Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, as well as the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida holding license number PN 0626161. At all times material hereto, Dr. Vladimir Rosenthal owned three clinics in Dade and Broward Counties at which he performed abortions. The clinics were located in Coral Gables (hereinafter referred to as the "Coral Gables clinic"), North Miami (hereinafter referred to as the "North Miami clinic") and Plantation (hereinafter referred to as the "Broward clinic"). All three clinics were licensed under Chapter 390, Florida Statutes. In September and October, 1989, Respondent was employed by Rosenthal and worked full-time as a licensed practical nurse in the North Miami clinic. During this period of time, she had no responsibilities with regard to the other two clinics owned by Rosenthal. Among Respondent's duties at the North Miami clinic during this time period was to prepare, under Rosenthal's direct supervision, packages of medications that Rosenthal gave to his patients, free of charge, to take home with them upon their discharge, a practice that Rosenthal has since discontinued. 6/ On September 30, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) conducted an on-site inspection at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was not present at the clinic during the inspection. Nor were there any patients at the clinic at the time. Approximately 50 small manilla envelopes containing multiple doses of medications were found in a drawer of a desk in the clinic. The envelopes were labeled to the extent that they indicated the name of the drugs they contained, but they did not provide any information regarding the lot number, expiration date or the name of the manufacturer of the drugs. Carmen Penaloza, one of the clinic workers who was present during the inspection, was asked to demonstrate how these packages were prepared. Penaloza proceeded to take an empty manilla envelope like the ones that had been found in the desk drawer and fill it with medication that came from a large container. In performing this demonstration, she did not use gloves and her bare hands came in contact with the medication. Carlos Arias, a licensed pharmacist and one of the HRS employees who participated in the inspection, advised Penaloza that the technique she had employed was unsanitary and recommended that in the future she use a tray and spatula like pharmacists do to perform such a task. The HRS inspection also revealed that medical devices were being stored in a refrigerator that also contained food items. On October 26, 1989, HRS conducted an on-site inspection of the North Miami clinic. Arias was among the various HRS employees who were on the inspection team. Diane Robie, a medical quality assurance investigator with the Department, accompanied the team members on their inspection. Approximately 30 envelopes containing medications were found during the inspection. They were similar to the packages that had been discovered the month before at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was at the clinic when the inspection was conducted. Penaloza was also there. No patients were present, however. Respondent was asked to demonstrate how the packages were prepared. Penaloza was nearby at the time the request was made. She saw Respondent nervously looking around and concluded that Respondent was unable to locate any sterile gloves to use. She therefore told Respondent where such gloves could be found. Respondent then donned the gloves, laid a clean piece of paper on top of the desk where she was situated, placed tablets from a large container onto the paper and pushed each tablet with a tongue blade into a small manilla envelope. 7/ The technique that Respondent used during her demonstration, while it may have been unconventional from the perspective of a pharmacist like Arias, nonetheless was antiseptic and therefore acceptable. Sometime during the inspection Respondent made a statement that led Robie to erroneously believe that Respondent was responsible for packaging medications, not just at the North Miami clinic, but at the Coral Gables clinic as well. A finding of probable cause was initially made in this case on May 14, 1990. An Administrative Complaint was thereafter issued and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department received the following letter, dated September 4, 1990, from counsel for Respondent concerning settlement of the case: This will confirm our understanding that you will file a notice of dismissal with DOAH of the case now pending against my client and, providing the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and closing order entered by the probable cause panel, that Ms. Echlov will agree not to seek fees against your agency under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. In the event the panel does not approve a final dismissal and instructs you to refile the case, neither party will be prejudiced by the present agreement and each party will retain all rights otherwise available to them, including my client's rights to seek fees should the case be refiled. If this does not reflect our understanding, please notify me at once. Otherwise, please fax me a copy of your notice of dismissal so that I can take the final hearing off my calendar. Thank you for your efforts to resolve this matter amicably. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, the following follow-up letter, dated November 6, 1990: You may recall that we reached an agreement in the above-referenced case providing for a voluntary dismissal on your part and promise on mine that my client would not seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. You had to take the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and ask them to close it. In order that I can close my file and know that this matter is, in fact, concluded, please let me know whether you have taken the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and, if so, the outcome. If there are documents reflecting same, please, please send me a copy. If the case has not been taken back before the Panel, please let me know when this will be done. Thanks. I'll be looking forward to hearing from you. