Findings Of Fact I. BACKGROUND HILL-GUTHRIE, also known as Hill Guthrie Realty Company, is a wholly- owned subsidiary of First American Corporation, in Huntsville, Alabama. During the past 17 years, First American Corporation has developed, owned, and operated approximately 80 nursing homes and health care facilities. On October 15, 1982, HILL-GUTHRIE filed an application with HRS for a CON to construct and operate a community nursing home in the City of Niceville, in Okaloosa County, Florida. The original application sought authorization for a 120-bed nursing home, to be known as "Twin Cities Health Facility." Estimated cost of construction was $3,180,000. By its "State Agency Action Report," dated January 28, 1983, HRS preliminarily denied the application, stating: The proposed project is not consistent with Chapter 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, Nursing Home Bed Need Methodology. A need does not exist to add any nursing home beds to Okaloosa County through 1985. There are 70 approved but not constructed beds in the county. The bed need methodology produces an excess of 10 nursing home beds in the county through 1985. (emphasis included) [Respondent's Ex. 3.]. HILL-GUTHRIE contested the denial, resulting in this proceeding. At final hearing, HILL-GUTHRIE amended its earlier application, reducing the number of nursing home beds, from 120 to 60. Other changes to the application were made to reflect the reduction in beds. The estimated cost of construction was reduced from $3,180,000 to $1,780,000. [Petitioner's Ex. 2]. HRS did not seek a continuance or additional time to evaluate the newly amended application. Rather, it represented that it was prepared to proceed. II. APPLICATION OF THE NURSING HOME BED-NEED METHODOLOGY Both parties agree that HILL-GUTHRIE'S application is governed by the licensing criteria contained in Rule 10-5.11(21) Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Generally, the rule provides that applications for community nursing home beds will be considered "in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria"; that applications will "not normally [be] approve[d] . . . if approval . . . would cause the number of community beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of beds calculated by the methodology described in [the rule]"; and that this methodology, consisting of several numerical formulae, will be used to evaluate applications "in addition to relevant statutory and rule criteria." Section 5.11(21)(a), (b), Fla. Admin. Code. The statute being implemented, Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, enumerates a myriad of criteria, including availability, accessibility, extent of utilization, quality of care and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the area to be served. Section 381.494(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (1983). It has been construed to require a balanced consideration of these factors. HRS cannot ignore some factors and emphasize others. 1/ The HRS methodology--consisting of formulae which do not take into account all criteria listed in the statute--comports with this requirement by incorporating, by reference, all other relevant statutory or rule criteria, and recognizing that new beds may be permitted even though such approval would cause the number of beds to exceed the number allowed by the formulae. Section 5.11(21)(a), (b), Fla. Admin. Code. The HRS bed need methodology, at least that part consisting of the various formulae, establishes a 3-step analysis. First, theoretical bed need for the relevant district and sub-district is calculated using an area's particular poverty ratio, a statewide bed-need ratio of 27 beds per 1,000 elderly population, and the area's elderly population projected three years into the future. "Existing and approved" beds in the sub-district area are then subtracted to arrive at the number of additional beds needed in the district and sub-district. In the instant case, it is undisputed that this first step in the analysis is satisfied. The formulae, when "run," indicate a 1987 theoretical bed-need of at least 250 additional beds in District 1, the relevant district, and 58 additional beds in Okaloosa County, the relevant sub-district. Respondent's Ex. 1, 2). The remaining two steps involve applying current and prospective utilization formulae. When, as here, both district and subdistrict show a theoretical need for additional beds, a specific bed need/availability relationship is identified, which correlates with specific current and prospective utilization thresholds. Section 5.11(21)(e)1., (f), (g), Fla. Admin. Code. Normally, if both thresholds are satisfied, "need" is indicated and the application approved. If either threshold is not met, thus indicating "no need," HRS must decide whether, on balance, this failure is outweighed by favorable findings under other criteria made relevant by rule or statute. If so, approval is justified, or even required. HRS describes this inquiry as one of determining whether there are unusual, or extenuating and mitigating circumstances in a case which would justify approving an application, notwithstanding failure to satisfy the formulae. In the instant case, the applicable utilization thresholds are that average current utilization rate in the sub-district must exceed 85 percent, and any additional beds must not cause the prospective utilization rate in the sub- district to drop below 80 percent. Section 10-5.11(f), (g), Fla. Admin. Code. [Respondent's Ex. 1.] According to the June, 1984 HRS Semiannual Census Report, the nursing home bed utilization rate for Okaloosa County was 97.1 percent from October, 1983 through March, 1984. More recent nursing home data filed with HRS, on a quarterly basis, indicates a current utilization rate of 96.5 percent. Thus, using either data base, the 85 percent current utilization threshold is satisfied--a conclusion agreed to by both parties. The prospective utilization threshold, however, permits additional beds only to the point at which further beds would drop the sub-district prospective utilization rate below 80 percent. HILL-GUTHRIE, using the HRS Semiannual Census Report, the number of existing and approved beds in the sub-district, and the projected elderly population, concludes that the sub-district (Okaloosa County) could be allowed an additional 16 beds before the prospective utilization falls below 80 percent. HRS, using the quarterly census data, finds need for an additional 13 beds. As conceded by the HRS expert--the 3-bed difference is insignificant. More importantly, as both parties agree, the granting of HILL-GUTHRIE'S 60-bed application would drop the projected utilization rate below the required 80 percent. (A nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered financially feasible.) Thus, the formulae indicate "no- need" for the proposed 60-bed nursing home. The inquiry, then, must turn to whether failure to satisfy the formulae is, on balance, outweighed by other rule or statutory criteria, or extenuating and mitigating circumstances unique to this case. III. APPLICATION OF OTHER STATUTORY AND RULE CRITERIA The HRS bed-need formulae are useful tools to evaluate CON applications: they are objective, abstract, and can be applied with ease; they enhance consistency, uniformity, and predictability of decision. But these formulae are rudimentary, inexact tools which, though useful, are incomplete. They do not take into account numerous criteria which, by statute and rule, also apply to CON applications. For instance, they do not take into account, in any direct and meaningful way, factors such as financial feasibility, accessibility, quality of care, efficiency, and impact on cost of care. See, Section 10- 5.11(3), (5), (6), and (2)(b), Fla. Admin. Code; Section 381.494(6)(c)1., 2., 9., and 12., Fla. Stat. (1983). It is the measurement of HILL-GUTHRIE'S application by these criteria which is at issue here. The power of HRS to find that failure to satisfy the formulae is outweighed, or overridden, by other factors is not at issue. HRS has, in the past, granted numerous CON's (despite failure to satisfy the formulae) based on favorable findings under other criteria, such as accessibility. Petitioner's Ex.