner was told that she could no longer work as a CSA at Bay Medical Center. Indeed, Ms. Dotson who was consulted regarding Ms. Bush’s decision, concurred that Petitioner should not be transferred to any CSA position or position involving patient care due to past mistakes which were potentially detrimental to a patient’s health. Respondent gave her two weeks to find a different position within the hospital, resign, or be terminated. Respondent, through its personnel department, tried to assist Petitioner to find a position within the facility. After reviewing the printout of available positions with Petitioner the only positions that were open, and for which Petitioner was qualified, were in Dietary, Housekeeping, and Laundry. Petitioner did not offer any evidence of any other positions outside those areas that were available and for which she was qualified. Petitioner refused to apply to any of these positions and, instead, resigned on August 28, 2002. The evidence did not demonstrate that her resignation was forced or caused by any discriminatory actions by Respondent. Again, Petitioner failed to provide any evidence that Respondent discriminated against her and the Petition For Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 25th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Margie Beach-Gutierrez 5807 Butler Drive, Apartment 4 Callaway, Florida 32404 L. Taywick Duffie, Esquire Price H. Carroll, Esquire Hunton & Williams, LLP 600 Peachtree Street, Suite 4100 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint dated March 9, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The claim for licensure revocation is withdrawn. The Respondent shall pay administrative costs in the amount of $5,000.00. The administrative costs are due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date Filed June 30, 2009 2:02 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. of rendition of this Order. Checks should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care Administration." The check, along with a reference to these case numbers, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. Respondent's petition for formal administrative proceedings is hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED thisc::z{p day of -=--- 2cQJ-' in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Holly Benso Secretary Agency for H Ith Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Caroline M. Barrett, CEO Patient Resources Company 7520 N.W. 5th Street Suite 204 Plantation, Florida 33317 (U. S. Mail) William G. Salim, Jr. Moskowitz, Mandeli, Salim & Simonwitz, P.A. 800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 (U.S. Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Home Care Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #34 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice mail) Nelson E. Rodney Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 8350 N.W. 52nd Terrace, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33166 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Hon. Claude B. Arrington Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (U.S. Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this h ofoc;;,, , 2007: RcichardJop;;enc:ci Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue The issues in this case are set forth in 11 separate counts within the four consolidated cases: Case No. 09-5360 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly monitor and care for a patient in restraints. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure the physician's plan of care for patient was implemented. Case No. 09-5363 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly implement the physician's plan of care for patient. Case No. 09-5364 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to ensure a patients' right to privacy. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that food was served in the prescribed safe temperature zone. Count III--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that only authorized personnel had access to locked areas where medications were stored. Count IV--Whether Respondent failed to perform proper nursing assessments of a patient. Count V--Dismissed. Count VI--Whether Respondent failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition. Case No. 09-5365 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to triage a patient with stroke-like symptoms in a timely fashion. Count II--Whether Respondent's nursing staff failed to assess and intervene for patients or ensure implementation of the physician's plan of care.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring health care facilities in the state to ensure compliance with all governing statutes, rules and regulations. It is the responsibility of AHCA to regularly inspect facilities upon unannounced visits. Often AHCA will inspect facilities for the purpose of licensure renewal, certification, or in conjunction with federal surveys. AHCA will also inspect facilities on the basis of complaints filed by members of the general public. Respondent, Gulf Coast Medical Center ("Gulf Coast" or "GCH") is a hospital within the Lee Memorial Health System. South West Florida Regional Medical Center ("SWF") was another hospital within the Lee Memorial Health System. SWF closed in March 2009, when it was consolidated with Gulf Coast. On October 15, 2008, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at SWF; a follow-up complaint investigation was done on November 13, 2008. SWF filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in each of the investigations. The November investigation resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing two counts. On December 16, 2008, AHCA performed another complaint investigation at Gulf Coast. Gulf Coast filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the investigation. The investigation resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing one count. On January 5 through 9, 2009, AHCA conducted a routine licensure survey at Gulf Coast. The hospital filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the survey. The survey resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing six counts (although Count V was dismissed during the course of the final hearing). On February 18, 2009, AHCA did its follow-up survey to the previous licensure survey. Gulf Coast filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the survey. The survey resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing two counts. Case 09-5360 The complaint investigation at SWF on November 13, 2008, was conducted under the supervision of Charlene Fisher. Count I in this case addresses findings by the Agency concerning a patient who was placed in restraints at the hospital on August 28, 2008. The patient, A.D., came into the hospital emergency department under the Baker Act seeking medical clearance to a facility. The patient presented at approximately 4:00 p.m., with back pain. He had a history of drug abuse, so there was concern by the hospital regarding the use of narcotics or certain other medications to treat the patient. The patient engaged in some scuffling with police. A physician signed and dated a four-point restraint (one on each limb) order, resulting in the patient being physically restrained. The restraint was deemed a medical/surgical restraint, rather than a behavioral restraint. AHCA had concerns about the restraint, specifically whether there was a notation for Q 15 (or every 15 minutes) monitoring of the restrained patient. However, medical/surgical restraints only require monitoring every two hours. The restraint worksheet for the patient confirms monitoring every two hours. The patient was ultimately admitted to the hospital at 9:37 p.m., and, thereafter, began complaining of left shoulder pain. The hospital responded to the patient's complaints about back pain and began treating the pain with analgesics. However, the patient continued to complain about the pain. An X-ray of the patient's shoulder was finally done the next morning. Shoulder dislocation was confirmed by the X-ray, and the hospital (four hours later) began a more substantive regimen of treatment for pain. Surgery occurred the following morning, and the shoulder problem was resolved. It is clear the patient had a shoulder injury, but it is unclear as to when that injury became more painful than the back injury with which the patient had initially presented. The evidence is unclear whether or when the shoulder injury became obvious to hospital staff. During its course of treating this patient, the hospital provided Motrin, Tylenol, Morphine, Percocet and other medications to treat the patient's pain. Count II in this case also involved a restrained patient, M.D., who had presented to the emergency department under the Baker Act. The patient was released from handcuffs upon arrival at the hospital. After subsequently fighting with a deputy, this patient was also placed in a medical/surgical restraint pursuant to a physician's order. The doctor signed and dated, but did not put a time on, the restraint order. A time is important because there are monitoring requirements for patients in restraints. However, the time of 0050 (12:50 a.m.) appears on the patient's chart and is the approximate time the restraints were initiated. The proper procedure is to monitor a restrained patient every two hours. This patient, however, was removed from his restraints prior to the end of the first two-hour period. Thus, there are no records of monitoring for the patient (nor would any be necessary). The evidence presented by AHCA was insufficient to establish definitively whether the hospital nursing staff failed to properly respond to the aforementioned patients' needs. It is clear the patients could have received more care, but there is not enough evidence to prove the care provided was inadequate. Case No. 09-5363 On December 16, 2008, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at SWF. The Agency had received a complaint that the hospital did not properly implement a physician's plan of care. Count I in this complaint addresses alleged errors relating to two of four patients reviewed by the surveyors. Both of the patients came to the hospital from a nursing home. One patient, I.A., had presented to the emergency department complaining of chest pains. The medication list sent to the hospital by the nursing home for I.A. actually belonged to someone other than I.A. I.A.'s name was not on the medication list. The drugs listed on the patient chart were different than the drugs I.A. had been taking at the skilled nursing facility from which she came. The skilled nursing facility actually sent I.A.'s roommate's medication list. The erroneous medications were then ordered by the admitting physician and administered to the patient. The hospital is supposed to review the medication list it receives and then enter the medications into the hospital system. The person reviewing the medication list does not necessarily have to be a nurse, and there is no evidence that the person making the error