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, a third letter, dated January 14, 1991, the body of which read, as follows: It has now been over four months since we reached our "understanding" that DPR would dismiss the case pending before DOAH (which you did) and that my client would forego her right to seek fees under the EAJA, providing (to quote from my September 4, 1990 letter to you) "that the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and a closing order [is] entered by the probable cause panel." The final part of the bargain has never been performed so far as I know (and, if it was performed, the action was illegal since I requested notification of the date when the matter would be presented to the panel so that I might attend or send a court reporter but never received any). I have not, of course, received any final order of dismissal from the probable cause panel. If, within ten days of the date of this letter, I have not received either: an order of closure from the probable cause panel, or the time, date and place when our agreement will be presented to the panel, I will consider that DPR is in breach of the agreement and pursue all remedies available to my client, including attorneys' fees. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. The probable cause panel met a second time, at which it determined not to reconsider its initial finding of probable cause. 8/ Neither Respondent nor her attorney were notified of this second meeting of the probable cause panel. Following this meeting, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) dismissing said complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of January, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of January, 1992.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Hermine Ledoux Lane, is guilty of a violation of 464.21(1)(a), (1)(b), based upon a revocation of her license to practice as an licensed practical nurse, in the State of Vermont, effective January 14, 1976, after a hearing on December 3, 1975, in which it was concluded that the Respondent had on several occassions signed her name on a patient's clinical record and used the letters "R.N." after said signature and had on three occassions signed her name on a billing form using the initials "R.N." following her signature, when in fact the Respondent was not a registered nurse in the State of Vermont. The Vermont State Board of Nursing concluded this showed the Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct in willfully and repeatedly violating Vermont's statutes governing the practice of nursing, in that she did practice professional nursing without being duly licensed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges placed against Hermine Ledoux Lane, L.P.N., under license no. 05372-1 be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Hermine Ledoux Lane 51 North Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated April 17, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of nursing in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse, having been issued license number PN 0914071. On October 27, 1988, the Board of Nursing (Board) issued a license to practice to Respondent and placed him on probation subject to specific terms and conditions for a period of two years. One of the conditions of Respondent's first year of probation required that he be directly supervised by a registered nurse when administering a narcotic. During the period July 15-16, 1989, Respondent worked two shifts in the oncology ward at Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in Orlando, Florida. During these shifts, Respondent administered approximately seventeen narcotic doses without being directly supervised by a registered nurse. The administration of narcotics described above were performed during Respondent's first year of probation. Policies in effect at ORMC during the period July 15-16, 1989, did not require that a licensed practical nurse be directly supervised when administering narcotics. Respondent's supervising head nurse at ORMC was unaware of the probationary condition requiring that Respondent be directly supervised during the administration of narcotics. A further condition of Respondent's probation required that he notify the Board's probation supervisor of any changes in his telephone number and/or employment within ten days of such change. On or about April 26, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board that he had been employed for Health Care of Orlando since approximately January, 1989, and for St. Cloud Hospital since approximately January 9, 1989. Such notification was not made within ten days of the change in employment. In July, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board of additional changes in employment and with his telephone number. This notification also was not made within ten days of the change. On or about May 11, 1989, the Respondent filled out an employment application with Allied Health Card Consultants, Inc. One of the questions posed on that application asked: "Have any of your professional licenses ever been under investigation?" Respondent answered the foregoing question: "no". Another question posed on the application asked: "Is there any reason you would be unable to perform the duties of your position?" In response, Respondent again answered: "no". On or about August 11, 1989, Respondent gave a copy of the final order setting forth his conditions of probation to Allied Health Care. At all times material to the allegations of this case it was the policy of ORMC not to hire any agency staffed nurse who was on probation status with the Board since all such staff are required to perform all duties without restrictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of having violated a term of his probation set forth in the prior final order enter by the Board, contrary to Section 464.018(1)(1), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and suspending the Respondent's license for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-8047 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's findings of fact begin with the paragraph numbered 9 Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the height of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 C. Michael Magruder The Monument Building 22 W. Monument Avenue Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, for administering