Findings Of Fact Having reviewed the entire record before it, the Board finds that the Findings of Fact as contained in the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are adequately supported by competent, substantial evidence and hereby adopts those Findings of Fact as its own.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure by examination be GRANTED and that Ann Mary McKay be authorized to take the licensed practical nurse examination. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of March, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Pamela Kay Johnson is a licensed practical nurse licensed by the Florida State Board of Nursing. The records of Sanford Nursing and Convalescent Center showed that Pamela Kay Johnson either administered Atarax to Herbert Speir without a doctor's order or administered the Atarax to another patient and erroneously charted its administration on Speir's medication chart while she was on duty at the center on November 6, 1977. On the morning of November 8, 1977, after having worked the evening shift and then gone partying with her husband, Pamela Kay Johnson exhibited faintness and physical distress at the staff meeting at the convalescent center. She was examined by the director of nursing at the center, who sent her home and subsequently terminated her when it was discovered that she had mismedicated Speir. Mr. Lewis Johnson stated that his wife had been treated for convulsive seizures and had been prescribed Phenobarbital and Dilantin by her treating physician, Dr. Merritt. Mr. Johnson stated that his wife had been on this medication since July, 1977, and subsequent to her initial adjustment to the medication had suffered no ill effects from it. When Mr. Johnson arrived home on November 8, Mrs., Johnson was in bed and asleep. He spoke that day with the director at nursing who advised him that she felt Mrs. Johnson needed to see a physician because of her condition. Mr. Johnson took his wife the following day to Watson Clinic in Ocala, Florida, where she was seen by her treating physician, Dr. Merritt. Dr. Merritt conducted tests on Mrs. Johnson and subsequently advised Mr. and Mrs. Johnson that the level of Phenobarbital and Dilantin in her system was consistent with the dosage he had prescribed. After testing, Dr. Merritt reduced the dosage of Phenobarbital. Dr. Merritt could offer no explanation of Mrs. Johnson's reaction to Phenobarbital. Mrs. Johnson is currently employed with Homemakers Upjohn as a licensed practical nurse. She has not had any other drug reaction since the reduction of the medication.
Recommendation The facts presented in this case indicate that the Board should not take any disciplinary action, but that the Board should take action to insure that the public interest is protected. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Nursing suspend the license of Mrs. Pamela Kay Johnson as a licensed practical nurse until July, 1978, the date Dr. Merritt indicated that she could cease taking the medications and not be subject to further seizures. In addition, the Hearing Officer would recommend that Board suspend the recommended suspension upon being satisfied that Mrs. Johnson's health does not constitute an undue risk to the public. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Pamela Kay Johnson 1670 Morrell Drive Lakeland, Florida 33801 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway - Bldg B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a Licensed Practical Nurse should be suspended or revoked for alleged violation of Sections 464.21(1)(b) and (d), F.S., as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated August 3, 1978. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing. Notice of Hearing was issued by the Hearing Officer under date of October 25, 1978, to the address provided by Petitioner, 7124 Bay Drive No. 1, Miami Beach, Florida 33141. This is the address reflected on the envelope which enclosed Respondent's request for hearing on the Administrative Complaint sent to Petitioner under postmark August 28, 1978. It being determined that adequate notice had been provided to Respondent, the hearing was conducted as a uncontested proceed, pursuant to Rule 28-5.25(5), Florida Administrative Code. (Exhibit 5)
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michaela Fives holds License No. 27554-1 as a Licensed Practical Nurse and was so licensed in November, 1977. (Testimony of Johnson) On November 5, 1977, Detective Kenneth Valentine, Hialeah Police Department, was acting in an undercover capacity on an investigation of narcotics. Pursuant to his investigation, he met with Respondent at her apartment located at 5960 NW 38th Street, Apartment 210, Virginia Gardens, Miami, Florida. Lynn Sampson and Danny Cundiff were also present in Respondent's apartment at the time. Cundiff and Sampson wrote out a prescription of 60 300 mg. Quaalude tablets on a printed prescription form. The top of the form showed the name Lacy, Adler, M.D., P.A., followed by "Andrew P. Adler, M.D., Ray C. Lacy, M.D., 221 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130, Telephone: 887-9339." The prescription was handed to Valentine and Respondent gave him $15.50 to have it filled at the My Pharmacy, 1550 West 84th Street, Hialeah-Miami Lakes, Florida. By pre-arrangement with the pharmacist, Valentine had the prescription filled there and took the pills back to the apartment. Sampson divided them among Respondent, Cundiff and herself, and each of them ingested one tablet. Valentine purchased ten tablets from Sampson and Cundiff for $35.50. (Testimony of Valentine) On November 9, 1977, Valentine again met with the three individuals at Respondent's apartment and was provided another prescription for the same amount of drugs. It reflected the patient's name as Robert Southern, and registration number 178855. It was purportedly signed by "S. Adler, M.D." Prior to this meeting, the Hialeah police had determined that Doctors Adler and Lacy were not listed in the telephone book nor were they located at the address shown on the prescription form. They also determined that the phone number shown on the prescription form was a pay telephone located in Hialeah, Florida. After the individuals at the apartment discussed the fact that the pharmacist would probably call the phone number listed on the prescription form to verify its authenticity, Valentine took the Prescription to the My Pharmacy and had it filled, using his own money for the purchase. At this time, another police officer present at the pharmacy called the phone number listed on the prescription form to ostensibly verify the prescription. Lieutenant Paul Gentesse of the Hialeah Police Department had previously placed himself in a position to observe the pay telephone. He saw the Respondent answer the telephone and then followed her back to her apartment. When Valentine returned with the filled prescription, he gave it to Cundiff who divided the tablets among Respondent, Sampson and Valentine Valentine paid $30.00 for ten tablets. Other police officers then arrived at the apartment and Respondent, Cundiff and Sampson were placed under arrest. (Testimony of Valentine, Gentesse, Exhibit 3) The tablets taken from the possession of Respondent and the others were analyzed by a chemist in the Crime Laboratory of the Dade County Public Safety Department and were found to contain Methaqualone, a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Quaalude is a common tradename for Methaqualone. (Testimony of Lynn, Exhibit 2, supplemented by Exhibit 1) On January 9, 1975, Petitioner had suspended the license of the Respondent for period of two years as a result of prostitution charges. The record of that proceeding contained the testimony of Respondent that she had been involved In the illegal use of controlled drugs and had been attending a drug rehabilitation program for the treatment of drug abuse as a result of court order. Respondent thereafter petitioned for reconsideration of the suspension and, on June 29, 1976, Petitioner stayed its order of suspension and placed Respondent on probation for the remainder of the period of suspension. (Testimony of Johnson, Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a Licensed Practical Nurse be revoked for violation of Section 464.21(1)(d) , Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Coordinator 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Michaela Fives, L.P.N. 7124 Bay Drive No. 1 Miami Beach, Florida 33141