in this case was a nurse or was some other employee. It is clear, however, that the person reviewing the medication list did not properly ascertain that the list belonged to patient I.A. The other patient from the nursing home had been admitted for surgery at SWF. Again, the nursing home from whence she came sent a medication list that was incorrect. The medications on the incorrect list were entered into the system by a SWF employee. The erroneous medications were ultimately ordered by the attending physician for the patient, but there is no evidence the patient was ever administered those medications. Neither of the residents was harmed by the incorrect medications as far as could be determined. Case 09-5364 From January 5 through 8, 2009, AHCA conducted a licensure survey at Gulf Coast and SWF in conjunction with a federal certification survey. Count I of the complaint resulting from this survey addressed the right of privacy for two residents. In one instance, a patient was observed in her bed with her breasts exposed to plain view. In the other instance, a patient's personal records were found in a "public" place, i.e., hanging on the rail of a hallway in the hospital. AHCA's surveyor, Nancy Furdell, saw a female patient who was apparently asleep lying in her bed. The patient's breasts were exposed as she slept. Furdell observed this fact at approximately 1:15 p.m., on January 7, 2009. Furdell did not see a Posey vest on the patient. She did not know if anyone else saw the exposed breasts. Furdell continued with her survey duties, and at approximately 5:00 p.m., notified a staff member as to what she had seen. Furdell did not attempt to cover the patient or wake the patient to tell her to cover up. The female patient with exposed breasts was in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the hospital. Visiting hours in ICU at that time were 10:00 to 10:30 a.m., and again from 2:00 till 2:30 p.m. Thus, at the time Furdell was present, no outside visitors would have been in the ICU. ICU patients are checked on by nursing staff every half-hour to an hour, depending on their needs. This particular patient would be visited more frequently due to her medical condition. On the day in question, the patient was supposed to be wearing a Posey vest in an effort to stop the patient from removing her tubing. The patient had been agitated and very restless earlier, necessitating the Posey vest. Also on January 7, 2009, a surveyor observed some "papers" rolled up and stuffed inside a hand-rail in the hospital corridor. This occurred at 1:15 p.m., on the fourth floor of the south wing of the hospital. A review of the papers revealed them to be patient records for a patient on that floor. The surveyor could not state at final hearing whether there were hospital personnel in the vicinity of the handrail where she found the patient records, nor could she say how long the patient records had been in the handrail. Rather, the evidence is simply that the records were seen in the handrail and were not in anyone's possession at that moment in time. Count II of the complaint was concerned with the temperature of certain foods being prepared for distribution to patients. Foods for patients are supposed to be kept at certain required temperatures. There is a "danger zone" for foods which starts at 40 degrees Fahrenheit and ends at 141 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature, along with time, food and environment, is an important factor in preventing contamination of food and the development of bacteria. Surveyor Mary Ruth Pinto took part in the survey. As part of her duties, she asked hospital staff to measure the temperature of foods on the serving line. She found some peaches at 44 degrees, yogurt at 50 degrees, and cranberry juice at 66 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Pinto, the hospital's refrigerator temperatures were appropriate, so it was only food out on the line that was at issue. Pinto remembers talking to the hospital dietary manager and remembers the dietary manager agreeing to destroy the aforementioned food items. The hospital policies and procedures in place on the date of the survey were consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code concerning the storage, handling and serving of food. The policies acknowledge the danger zone for foods, but allow foods to stay within the danger zone for up to four hours. In the case of the peaches and yogurt, neither had been in the danger zone for very long (not more than two hours). The cranberry juice was "shelf stable," meaning that it could be stored at room temperature. The food services director for the hospital remembers the peaches and yogurt being re-chilled in a chill blaster. She does not believe any of the food was destroyed. Count III of the complaint addressed whether an unauthorized person had access to a room where medications were being stored. A state surveyor, Gary Furdell, was part of the survey team on January 5, 2009. Furdell was touring the second floor of the hospital when he noticed a locked door. Furdell asked a hospital medical technician who was standing nearby about the door. The medical technician gave Furdell the code to unlock the door. Furdell peeked inside and noticed bottles that he presumed were medications. It would be a violation for a medical technician to have access to medications, because medical technicians cannot distribute drugs. The room Furdell looked into is a "mixed use" room located behind a nursing station. A mixed use room is used to store medical supplies, including medications, as long as there is a locked cabinet in the room for that purpose. This particular mixed use room had a locked cabinet. The room is used for the preparation of medications and for other purposes. No narcotics were stored in this particular mixed use room. The room contained locked cabinets used to store other medications. The evidence presented was insufficient to determine what "medications" Furdell may have seen in the room. Count IV of the complaint concerned the nursing assessment of a patient, and whether the assessment was properly and timely performed. A patient, M.S., had been admitted to the hospital on June 18, 2008, for lung surgery. Following the surgery, Amiodarone (a very toxic drug which can cause clots and other complications) was administered to treat M.S. for heart arrhythmia. The Amiodarone was administered intravenously and M.S. developed blisters and irritation at the intravenous site. That is not an uncommon complication with Amiodarone. M.S.'s attending physician was notified about the irritation and prescribed a treatment. He also ordered a consult with an infectious disease specialist who ultimately changed M.S.'s antibiotics. Although M.S. was seen daily by her physicians, the nursing notes do not reflect the assessment and treatment of her blisters. It appears that proper care was rendered, but the care was not documented properly. Another patient was admitted to the hospital on December 15, 2008, with End Stage Renal Disease and diabetes mellitus for which she began dialysis treatment. The patient was not weighed before and after a particular dialysis treatment on January 5, 2009. However, the patient had been moved to an air mattress bed on that date for comfort. The air mattress bed did not allow for a weight to be taken as it could be on a regular bed. There is an allegation in the Administrative Complaint concerning the discontinuation of the calorie count for a patient. This issue was not discussed in AHCA's Proposed Recommended Order, nor was sufficient evidence of any wrong- doing concerning this matter presented at final hearing. During the survey, the hospital was found to be storing the medication Mannitol in blanket warmers, rather than in warmers specifically designed for the drug. The blanket warmers maintained the Mannitol at 100-to-110 degrees Fahrenheit. The manufacturer's label on the drug calls for it to be dispensed (injected) at between 86 and 98.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In order to meet this requirement, the hospital takes the drug out of the blanket warmer in time for it to cool sufficiently before it is injected. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a blanket warmer to store Mannitol. On January 5, 2009, a surveyor found two vials of Thrombin, one vial of half-percent Lidocaine and Epi, and one vial of Bacitracin in operating room No. 4. The operating room is within the secured and locked suite of surgical rooms on the second floor. Two of the vials had syringes stuck in them and one of them was spiked. Whoever had mixed the medications was not attending to them at the time the surveyor made her observation. There were two unlicensed technicians in the room preparing for the next surgery. A registered nurse anesthetist was present as well. There was no identifying patient information on the medications. The hospital's policies and procedures do not require the patient's name to be on the label of medications prepared for impending surgery. That is because the procedures for the operating room include a process for ensuring that only the correct patient can be in the designated operating room. There is a fail-safe process for ensuring that only the proper patient can receive the medications that are set out. At around 2:45 p.m. on January 5, 2009, there were patient records in the emergency department showing that several drugs had been administered to a patient. The surveyor did not see a written order signed by a physician authorizing the drugs. When the surveyor returned the next morning, the order had been signed by the physician. The hospital policy is that such orders may be carried out in the emergency department without a doctor's signature, but that a physician must sign the order before the end of their shift. AHCA cannot say whether the physician signed the order at the end of his shift or early the next day. Count V of the complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the Agency. Count VI of the complaint concerned the status of certain patient care equipment, and whether such equipment was being maintained in a safe operating condition. A patient was weighed at the hospital upon admission on December 27, 2008, and found to weigh 130 pounds using a bed scale. Six days later, on January 2, 2009, the patient's weight was recorded as 134 pounds. Two days later, in the same unit, the patient weighed 147 pounds and the next day was recorded as weighing 166 pounds. During the survey process, the patient was weighed and recorded at 123 pounds on a chair scale. The hospital does not dispute the weights which were recorded, but suggests there are many factors other than calibration of the equipment that could explain the discrepant weights. For example, the AHCA surveyor could not say whether the patient sometimes had necessary medical equipment on his bed while being weighed, whether different beds were involved, or whether any other factors existed. AHCA relies solely on the weight records of this single patient to conclude that the hospital