medications or treatments in a negligent manner and subject to discipline for unprofessional conduct under Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes. If so, another issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact In June 1994 Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, holding license number RN 2740932. Respondent had been licensed as a registered nurse since 1993 and as a licensed practical nurse since 1987. Respondent's license as a registered nurse became inactive June 21, 1995 after she failed to renew it. In the fall of 1993 East Pointe Hospital hired Respondent as a charge nurse in the transitional care unit, which had recently been started. Although Respondent had only recently become licensed as a registered nurse, the hospital hired her based partly on her current licensing and partly on her previous experience as a licensed practical nurse and respiratory therapist. During the weekend of June 24-26, 1994 Respondent worked the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. As a charge nurse Respondent supervised several other nurses, typically licensed practical nurses. The charge nurse and nurses whom the charge nurse supervised sometimes divided up the patients in the unit, but the charge nurse retained supervisory authority over the other nurses and always remained directly responsible for patients with more complex problems. Patient C. P. had recently been transferred to the transitional care unit from the acute care unit. On the evenings in question, C.P. was among the patients for whom Respondent was directly responsible. Several IVs were being administered the evening of June 24 and early morning of June 25. One patient was having problems with an IV pump and his veins. Respondent asked another nurse, who was under Respondent's supervision, to do the accuchecks on the other patients, including C. P. Accuchecks are finger stick glucose monitors. As was the case with C. P., physicians typically order accuchecks every six hours for patients receiving their total nutrition intravenously. The purpose of the accucheck is to ensure that the patient receiving all his nutrition intravenously does not develop low or high blood sugar, which could have very serious implications. The other nurse failed to perform the accuchecks for midnight at the start of June 25 and 6:00 am on June 25. Respondent failed to follow up to ensure that they were done. Respondent's failure to perform the required accuchecks or to check to make sure that the other nurse performed them constitutes the negligent treatment of a patient. A physician had also ordered that C. P. receive antibiotics intravenously every eight hours, at about 6:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 10:00 pm. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to administer two consecutive doses. However, nothing in the nurses' notes documents what would have been a material omission, and no one on the nursing staff bothered to contact the physician who had ordered the antibiotics. There is also a reasonable possibility that IV bags bearing dates and times were mixed up so as to preclude a determination of which registered nurse failed to administer IV medication, if in fact two doses of antibiotics were missed. Respondent later admitted not performing the accuchecks, but never admitted failing to administer the IV antibiotics. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent failed to administer the IV medications as ordered. The hospital terminated Respondent's employment shortly after the incidents involving C. P. Respondent has since held two temporary nursing jobs and has applied unsuccessfully for 12 other nursing jobs. She now lives with her mother in Virginia where she earns $100-$200 weekly in employment unrelated to nursing. C. P. suffered no injury as a result of the failure to conduct ordered accuchecks and the failure, if any, to administer the prescribed IV. Respondent has not previously been disciplined as a licensed practical nurse or registered nurse.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for her failure to perform two accuchecks or make sure that another nurse had performed them and issuing a reprimand to Respondent. ENTERED on December 21, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (second sentence): rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 13-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 17-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19-21: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 22-23: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 24: rejected as subordinate. 25: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 26-28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 3 (first sentence)-4: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 5-6: adopted or adopted in substance, although not as to the identify of the other nurse. 7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the failure either to perform the accuchecks or ensure that the other nurse did is negligence. 8-14: rejected as subordinate. 15-18: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert E. Tardif, Jr. Duncan & Tardif, P.A. P.O. Drawer 249 Ft. Myers, FL 33902 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of statutes pertaining to the practice of nursing as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner as a licensed practical nurse. From approximately May 21, 1980 until May 29, 1981, the Respondent was employed as an "LPN charge nurse" at Huntington Square Convalarium, Inc., in Daytona Beach, Florida. She had previously been employed at Huntington Square in the same capacity for approximately two months. She then went on maternity leave before she was reemployed. Persons in this capacity at Huntington Square supervised several nurses' aides, and performed usual nursing duties which included assessment of patients, preparation, administering and charting of medications, public relations duties with members of patients' families, telephone duties, being aware of safety conditions in the building, and the like. During the time that she served as a charge nurse at Huntington Square, the Respondent, on a recurring and frequent basis, engaged in unprofessional conduct which departed from the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. Respondent