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters under consideration here, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, under license #0692631. Cynthia J. Pagonis entered University Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 11, 1983, for a routine laparoscopy to be performed the following morning. Early on the morning of the day of her surgery, April 12, 1983, Respondent, who was one of her nurses, came into her room with two other nurses, one of whom gave her a shot. While this was done, Respondent stood back and observed. Somewhat later, he again came back into her room with a rolling table onto which he told her to climb so he could take her down to the operating room. By this time she was somewhat drowsy from the shot. She asked Respondent what was in it and he told her, whereupon he wheeled her to surgery. After the procedure, that afternoon, Ms. Pagonis recalls him entering her room several times. One time, he checked her I.V. bottle--other times, he did nothing for her and, sleepy as she was, this concerned her because she wanted to sleep and Respondent's visits disturbed her. During this period, other nurses also came in to check her blood pressure or do something else, but Respondent never did anything--just looked. On the final visit, he came in and said he wanted to check her bandage. With this, he lowered her blanket to below her waist to the extent that her pelvic area was exposed. She was wearing a short hospital gown and nothing else. By this time, several hours after surgery, the anesthetic had worn off so that she knew exactly what was happening. After looking at her bandage, in this case no more than a Band-Aid, he pulled the cover back up and, without warning, bent over and kissed her on the cheek. She was upset when he pulled the blanket down because she felt it was inappropriate for him to do it when her dressing had been checked by another nurse shortly before. She also did not think it was appropriate for a male to be in her room without a chaperone. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, he told her he would be off for a few days and for her to take care of herself. Then he left. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, she got angry. She had said nothing to him to lead him on. She had asked him what cologne he was wearing and when he told her, she said it smelled nice, but nothing more. Mr. Pagonis entered his wife's room on the morning of her surgery, both before and after the operation. When he was there before she was taken to the operating room, he saw Respondent in the room and Respondent asked him to leave so they could get his wife ready for the operation. When he came back later, after this incident, he found her nervous and upset. She looked to him as if she had been frightened. When she told him what had happened, that this "black male nurse had repeatedly come into her room and was doing nothing" for her, and that he had pulled down her covers and "got his eyes full," Mr. Pagonis became angry and went out to look for Respondent. He could not find Mills, however, and went through the nursing chain of command until he got to Mrs. Davis, the Director of Medical Nursing, to whom he told the story. Mrs. Davis found Mr. Pagonis to be upset, but rational and controlled. He was, in her words, restrained, gentlemanly, and "quite heroic" about the whole situation. Mrs. Davis was first contacted about the incident, while in her office, by a call from the floor nurse on Mrs. Pagonis' floor. The nurse alerted her that Respondent had made advances to a patient. She immediately went up to that floor and met with Mr. Pagonis, whom she then took downstairs to her office where he told her what his wife had related. She then went back up to Mrs. Pagonis' room, in an effort to be fair to everyone, to see how alert Mrs. Pagonis was and how accurate her observations were. Mrs. Davis found her alert, and a clearheaded woman who, in her opinion, had been free of the effects of anesthesia for quite awhile. Mrs. Pagonis told her what had happened, that Respondent had made an unnecessary check of her I.V., since another nurse had just checked her, and then checked her dressing, as described. Mrs. Davis verified that another nurse had recently checked on Mrs. Pagonis and, after checking the incision, concluded that because it was so minor, there was no legitimate need for Respondent to have done so also. In her professional opinion, based on service as a licensed practical nurse since 1971 and as a registered nurse since 1974, the way in which Respondent checked Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate. The incision and dressing here were so small, it was not necessary to expose the patient all the way to the mons pubis, as Respondent did. In addition, a male nurse should always have a witness present in a situation such as this. As for the kiss, it is a rare situation when it is appropriate for a nurse to kiss a patient. This may be done only in the care of a very old, very young, very sick, long-term patient, where the parties had a long-standing relationship, and the action would be therapeutic. Under the circumstances here, Respondent's kiss of Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate and unprofessional, notwithstanding Respondent's claim he did it, "but only as a friendly gesture." Mrs. Davis requested Mr. Pagonis to make a written statement. When this was done and signed, Mrs. Davis called for Respondent, who, she found, had signed off his regular shift, but was working overtime. She located him and took him back to her office, where she questioned him about the incident. At first he denied it, but subsequently admitted he had kissed Mrs. Pagonis and pulled down her covers, although he claimed he did this in an appropriate manner. She then sent him back to work and thought about the situation for a while. Having made her decision to discharge the Respondent, she prepared the appropriate paperwork, called him back to her office, and did so. The next day, Mills called her and told her he understood why she had done what she did, told her he loved her, and thanked her. During the period he worked at that hospital, she never had any other difficulty with Respondent. He was cooperative and would come in for extra duty when called. She bad received no direct complaints about his relationship with other patients; and though she was not his immediate supervisor, she understood that his performance of his nursing duties was satisfactory. Somewhat later in the year, in June 1983, Respondent was employed as a Float Nurse at the Jacksonville Convalescent Center, specifically on June 19 and 20, 1983. On those days it was, according to Carol R. Hadnot, Director of Nursing at the Center, his responsibility to change the dressings on certain patients. Respondent was present for duty on those dates. During this period, Fay K.F. Bennett, also a nurse at the Center, as a part of her duties, checked the dressing on several of the patients whose dressings were due to be changed. She found that the dressings had not been changed and that the Patients' charts bore initials and date for the last change, a day or two before. The initials on the charts were D.M., which could have been Respondent or Doris Minard. That initial is not significant, however. What is significant is that there was no note on the chart showing that Respondent had changed the dressings during his duty period as he was required to do. This information was reported to Mrs. Hadnot. It is the general policy at Jacksonville Convalescent Center to counsel an employee before taking discharge action here. This was not done here because before Respondent could be counseled, allegations that Respondent had made sexual advances to three nurses' aids were reported to her. She then discussed the situation with the faculty administrator. They decided that because he was still a probationary employee, the allegations described were sufficient to discharge Respondent without counseling, and this was done.