scales were inaccurate. Case No. 09-5365 On February 18, 2009, AHCA conducted a licensure survey at Gulf Coast. Count I of the complaint from this survey concerned the timeliness of triage for a patient who presented at the hospital emergency department with stroke-like symptoms. AHCA surveyors witnessed two patients on stretchers in the ambulance entrance hallway leading to the emergency department. Each of the two patients had been brought in by a separate emergency medical service (EMS) team and was awaiting triage. One patient was taken to an emergency department room (ER room) 50 minutes after his/her arrival at the hospital. The other patient waited 45 minutes after arrival before being admitted to an ER room. Meanwhile, a third patient arrived at 2:20 p.m., and was awaiting triage 25 minutes later. During their observation, the surveyors saw several nursing staff in the desk area of the emergency department, i.e., they did not appear to be performing triage duties. The emergency department on that date was quite busy. That is not unusual during February, as census tends to rise during the winter months due to the influx of seasonal residents. A summary of the action within the emergency department from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., on the day of the survey shows the following: Patient L.G., 74 years old with stable vital signs, was radioed in by her EMS team at 1:08; L.G. was processed into the ER at 1:21 (which is not an unreasonable time; EMS teams call in when they arrive at or near the hospital. By the time they gain access, wait their turn if multiple ambulances are present, and get the patient inside, several minutes may lapse). L.G. was stabilized and quickly reviewed by ER staff, then officially triaged at 2:04. Patient H.M., an 89-year-old male residing in a nursing home, arrived at 1:20 and was processed in at 1:59. He was triaged at 2:01, but ultimately signed out of the hospital against medical advice. Patient E.M. arrived at 2:18 and was processed at 2:25. Triage occurred one minute later. This patient presented as a stroke alert, and hospital protocol for that type patient was followed. Patient C.J. arrived at 1:08 and was processed at 2:38. Triage occurred immediately after C.J. was processed. This patient was not stroke alert, but had some stroke-like symptoms.1 C.J. had not been transported to the hospital as emergent, because the symptoms had been going on for 24 hours. Patient W.M., an auto accident victim, arrived at 1:40 and was processed at 1:49. Triage occurred within six minutes. Patient M.M., W.M.'s wife (who had been with M.M. in the automobile accident, but was placed in a separate ambulance), arrived at 2:06 and was triaged at 2:34. There is no record of when M.M. was processed. Patient L.M. came to the hospital from a nursing home. She arrived at 1:43 and was processed at 2:35. L.M. was triaged at 2:37. Patient K.M. arrived at 2:45 and was processed within three minutes. Triage occurred at 2:52. Her triage was done very quickly due to the condition in which she arrived, i.e., shortness of breath and low oxygen saturation. Patient R.S. arrived at 1:00 and was triaged at 1:15. The aforementioned patients represent the patients presenting to the emergency department by ambulance during a two-hour period on a very busy day. It is the customary procedure for ER staff to make a quick visual review (rapid triage) of patients as they come into the hospital. Those with obvious distress or life-threatening conditions are officially triaged first. Others, as long as they are stable, are allowed to wait until staff is available for them. As part of their duties, nurses necessarily have to be in the desk area (nursing station) in order to field phone calls from physicians concerning treatment of the patients who present. It is not unusual or improper for nurses to be in the nursing station while residents are waiting in the processing area. It is clear that some patients waited a much longer time for triage than others. However, without a complete record of all patients who presented that day and a complete review of each of their conditions, it is impossible to say whether the hospital was dilatory in triaging any of them. Count II of the complaint addressed the nursing staff and whether it failed to assess and intervene in the care of a patient or failed to implement a physician's plan of care for the patient. Patient D.W. was a 67-year-old female who was morbidly obese, diabetic, debilitated, had end stage renal disease, and was receiving dialysis. Upon admission, D.W. had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer to her sacrum and a Stage 4 ulcer on her left calf. A wound care protocol was initiated immediately, and a Clinitron bed was obtained for her on the day of admission. Due to the seriousness of her condition, the wound care physician declined to accept her case at first. He later ordered Panafil, and it became part of the protocol for treating the patient. The nursing documentation for D.W. was only minimally sufficient, but it does indicate that care was provided. Patient R.H. was an 83-year-old male who presented on February 10, 2009, in critical condition. R.H. was suffering from congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and respiratory failure. Due to the critical nature of his respiratory problems, R.H. was placed on a ventilator. As a ventilator patient, he did not fit the profile for obtaining wound care. Nonetheless, the hospital implemented various other measures to deal with R.H.'s pressure wounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 in DOAH Case No. 09-5363 and a fine in the amount of $500.00 in DOAH Case No. 09-5364, Count VI. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issues for consideration are those allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation (Department), in which the Respondent, Scarlett Jones, R.N., is accused of various violations of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Through Count One it is said that the Respondent transcribed an order for Heparin to be administered to the patient K.W. as 15,000 units when the physician's order quoted the dosage as 5,000 units, and that the patient was given two dosages at 15,000 units as opposed to the required 5,000 units. In an additional accusation against the Respondent, related to patient care, Respondent is said to have failed to indicate in the patient K.W.'s nursing notes, on or about May 16, 1988, that an administration of Aminophylline was to be restarted during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Further, it is alleged that this substance was not restarted until 8:00 a.m. on the next day as discovered by a subsequent shift employee. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1) (f), Florida Statutes, related to alleged unprofessional conduct. Count Two to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about June 4, 1988, the Respondent who was assigned to care for the patient E.J., was told by a co-worker that the patient had fallen out of bed and soiled himself and that the Respondent failed to respond to the patient's needs after repeated requests. Eventually, it is alleged that the patient's wife assisted him back to bed and the co-worker took care of the patient's hygiene. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, related to unprofessional conduct and that she violated Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for knowingly violating a rule or order of the Board of Nursing. Finally, the third count of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent, on or about June 14, 1988, was found asleep while on duty in violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, an act of unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to, the failure to conform to minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. For these alleged violations, the Department seeks to impose disciplinary action which could include revocation or suspension, the imposition of an administrative fine and/or other relief which the Board of Nursing might deem appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the relevant periods under consideration in this Administrative Complaint the Respondent was licensed by the Department as a registered nurse and subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Nursing in disciplinary matters. The license number was 1702172. On April 11, 1988, Respondent took employment with Gadsden Memorial Hospital in Gadsden County, Florida, in a position of charge nurse on the Medical-Surgical Pediatrics Unit, also known as "Med-Surg. Ped." That unit provides short term acute care for post-operative patients, acute medical patients, and acute pediatric patients, some of which require 24-hour observation. Response to the needs of the patients is given by three nursing shifts in each day which begins with shifts of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., followed by the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and then 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following morning. Upon hiring, Respondent was assigned to the work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and was the only registered nurse on duty during that shift. Among the responsibilities of the charge nurse at the time under examination here, was the assessment of patients on the unit as well as an awareness of the abilities of those other employees who were working in this shift. This was in an effort to provide direct supervision of critical care patients and included supervision of activities performed by a Nurse Technician. Respondent was more directly responsible for critical patients. Other duties included making frequent rounds and checking vital signs in an attempt to insure that the patients were stable. Respondent as charge nurse on "Med-Surg. Ped." could not leave the floor without notification of the house supervisor, another registered nurse. This person would replace the Respondent on those occasions where the Respondent would need to vacate the floor. In addition it was expected that the Respondent would notify those personnel who were working with her on the unit, where she intended to go and how long she would be gone. Before departing it was expected that the Respondent would check the stability of patients. physician's Orders were written on March 2D, 1988, in anticipation of the admission of patient K.W. to Gadsden Memorial Hospital to "Med. Surg Ped." The admission was under orders by Dr. Halpren. Among those orders was the prescription of Heparin, 5,000 units, subcutaneously every 12 hours. The Physician's Orders in terms of legibility are not immediately discernible but can be read with a relatively careful observation of the physician's orders. A copy of those may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The problem that tends to arise is that on the line which immediately follows the orders related to Heparin 5,000 units, is found the word hysterectomy written in such a fashion that the initial portion of the letter "H" might be seen