`s 3, 5, 7, 53. Without a bona fide evidentiary basis, agencies cannot treat similarly situated applicants in an inconsistent manner. 2/ A. Accessibility of Existing Nursing Homes To Niceville Area Residents Currently, four nursing homes providing a total of 355 beds--are located in Okaloosa County (the relevant sub-district). The majority of these beds (295) are found in three of the nursing homes located in the more heavily populated and faster growing coastal area of the county. The remaining beds (60) are located in a nursing home in Crestview, a city north of Niceville, in the central part of the county. This nursing home has an additional 60 beds which have been under renovation for a considerable time. HRS has no projected completion date for this renovation. The date of completion is, apparently, a matter within the sole discretion of the nursing home and its contractors. The Crestview nursing home primarily serves residents of the northern and central portion of Okaloosa County. Since it is the northernmost nursing home in the county, it also receives patients from South Alabama. Existing nursing homes in the county have a high rate of utilization. Occupancy rates in the four existing nursing homes average 97.1 percent for the six month period ending March, 1984; 96.5 percent for the six months ending June, 1984. Recent data compiled by the Local Health Council indicate a 98.8 percent utilization rate for the nine months preceding hearing. Nursing home occupancy rates in adjoining counties approach 95 percent, no doubt contributing to the high rate of utilization in Okaloosa County Some nursing homes have lengthy waiting lists. 3/ One patient, although ninth on the waiting list, has waited 3 years for placement in the Westwood Nursing Home, located in the coastal part of the county. The Crestview nursing home has a waiting list of more than 60 persons, making it unlikely that-- even after the renovations are completed--further beds will be available. It is reasonably anticipated that the recently enacted Medicare hospital reimbursement system, based on diagnostic-related guidelines (DRG's), will increase the demand for nursing home beds, thereby aggravating the shortage. With Medicare hospital payments tied to the diagnosis of illness, rather than the length of patient stay, hospitals will have increased economic incentives to discharge patient earlier. Some local hospitals have had to retain patients, who no longer require acute care, because nursing home beds are unavailable. At Crestview Community Hospital, hospital patients have had to wait or face delays of from one week to 63 days during the period from May to August, 1984. During that time period, 43 patients were eligible for nursing home placement. Eleven spent a combined total of 271 hospital days awaiting placement. Three of the 11 were eventually discharged, but (at time of hearing) were still awaiting placement. At Twin Cities Hospital, in Niceville, two or three patients (at time of hearing) required but could not obtain nursing home placement. In August, 1984, five patients were ready for early discharge, but could not be placed in nursing homes because of crowded conditions. In May, 1984, three Twin Cities Hospital patients were placed in a Panama City nursing home, over one and one half hours travel time from Niceville, because of crowded local conditions. Local physicians have had similar difficulties finding nursing home placements during the past year. Robert S. Ellis, M.D., a Niceville physician, could not obtain prompt nursing home placement for from eight to ten of his patients. They faced waits ranging from ten days to two months. Many of his patients were finally placed in nursing homes outside the county; recently, he had no choice but to place a patient in a Gulf Breeze nursing home, approximately 50 miles away. He has never been successful in placing a patient in the Crestview nursing home, primarily because Crestview residents are given priority consideration. His experience is shared by other local physicians. Existing nursing homes in the county are a considerable distance from Niceville. Given the existing road system and traffic conditions in the coastal area, it has become increasingly burdensome for Niceville residents to visit their friends and relatives in coastal nursing homes. Frequent visits and contacts with friends and relatives is recognized as beneficial to nursing home residents. It is important that residents maintain their ties to the community, and their relationships with friends and relatives outside the nursing home. For Niceville residents, it takes 20-30 minutes to drive to nursing homes located in the coastal area, 45 minutes to drive to the Crestview nursing home. This burden, which affects nursing home residents as well as their families and friends, is real and significant. It is established not only by the testimony of area physicians, hospital administrators, and Niceville residents, but it is convincingly corroborated by the testimony of three Niceville city council members, and by petitions signed by over 480 elderly citizens in the Niceville area. [Public Ex.'s 1-3]. The HRS bed-need formulae do not take geographic accessibility of existing nursing homes into account, and no minimum access/travel time has been established by rule. Before adoption of the bed-need formulae, HRS had relied on a 30-minute standard set by the Local Health Council. A health care expert who, in 1982, conducted the HRS public hearing on the HILL- GUTHRIE application concluded that access times (for Niceville area residents) to existing nursing homes bordered on or exceeded this ad hoc 30-minute standard. HRS has not established, by competent evidence, a travel/access standard for use in this proceeding. More importantly, HRS concedes that initial denial of the HILL-GUTHRIE application is due, in large part, to the delay in completing renovations to the Crestview nursing home which, when complete, will provide an additional 60 beds. [Transcript, p. 232]. As conceded by HRS's expert and sole witness, if the 60 renovated beds were available, they would "probably be well utilized." [Transcript, p. 232]. (Given the lengthy witness list, it is likely that, within a short time, the additional 60 beds would be filled.) The expert further concluded that, should the 60 beds be filled, the bed-need formulae would indicate need" and--provided other standards were met--HRS would be able to approve the HILL-GUTHRIE application. [Transcript, p. 234]. B. Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Nursing Home The proposed nursing home is financially feasible, both in the short and long-term. The revised total cost of the nursing home is 51,780,000, which is reasonable, given the nature and size of the project. It will be 100 percent financed through the issuance of industrial revenue bonds at an interest rate of 14 percent over 30 years. The assets of the parent company, First American Corporation, would be available, if needed, to help construct and operate the nursing home. Projected utilization of the nursing home during the first year will be 81 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare, and 14 percent private pay. [Petitioner's Ex. 2]. Occupancy is projected to reach 97 percent by the fifth month of operation, and would be supported, in part, by increased demand for nursing home beds resulting from implementation of DRG's. These projections are based on HILL-GUTHRIE's experience in northwest Florida, and are accepted as reasonable. Pro forma statements for the first and second years of operation show a net operating profit, beginning in the ninth month, and continuing through the second year. For overall operations during the first year, a net loss of $40,082 is projected; in the second year, a net gain of $122,200 is projected. [Petitioner's Ex. 2]. These projections--together with equipment and construction costs, staffing patterns and personnel budget, square footage and space requirements--are accepted as reasonable, and have not been refuted by HRS. If approved, HILL-GUTHRIE's proposed nursing home should be constructed and available for occupancy by the end of 1985. C. Impact (of the Proposed Nursing Home) On Cost of Health Care, and Efficiency and Utilization