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be revoked.
The Issue The issues are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A-5.024(1)(p)1.a., a proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A-5.024(3)(c), and, as recently amended or created, Florida Administrative Code Rules 58A-5.0131(41), 58A-5.0181(2)(b) (amending AHCA1 Form 1823 (Form 1823)), 58A-5.0182(8)(a) and (8)(a)1., 58A-5.0185(3)(g), 58A-5.0191(3)(a), and 58A-5.031(2)(d)2 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, on the grounds set forth in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed on May 30, 2018 (Prehearing Stipulation) or such other grounds that were tried by consent.
Findings Of Fact By "Notice of Proposed Rule" published on March 5, 2018, Respondent proposed amendments to 11 rules: rules 58A-5.0131, 58A-5.014, 58A-5.0181, 58A-5.0182, 58A-5.0185, 58A-5.019, 58A-5.0191, 58A-5.024, 58A-5.029, 58A-5.030, and 58A-5.031. For rulemaking authority, Respondent cited sections 429.07, 429.17, 429.178, 429.24, 429.255, 429.256, 429.27, 429.275, 429.31, 429.41, 429.42, 429.44, 429.52, 429.54, and 429.929. For the law implemented, Respondent cited sections 429.01 through 429.55 and 429.905 and chapter 2015-126, Laws of Florida.14 The proposed amendments to rule 58A-5.024 state15: The facility must maintain required records in a manner that makes such records readily available at the licensee’s physical address for review by a legally authorized entity. . . . For purposes of this section, “readily available” means the ability to immediately produce documents, records, or other such data, either in electronic or paper format, upon request.16 FACILITY RECORDS. Facility records must include: * * * The facility's infection control policies and procedures. The facility's infection control policy must include: A hand hygiene program which includes sanitation of the hands through the use of alcohol-based hand rubs or soap and water before and after each resident contact. Use of gloves during each resident contact where contact with blood, potentially infectious materials, mucous membranes, and non-intact skin could occur. The safe use of blood glucometers to ensure finger stick devices and glucometers are restricted to a single resident. Lancets should be disposed in an approved sharps container and never reused. Glucometers should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. Medication practices including adherence to standard precautions to prevent the transmission of infections in a residential setting. Staff identification, reporting, and prevention of pest infestations such as bed bugs, lice, and fleas. * * * (3) RESIDENT RECORDS. Resident records must be maintained on the premises and include: * * * (c) . . . Records of residents receiving nursing services from a third party must contain all orders for nursing services, all nursing assessments, and all nursing progress notes for services provided by the third party nursing services provider. Facilities that do not have such documentation but that can demonstrate that they have made a good faith effort to obtain such documentation may not be cited for violating this paragraph. A documented request for such missing documentation made by the facility administrator within the previous 30 days will be considered a good faith effort. The documented request must include the name, title, and phone number of the person to whom the request was made and must be kept in the resident's file. The challenge to rule 58A-5.024(1)(p)1.a. is to the unconditional requirement of hand sanitizing "before and after each resident contact."17 Resident contact is unqualified, so the challenged provision does not exclude casual or incidental contact between a staffperson and a resident. One of Respondent's witnesses assured that Respondent does not intend for "each residential contact" to include casual contact by staff, such as "high fives" during a bingo game or the brushing of shoulders in the hall, but this assurance cannot displace the unconditional language of the rule, as well as the fact that enforcement of the rule is left to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), not Respondent.18 In its present form, the rule requires hand sanitizing before exchanging "high fives" or, somehow, even a pat on a staffperson's clothed shoulder initiated by a resident, so as to discourage such casual contact. Requiring hand sanitizing before and after each and every resident contact will encompass many contacts for which hand sanitizing will have no effect on the control of infections and deter or abbreviate interactions between residents and staff, who would repeatedly be washing their hands during time that they otherwise might spend with residents. Generally, a hand hygiene program is neither capricious nor arbitrary because it responds to a well-recognized means by which disease is transmitted——human to human--with sanitation as a well-recognized means to interrupt this transmission process. However, the proposed rule irrationally requires hand sanitation before incidental residential contact that, by its nature, is unplanned, and after residential contact with another part of a staffperson's body, such as an elbow or clothed back, rather than the staffperson's hand, where hand washing would not have any sanitizing effect. The rule is also unsupported by logic or the necessary facts. On its face, rule 58A-5.024(1)(p)1.a. is not vague: a staffperson must sanitize her hands after every contact with a resident and before every contact with a resident, even, somehow, unplanned contacts that may be initiated by the resident. Respondent's promise that AHCA will apply this proposed rule reasonably--i.e., the inspector will know a violation when she sees one--makes the point that, to be spared findings of capriciousness and arbitrariness, rule 58A-5.024(1)(p)1.a. must be construed so as to fail to establish adequate standards for agency decisions. "Sanitary" means "of or relating to health[, as in] sanitary measure."19 The challenge to rule 58A-5.024(3)(c) is to the requirement that an ALF obtain and maintain the records of third party providers of nursing services. This requirement is supported by logic and the necessary facts and is not irrational. Maintaining a set of these records at the residence of an ALF resident promotes resident welfare. Applicable only to a facility that intends to offer limited nursing services, rule 58A-5.031(2)(d) provides: Facilities licensed to provide limited nursing services must employ or contract with a nurse(s) who must be available to provide such services as needed by residents. The facility's employed or contracted nurse must coordinate with third party nursing services providers to ensure resident care is provided in a safe and consistent manner. The facility must maintain documentation of the qualifications of nurses providing limited nursing services in the facility's personnel files. Coordinating a facility's nursing services with the nursing services of a third party to ensure that resident care is provided in a safe and consistent manner is neither capricious nor arbitrary. Resident welfare is served by a rule requiring coordination between any nurse employed or contracting with a facility and a provider of third party nursing services, so this requirement is rationally related to resident care and supported by logic and the necessary facts. "Coordination" means "the process of organizing people or groups so that they work together properly and well."20 "Quality assurance" means "a program for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of the various aspects of a project, service, or facility to ensure that standards of quality are being met." "Ensure" means "to make sure, certain, or safe: guarantee."21 In addition to proposed rule 58A-5.024(1)(p)1., two rules pertain to a facility's infection control program (ICP). Rule 58A-5.0185(3)(g) provides: "All trained staff must adhere to the facility's [ICP] and procedures when assisting with the self——administration of medication." Rule 58A-5.0191(3)(a) adds: Staff who provide direct care to residents . . . must receive a minimum of 1 hour in- service training in infection control including universal precautions and facility sanitation procedures, before providing personal care to residents. The facility must use its [ICP] and procedures when offering this training. . . . Requiring the use of a facility's ICP in training or when assisting with the self-administration of medication is neither capricious nor arbitrary. These requirements are supported by logic and the necessary facts and are rational. 