was experiencing extreme personal difficulties during that period, and she was subject to extreme mood swings while on the job. While in depressed moods, the Respondent would occasionally become inattentive to patients' needs and, on a few occasions, she failed to respond to obvious needs such as a catheter misplacement or edema. Respondent was subject to frequent crying fits. Other than occasional inattentiveness, the Respondent would, during her depressed episodes, inadequately chart and document procedures, use loud and profane language, and engage in extended conversations with staff members, visitors, and even patients regarding her personal problems. Respondent's conduct was disruptive and upsetting to the staff at Huntington Square, especially to those persons whom the Respondent supervised. Respondent's preoccupation with her own problems caused her to give too little attention to the needs of her patients, both directly and through persons she supervised. There was no testimony from which it could be concluded that any serious repercussions were imposed upon the Respondent's patients by her conduct. The conduct did, however, fall below minimal and acceptable standards of nursing practice in the State of Florida. Respondent's depression appears to have reached a peak in May, 1981. At that time, she was involved in an incident at Pick Shoe Store in Daytona Beach. The Respondent was dating an employee of the store. Respondent showed up at the store in an extremely agitated condition with a hand gun. Respondent was ultimately forced out of the store, the door was locked behind her, and she was handled by the police. What the Respondent's specific intent was at that incident is not known. She did admit to various persons, however, that on at least one occasion she attempted suicide at approximately that time. The Respondent suffers from a condition, recurrent depression, which is properly classified as a mental illness. The condition has in the past affected her ability to perform nursing functions. The condition is, however, controllable. Respondent was hospitalized in connection with a suicide attempt. Since October, 1951, she has engaged in regular counselling services at the Human Resources Center in Daytona Beach. Her condition has stabilized, and she has taken positive steps to improve her personal relationships. If the Respondent's condition remains stable, she is fully able to practice nursing effectively. If the Respondent continues to engage in a regular counselling program, it is likely that her condition will remain stable. Since November, 1981, the Respondent has worked at Bowman Nursing Center as a supervisor nurse. She is charged with responsibilities for examining reports; taking controlled drug counts; setting up, administering and charting medications; assisting with feeding; reporting on patients' progress; and making written evaluations. The Respondent has performed her job functions in an acceptable manner, and her job performance has steadily improved during her employment.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct. Whether her license as a registered nurse, certificate no. 8829 should be suspended or revoked or whether Respondent should be put on probation.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christine Richter, who holds license no. 88294-2 was employed as a registered nurse at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida, during the month of February, 1977. She worked as a certified nurse and anesthetist under Ann Marie Connors, the chief nurse anesthetist. The chief nurse anesthetist reported to the Associate Executive Director April 11, 1977, that there were gross discrepancies in the narcotics record kept by the Respondent and at that time she presented him with some of the records. On April 12, 1977, Respondent was requested by the Associate Executive Director to report to his office for a conference. Nurse Connors, the chief nurse anesthetist, was also called to be present at that conference. At the conference the Associate Executive Director asked Respondent for an explanation as to the discrepancies between the narcotic and barbiturate administration record and the patient records. In reply the Respondent stated that she needed a hysterectomy and could not afford it. Upon the insistance of the Associate Executive Director that she give an explanation for the discrepancy in the hospital records, she indicated that she needed to improve her charting. She gave no explanation for discrepancies in the narcotics chart which she signed, and indicated that she would resign. The Director stated that he would accept her resignation and she left the conference. The Respondent mailed her written resignation to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital the following day. The Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, 1976 edition, published by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals "Anesthesia Services" pages 59 through 64 is used as the standard for anesthetic procedure. A department standard book approved by the American Hospital Association and the joint commission on the accreditation of hospitals is required to be read by each employee of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital as it pertains to the department in which the work is to be performed. The instructions in the department standards book are the same as in the Accreditation Manual for Hospitals as far as anesthesia services is concerned. Medical records of eight patients were introduced into evidence together with Narcotic and Barbiturate Record no. 081291. This shows the date, time, patient's name, room number, doseage, attending physician and administering nurse. The doseage of drugs secured by and signed for by the Respondent, Christine Richter, was more than the records show was administered to the various patients. No accounting was made for the difference between the amounts of drugs secured and the amounts, if any, administered to the patients, although it is the duty of the nurse checking out drugs to account for its use in writing on a form provided for that purpose. The Respondent offered no verbal explanation for the missing drugs when given the opportunity to explain her actions by the Associate Executive Director at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and her immediate supervisor, Ann Marie Connors, chief nurse anesthetist.