of Existing Nursing Homes Construction of the proposed nursing home should help relieve the existing financial burden on hospital acute care patients who, because of lack of available nursing home beds, must remain in hospitals, where daily charges far exceed those of nursing homes. Similarly, hospitals would less likely have to absorb the cost of Medicare patients (beyond DRG payment limits) because nursing home beds were unavailable. Hospitals, with their highly specialized staffs, could be used more efficiently, in that patients not requiring acute medical care would not be retained in acute care beds. The proposed nursing home, if constructed, should not adversely impact existing nursing homes in the county. With present occupancy rates in excess of 95 percent, with waiting lists and increasing demand for nursing home beds, no significant drop in occupancy rates should occur. The only evidence HRS presented on possible adverse impact was a conditional statement made by its health care expert: If there were a surplus of beds, nursing homes might be forced to increase the rates to their private `pay' patients . . . they may have to try to cover their expenses. (e.s.) [Transcript, p. 186]. The evidence, however, indicates that there will not be a surplus of beds. Furthermore, at hearing, no opposition to the proposed nursing home was offered by any existing nursing home in the county. D. Balancing the Factors On balance, HILL-GUTHRIE's failure to satisfy all aspects of the bed- need formulae is outweighed by favorable findings made under other criteria equally applicable by rule and statute. In particular, nursing homes in the county are overcrowded, and--without the proposed facility--most likely will continue to be so. There are no nursing homes in Niceville and it is a significant hardship for Niceville residents to visit their friends and relatives in existing nursing homes. Such visits are a positive benefit to nursing home residents. Construction of the proposed nursing home would reduce costs now imposed on hospitals and their patients due to lack of available nursing home beds, and would not adversely impact the occupancy rates of existing nursing homes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HILL-GUTHRIE's application for a CON to build and operate a 60-bed nursing home in Niceville, Florida, be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R.L. CALEEN, JR. 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 16th day of January, 1985
The Issue DOAH Case No. 01-3072: Whether Respondent's licensure status should be reduced from standard to conditional. DOAH Case No. 01-3616: Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 23, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is the state Agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing homes operating in the State of Florida. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. Jacaranda Manor operates a 299-bed licensed nursing home at 4250 66th Street, North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The facility has a staff of approximately 225 persons, including 15 registered nurses ("RNs"), 25 licensed practical nurses ("LPNs"), and 100-125 certified nursing assistants ("CNAs"). Contract nurses also work at the facility on a daily basis. Jacaranda Manor accepts residents from throughout the United States. It is known as a facility that accepts residents with psychiatric or behavioral idiosyncrasies that other nursing homes might be unwilling to handle. Jacaranda Manor residents are admitted from state mental hospitals, the psychiatric units of general hospitals, assisted living facilities, group homes, and other nursing homes. Jacaranda Manor also accepts admissions from the Pinellas County Jail, mostly homeless persons whose mental condition makes them inappropriate for a jail setting. While all of Jacaranda Manor's residents have a primary diagnosis relating to a need for nursing home care, almost 90 percent of its residents have a specific mental illness as a secondary diagnosis. All of the residents cited in the AHCA survey deficiencies suffered from mental disorders. One hundred percent of Jacaranda Manor's residents receive services related to mental illness or retardation, compared to a statewide average of 2.6 percent. Jacaranda Manor's population includes residents with Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, dementia, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's chorea, spinal cord injuries and closed head injuries. Over 97 percent of Jacaranda Manor's residents are expected never to be discharged. More than 40 of Jacaranda Manor's residents have lived there for at least 25 years. Statewide, 59.2 percent of nursing home residents are never expected to be discharged. Two-thirds of Jacaranda Manor's residents are male, as opposed to a statewide average of 31.3 percent. Thirty- five percent of Jacaranda Manor's population is under age 50. Ninety-one percent of Jacaranda Manor's residents are Medicaid recipients, as opposed to a statewide average of 64 percent. Jacaranda Manor also operates the HCR Training Center, a licensed vocational school for CNAs, located across the street from the main nursing home. The center provides free training for prospective CNAs, and Jacaranda Manor employs the trainees and graduates. The course of study lasts six weeks, and each class usually has 20-25 students. The school day consists of four hours of classes followed by paid on-the-job training at Jacaranda Manor. Students generally work 30 hours per week at Jacaranda Manor. As part of its effort to create a home-like atmosphere for residents, Jacaranda Manor does not require staff to wear uniforms. The facility has no particular dress code for employees, aside from a requirement that they wear safe, protective shoes. Some of the administrative personnel wear name tags, but are otherwise indistinguishable from other employees. Thus, an outside observer could not be certain, without further inquiry, whether the "staff person" she sees in the facility is a nurse, a CNA, a CNA trainee, or a maintenance worker. The standard form used by AHCA to document survey findings, titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction," is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. The individual deficiencies are noted on the form by way of identifying numbers commonly called "Tags." A Tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated and provides a summary of the violation, specific factual allegations that the surveyors believe support the violation, and two ratings which indicate the severity of the deficiency. One of the ratings identified in a Tag is a "scope and severity" rating, which is a letter rating from A to L with A representing the least severe deficiency and L representing the most severe. The second rating is a "class" rating, which is a numerical rating of I, II, or III, with I representing the most severe deficiency and III representing the least severe deficiency. On April 3 through 6, 2001, AHCA conducted a licensure and certification survey of Jacaranda Manor, to evaluate the facility's compliance with state and federal regulations governing the operation of nursing homes. The survey noted one deficiency related to difficulty in opening two exit doors at the facility, but noted no deficiencies as to resident care. AHCA found Jacaranda Manor to be in substantial compliance with 42 C.F.R., Part 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities. Pursuant to the mandate of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration, or "HCFA"), AHCA maintains a "survey integrity and support branch," also known as the "validation team." To ensure the quality and consistency of its survey process, AHCA sends the validation team to re- survey facilities that have received deficiency-free initial surveys. Because its April 2001 survey revealed no deficiencies related to resident care, Jacaranda Manor was considered deficiency-free. On May 8 through 11, 2001, AHCA's validation team conducted a second survey at Jacaranda Manor. The validation team alleged a total of thirteen deficiencies during the May 2001 survey. At issue in these proceedings were deficiencies identified as Tag F241 