13. Rule 58A-5.0131(41) provides: An "Unscheduled Service Need" means a need for a personal service, nursing service, or mental health intervention that generally cannot be predicted in advance of the need for the service, and that must be met promptly to ensure within a time frame that provides reasonable assurance that the health, safety, and welfare of residents is preserved. On its face and based on its placement within a rule devoted to definitions, rule 58A-5.0131(41) is a definition. If so, an "Unscheduled Service Need" occurs: 1) when a need for a covered service arises unexpectedly and 2) the need must be met promptly to ensure the preservation of resident welfare. If the rule is a definition, an amendment making the second condition more rigorous would inure to the benefit of ALFs because fewer situations would rise to the level of an Unscheduled Service Need. For instance, there would be even fewer Unscheduled Service Needs if the second condition stated, "and that must be met promptly to save the life of a resident." Two factors suggest that rule 58A-5.0131(41) is not merely a definition. A definition is normally incorporated in another provision of law that creates rights or enforces duties. However, "Unscheduled Service Need" occurs nowhere in the Florida Statutes and nowhere else in the Florida Administrative Code. "Unscheduled Service Need" might trigger action in a resident's care plan, but few residents are required to have a care plan. The parties have treated rule 58A-5.0131(41) as though it were a definitional rule that enforces a duty. FALA has challenged rule 58A-5.0131(41) as though the initial condition-- the occurrence of an unexpected, covered need--is the definition and the duty is for the ALF to meet the need to ensure the resident's welfare. Agreeing, Respondent stated in its proposed final order: "A plain reading of the entire rule makes it clear that the rule requires a facility to respond to an unscheduled service need in a manner that does not delay addressing the residents' needs."22 Although nearly all23 of the other subsections of rule 58A-5.0131 seem to provide conventional definitions, under the circumstances, this final order will follow the parties' reading of this definitional rule, so as to include the imposition of a duty on the ALF to take prompt action to ensure the resident's welfare. Rule 58A-5.0131(41) is neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is not irrational, illogical, or unsupported by the facts to define an unscheduled service need in the manner set forth in the rule and to require an ALF promptly to meet the need to ensure that the welfare of the resident. Rule 58A-5.0131(41) is vague. On its face, it is a merely definitional rule with two conditions, but, in reality, it is a rule that encompasses a definition with but one condition and an enforceable duty imposed upon an ALF. This fact, alone, establishes vagueness. Construed as a definition with a single condition and an enforceable duty imposed on an ALF, rule 58A-5.0131(41) achieves greater vagueness. The condition, which is a condition precedent, is invariably clear, but the enforceable duty is contingent on a condition subsequent that is entirely independent from the condition precedent: i.e., the duty of the ALF arises only if its prompt discharge ensures the resident's welfare. This means that, even though the condition precedent is satisfied, the duty of the ALF is not imposed if prompt action is not required to ensure the resident's welfare--as in a minor problem that does not jeopardize the resident's welfare--or if prompt action will not ensure the resident's welfare--as in a catastrophic event, such as a massive cardiovascular event, that precludes the possibility of any action that would "ensure" the resident's welfare. The fatal ambiguity arises because the final 17 words of the rule announced, simultaneously, the mandated action by the ALF and a condition precedent to the duty to take this action. Rule 58A-5.019(3) requires that an ALF maintain a specified number of minimum staff hours per week based on a specified "Number of Residents, Day Care Participants, and Respite Care Residents" in the facility. For instance, 6 to 15 such persons require a minimum of 212 staff hours weekly, and 16 to 25 such persons require a minimum of 253 staff hours weekly. Unchallenged, rule 58A-5.0131(12) defines "Day Care Participant" as "an individual who receives services at a facility for less than 24 hours per day." The inclusion of "Day Care Participants" among the persons on whom minimum staff hours are calculated is not capricious or arbitrary. An ALF accepting Day Care Participants has assumed responsibility for the care of these persons, and the imposition of minimum staffing standards based on residents and Day Care Facilities is supported by logic and the necessary facts and is rational. 22. Rule 58A-5.0182(8)(a) and (8)(a)1. provides: Residents Assessed at Risk for Elopement. All residents assessed at risk for elopement or with any history of elopement must be identified so staff can be alerted to their needs for support and supervision. All residents must be assessed for risk of elopement by a health care provider or mental health care provider within 30 calendar days of being admitted to a facility. If the resident has had a health assessment performed prior to admission pursuant to Rule 58A-5.0181(2)(a), F.A.C., this requirement is satisfied. . . . Staff trained pursuant toRule 58A-5.0191(10)(a) or (c), F.A.C., mustbe generally aware of the location of all residents assessed at high risk for elopement at all times. Rule 58A-5.0191(10) applies to ALFs that advertise that they provide special care for persons with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders (ADRD) or that maintain certain secured areas (ADRD ALFs); the rule requires that ADRD ALFs must ensure that their staff receive specialized training. Rule 58A-5.0191(10)(a) and (c) specifies the training for staff who provide direct care to, or interact with, residents with ADRD. By addressing the training received by staff, rather than whether the supervised residents suffer ADRD or whether an ALF employing the staffperson is an ADRD ALF, rule 58A-5.0182(8)(a)1. imposes higher supervisory duties strictly on the basis of the training received, at some point, when the staffperson may have been employed by an ADRD ALF. Thus, the level of supervision at an ALF that is not an ADRF ALF may vary from shift to shift and unit to unit, as the staffpersons who, at some point, received the additional training are distributed through the facility's workplace. Perhaps it is not irrational to impose a higher supervisory duty on more highly trained staffpersons, but, on these facts, rule 