as being placed on the prior line giving the unit dosage of the Heparin the appearance of being 15,000 units as opposed to 5,000 units. On April 11, 1988, K.W. was admitted to Gadsden Memorial Hospital as anticipated. At the time of admission the Physician's Orders previously described were provided. Surgery was scheduled and the patient file was made on "Med-Surg. Ped." Under the practices within this hospital, the ward clerk was responsible for transcribing physician's orders onto the patient's Medication Administration Record. This was done here by the ward clerk, S. Diggs. This is to be checked for accuracy by the charge nurse, to include Respondent, with the fixing of the signature to this Medication Administration Record verifying the accuracy of the clerk's entries. Respondent initialed the Medication Administration Record for the patient designating that Heparin in the amount of 15,000 units Q-12, meaning to be given every 12 hours was the requirement, and had been administered in that dosage. This may be seen in a copy of the Medication Administration Record which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. The patient was to undergo extensive abdominal surgery, to include the possibility of a hysterectomy and the incorrect administration of Heparin might promote problems with bleeding. The incorrect amount of Heparin as a 15,000 unit dosage was given to K.W. on two occasions. Another patient who was admitted to the ward which Respondent was responsible for as charge nurse was the patient A.W. Physician's Orders were written for that patient by Dr. Woodward on May 16, 1988. A copy of the Physician's Orders may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. Among the substances prescribed was Aminophylline drip 20 milligrams per hour I.V. This patient had been admitted to the pediatric unit with a diagnosis of asthma and prescribed the Aminophylline to aid the patient's breathing. It was expected that patient A.W. was to be administered two dosages of Aminophylline, an intermediate dosage to be given every few hours in a larger quantity, and a continuous drip to run at 20 milligrams per hour. Within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 are nursing notes made by Respondent concerning A.W. On May 17, 1988, between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. it is noted that Respondent was having trouble with patient A.W.'s I.V. She states that the I.V. site was assessed and had to be pulled and that she was not able to reinsert due to the uncooperative nature of this child. The I.V. was restarted by the house supervisor nurse. An entry at 6:30 a.m. made by the Respondent describes the I.V. position as acceptable. When the shift changed at 7:00 a.m. the new charge nurse did not find the Aminophylline drip in progress, as called for, and this is noted in a 7:30 a.m. entry made by this registered nurse, Sherry Shiro. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a Confidential Incident Report prepared by the Gadsden Memorial Hospital concerning allegations against the Respondent. They have to do with an alleged incident that occurred around 5:00 a.m. and contain the purported observations by Lucinda Mack, a licensed practical nurse on duty at that time, and they were received on June 15, 1988, by Carol Riddle, R.N., Director of Nursing at Gadsden Memorial Hospital, and the person responsible for investigating this matter. The copy of the Confidential Incident Report contained observations about the alleged failure of treatment by the Respondent directed in the matter of the patient E.J. These remarks are hearsay. They do not corroborate competent evidence at hearing concerning any oversight by the Respondent in the treatment of the patient E.J. On or about June 14, 1988, the Director of Nursing, Carol Riddle, called the night supervisor Michelle Warring at 2:00 a.m. to ascertain if the Respondent was on duty. Respondent was working on that date. At 2:15 a.m. Warring advised Riddle that the Respondent could not be found and Riddle went to the hospital at that time. When she arrived at the facility at 3:00 a.m. she went to "Med-Surg. Ped." where she was informed by the communications clerk that Lucinda Mack, LPN, was the only nurse on duty in that unit, and that the clerk did not know where Respondent could be found. Riddle and Warring then looked through the patient rooms in "Med-Surg. Ped." but could not find the Respondent. One and a half hours after commencing the search Riddle located the Respondent in a different wing of the hospital which contains a respiratory therapy manager's office. Respondent was there with her husband asleep, with the door locked and lights off. At that time she was the only registered nurse on duty in "Med-Surg. Ped." which had six patients receiving care on that evening. Respondent was not performing her duties or supervising those other persons who worked with her on the unit. Respondent had been observed asleep at her nurses' station desk on several other occasions by Dale Storey, a registered nurse working at the Gadsden Memorial Hospital. Linda Reed, a nurse technician at Gadsden Memorial Hospital had observed the Respondent asleep on duty. As commented on by nurse Riddle, who is qualified to give expert opinion testimony about the performance of the Respondent in her nursing practice, the conduct set out before in these findings of fact constitutes unprofessional conduct in the practice of nursing, in a situation which the Respondent knew what her duties were as charge nurse and failed to perform them at an adequate level.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which fines the Respondent in the amount of $1,000 for the violation related to the care of patient K.W. as set out in Count One and for sleeping on duty as set out in Count Three. And, finds that the violation related to patient A.W. as set out in Count One and the violation alleged in Count Two related to the patient E.J. were not proven. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19 day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5719 Petitioner's fact finding is subordinate to the finding in the Recommended Order with exception of paragraph 16 which is not relevant and reference within paragraph 34 to the date June 24, 1988, which should have been June 14, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Scarlett Jones 2636 Mission Road, #138 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Judy Ritter, Executive Director Florida Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue By its Administrative Complaint, dated October 14, 1980, Use Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00 upon the Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center for alleged violations of Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Petitioner charges the Respondent with allegedly failing to provide patients in its nursing home with adequate care consistent with their right to receive adequate health care in accordance with the established and recognized practice standards in the community and with rules promulgated by the Department pursuant to Section 400.022 (1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner charges also that the Respondent failed to maintain its premises and equipment and conduct its operations in a safe and sanitary manner as required by Section 400.141(4), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is concomitantly charged with violations of Rules 10D-29.33(4) and 10D-29.38(1), and Rule 10D-29.52(4) Table (36), Florida Administrative Code, in the area of patient health care. A violation of Rule 10D-29.49(1), Florida Administrative Code is alleged on the ground that no effective maintenance plan was promulgated or implemented by the Respondent. The charges at issue relate to an August 22, 1980 complaint investigation and surveillance visit conducted by personnel from the Tampa Office of Licensure and Certification of Petitioner's Department. On that visit it is charged that the Petitioner's personnel observed a patient and her bed linens soiled with fecal material and another patient who had soil accumulations on the right hand and was in need of hand care. Additionally, the Petitioner's personnel allegedly observed nurse paging cords missing or not attached to beds in approximately twelve rooms and observed various fixtures and equipment in need of repair. The issues are thus whether the acts or omissions charged occurred, and whether they constitute violations of the above-cited legal authority and concomitantly, whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to Section 400.102(c) and Section 400.121(2), Florida Statutes. Two witnesses were called by the petitioner and five by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were introduced into evidence. The Respondent moved to dismiss the Administrative Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss will be treated in the Conclusions of Law hereinbelow. The Respondent has filed 248 proposed findings of fact and has requested separate rulings upon each. In that regard, the Hearing Officer has considered all proposed findings of fact, conclusions and supporting arguments of the parties. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent that such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant, dispositive or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses is not in accord with the findings and conclusions herein, it is not credited.