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(a), relating to resident dignity); Tag F250 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(g), relating to social services); and Tag F272 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.20(b)(1), relating to resident assessment). All of the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey were classified as Class III under the Florida classification system for nursing homes. At the time of the survey, Class III deficiencies were defined as those having "an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than Class I or Class II deficiencies." Section 400.23(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2001). Jacaranda Manor disputed the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey and elected to go through the federally authorized Informal Dispute Resolution ("IDR") process. See 42 C.F.R. Section 488.331. The IDR process allows the facility to present information to an AHCA panel, which may recommend that the deficiencies alleged in the survey be deleted, sustained, or modified. Under AHCA's application of the process, the three-member AHCA panel considers the facility's information and then makes a recommendation to Susan Acker, the director of AHCA's health standards and quality unit, who makes the final decision. The IDR meeting was held via teleconference on June 11, 2001. The IDR resulted in AHCA's upholding all the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey. AHCA modified the state level classification of Tag F241 from Class III to Class II. At the time of the survey, Class II deficiencies were defined as "those which the Agency determines have a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I deficiencies." Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2000). This change in classification was recommended by the IDR panel and approved by Ms. Acker. The IDR meeting also resulted in AHCA's changing Tag F272 to Tag F309 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25, relating to quality of care) and to classify the alleged Tag F309 deficiency as Class II. This change was made by Ms. Acker alone. The IDR panel recommended upholding the original Class III, Tag F272 findings, but increasing the federal scope and severity rating from D (no actual harm but with potential for more than minimal harm) to G (actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy). Ms. Acker overruled that recommendation and imposed the change to Tag F309. Based on the increased severity of the alleged deficiencies in Tags F241 and F309, from Class III to Class II, AHCA imposed a conditional license on Jacaranda Manor, effective May 15, 2001. The license expiration date was February 28, 2002. On June 19 and 20, 2001, AHCA conducted a follow-up survey of Jacaranda Manor to determine whether the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey had been corrected. The survey team determined that Tags F241 and F250 were uncorrected Class III deficiencies. This determination resulted in the filing of an Administrative Complaint seeking imposition of a $2,000 civil penalty. May 2001 Survey A. Tag F241 The May 2001 validation survey allegedly found violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(a), which states that a facility must "promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each resident's dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her individuality." In the parlance of the federal Health Care Financing Administration Form 2567 employed by AHCA to report its findings, this requirement is referenced as "Tag F241." Tag F241 is commonly referred to as the "quality of life" or "dignity" tag. For purposes of the Form 2567, the validation team gave the alleged deficiencies on the May 2001 survey a federal scope and severity rating of E for Tag F241. A rating of E indicates that there is a pattern of deficiencies causing no actual harm to the residents but with potential to cause more than minimal harm. After the IDR process, the federal scope and severity rating for Tag F241 was increased to H, meaning that there is a pattern of deficiencies causing actual harm that is less than immediate jeopardy to the health or safety of the residents. The increase of the federal scope and severity rating from E to H corresponded to the increase of the state level classification from Class III to Class II. The Form 2567 for the May 2001 survey listed nine separate incidents under Tag F241, the dignity tag. The first surveyor observation involved Resident 31, or "R-31": On 5/11/01 at 8:30 a.m., R-31 was observed in a 4 bed room, sitting on his/her bed eating breakfast. The resident had no clothes on, had a colostomy bag and foley catheter visible to anyone walking by in the hallway. A staff member went into the room to another resident but did not cover R-31. A second staff member came to the doorway of the room to talk to the first staff member and also did not attempt to cover the resident. Marsha Lisk was the AHCA team coordinator for the May 2001 survey and was the team member who recorded the observation of R-31. Ms. Lisk stated that this was a random observation, made without benefit of reviewing R-31's records. Ms. Lisk could not identify the two staff members who failed to cover R-31, aside from a recollection that one of them was a CNA. She was "astounded" that the staff persons did not intervene to cover the naked resident, especially because they could see that Ms. Lisk was standing in the doorway taking notes. Ms. Lisk would have thought nothing more of the incident had the staff members done anything to obscure the view of the resident from the hallway. Ms. Lisk admitted that R-31 appeared to be in no distress, and that no other resident complained about his nudity. Twenty minutes after this observation, Ms. Lisk saw R-31 fully clothed and being pushed in a wheelchair down the hall. Ms. Lisk noted this incident as a deficiency because she believed nudity cannot be considered to meet community standards under any circumstances. Even if the resident consciously preferred nudity, or was so mentally incapacitated as to be unaware he was nude, it was staff's responsibility to cover the resident, pull a curtain around him, or move his bed to a place where it could not be seen from the hall. At the hearing, it was established that R-31 was a 59-year-old male with multiple medical and psychiatric diagnoses, including schizophrenia and dementia due to organic brain syndrome. He preferred to sleep in the nude and to dress himself, though he required some assistance to do so properly. He was able to close his own privacy curtain. R-31 was very resistant when staff approached to dress him, to the point of physically lashing out. R-31 would refuse to eat if he was pushed to clothe himself near meal time. Carol Heintz, Jacaranda Manor's psychiatric nurse manager, stated that the main goal was to get R-31 to eat his breakfast, and that staff was concerned that any effort to dress him would disrupt his meal. Ms. Heintz offered no reason why the door could not be closed or the privacy curtain drawn while R-31 ate his breakfast in the nude. R-31 also preferred to keep his colostomy uncovered. Staff would cover it and encourage him to keep it covered, but he would refuse to do so. Ms. Lisk, the surveyor, admitted that she did not review R-31's record even after her observation. She made no attempt to interview R-31 and admitted that she was unaware of his habits and preferences. The second surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 21,1 or "R-21", and stated: During the tour on 5/08/01, at approximately 10 a.m., a staff member invited the surveyor into a room to meet [R-21]. He/she was in adult briefs uncovered lying on his/her bed. There was no attempt to cover the resident to insure privacy. At approximately 4:40 p.m. [R-21] was observed from the hallway lying in bed in his/her adult brief with no pants on and the privacy curtain not drawn. Kriste Mennella was the survey team member who recorded the observation of R-21, identified only as a male resident. She did not review the facility's records relating to R-21, and offered no testimonial details beyond the facts set forth in her observation. She did not interview the resident and did not know whether the resident