58A-5.0182(8)(a)1. is not supported by logic or the necessary facts. Rule 58A-5.0182(8)(a)1. is vague. A "high risk" of elopement lacks meaning. As discussed below, in Form 1823, Respondent asks in a yes-or-no format the question of whether the resident is an "elopement risk," which seems to suggest an elevated risk from the general population. A "high risk" of elopement seems to suggest an even more elevated risk, but the rule provides no means to determine the threshold, even though, with each elevation of risk from the general population, the prescribed threshold becomes less discernible. Rule 58A-5.0182(8)(a)1. is also vague because of the phrase, "generally aware of the location" of all residents at high risk of elopement. "Generally" means "in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture generally speaking."24 Treating "awareness" as synonymous with "knowledge," it is difficult to understand what is meant by general, not specific, knowledge of the location of a resident.25 The troublesome qualifier modifies the knowledge of the staff person, not the location of the resident, which raises an obvious problem as to meaning, as well as proof. By inserting "generally," the rule rejects "knowledge" or "specific knowledge" in favor of knowledge of "an overall picture generally speaking" and introduces an unworkable level of ambiguity into the requirement. Rule 58A-5.0182(8)(a) is not capricious. A rule requiring a timely assessment of elopement risk by a health care provider or mental health care provider26 is not irrational; such an exercise is not utterly senseless. But a closer question is whether this rule is supported by logic or the necessary facts. A commonly used elopement risk tool, which was included in the exhibits of FSLA and Respondent, assigns numerical values on a scale of 0 to 4 to various resident behaviors or conditions. The predictive utility of each behavior or condition is a function of the value assigned to it: a 4 has the greatest predictive value. The only behavior or condition assigned a 4 is the resident's believing that he is late for work or needs to pick up the children, thus creating an urgency to leave the ALF. Four behaviors or conditions bear a 3: the resident's becoming lost outside of the facility, thus necessitating the intervention of staff to return him to the ALF; emphatically proclaiming that she is leaving the facility or saying that she is going somewhere, coupled with an attempt to leave; suffering paranoia or anxiety about where she is, disbelieving that she lives where she lives, or attempting to leave the ALF; and repeatedly trying to open the doors of the facility. Ten27 behaviors or conditions bear a 2: the resident's having a diagnosis of dementia; becoming confused outside of the community; wandering, looking for an exit from the ALF, or attempting to leave the ALF; getting up at night and leaving the room; suffering from disorientation as to place without any anxiety or effort to leave; dressing and presenting oneself in an appropriate manner, but requiring staff supervision outside of the building; ambulating, but unsafe outside without supervision; using assistive devices, but unsafe outside without supervision; presenting as unsafe when outside alone; and taking walks, but requiring redirection to the entrance of the building or back to the property. Five behaviors or conditions bear a 1: the resident's displaying evidence of early dementia; wandering at times, but not expressing a desire to leave the ALF or trying to leave the ALF; verbalizing the desire to be elsewhere; suffering occasional disorientation as to time and place, but reorienting easily; and presenting a disheveled and disorganized appearance, so as not to be confused for a visitor or staffperson. Nine behaviors or conditions bear a 0: the resident's having no diagnosis of dementia; having no history of elopement; not wandering; not verbalizing a need to leave the ALF; sleeping all night or getting up occasionally and not leaving the room; displaying orientation to time and place; dressing and presenting self in an appropriate manner and not requiring staff supervision outside of the building; ambulating or propelling self in wheelchair safely; and presenting no other behaviors associated with memory impairment. The elopement risk tool is completed by an ALF employee who is neither a health care provider nor or a mental health care provider. Of the 30 predictive factors, essentially only one, involving dementia, requires a medical or psychiatric diagnosis. It is, of course, not necessary to solicit from the health care provider an elopement risk assessment in order to obtain her opinion as to dementia. More importantly, overshadowing the dementia predictors to the point of near elimination are high- value predictors involving current behaviors, historic behaviors, and, most importantly, the perceived need to leave the facility to get to work or discharge domestic duties. Of these, the health care provider would have no direct knowledge, so her assessment of elopement risk would either be based on insufficient information or hearsay whose precise accuracy would be doubtful. On these facts, the requirement in rule 58A-5.0182 (8)(a) for a health care provider or mental health provider to assess a resident's elopement risk is unsupported by logic and the necessary facts. Rule 58A-5.0181(2)(b) incorporates Form 1823, which is divided into four sections. Sections 1, 2-A, and 2-B must be completed by a licensed health care provider. Section 3 must be completed by the ALF. The end of the form provides lines for the signatures of the resident and ALF. Under the signature of the resident, but not the ALF, the form states: "By signing this form, I agree to the services identified above to be provided by the [ALF] to meet identified needs." Section 1 is a "Health Assessment" that elicits information about allergies, medical history, height and weight, physical or sensory limitations, cognitive or behavioral status, nursing, treatment or therapy recommendations, special precautions, and "elopement risk." For all items except elopement risk, the form provides a block for comments; for elopement risk, the form provides only two boxes: one marked "yes" and one marked "no." Section 1.A asks: "To what extent does the individual need supervision or assistance with the following?" Seven activities of daily living (ADLs) are listed: ambulation, bathing, dressing, eating, self care (grooming), toileting, and transferring. Boxes allow the health care provider to pick one of four levels from independent to total care. The form also provides a block for comments beside each ADL. Section 1.B is: "Special Diet Restrictions." Four boxes are listed: regular, calorie controlled, no added salt, and low fat/low cholesterol. There are two lines for other dietary restrictions. Section 1.C asks: "Does the individual have any of the following conditions/requirements? If yes, please include an explanation in the comments column." Five items are listed: communicable disease, bedridden, pressure sores other than stage 1, "Pose a danger to self or others? (Consider any significant history of physically or sexually aggressive behavior.)," and 24 hour nursing or psychiatric care. The form provides a box for "yes/no" and a block for comments. Section 1.D asks: "In your professional opinion, can this individual's needs be met in an [ALF], which is not a medical, nursing, or psychiatric facility?" The form provides a box for "yes" and a box for "no," as well as a line for additional comments. Section 2-A is "Self-Care and General Oversight Assessment." Section 2-A.A is "Ability to perform Self-Care Tasks" and lists five tasks: preparing