Recommendation Revoke the license of Christine Richter. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1005 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 647 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Wright is a licensed practical nurse in Florida, holding license number PN 185281. In accordance with her licensure, Wright worked as a practical nurse at Manor Care Nursing Center in Jacksonville, Florida. On January 15, 1991, patient R.B. was admitted to Manor Care for recovery from multiple factures and organic brain damage. R.B. was receiving nourishment, Jevity, through a nasogastric tube (NGT). On January 18, 1991, at approximately 5:00 p.m., R.B. removed the NGT. R.B.'s mental confusion was such that she would attempt to remove the NGT regularly and mittens were used to prevent this behavior. Wright was the nurse responsible for R.B.'s care from approximately 4:00 p.m. to midnight on January 18, 1991. She recorded R.B.'s removal of the NGT. At some point thereafter, registered nurse Rosalina Harrell came and reinserted the NGT. At 9:30 p.m., Wright's notes indicate that R.B. was coughing and that she checked the placement of the NGT. Placement is checked to insure that the tube is inserted into the stomach and not into the trachea and lungs. According to Wright's notes and testimony, she discontinued feeding to give R.B. a rest, even though the placement checks were negative, meaning that the checks did not show that the tube was in the trachea or lungs. Wright restarted the feeding of Jevity (a white liquid food supplement). At 10:30 p.m., Wright's notes showed that R.B. was coughing up "large" amounts of white frothy phlegm. Wright again held the tube feeding for a short time. Another practical nurse, Margaret Patti, came on duty to replace Wright as the nurse in charge of R.B.'s care. In discussing R.B.'s condition with Wright, Wright informed Patti that R.B. had been coughing since the tube was inserted by Harrell. Wright said she did not remove the tube because she was not sure it was indeed in the wrong place. Wright and Patti then both did one test for placement and it was negative to show that the tube was incorrectly placed . Wright then did two other tests while Patti was out of the room, but she reported to Patti that those tests were also negative. Because of the concerns expressed by Wright, Patti monitored R.B. closely after Wright left around midnight. Patti observed some coughing and white sputum between 11:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., January 19, 1991. Again at 2:00 a.m. Patti recorded the R.B. was coughing and there was a moderate amount of white sputum present. Then the coughing became continuous and Patti removed the NGT. At 4:00 a.m., Patti recorded that R.B.'s respirations were even and unlabored and that tube feeding remained discontinued. At 5:00 a.m., Patti was advised by the nursing assistant that R.B. had no respiration or heartbeat. Patti called the doctor at 5:40 and R.B. was dead. An autopsy revealed that R.B. had died from asphyxia due to aspiration of Jevity. The lungs were full of Jevity and the bronchioles were plugged by the soft white material. There was nothing in R.B.'s stomach. As it relates to Wright's actions that night, at no time did Wright call a supervisor, registered nurse or doctor to express concern about the placement of the NGT or to indicate the presence of coughing or a white frothy substance around R.B.'s mouth. The presence of coughing and white frothy sputum or phlegm around the mouth is a danger sign that the NGT is in the trachea instead of the stomach. The minimum standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires that a licensed practical nurse report coughing or frothiness to her supervisor or to an R.N. If the practical nurse did not place the tube, she should contact the person who did insert the tube. If no one is available, then the practical nurse should remove the tube and contact the supervisor, an R.N., or the doctor, by telephone. There is no other acceptable level of care except to stop the food immediately and then report the coughing and presence of white frothy sputum to the appropriate person. At Manor Care that night, no supervisor or R.N. was on the premises, but Wright made no attempt to reach anyone by telephone regarding the situation. Wright's failure to meet these minimum standards of care constitutes unprofessional conduct as that term is defined in Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1991).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Issue a reprimand to Geraldine McNeal Wright. Place Wright on probation for six months subject to attendance at continuing education courses relative to the omissions in this case, to include a review of danger signs and appropriate responses in patients with nasogastric tubes and a refresher on the appropriate administration of procedures for checking the placement of such a tube. Impose a fine of $100. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4573 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-7(1-5); 7(7); 9(12); 10(10); 11(11); 12(11); and 15(12 & 16). [Note--There are two different sets of paragraphs numbered 7, 8, and 9. A review of the actual Finding of Fact will clarify to which paragraph these specific rulings apply.] Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 8, and 14 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13 and 16 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Geraldine McNeal Wright As indicated above, Wright's proposed findings of fact are in a form which does not permit clear specific rulings. Those proposed findings of fact which are based on the documents attached to the proposed order, which were not part of the evidentiary record, are rejected. Additionally, those proposals which constitute argument are rejected. The proposed findings of fact which are consistent with the facts found herein are adopted. All other proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Faircloth Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Geraldine McNeal Wright 7925 Merrill Road, Apt. 216 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 E. Coastline Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32202