was able to respond to questions. Jacaranda Manor offered no explanation as to why the door could not have been closed or the privacy curtain drawn to prevent passersby from seeing R-21 uncovered in his bed. The third surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 8, or "R-8," and stated: [R-8] was observed on 5/8/01 wheeling out of the dining area with several staff present. He had a black polo shirt on inside out and his Khaki pants, along with his adult brief, were down to his knee's [sic] exposing his right lower side and hip. There was no intervention by staff. He was unshaven and had dirty hand [sic] and his fingernails were ragged and dirty. His hair was unkempt. On 5/9/01 through out [sic] the day [R-8] was observed to have on two different shoes. One was a tennis shoe with his name written across the top and the other a brown loafer. Ms. Mennella recorded the observations of R-8. Ms. Mennella identified the unnamed staff persons as "management folks" who were following the surveyors around the facility, and the person in charge of the dining room. These staff persons told Ms. Mennella on May 8 that they did not intervene because R-8 was "resistive to care." Ms. Mennella subsequently discussed R-8 with a CNA, who told her that the resident may or may not be combative, depending on how he is approached. Ms. Mennella believed that some intervention should have occurred even with a combative resident, if only verbal prompting to tell the resident that his pants were down and he should pull them up. She observed R-8 throughout the three days of the survey, but did not see him with his pants down again after the May 8 observation. On May 9, when she saw R-8 wearing unmatched shoes, Ms. Mennella went to the resident's room and confirmed that he did have matching shoes. R-8 was a 46-year-old male with multiple medical and psychiatric diagnoses, among them paranoid schizophrenia. R-8 saw a variety of mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, a psychiatric ARNP for medication management, a psychologist for individual therapy, and a licensed clinical social worker for group therapy. R-8 was classified as an elopement risk, paranoid and suspicious with a history of aggression. R-8 did not require a wheelchair to ambulate. R-8 habitually carried his "things" (e.g., a radio, or a box containing items sent him by a relative) with him as he moved about the facility. He liked to use a wheelchair to more easily carry his possessions. R-8 dressed himself, usually with some assistance in the morning. He changed clothes five or six times a day. Sometimes he would wear two different outfits in layers, or wear unmatched shoes. Jacaranda Manor staff uniformly noted that there was nothing unusual in R-8 having his shirt on inside-out or backwards, because he was constantly taking his clothes off and on. R-8 liked to wear his pants unbuttoned. He often moved about the facility holding his pants up with one hand, and his pants would often droop down to his knees. Jacaranda Manor staff constantly intervened in an effort to keep R-8 properly clothed. He was sometimes compliant, but other times would resist pulling up his pants. He would curse and run out of the room, or threaten to tell the President of the United States about his treatment. R-8 was indifferent to his appearance, displaying anxiety about his clothing only when staff attempted to change it. He would muss his hair as soon as it was brushed. His hands would get dirty because R-8 had a habit of rooting on the ground or through ashtrays for cigarette butts to smoke. Since the survey, Jacaranda Manor has addressed this problem by installing ashtrays that the residents cannot reach into. Ms. Mennella testified that she knew nothing about R-8's preferences or behaviors regarding clothing. She did not know he had a habit of tousling his own hair. She did not know he had a habit of rooting for cigarettes. She did not ask who wrote R-8's name on his shoe. Jacaranda Manor has a policy of not marking residents' clothing, for privacy reasons. However, R-8 would write his own name on his shoes and other items he received from his family because he was proud of them. The fourth surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned an unnamed resident: During an observation on 5/9/01, outside in the lifestyles patio area, at approximately 9:10 a.m., a staff person who was on break under the pavilion shouted across the courtyard to a resident in a loud voice, "MR. (name) PULL UP YOUR PANTS." There was [sic] several staff on break and at least 15 other residents out side [sic] in the patio area at the time. Ms. Mennella recorded this observation. She testified that the staff person who yelled was an aide. By the time she looked to see whom the staff person was calling to, Ms. Mennella could see no resident with his or her pants down. Not having seen the resident, Ms. Mennella was unable to say whether the staff person could have reached the resident before his or her pants came down. Her concern was the tone and manner in which the instruction was given, and the embarrassment it could have caused the resident. Despite not having seen the resident, Ms. Mennella was certain that the staff person was addressing a male. Rosa Redmond, the director of nursing at Jacaranda Manor, testified that she learned of the incident shortly after it happened. A CNA and a trainee from the HCR Training Center told her of the incident. It was the trainee who called out to the resident. The trainee told Ms. Redmond that a female resident's slacks were starting to fall. The trainee was concerned that the resident would fall, and could not reach the resident in time to pull up her slacks, so the trainee called out to the resident. The fifth surveyor observation on Tag F241 was a general statement: Residents were observed during numerous random observations out in the patio area during all three days of the survey to have on only socks, no shoes on their feet. As a result the socks were black on the bottom. These general observations were made by surveyors Mary Maloney and Kriste Mennella. Ms. Maloney testified that she has surveyed nursing homes from Pensacola to Key West, including homes that accept mental health residents and have secured units, but that she has never seen another facility in which residents are allowed to walk around barefoot or only in dirty socks. In her experience, staff would intervene and redirect the residents to put on shoes or change their socks. Ms. Maloney testified that she asked one resident why he was not wearing shoes. The resident told her that he did not want to wear shoes, and showed Ms. Maloney several pairs of shoes in his closet. Ms. Maloney did not cite this instance as a deficiency. However, she noted other shoeless residents who appeared confused or cognitively impaired, and did cite these instances as deficiencies because of staff's failure to intervene or to assess why the residents resisted wearing shoes. Ms. Maloney admitted that the survey team discussed the issue of residents not having proper footwear, and determined that it caused no actual harm to the residents. Jacaranda Manor did not contest the fact that residents often go barefoot or wear only socks. Through various sources, the facility maintains an ample supply of shoes and socks for the residents, and attempts to keep the residents properly shod. However, the facility also tolerates residents' preferences in clothing and footwear, and does not consider the question of footwear a pressing issue. Some residents simply do not want to wear shoes. Some residents feel steadier when they can feel the floor against their bare feet. Carol Heintz, Jacaranda Manor's psychiatric nurse manager, testified that neither therapists nor family members have ever expressed concerns over the issue. No evidence was presented that going barefoot or wearing socks posed a safety risk to the residents. The alleged harm was simply that some of the residents had dirty feet, or dirty socks on their feet. The sixth surveyor observation on Tag F241 offered more specific information on the question of resident footwear: The facility did not assist residents to wear appropriate footwear, in that some of the residents who resided on 1 West, the secure unit, were