meals, shopping, making phone calls, handling personal affairs, handling financial affairs, and other. Boxes allow the health care provider to select one of three levels from independent to needs assistance. The form also provides a block for comments beside each task. Section 2-A.B is "General Oversight" and lists three tasks: "observing wellbeing," "observing whereabouts," "reminders for important tasks," and four spaces for "other." Boxes allow the health care provider to select one of four levels: independent, weekly, daily, and other. The form also provides a block for comments beside each task. Section 2-A.C is three lines for additional comments or observations. Section 2-B is "Self-Care and General Oversight Assessment--Medications." Section 2-B.A provides blocks for listing individual medications, dosages, directions for use, and route of administration. Section 2-B.B asks: "Does the individual need help with taking his or her medications (meds)?" The form provides a box for "yes" and a box for "no" with a direction, if yes is marked, to check one of the following three boxes: able to administer without assistance, needs assistance with self-administration, and needs medication administration. Section 2-B.C provides two lines for additional comments or observations. Immediately following Section 2-B is a section that requires identifying information about the health care provider and the date of the examination. Section 3 requires the ALF to identify the needs set forth in Sections 1 and 2 and provide the following information in blocks: identified needs, services needed, service frequency and duration, service provider name, and initial date of service. Form 1823 is mentioned in rule 58A-5.0181(2)(b) through (d), which describes the required medical examination based on when it takes place relative to admission or whether it follows a placement by Respondent, Department of Children and Families (DCF), or one of their private contractors. The rule states: HEALTH ASSESSMENT. As part of the admission criteria, an individual must undergo a face-to-face medical examination completed by a health care provider as specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection. A medical examination completed within 60 calendar days before the individual’s admission to a facility pursuant to section 429.26(4), F.S. The examination must address the following: The physical and mental status of the resident, including the identification of any health-related problems and functional limitations, An evaluation of whether the individual will require supervision or assistance with the activities of daily living, Any nursing or therapy services required by the individual, * * * 7. A statement on the day of the examination that, in the opinion of the examining health care provider, the individual’s needs can be met in an assisted living facility[.] * * * A medical examination completed after the resident’s admission to the facility within 30 calendar days of the admission date. The examination must be recorded on AHCA Form 1823, Resident Health Assessment for Assisted Living Facilities, March 2017 October 2010 . . . . The form must be completed as instructed. Items on the form that have been omitted by the health care provider during the examination may be obtained by the facility either orally or in writing from the health care provider. Omitted information must be documented in the resident’s record. Information received orally must include the name of the health care provider, the name of the facility staff recording the information, and the date the information was provided. Electronic documentation may be used in place of completing the section on AHCA Form 1823 referencing Services Offered or Arranged by the Facility for the Resident. The electronic documentation must include all of the elements described in this section of AHCA Form 1823. Any information required by paragraph (a), that is not contained in the medical examination report conducted before the individual’s admission to the facility must be obtained by the administrator using AHCA Form 1823 within 30 days after admission. Medical examinations of residents placed by the department, by the Department of Children and Families, or by an agency under contract with either department must be conducted within 30 days before placement in the facility and recorded on AHCA Form 1823 described in paragraph (b). For the same reasons that rule 58A-5.0182(8)(a) is arbitrary, but not capricious, the yes-or-no question as to elopement risk in section 1 is arbitrary, but not capricious. The record lacks counterparts to the elopement assessment tool for the remaining items under challenge from the Form 1823, so it is necessary to obtain from the CMS Documentary Guidelines the scope of a typical medical examination to address whether the challenged items in the Form 1823 are supported by logic and the necessary facts. A medical examination may cover any of ten organ systems or areas: cardiovascular; ears, nose, mouth, and throat; eyes; genitourinary; hematologic/lymphatic/immunologic; musculoskeletal; neurological; psychiatric; respiratory; and skin. Each organ system or area comprises several elements. Medical examinations may vary as to their scope. Between the two types of general multi-system medical examinations that are not focused on a particular problem, the less exhaustive examination, which is "detailed," typically requires an examination of at least a dozen elements spanning two to six organ systems or areas. If a multi-system medical examination includes a psychiatric examination, the examination typically involves no more than a "description of patient's judgment and insight" and "brief assessment of mental status including: orientation to time, place and person[;] recent and remote memory[; and] mood and affect (eg, depression, anxiety, agitation)[.]" Even a full psychiatric examination encompasses only the following elements: Description of speech including: rate; volume; articulation; coherence; and spontaneity with notation of abnormalities (eg, perseveration, paucity of language) Description of thought processes including: rate of thoughts; content of thoughts (eg, logical vs. illogical, tangential); abstract reasoning; and computation Description of associations (eg, loose, tangential, circumstantial, intact) Description of abnormal or psychotic thoughts including: hallucinations; delusions; preoccupation with violence; homicidal or suicidal ideation; and obsessions Description of the patient's judgment (eg, concerning everyday activities and social situations) and insight (eg, concerning psychiatric condition) Complete mental status examination including Orientation to time, place and person Recent and remote memory Attention span and concentration Language (eg, naming objects, repeating phrases) Fund of knowledge (eg, awareness of current events, past history, vocabulary) Mood and affect (eg, depression, anxiety, agitation, hypomania, lability) However, a full psychiatric examination would unlikely meet the reasonable expectations of Respondent or ALFs of a medical examination because it excludes consideration of any nearly all other organ systems or areas. The inquiry in Section 1.A about ADLs is not capricious, but is arbitrary as to some items. The scope of a typical medical examination will yield no information about a patient's ability to bathe, dress, groom, or toilet. The scope of a typical medical examination may yield some information about a patient's ability to ambulate, eat (as to swallowing), and transfer between a bed, chair, wheelchair, scooter, and car, and the health care provider should be able to rate the extent of the