Findings Of Fact The Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center, operates a nursing home facility in Tampa, Florida. The Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC), of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is responsible for the investigation of complaints about the operation of nursing facilities such as that of the Respondent, which are licensed by HRS. On August 22, 1980 a complaint investigation and surveillance of the Respondent's facility was conducted by O.L.C. employees Joel Montgomery and Muriel Holzberger. These individuals performed an inspection tour of the Respondent's facility accompanied by staff members of the Respondent to generally observe the level of health care accorded patients and the effectiveness of maintenance and repair operations carried out by the Respondent on its facilities and equipment. Ms. Holzberger, a registered nurse and accepted as an expert in the area of proper nursing care standards, personally observed at least 90 percent of the 176 patients resident at the Respondent's facility. In that connection, witness Holzberger observed patient A. W. who was bedridden at the time. This witness observed a brown stain approximately the size of a half dollar on the top sheet of patient A. W.`s bed. The witness described the stain as appearing to be the color of fecal material and it apparently was dry. She did not touch it, but made a determination by its visual appearance only. The stain only consisted of a brown coloration and no fecal material was observed adhering to the stained area. The sheet of this patient was raised by Nurse Holzberger who thereupon observed wet excrement on the patient's buttocks and on a waterproof pad that had been placed under the patient. Ms. Holzberger opined that at this point and time at least, the patient had not been cleaned. No dried excrement material was observed on the patient or on the waterproof pad however. Patient A. W. had a medical history of constant fecal incontinence and other bowel problems consisting generally of frequent impactions, coupled with constant oozing of fecal matter. Proper nursing care for such a patient was established to consist of changing sheets and washing the patient frequently to avoid the danger of skin breakdown in the anal and coccyx area which can be caused by frequent contact with fecal material. This witness, however, was unable to testify that patient A. W. had not been cleaned frequently inasmuch as she had a constant oozing of fecal material due to her inability to achieve sphincter control. The witness was similarly unable to establish that the wet excrement observed on the patient's buttocks and the waterproof pad beneath her had not been disposited there immediately before her observation of the patient. It was not shown that the patient had remained in a soiled condition for a significant period of time and indeed the witness acknowledged that allowing such a patient to remain in a soiled condition for a short period of time would not, on one or two occasions, affect that patient's health and safety. It is inferred that the soiling could just as likely have occurred immediately prior to Ms. Holzberger's observation inasmuch as it was described to be wet. Ms. Holzberger's observed no patients in the nursing home exhibiting skin breakdown or other ill effects caused by contact with excrement. Nurse Holzberger also observed patient C. M. who had severe contractures of the hands. Ms. Holzberger maintained that she observed soil accumulations in the right hand and the fingernails were in need of trimming. This witness described generally accepted hand care for contractured hands as consisting of washing or soaking in warm water at least daily and that if the contracture is severe, causing pain to open the hand, a washcloth should be wrapped on a tongue blade and inserted into the hand to clean it in that fashion. Drying is accomplished in a similar manner followed by insertion of a soft hand roll at least one inch in diameter to prevent indentation of the nails into the hand and to prevent build up of perspiration and to allow air to circulate. The nails should be trimmed as short as possible. Ms. Holzberger concluded, based primarily on the observance of the soil or stain in the hand, that it had been several days since hand care had been performed on this patient. Nurse Holzberger admitted that she knew nothing of the medical history of the patient C. M., a 97-year-old lady who suffers from severe degenerative arthritis and osteoporosis in both hands. The hand in question is so severely contractured as to be "in a ball." The witness acknowledged that no patient at the facility, including patient C. M., had any wounds caused by long nails, and that patient C. M. did have a gauze pad inserted into her hand. Witness Holzberger acknowledged that the brown stain on the patient's hand could have been due to the use of betadine which is a form of disinfectant medication and indeed Nurses Campanillo and Groves who testified for the Respondent, and were similarly accepted as experts, confirmed that the stain on patient C. M.`s hand was not caused by soil accumulation, but rather the betadine medication applied the day before in the course of regular hand care. Witness Holzberger testified that such hand care should be performed once a day and that she did not know whether it had been performed on the day of the inspection or not. The Respondent's witnesses confirmed that it had not been performed on that day at the time of her inspection shortly after 11:00 a.m., but that within the regular schedule of care for patients, it should be and was performed before 12:30 that day. Witness Holzberger admitted that there was no danger to the health and safety of the patient even if the hand was allowed to remain unclean for a reasonable period of time, which it was not. The Respondent thus demonstrated that the hand care was performed daily and that this patient could not tolerate a hand roll under her fingers to retard perspiration and indentation of the nails into the palm because it was extremely painful to even slide a tongue depresser with a washcloth under her fingers. Consequently, hand care was adequately accomplished on a daily basis by inserting a four inch gauze pad beneath her fingers and against her palm soaked with betadine solution and keeping her nails trimmed as short as possible. Witness Joel Montgomery was the hospital consultant on the Department's inspection team. Witness Montgomery observed a leaking air conditioner unit, a broken water closet tank cover, a leaking faucet in a janitor's closet, an inoperative water fountain and a missing baseboard in two of the rooms, as well as the allegation that nurse call cords were missing or not attached to the beds in approximately 12 rooms. The witness conceded that this is a large nursing home and such deficiencies are not unusual for a nursing home of this size and type, and that the staff of this nursing home had made sincere and continuing efforts to make repairs. He has seen improvements in maintenance over conditions existing at previous inspections. The witness was unable to state how many nurse paging cords were severed or missing, but that most of the 12 were simply not attached to the patients' beds. His testimony was not clear as to the existence of a requirement for attaching the paging cords to the beds, but the general tenor of his testimony was that that was the accepted procedure required by the Petitioner in regulating and overseeing patient care in nursing homes. The witness could not recall which, if any, beds were occupied in the rooms where he noticed the call cords were not attached to the beds. The witness also acknowledged that some of the cords were reattached to the beds in his presence, but he did not recall how many. The Respondent has a policy of detaching the cords from the beds when the patients are not in bed in order to change the linen, move the beds or to better allow ingress or egress by the patient from the bed. This witness did not establish that that policy conflicts with any Department policy or rule or constitutes an adverse influence on health care. The Respondent adduced evidence which established that only two call cords were actually inoperative during the inspection and that those were repaired during the inspection. The Respondent's witness to this effect Ann Killeen, the Administrator of the facility, made the inspection tour in the company of witness Montgomery for the Petitioner and corroborated the fact that the cords were clipped to the wall when patients are out of the beds or beds were being changed in order to prevent cords from breaking when the beds are moved, and that she was unaware that this violated any minimum standard promulgated by the Petitioner. The broken toilet tank cover was corrected while the inspector was on the premises, the leaking faucet in the janitor's closet sink was a slight drip causing no standing water inasmuch as the leaking water went down the drain. The leaking air conditioner drip pan was the only one of 89 air conditioners with such a problem. The testimony of this witness, as well as Respondent's witness Robert Cole, the employee of the facility in charge of maintenance, establishes that the inoperative call cords as well as the loose baseboards, the inoperative water fountain and broken water closet tank cover were repaired on the day of the inspection while the inspector was still on the premises with the exception of the air conditioner which was repaired within one week after the inspection and the baseboards which were repaired the day after the inspection. The water fountain was the subject of regular maintenance and had been repaired a number of times and the plumber was summoned to repair it once again after its deficiency was noted by Mr. Montgomery. None of the deficiencies with regard to the nurse call cords, the condensation dripping from the air conditioner, the broken water closet tank cover, the leaking faucet, the inoperative water fountain and the loose baseboards were shown to have been a recurring problem or problem existing for any significant period of time. The Petitioner did not show when these conditions occurred or how long they had been allowed to exist, nor did it show any resultant effect on the health or safety of the patients. The Respondent called Earnest H. Brown as an adverse witness. Mr. Brown is the Supervisor of the Tampa area Office of Licensure and Certification for the Petitioner. This witness admitted that he recommended a fine with regard to witness Holzberger's observance of patient A. W., who was fecally incontinent, because he believed fecal material had been found dried upon that patient's bed sheet. He relied on witness Holzberger's professional judgment in reporting to him. Witness Holzberger's testimony at the hearing, however, does not establish that any dried fecal material was found on patient A. W.`s bed sheet. With regard to his decision to recommend a fine concerning the deficient nurse calling cords, the witness admitted that this was predicated on the other observances of deficient call cords at the Respondent's facility on past inspections. The witness could not recall how many call cords, if any, had been observed to be inoperative or otherwise used improperly on past inspections. It should be noted parenthetically that the Administrative Complaint contains no allegation of such past deficiencies as a predicate to the charge regarding call cords in the Administrative Complaint stemming from the inspection of August 22, 1980 and in support of the fine which the Petitioner seeks to impose for this condition.