observed wearing socks without shoes or were barefoot throughout the survey. During the initial tour on 5/08/0 [sic], it was observed that several residents were pacing and walking throughout 1 West, with only socks on. Some of these residents walked outside on a sidewalk. The soles of these resident's [sic] white socks were soiled dark gray. On 05/08/01, at 6:50 p.m., there were three male residents observed to walk around the unit with white socks on. One of these residents had holes in the socks. On 05/09/01 at 10:15 a.m., there was one male resident walking outside in the enclosed courtyard wearing white socks, as well as a female resident who was pacing back and forth on the side walk wearing socks only. On the morning of 05/10/01 at 7:45 a.m., there was a male resident sitting in a chair outside who was barefoot. On 05/11/01, at 9:30 a.m., during the resident's [sic] arranged smoking time on the enclosed courtyard on 1 West, there were several residents walking around wearing only socks on their feet. One male resident was wearing black shoes, but they were different style shoes. This was shown to the direct care staff who were not aware. They were not sure if these shoes belonged to this resident. The staff also stated that some of the resident's [sic] shoes were missing or the residents chose not to wear their shoes. Resident #16 was observed walking around in loose-fitting cloth slippers with rubber soles on 05/09/01, on 05/10/01. The resident showed that she/he had one black dress shoe, because the other shoe was missing. On 05/11/01, the resident was wearing open- toed bedroom slippers. This resident was identified as a fall risk due to akinesia (involuntary movement of the body). The resident's current care plan included an approach "to wear proper fitting shoes with non-skid soles." The resident was observed with a shuffling gait. Resident 16, or "R-16," was a 39-year-old male with HIV, cerebral atrophy, and a history of AIDS-related dementia with delusions. He suffered from depression, anxiety, psychosis, paranoia, and bipolar disorder. He was childlike and possessed poor judgment, forming unrealistic plans to get a job and live on his own outside a clinical setting. R-16 was an elopement risk, which caused a community-based HIV program to reject him for participation. Jacaranda Manor tried placing R-16 in its open unit, but he tried to leave without telling anyone, which necessitated placing him in the facility's secure unit. R-16 abused alcohol, liked to smoke and drink coffee constantly, and was prone to giving away his clothes. R-16 had pronounced preferences as to footwear. While he would occasionally wear regular shoes, he most often wore a pair of fuzzy, open-toed slippers. He would have a temper tantrum if not allowed to wear his slippers. R-16 was at risk of slipping and falling due to akinesia, and staff explained to him the potential safety problems in wearing slippers. R-16 had a peculiar gait, described by Jacaranda Manor personnel as "shuffling" or as a "sashay." His slippers had rubber soles to help prevent slipping. The seventh surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 32, or "R-32", and an unnamed resident: On 05/08/01, at 6:50 p.m., during the evening meal, [R-32] was observed from the hallway, sitting in a chair in his room wearing only a t-shirt and an incontinent brief. Several staff were observed to walk past this resident's room and did not attempt to intervene. On 05/09/01, at 10:15 a.m., during a random observation, there was a confused male resident walking outside in the enclosed courtyard, who was removed his pants [sic] and exposed his incontinent brief. There was a female resident pacing back and forth nearby. A direct care staff person who was escorting another resident, walked past this resident without intervening. The surveyor went inside to inform the medication nurse of the situation. Mary Maloney was the surveyor who recorded the observation of R-32 and the unnamed resident. R-32 was a male resident who preferred not to wear trousers. Jacaranda Manor staff tried to convince R-32 to wear trousers. Staff tried different kinds of pants, such as pull-ups, zippered pants, and shorts. R-32 would occasionally accede to wearing the shorts, but while in his room always dressed in his brief and a t-shirt. Jacaranda Manor did not dispute Ms. Maloney's observation of R-32. Jacaranda Manor was unable to address Ms. Maloney's subsequent observation, as she was unable to name the "confused male resident," the pacing female resident, or the staff person who allegedly failed to intervene. Ms. Maloney's observation implies that the unnamed staff person should have intervened, but offers no information as to whether the staff person could have safely abandoned the other resident he or she was escorting at the time. The eighth surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 4, or "R-4," and stated: During the breakfast meal observation on 05/09/01 and 05/10/01 at about 9:30 a.m., [R-4] was observed to be fed her/his breakfast at the nurse's station. The staff person was observed to be standing and feeding the resident who was seated in a reclining chair. The resident's meal tray was placed on the counter of the nurse's station, where the resident could not see her/his food. There was a high level of staff activity and residents walking around the area. Ms. Maloney was the surveyor who recorded this observation. Both Alma Hirsch, Jacaranda Manor's chief administrator, and Carol Heintz, the psychiatric nurse manager, testified that R-4 is fed entirely by means of a gastrointestinal tube and thus could not have been eating breakfast at the nurses' station. At the hearing, Ms. Maloney conceded that she might have misidentified the resident on the Form 2567, but was certain that she saw a particular male resident being fed breakfast at the nurses' station on May 9 and 10. Jacaranda Manor did not contest the fact that residents are often fed at the nurses' station. AHCA cited this incident as a deficiency because feeding the resident at a busy nurses' station does not promote his dignity. Ms. Maloney inquired and learned that the resident could not be fed in his room because it was being painted. She acknowledged that the resident in question was difficult to feed, and so prone to violent outbursts that Jacaranda Manor had removed all the furniture from his room for his safety. Ms. Maloney nonetheless thought that Jacaranda Manor staff should have chosen a quieter, less stimulative environment in which to feed the resident. The ninth surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 16, or "R-16," and stated: On 05/10/01, at about 3:30 p.m., [R-16] approached the nurse's station and asked the medication nurse for some coffee. (The resident had his/her own personal jar of instant coffee.) The nurse denied the resident the coffee. The nurse stated that the resident's coffee was being rationed to several times per day. According to the nurse, the resident's coffee consumption was restricted because the resident prefers the coffee extra strong, and the resident exhibits effects from the excessive caffeine, described as "bouncing off the walls." From review of the clinical record, there was no physician's order for a caffeine restriction. According to facility policy, the coffee served to the residents is decaffeinated, the nurse reported. Ms. Maloney recorded this observation. R-16 is the same resident cited in the sixth surveyor observation for wearing open-toed slippers. Jacaranda Manor serves only decaffeinated coffee to all residents. R-16 had a personal, "special" jar of instant decaffeinated coffee that was in fact provided by Ms. Hirsch, at her own expense. R-16 was allowed to believe that his "special" coffee was caffeinated. R-16 was incapable of making his own coffee. His jar of coffee was kept in the medicine room near the nurses' station, and R-16 had to ask a nurse to prepare his coffee. The nurse would go to the kitchen for hot water, then prepare the coffee. R-16 drank coffee all day, every day. There were no medical restrictions on how much coffee he could drink. He carried a large mug, and would ask the nurses to prepare his coffee as many as thirty times a day. R-16 would ask insistently until