ability of the patient to perform each of these ADLs. Requiring the health care provider to rate the extent of the ability of the patient to perform any of the other ADLs is therefore not supported by logic or the necessary facts. The inquiry in Section 1.C about whether the patient poses a danger to self or others and directive to consider any significant history of physically or sexually aggressive behavior is arbitrary, but not capricious. Although a psychiatric examination would include a determination of whether the patient suffers from homicidal or suicidal ideations, a psychiatric examination is unlikely to take the place of a conventional medical examination, whose inclusion of limited psychiatric elements would not yield a reasonable basis for opining whether the patient poses a danger to self or others. Nor does the record suggest that the medical examinations of the type conducted for the admission of the patient to an ALF are conducted by psychiatrists, physician assistants specializing in psychiatry, or advanced registered nurse practitioners specializing in psychiatry. This finding necessitates the invalidation of the directive to consider significant history of physically or sexually aggressive behavior in responding to the question--a directive that is meaningless without the question of whether the patient poses a danger to self or others. The inquiry in Section 1.D about whether, in the "professional opinion" of the health care provider, the patient's needs can be met in an ALF that is not a medical, nursing, or psychiatric facility is arbitrary, but not capricious. No ALF is a medical facility, which likely means a hospital; nursing facility, which likely means a skilled nursing facility; or psychiatric facility, which likely means a psychiatric hospital. The addition of this information, which is superfluous to anyone who understands the nature of ALFs, reveals the concern of AHCA or Respondent that the health care providers lack even this basic knowledge of the nature of ALFs. Due, in fact, to their lack of knowledge of the specific features of an ALF, health care providers lack the foundation to answer this question intelligently. The request in section 2-A.A about the ability of the patient to perform self-care tasks and the request in section 2-A.B about the need of the patient for general oversight, are arbitrary, but not capricious, for the same reasons as set forth concerning the ADLs of bathing, dressing, grooming, and toileting. Section 3 is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The collection of needs identified in the preceding sections and identification of services to meet these needs, as well as the additional information, are not irrational and are supported by logic and the necessary facts. Due to section 3, the requirement that the resident and ALF sign the Form 1823 is neither arbitrary nor capricious. By signing, the resident explicitly agrees to receive the identified services, and the ALF implicitly agrees to provide the identified services; so it is not irrational or unsupported by logic or the necessary facts to require both parties to sign the Form 1823. However, if section 3 were invalidated, as it is below, the requirement of the signatures of the patient and ALF would be irrational and unsupported by logic and the necessary facts because there is no reason for the patient or ALF to sign a medical examination form, that does not also contain a statement of the services to be provided by the ALF. The only signature on a medical examination form that might rationally be required would be that of the health care professional in order to authenticate the completed form. A "form" is "the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material--the building's massive form"; or "a printed or typed document with blank spaces for insertion of required or requested information tax forms."
The Issue Should Petitioner discipline Respondent for violating its order entered May 4, 1995, prohibiting Respondent from performing obstetric or gynecological surgical procedures without appearing before the Board of Medicine (Board) and demonstrating his ability to perform OB/GYN surgery with requisite skill and safety to patients? Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0017399. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes. On or about May 4, 1995, the Board of Medicine issued a Final Order in Case No. 92-05546 imposing discipline on Respondent's license to practice medicine. This discipline was adopted by the Board of Medicine from a stipulated disposition ("consent agreement") voluntarily accepted by Respondent. Respondent does not now challenge the legality or validity of the May 4, 1995, consent agreement. The disciplinary terms of the May 4, 1995, consent agreement include, but are not limited to, the following restriction on Respondent's practice, in pertinent part: Respondent shall refrain from performing obstetric or gynecological surgical procedures until such time as he appears before the Board and Demonstrates that he may perform OB/GYN surgery with the requisite skill and safety to patients. For purposes of this Consent Agreement, OB/GYN surgery shall include, but not be limited to: abortion of a fetus, amniocentesis, dilation and curettage, delivery of a fetus, hysterectomy, PAP smear, cophorectomy, salpingectomy, tubal ligation, and any and all invasive procedures involving any portion of the reproductive organs of the human female, including the vulva, vagina, cervix, uterus, and adnexa of the uterus. Respondent did not appeal or otherwise legally challenge the May 4, 1995, Final Order of the Board of Medicine. At no time through July 1996 did Respondent physically appear before the Board of Medicine or petition the Board of Medicine with respect to the above stated restriction on his license and/or the demonstration [sic] to the Board that he could perform obstetric or gynecological surgical procedures as specified in the Final Order with the requisite skill and safety to patients. Between approximately January 1996 and July 1996, Respondent was employed as a physician at the Gulf County Health Department in Gulf County, Florida. During the period that Respondent was employed at the Gulf County Health Department, he performed PAP smears and gynecological cryosurgery. Irrespective of whether such violation was premeditated, intentional, or willful, Respondent violated the terms of the May 4, 1995, Final Order of the Board of Medicine by performing the gynecological procedures he performed during his practice at the Gulf County Health Department. At the time it was presented to the Board, Respondent received a copy of the Consent Agreement executed by him which formed the basis for the Board of Medicine Final Order. Respondent did not provide a copy of the Consent Agreement and/or the Board of Medicine Final Order to the Gulf County Health Department prior to or at the initiation of his employment there. Additional Facts At the time Petitioner imposed discipline against Respondent in Case No. 92-05546, Respondent appeared before Petitioner and an explanation was given concerning the circumstances involved with the discipline. Respondent signed the consent agreement leading to the discipline. The consent agreement included the statements of restrictions on Respondent's practice, the subject of the present case. Respondent had discussed entry into the consent agreement with counsel who represented his interests in Case No. 92-05546. While employed with the Gulf County Health Department in Gulf County, Florida, between January 26, 1996 and July 18, 1996, Respondent performed 21 PAP smears and two colposcopies/ biopsies in the Port