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this cause should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 27th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard A. Gilbert, Esquire de la Parte & Butler, P.A. 403 Morgan Street, Suite 102 Tampa, Florida 33602 Steven R. Reininger, Esquire Tew, Critchlow, Sonberg, Traum & Friedbauer 10th Floor Flagship Center 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact The application and project On October 15, 1986, Respondent, Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc. (FRTC), filed a timely application with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), for a certificate of need to construct a 60-bed specialty hospital to be licensed as an intensive residential treatment program for children and adolescents in Broward County, Florida. On March 11, 1987, the Department proposed to grant FRTC's application, and petitioners, Florida Psychiatric Centers (FPC) and South Broward Hospital District (SBHD), timely petitioned for formal administrative review. FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter). Currently, Charter owns, operates or has under construction 85 hospitals within its corporate network. Of these, 13 are general hospitals, and 72 are psychiatric hospitals. Notably, Charter now operates residential treatment programs in Newport News, Virginia, Provo, Utah, and Mobile, Alabama; and, is developing such a program in Memphis, Tennessee. Within the State of Florida, Charter operates psychiatric hospitals in Tampa, Jacksonville, Fort Myers, Miami, and Ocala. In connection with the operation of these facilities, Charter has established satellite counseling centers to screen patients prior to admission and to provide aftercare upon discharge. Of 20 such centers operated by Charter, one is located in Broward County and two are located in Dade County. The facility proposed by FRTC in Broward County (District X) will treat seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents under the age of 18. The patients admitted to the facility will have the full range of psychiatric diagnoses, with the probable exception of serious mental retardation and severe autism. FRTC will not treat patients who present themselves with a primary substance abuse diagnosis, nor will it admit patients who are actively dangerous. This distinguishes FRTC from an acute psychiatric hospital where actively dangerous patients requiring immediate medical intervention are often admitted. The anticipated length of stay at FRTC will vary depending upon the patient's responsiveness to treatment, but is reasonably expected to range between 6 months to 2 years, with an average of 1 year. The treatment programs to be offered at FRTC will be based upon a bio- psychosocial treatment model. This model assumes that the biological component of a patient's condition has been stabilized and that psychiatric medication will be administered solely to maintain this stabilized condition. The social component of the model is designed to resolve problems in interpersonal, family and peer relationships through educational groups, psychiatric co-therapeutic groups and family group therapy. The psychological component focuses primarily on developing personal understanding and insight to guide the patient toward self-directed behavior. Among the therapies to be offered at FRTC are individual, family, recreational, group and educational. Group therapy will be designed to resolve interpersonal problems and relationships, and focuses primarily on building trust among group members. Some group therapy sessions will also cover specific issues such as sex education, eating disorders, self-image and social skills. The goal of recreational therapy will be to teach patients to play appropriately, showing them how to give, take and share, and to follow and to lead. Recreational activities will be available both on and off campus. The goal of occupational therapy will be to develop skills used in work. For a child whose work is school, this often involves using special education techniques. For teenagers, occupational therapy also develops work skills, and prepares them for vocational training or employment. Family therapy is crucial because the family is she core of child development. Families will be invited to spend days with their children at FRTC where they will learn behavioral management techniques, and participate in parent education activities and multifamily groups. The school component of the program includes development of an individualized educational plan for each child. School will be conducted 4-5 hours a day. FRTC will utilize the level system as a behavioral management tool This system provides incentives for learning responsibility for one's own behavior and for functioning autonomously. The typical progress of a patient at FRTC will be as follows. First, a team which includes a psychiatrist, social worker, psychologist and teacher will decide, based upon available information, whether admission is appropriate. If admitted, a comprehensive assessment will be conducted within 10 days, a goal- oriented treatment program will be developed for each patient, designed to remedy specific problems. Discharge planning will begin immediately upon admission. A case manager will be involved to assure that the treatment modalities are well-coordinated. Finally, FRTC will provide aftercare upon discharge. Should any FRTC patients experience acute episodes, they will be referred to acute care psychiatric hospitals with which FRTC has entered into transfer agreements. Likewise, patients who require other medical attention will be referred to appropriate physicians Consistency with the district plan and state health plan. While the local health plan does not specifically address the need for intensive residential treatment programs (IRTPs) for children and adolescents, it does contain several policies and priorities that relate to the provision of psychiatric services within the district. Policy 2 contains the following relevant priorities when an applicant proposes to provide a new psychiatric service: ... Each psychiatric inpatient unit shall provide the following services: psychological testing/assessment, psychotherapy, chemotherapy, psychiatric consultation to other hospital departments, family therapy, crisis intervention, activity therapy, social services and structured education for school age patients, and have a minimum patient capacity of 20 and a relationship with the community mental health center. Facilities should be encouraged to provide for a separation of children, adolescents, adults, and geriatric patient' where possible. Greater priority should be given to psychiatric inpatient programs that propose to offer a broad spectrum of continuous care. ... Applicants should be encouraged to propose innovative treatment techniques such as, complementing outpatient and inpatient services or cluster campuses, that are designed to ultimately reduce dependency upon short term psychiatric hospital beds. New facilities should be structurally designed for conducive recovery, provide a least restrictive setting, provide areas for privacy, and offer a wide range of psychiatric therapies. Applicants should be encouraged to offer intermediate and follow-up care to reduce recidivism, encourage specialty services by population and age, engage in research, and offer a full range of complete assessment (biological and psychological). Additionally, the local plan contains the following policies and priorities which warrant consideration in this case: POLICY #3 Services provided by all proposed and existing facilities should be made available to all segments of the resident population regardless of the ability to pay. Priority #1 - Services and facilities should be designed to treat indigent patients to the greatest extend possible, with new project approval based in part on a documented history of provision of services to indigent patients. Priority #2 - Applicants should have documented a willingness to participate in appropriate community planning activities aimed at addressing the problem of financing for the medically indigent. POLICY #4 Providers of health services are expected to the extent possible to insure an improvement of the quality of health services within the district. Priority #1 - Applicants for certificate of need approval should document either their intention or experience in meeting or exceeding the standards promulgated for the provision of services by the appropriate national accreditation organization. Priority #2 - Each applicant for certificate of need approval should have an approved Patient Bill of Rights' `as part of the institution's internal policy. POLICY #5 Specialized inpatient psychiatric treatment services should be available by age, group and service type. For example, programs for dually diagnosed mentally ill substance abusers, the elderly, and children, should be accessible to those population groups. Priority #1 - Applicants should be encouraged to expand or initiate specialized psychiatric treatment services. The FRTC application is consistent with the local health plan. FRTC's program elements and facility design are consistent with those mandated by the local plan for mental health facilities, and its proposal offers a wide range of services, including follow-up care. FRTC intends to provide a minimum of 1.5 percent of its patient day allotment to indigent children and adolescents, and will seek JCAH accreditation and CHAMPUS approval. The state health plan addresses services similar to those being proposed by FRTC, and contains the following pertinent policies and statements: Mental health services are designed to provide diagnosis, treatment and support of individuals suffering from mental illness and substance abuse. Services encompass a wide range of programs which include: diagnosis and evaluation, prevention, outpatient treatment, day treatment, crisis stabilization and counseling, foster and group homes, hospital inpatient diagnosis and treatment, residential treatment, and long term inpatient care. These programs interact with other social and economic services, in addition to traditional medical care, to meet the specific needs of individual clients. STATE POLICIES As the designated mental health authority' for Florida, HRS has the responsibility for guiding the development of a coordinated system of mental health services in cooperation with local community efforts and input. Part of that responsibility is to develop and adopt policies which can be used to guide the development of services such that the needs of Florida residents are served in an appropriate and cost effective manner. Policies relating to the development of mental health services in Florida are contained in Chapter 394 and Chapter 230.2317, F.S. The goal of these services is: '... reduce the occurrence, severity, duration and disabling aspects of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders.' (Chapter 394, F.S.) '... provide education; mental health treatment; and when needed, residential services for severely emotionally disturbed students.' (Chapter 230.2317, F.S.) Within the statutes, major emphasis has also been placed on patient rights and the use of the least restrictive setting for the provision of treatment. 'It is further the policy of the state that the least restrictive appropriate available treatment be utilized based on the individual needs and best interests of the patient and consistent with optimum improvement of the patient's condition.' (Chapter 394.459(2)(b), F.S.) 'The program goals for each component of the network are'... 