his coffee was made. If the nurses were not busy, they would make the coffee immediately. If they were in the middle of a procedure, they would ask R-16 to wait until they were finished. Elaine Teller was the nurse referenced in the ninth observation. She was the charge nurse at the time of the incident. Ms. Teller was passing medications and speaking to Ms. Maloney when R-16 approached and demanded his coffee. Ms. Teller told R-16 that she was busy and would get his coffee in a few minutes. Ms. Maloney testified that Ms. Teller's response was "inappropriate," in that it had the potential to embarrass R- 16 in front of the people at the nurses' station. Ms. Maloney believed it would have been more appropriate to take R-16 aside and speak with him. Ms. Teller denied treating R-16 rudely or disrespectfully. She was "firm" with R-16 "because that's what [he] needs." Ms. Teller was close to R-16, such that he referred to her as his "second mom." At the time, Ms. Maloney voiced no concern over Ms. Teller's treatment of R-16. Ms. Teller testified that she had delayed but never "denied" coffee to R-16. She had on occasion lectured R-16 that he drank too much coffee, but never stated that R-16's coffee intake was restricted. Surveyors employ a "Guidance to Surveyors" document for long-term care facilities contained in the "State Operations Manual" promulgated by the federal CMS. The guidelines for Tag F241 state: "Dignity" means that in their interactions with residents, staff carries out activities that assist the resident to maintain and enhance his/her self-esteem and self-worth. For example: Grooming residents as they wish to be groomed (e.g., hair combed and styled, beards shaved/trimmed, nails clean and clipped); Assisting residents to dress in their own clothes appropriate to the time of day and individual preferences; Assisting residents to attend activities of their own choosing; Labeling each resident's clothing in a way that respects his or her dignity; Promoting resident independence and dignity in dining (such as avoidance of day-to-day use of plastic cutlery and paper/plastic dishware, bibs instead of napkins, dining room conducive to pleasant dining, aides not yelling); Respecting resident's private space and property (e.g., not changing radio or television station without resident's permission, knocking on doors and requesting permission to enter, closing doors as requested by the resident, not moving or inspecting resident's personal possessions without permission); Respecting resident's social status, speaking respectfully, listening carefully, treating residents with respect (e.g., addressing the resident with a name of the resident's choice, not excluding residents from conversations or discussing residents in community setting); and Focusing on residents as individuals when they talk to them and addressing residents as individuals when providing care and services. The same document sets forth survey procedures, and emphasizes examining the context of staff's actions: . . . As part of the team's information gathering and decision-making, look at the actions and omissions of staff and the uniqueness of the individual sampled resident and on the needs and preferences of the resident, not on the actions and omissions themselves. The issue of patient dignity was the subject of extensive testimony at the hearing. Ann Sarantos, survey integrity and support manager for AHCA and an expert in long- term care nursing practice, testified that the surveyors understood that residents will remove their shoes and clothing, particularly in a facility with the resident population of Jacaranda Manor. The survey team acknowledged that Jacaranda Manor's population was unique in terms of the number of mentally ill residents. Ms. Sarantos stated that AHCA's central concern was staff's lack of sensitivity. The surveyors repeatedly saw staff making no effort to cover the residents or get them into shoes, even when the surveyors pointed out the problems. Ms. Sarantos stated that AHCA does not set a different dignity standard for patients with psychiatric or organic conditions. She noted that a high percentage of residents in any nursing home will have some form of dementia or behavioral problem, and that the facility must plan its care to manage these problems. She stated that AHCA employs the same survey procedures for all facilities, regardless of the patient population. Patricia Reid Caufman, an expert in social work, opined that the residents are nursing home patients regardless of their diagnoses. When the facility accepts these patients, it does so on the basis that it can meet their needs, including their dignity needs. Susan Acker is the nursing services director of AHCA's health standards and quality unit. She is an expert in long-term care and was the person who made the final decision as to the classification of Jacaranda Manor's deficiencies. Ms. Acker stated that the provision of adequate clothing and footwear is a "fundamental level of compliance." The individuals listed under the Tag F241 deficiencies had portions of their bodies exposed in a way that does not conform to the community standard of a nursing home. The "community standard" for a nursing home includes an expectation that a resident will be dressed in his or her own clothes and assisted in dressing and making appropriate selections, or, if the resident's judgment is impaired, will be provided with selections allowing them to appear in a dignified manner. Ms. Mennella offered the common sense view that, in applying a "community standard," the surveyor should ask herself whether a mentally impaired resident would be embarrassed under normal circumstances. The exposure of these residents demonstrated noncompliance with the requirement that the facility maintain or enhance the self-esteem and dignity of the residents. Ms. Acker acknowledged the right of the residents to select their own clothing or to be undressed within the confines of their rooms. However, the facility must continually provide these residents with encouragement or assistance in dressing. Staff must act if the residents lack the ability to make their own judgments. The issue was not that the facility should deny choice to the residents, but that a therapeutic environment should be established that maintained and enhanced resident dignity. Ms. Acker found that the "key point" in the deficiencies was the proximity of staff to the cited residents. In each instance involving nudity or improper dress in a resident's room, staff was available to pull the privacy curtain or to assist the resident in redressing. The staff person may not have minded the resident's dress, but should have acted to protect the resident's dignity when a stranger walked into or past the room. Staff could have re- established the community standard by clothing the resident or providing the privacy that would protect the resident's dignity, but failed to do so. Ms. Acker characterized these incidents as staff's failure to provide services to the community standard for residents who were unable to exercise their own judgment to maintain their own dignity. Ms. Acker testified that, to change the scope and severity of Tag F241 from E to H, the IDR panel members would have to believe that the situation resulted in a negative outcome that compromised the ability of the resident to maintain or reach the highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being, as defined in the Resident Assessment Protocol ("RAP"). She concurred with upgrading Tag F241 to a Class II deficiency because there was a direct impact on the residents observed and on those residents who witnessed the failure to deliver adequate care. Carol Heintz, the psychiatric nurse manager and an expert in psychiatric nursing care, opined that Jacaranda Manor is not below community standards in terms of patient dignity. She agreed that "it would be nice" if more than 200 residents with physical and mental health issues wanted to wear appropriate clothing, shoes and socks every day, but for these people "things like that may not be the priority that it is to you or [me]." Clothing issues can be difficult with some residents, because they do not perceive their unorthodox dress or even nudity as an issue. If a