St. Joe, Florida clinic. Respondent performed 29 PAP smears and one colposocopy/biopsy in the Wewahitchka, Florida clinic. In discussing the possibility that Respondent would be employed by the Gulf County Health Department, Respondent did not discuss with that agency the existence of the consent order which restricted his practice. Respondent mentioned a suit and the fact of his appearance before the Board of Medicine in the previous year, at the Board's behest, but not the consent order. Verna Mathes is the Community Health Nursing Director for the Gulf County Health Department. Ms. Mathes was involved with the efforts that lead to Respondent's employment with the Gulf County Health Department. Ms. Mathes spoke with someone at the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation to ascertain whether Respondent's medical license was "in good standing," before Respondent was hired. That unnamed person replied that there were no disciplinary actions against Respondent's medical license. Subsequent to that conversation Respondent was hired. Before Respondent was hired by the Gulf County Health Department he telephoned the Board of Medicine and spoke to a secretary. His stated purpose for the call was to arrange to appear before the Board and "to know what steps I have to take in order to have any license up to date subject to the rules, whatever limitations had been posted." According to Respondent, the response by the secretary he spoke with was that the "register" does not show any limitation imposed upon Respondent's medical license. Assume that the communication from the person at the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation was made to Ms. Mathes and that there was a communication from a secretary at the Board of Medicine made to Respondent. Assume the communications reflected the understanding which those persons had concerning Respondent's license status. This did not modify nor relieve Respondent of his obligation in Case No. 92-05546. That obligation was to abide by the restrictions on his practice in relation to the performance of OB/GYN surgery. Respondent could only engage in that surgical practice after appearing before the Board of Medicine and demonstrating the requisite skill and safety to patients in performing OB/GYN surgery. Any inquiry by Respondent and that by Ms. Mathes did not release Respondent from his obligation to appear. Once hired by the Gulf County Health Department, the OB/GYN surgeries that have been described were outside the expectations in the consent order related to Respondent's opportunities to practice medicine.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, imposes a $5,000.00 fine, and requires twenty (20) hours of Continuing Medical Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 7th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric C. Scott, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Office of General Counsel Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Thomas S. Gibson, Esquire Rish, Gibson and Scholz, P.A. 206 East Fourth Street Port St. Joe, Florida 32457 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Annette P. Horan is a registered nurse holding License No. RN19396-2 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. On September 10, 1973 the license of Annette P. Horan was suspended by the Florida State Board of Nursing for a period of two years. The events which gave rise to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint occurred between March 3 and March 9, 1974, during the period the license of Annette P. Horan, as a registered nurse, was under suspension by the Florida State Board of Nursing. Geraldine Johnson, a member of the staff of the Florida State Board of Nursing, identified Composite Exhibit 3 as documents received by her through the United States Mail from Annette P. Horan. During the period March 2, 1974 until March 9, 1974, Annette P. Horan was hired by the family of Terry Bland or Bland Terry as a private nurses aide for his extra duty care when he was at St. Francis Hospital, Miami Beach, Florida. The hospital records of Terry Bland or Bland Terry and the documents contained in Composite Exhibit 3 were identified by the documents custodian for St. Francis Hospital who presented these documents to Terrence Igoe, questioned documents examiner for Dade County. Terrence Igoe had examined Composite Exhibit 3 and had examined the Medical records of Terry Bland or Bland Terry introduced as Substitute Exhibit 4. Igoe determined that the handwriting appearing over the signature of Anne Horan, A. Horan, and Annette Horan and the signatures of Horan on the medical records were the same as the signature and handwriting contained in Composite Exhibit 3, which were samples of the Respondent's handwriting. Igoe could not state that the letters "R.N." following the Horan signatures in Substitute Exhibit 4 were written by the same hand. The nurse's notes, medication record and record of fluid intake and output for the patient, Terry Bland or Bland Terry, bear the name Annette Horan or Anne Horan or A. Horan. The nurse's notes and medication charts similar to Substitute Exhibit 4 are maintained at the nurses's station on the various wards at St. Francis Hospital. All members of the health care staff have access to these records, however, the charge nurse and medication nurse are responsible for all entries made therein. Nurses aides working at St. Francis Hospital wear a different type of uniform from Licensed Practical Nurses and Registered Nurses working in the hospital. It is not the practice at St. Francis Hospital to permit nurses aides to make entries on either the medication record or nurse's notes. Anne Horan did not recall signing "R.N." after her name as it appeared in the various medical records. Anne Horan could not have made the entries on the various medical records, for the patient without the consent of the medication nurse or charge nurse on the ward in question since the medical records were in their care at the nurse's station. As a private duty nurse's aide, Ms. Horan stayed in the room of the patient for whom she was caring. While it would be a violation of the hospital's policy with regard to having a nurse's aide make entries on the nurse's notes, there is no indication that Ms. Horan had any knowledge of the hospital's policy. Although it is the general practice to have only licensed nurses make entries within the medical records, Mary Zagacki, director of nursing at St. Francis, indicated that other health services personnel do make entries in nurse's notes. The entries were made by Anne Horan in the nurse's notes and on the medication records with the knowledge and consent of the charge nurse or medication nurse. There was no direct evidence of Ms. Horan performing any task which would constitute the practice of nursing. The medical records for Terry Bland or Bland Terry do not indicate whether Anne Horan administered any medications to the patient. There is no direct testimony regarding who administered the medications. Ms. Horan denied having administered medications to the patient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law that the Complaint against Annette Horan is not proven, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS that the Board take no action. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Annette P. Horan, R.N. 465 Ocean Drive, RA1005 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Ms. Geraldine Johnson State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: ANNETTE P. HORAN CASE NO. 76-1194 As a Registered Nurse License No. 19396-2 465 Ocean Drive, Apt. 1005 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 /