'to provide programs and services as close as possible to the child's home in the least restrictive manner consistent with the child's needs.' (Chapter 230.2317(1)(b), F.S.) Additional policies have been developed in support of the concept of a 'least restrictive environment' and address the role of long and short term inpatient care in providing mental health services for severely emotionally disturbed (SED) children. These include: 'State mental hospitals are for those adolescents who are seriously mentally ill and who have not responded to other residential treatment programs and need a more restrictive setting.' (Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office, 1982) 'Combined exceptional student and mental health services should be provided in the least restrictive setting possible. This setting is preferably a school or a community building rather than a clinical or hospital environment.' (Office of Children Youth and Families, 1984) 'Alternative, therapeutic living arrangements must be available to SED students in the local areas, when family support is no longer possible, so that they may continue to receive services in the least restrictive way possible.' (Office of Children Youth and Families, 1984) 'SED students should not be placed in residential schools or hospitals because of lack of local treatment resources, either educational or residential.' (Office of Children Youth and Families, 1984). * * * Sufficient funding for the development of residential treatment and community support is necessary if the state is to fulfill its commitment to providing services for long term mentally ill persons. These services provide, in the long run, a more humane and cost effective means of meeting the mental health needs of Florida residents. Community services have been shown to be effective in rapidly returning the majority of individuals to their productive capacity and reducing the need for costly long term, institutional mental health services. There is, therefore, a need to proceed as rapidly as possible with the development of publicly funded services in those districts which are currently experiencing problems resulting from gaps in services. * * * Services for Adolescents and Children An additional issue which has been identified as a result of increased pressures for development of hospital based programs is the need to differentiate between services for adults and those for children and adolescents. Existing policy supports the separation of services for children and adolescents from those of adults and requires the development of a continuum of services for emotionally disturbed children. The actual need for both long and short term inpatient services for children and adolescents is relatively small compared to that of adults but is difficult to quantify. Providers, however, continue to request approval for long and short term adolescent and children services as a means of gaining access to the health care market. Continued development of long and short term inpatient hospital programs for the treatment of adolescents and children is contrary to current treatment practices for these groups and is, therefore, inappropriate without local data to support the need for these services. Such development can contribute to inappropriate placement, unnecessary costs of treatment, and divert scarce resources away from alternative uses. In addition, the following pertinent goals are contained in the state health plan: GOAL 1: ENSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES TO ALL FLORIDA RESIDENTS IN A LEAST RESTRICTIVE SETTING. * * * GOAL 2: PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONTINUUM OF HIGH QUALITY, COST EFFECTIVE PRIVATE SECTOR MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND PREVENTIVE SERVICES. * * * GOAL 3: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT. * * * OBJECTIVE 3.1.: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. * * * OBJECTIVE 3.2.: Place all clients identified by HRS as inappropriately institutionalized in state hospitals in community treatment settings by July 1, 1989. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 3.2a.: Develop a complete range of community support services in each HRS district by July 1, 1989. * * * OBJECTIVE 3.3.: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. The FRTC application is consistent with the state health plan which emphasizes the trend toward deinstutionalization, and the importance of education, treatment and residential services for severely emotionally disturbed children and adolescents rather than the traditional approach of institutional placement. Deinstutionalization assures more appropriate placement and treatment of patients, and is less costly from a capital cost and staffing perspective. The FRTC application also promotes treatment within the state, and will assist in reducing out-of-state placements. Need for the proposed facility The Department has not adopted a rule for the review of applications for IRTPs, and has no numeric need methodology to assess their propriety. Rather, because of the paucity of such applications and available data, the Department reviews each application on a case by case basis and, if it is based on reasonable assumptions and is consistent with the criteria specified in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, approves it. In evaluating the need for an IRTP, the Department does not consider other residential treatment facilities in the district, which are not licensed as IRTP's and which have not received a CON, as like and existing health care services because such facilities are subject to different licensure standards. Under the circumstances, the Department's approach is rational, and it is found that there are no like and existing health care services in the district. While there are no like and existing health care services in the district, there are other facilities which offer services which bear some similarity to those being proposed by FRTC. These facilities include short-term and long-term residential treatment facilities, therapeutic foster homes and therapeutic group homes. These facilities are, however, operating at capacity, have waiting lists, and do not in general offer the breath or term of service proposed by FRTC. There are also short-term and long-term psychiatric hospitals within the district that include within their treatment modalities services similar to those proposed by the applicant. The short-term facilities are not, however, an appropriate substitute for children and adolescents needing long-term intensive residential treatment and neither are the long-term facilities from either a treatment or cost perspective. Notably, there are only 15 long term psychiatric beds in Broward County dedicated to adolescents, and none dedicated to children. In addition to the evident need to fill the gap which exists in the continuum of care available to emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in Broward County, the record also contains other persuasive proof of the reasonableness of FRTC's proposal. This proof, offered through Dr. Ronald Luke, an expert in health planning whose opinions are credited, demonstrated the need for and the reasonableness of FRTC's proposed 60-bed facility. Dr. Luke used two persuasive methodologies which tested the reasonableness of FRTC's 60-bed proposal. The first was a ratio of beds per population methodology similar to the rule methodology the Department uses for short-term psychiatric beds. Under this methodology, approval of FRTC's proposal would result in 25.47 beds per 100,000 population under 18 in District X. This ratio was tested for reasonableness with other available data. Relevant national data demonstrates an average daily census of 16,000 patients in similar beds. This calculates into 24.01 beds per 100,000 at a 90 percent occupancy rate and 25.93 beds per 100,000 at an 85 percent occupancy rate. Additionally, Georgia has a category of beds similar to IRTP beds. The Georgia utilization data demonstrates a pertinent ratio of 27.05 beds per 100,000 population. The second methodology used by Dr. Luke to test the reasonableness of FRTC's proposal, was to assess national utilization data for "overnight care in conjunction with an intensive treatment program." The national census rate in such facility per 100,000 population for persons under 18 was 21.58. Multiplying such rate by the district population under 18, derives an average daily census of 52. Assuming an optimal occupancy rate of 85 percent, which is reasonable, this demonstrates a gross need for 61 IRTP beds in District X. Dr. Luke's conclusions not only demonstrate the reasonableness of FRTC's proposal, but corroborate the need for such beds within the district. This proof, together with an analysis of existing or similar services, existing waiting lists for beds at similar facilities, and the placement by the Department of 28 children from Broward County outside the county in 1986 for long-term residential treatment, demonstrates the need for, and reasonableness of, FRTC's proposal. Quality of care The parties have stipulated that Charter and its hospitals provide quality short and long term psychiatric care. All of Charter's psychiatric hospitals are JCAH accredited, and Charter will seek JCAH accreditation and CHAMPUS approval for the proposed facility. Based on Charter's provision of quality psychiatric care, its experience in providing intensive residential treatment, and the programs proposed for the Broward County facility, it is found that quality intensive residential treatment will be provided at the FRTC facility. The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. The parties have stipulated that FRTC has available resources, including management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. The proof further demonstrates that FRTC will be able to recruit any other administrative, clinical or other personnel needed for its facility. 1/ Accessibility to all residents FRTC projects the following utilization by class of pay: Insurance 66.5 percent, private pay 25 percent, indigent 1.5 percent, and bad debt 7 percent. While this is an insignificant indigent load, FRTC has committed to accept state-funded patients at current state rates. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable. The evident purpose of FRTC's application is to permit its licensure as a hospital under Section 395.002, Florida Statutes, and thereby permit it to be called a "hospital." If a residential treatment facility is licensed as a hospital it has a significant advantage over unlicensed facilities in receiving reimbursement from third party payors. Therefore, accessibility will be increased for those children and adolescents in need of such care whose families have insurance coverage since it is more likely that coverage will be afforded at an IRTP licensed as a "hospital" than otherwise. Design considerations The architectural design for the FRTC facility was adopted from a prototype short-term psychiatric hospital design which Charter has constructed in approximately 50 locations. This design contains the three essential components for psychiatric facilities: administration, support and nursing areas. The floor plan allows easy flow of circulation, and also allows for appropriate nursing control through visual access to activities on the floor. This design is appropriate for the purposes it will serve, and will promote quality residential care. As initially proposed, the facility had a gross square footage of 31,097 square feet. At hearing, an updated floor plan was presented that increased the gross square footage by 900 square feet to 32,045, an insignificant change. In the updated floor plan the recreational component was increased from a multipurpose room to a half-court gymnasium, an additional classroom was added, and the nursing unit was reduced in size to create an assessment unit. The updated floor plan is an enhancement of FRTC's initial proposal, and is a better design for the provision of long-term residential care to children and adolescents than the initial design. While either design is appropriate, acceptance of FRTC's updated floor plan is appropriate where, as here, the changes are not substantial. Financial feasibility As previously noted, the parties have stipulated that FRTC has the available funds for capital and operating expenses, and that the project is financially feasible in the immediate term. At issue is the long-term financial feasibility of the project. FRTC presented two pro forma calculations to demonstrate the financial feasibility of the project. The first pro forma was based on the application initially reviewed by the Department. The second was based on the proposal presented at hearing that included the changes in staffing pattern and construction previously discussed. Both pro formas were, however, based on the assumption than the 60-bed facility would achieve 50 percent occupancy in the first year of operation and 60 percent occupancy in the second year of operation, that the average length of stay would be 365 days, and that the daily patient charge in the first year of operation would be $300 and in the second year of operation would be $321. These are reasonable assumptions, and the proposed charges are reasonable. The projected charges are comparable to charges at other IRTP's in Florida, and are substantially less than those of acute psychiatric hospitals. For example, current daily charges at Charter Hospital of Miami are $481, and FPC anticipates that its average daily charge will be $500. FRTC projects its utilization by class of pay for its first year of operation to be as follows: Insurance (commercial insurance and CHAMPUS) 65.5 percent, private pay 25 percent, indigent 1.5 percent, and bad debt 8 percent. The projection by class of pay for the second year of operation changes slightly based on the assumption that, through experience, the bad debt allowance should decrease. Consequently, for its second year of operation FRTC projects its utilization by class of pay to be as follows: Insurance (commercial insurance and CHAMPUS) 66.5 percent, private pay 25 percent, indigent 1.5 percent, and bad debt 7 percent. These projections of utilization are reasonable. FRTC's pro forma for the application initially reviewed by the Department demonstrates an estimated net income for the first year of operation of $97,000, and for the second year of operation $229,000. The updated pro forma to accommodate the changes in staffing level and construction, demonstrates a $102,000 loss in the first year of operation and a net income in the second year of operation of $244,000. The assumptions upon which FRTC predicated its pro formas were reasonable. Accordingly, the proof demonstrates that the proposed project will be financially feasible in the long-term. Costs and methods of construction The estimated project cost of the FRTC facility, as initially reviewed by the Department, was $4,389,533. The estimated cost of the project, as modified at hearing, was $4,728,000. This increase was nominally attributable to the change in architectural design of the facility which increased the cost of professional services by approximately $7,500 and construction costs by $139,322. Of more significance to the increased cost of the project was the increase in land acquisition costs which raised, because of appreciation factors, from $750,000 to $1,000,000. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the majority of the development costs and most of the other items were not actively contested. Petitioners did, however, dispute the reasonableness of FRTC's cost estimate for land acquisition and construction supervision. The proof supports, however the reasonableness of FRTC's estimates. FRTC has committed to construct its facility south of State Road 84 or east of Interstate 95 in Broward County, but has not, as yet, secured a site. It has, however, allocated $1,000,000 for land acquisition, $200,281 for site preparation exclusive of landscaping, and $126,000 for construction contingencies. The parties have stipulated to the reasonableness of the contingency fund, which is designed as a safety factor to cover unknown conditions such as unusually high utility fees and unusual site conditions. Totalling the aforementioned sums, which may be reasonably attributable to land acquisition costs, yields a figure of $1,326,281. Since a minimum of 6 acres is needed for project accomplishment, FRTC's estimate of project costs contemplates a potential cost of $221,047 per acre. In light of the parties' stipulation, and the proof regarding land costs in the area, FRTC's estimate for land acquisition costs is a reasonable planning figure for this project. FRTC budgeted in its estimate of project costs $6,000 for the line item denoted as "construction supervision (Scheduling)." Petitioners contend that construction supervision will far exceed this figure, and accordingly doubt the reliability of FRTC's estimate of project costs. Petitioners' contention is not persuasive. The line item for "Construction supervision (Scheduling)" was simply a fee paid to a consultant to schedule Charter's projects. Actual on site supervision will be provided by the construction contractor selected, Charter's architect and Charter's in-house construction supervision component. These costs are all subsumed in FRTC's estimate of project cost. FRTC's costs and methods of proposed construction, including the costs and methods of energy efficiency and conservation, are reasonable for the facility initially reviewed by the Department and the facility as modified at hearing. The petitioners FPC, a Florida partnership, received a certificate of need on May 9, 1986, to construct a 100-bed short term psychiatric and substance abuse hospital in Broward County. At the time of hearing, the FPC facility was under construction, with an anticipated opening in May 1988. Under the terms of its certificate of need, the FPC facility will consist of 80 short-term psychiatric beds (40 geriatric, 25 adult, and 15 adolescent) and 20 short-term substance abuse beds. Whether any of the substance abuse beds will be dedicated to adolescent care is, at best, speculative. The principals of FPC have opined at various times, depending on the interest they sought to advance, that 0, 5, or 20 of such beds would be dedicated to adolescent care. Their testimony is not, therefore, credible, and I conclude that FPC has failed to demonstrate than any of its substance abuse beds will be dedicated to adolescent care and that none of its treatment programs will include children. As a short term psychiatric hospital, FPC is licensed to provide acute inpatient psychiatric care for a period not exceeding 3 months and an average length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. While its treatment modalities and programs may be similar to those which may be employed by FRTC, FPC does not provide long-term residential treatment for children and adolescents and its services are not similar to those being proposed by FRTC. Notably, FPC conceded that if the patients admitted by FRTC require treatment lasting from 6 months to 2 years, there will be no overlap between the types of patients treated at the two facilities. As previously noted, the proof demonstrates that the length of stay at the FRTC facility was reasonably estimated to be 6 months to 2 years, with an average length of stay of 1 year. Under the circumstances, FPC and FRTC will not compete for the same patients. As importantly, there is no competent proof that FRTC could capture any patient that would have been referred to FPC or that any such capture, if it occurred, would have a substantial impact on FPC. Accordingly, the proof fails to demonstrate that FPC will suffer any injury in fact as a consequence of the proposed facility. SBHD is an independent taxing authority created by the legislature. Pertinent to this case, SBHD owns and operates the following facilities in Broward County: Memorial Hospital of Hollywood, 1011 North 35th Avenue, Hollywood, Florida, and Memorial Hospital Share Program, 801 S.W. Douglas Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida. Memorial Hospital of Hollywood is a general acute care hospital, with 74 beds dedicated to short-term psychiatric care. These beds are divided between three units: two closed units for acute care (42 beds) and one open unit (32 beds). There is no unit specifically dedicated to the treatment of adolescents, and Memorial does not admit any psychiatric patient under the age of 14. When admitted, adolescents are mixed with the adult population. From May 1987 through January 1988, Memorial admitted only 5-10 adolescents (ages 14-18). Their average length of stay was 12-14 days. Memorial Hospital Share Program is a 14-bed inpatient residential treatment program for individuals suffering from chemical dependency. No patient under the age of 18 is admitted to this program, which has an average length of stay of 27 days. SBHD contends that its substantial interests are affected by this proceeding because approval of FRTC's facility would result in the loss of paying psychiatric and residential treatment patients that would erode SBHD's ability to provide services to the indigent, and would, due to a shortage of nursing, recreational therapy and occupational therapists who are skilled and trained in the care of psychiatric patients, affect the quality of care at its facility and increase costs for recruiting and training staff. Due to the paucity of competent proof, SBHD's concerns are not credited, and it has failed to demonstrate that its interests are substantially affected by these proceedings. Succinctly, SBHD offered no proof concerning any staffing problems it was encountering and no proof of any disparity that might exist between wages and benefits it offers its employees and those to be offered at the FRTC facility. In sum, it undertook no study from which it could be reasonably concluded that the FRTC facility would adversely impact its staffing or otherwise increase the cost of recruiting and training staff. Likewise, SBHD undertook no study and offered no credible proof that the FRTC facility would adversely impact it financially. In fact, the FRTC facility will not treat the same patient base that is cared for by SBHD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that FRTC's application for certificate of need, as updated, be granted, subject to the special condition set forth in conclusions of law number 12. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of September, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1988.