resident resists wearing proper clothing or using a privacy curtain, the staff just keeps trying to reinforce proper dress and modesty. Ms. Heintz acknowledged the facility's responsibility to respect the rights of others not to be subjected to the improper dress of residents. However, she also stated that residents' modes of dress have had no adverse impact on them, and that no therapist or any resident's family has ever complained about the facility's methods of dealing with clothing and footwear issues. In light of all the factual and expert testimony, it is found that the IDR panel's decision to upgrade Tag F241 from Class III, with a scope and severity rating of E, to Class II, with a scope and severity rating of H, was supported by the evidence presented, though not as to all nine observations made under Tag F241. The first observation, for R-31, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. R-31 was sitting on his bed eating breakfast in the nude and was plainly observable from the hallway. Staff persons were present but did nothing to remedy the situation. Granting that it may have been counterproductive to attempt to dress R-31 while he was eating, no evidence was presented to show that pulling the privacy curtain or closing the door would have disturbed R- 31's meal. Even if, as Jacaranda Manor implied, these staff persons may not have been direct care employees, they should have alerted the nursing staff to the situation. The dignity of R-31 and of any other resident who happened to pass his room were directly affected by this incident. The second observation, for R-21, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. R-21 was seen twice lying in bed wearing uncovered adult briefs. Jacaranda Manor offered no reason why the resident could not be covered or why the view from the hallway could not be obscured. The dignity of R-21 and of any other resident who happened to pass his room were directly affected by this incident. The third observation, for R-8, does not support the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. The initial rating of this as a Class III deficiency was supported by the evidence. While the bare facts set forth in the observation were concededly accurate, the surveyor focused entirely "on the actions and omissions themselves," and made no effort to assess the "uniqueness of the individual sampled resident" or "the needs and preferences of the resident." The facts established that R-8 was subject to unbuttoning his pants and allowing them to droop. In three days of constant observation, Ms. Mennella witnessed one such brief incident. R-8 was also subject to digging for cigarette butts and tousling his own hair, making it very likely that at some point over a three-day period he could be observed with dirty hands and unkempt hair. R-8 wrote his own name on his shoes, because he was proud of them. Testimony established that staff of Jacaranda Manor conscientiously cared for R-8, but that it was impossible to maintain appropriate appearance for this resident all day, every day. There was no evidence of any impact on this resident's dignity or self-esteem. The fourth observation was of the staff member shouting to a resident to pull up her pants. This observation does not support the Agency's finding a Class II or a Class III deficiency. Had the surveyor made inquiry into the circumstances of the incident, she would have learned that it involved a sudden reaction to a potentially critical situation. The trainee called out to the resident because she couldn't reach the resident in time to keep her pants from falling, which in turn could have caused the resident to fall. Concern for the resident's possible embarrassment cannot be held more important than the resident's physical safety when an emergency arises. The fifth and sixth observations involved residents walking around barefoot, in only socks, or, in the case of R- 16, in slippers. The deficiencies noted for these observations do not support the Agency's finding a Class II or a Class III deficiency. The only harm alleged by the Agency was that the residents' dignity is impaired by their having dirty feet. It is found that Jacaranda Manor was acceding to the wishes of its residents regarding footwear, and that dirty feet or socks are a necessary and essentially harmless incident of choosing not to wear shoes. The seventh observation, of R-32 and an unnamed resident, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. As to the unnamed resident observed in the courtyard with his brief exposed, the surveyor could not provide enough information to allow Jacaranda Manor to defend itself. The surveyor could not name the resident, the female resident allegedly in the vicinity, or the staff person who allegedly walked past. This portion of the deficiency was unproven. However, the surveyor adequately stated her observation of R- 32, who was seen from the hallway sitting in a chair in his room, wearing only a t-shirt and adult brief. Several staff members walked past the room and did not intervene. Jacaranda Manor offered no reason why the resident could not be covered or why the view from the hallway could not be obscured. The dignity of R-32 and of any other resident who happened to pass his room were directly affected by this incident. The eighth observation, of a resident initially identified as R-4, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. The surveyor guidelines expressly describe promoting "dignity in dining." While the underlying facts explained why Jacaranda Manor could not feed the resident in his room, they did not explain why the resident was being fed at the busy, noisy nurses' station rather than in the dining room or some other, quieter location. The resident was difficult to feed and subject to violent outbursts, but these facts do not explain the choice of feeding the resident at the nurses' station, leading to the inference that this choice was likely made for the convenience of the nurses. The dignity of this resident was directly affected by this incident. The ninth observation, of R-16, does not support the Agency's finding a Class II or a Class III deficiency. The facts established that Ms. Teller, the nurse in question, had a close relationship with R-16 and could speak somewhat sternly to him without affecting his dignity or self-esteem. Ms. Teller's version of the incident is credited. Requiring R-16 to wait a few minutes for his coffee while Ms. Teller finished passing medications caused the resident no harm whatever. In summary, of the nine observations listed under Tag F241, four supported the Agency's finding of a Class II deficiency; one supported the initial finding of a Class III deficiency; and four supported a finding of neither a Class II or a Class III deficiency. Thus, the Agency's overall finding of a Class II deficiency for Tag F241 is supported by the record evidence. Tag F250 The May 2001 validation survey allegedly found a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(g), which states that a facility must "provide medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident," and sets forth the standards for resident social services. This requirement is referenced on Form 2567 as "Tag F250," or the "social services tag." For purposes of the Form 2567, the validation team gave the alleged deficiency on the May 2001 survey a federal scope and severity rating of D for Tag F250. A rating of D indicates that there is an isolated deficiency causing no actual harm to the resident but with potential to cause more than minimal harm. This alleged deficiency was rated Class III, and was not part of the basis for imposing a conditional license on Jacaranda Manor. Its significance is that it was determined to be an uncorrected deficiency in the June 2001 return survey, and thus formed part of the basis for the civil penalty imposed after the return survey. The May 2001 survey found one instance in which Jacaranda Manor allegedly failed to provide medically related social services. The surveyor's observation on Form 2567 concerned R-16, the same resident discussed above in the sixth and ninth observations under Tag F241: [R-16] was admitted to the facility on 09/29/00, and the resident's comprehensive assessment of [10/05/00]2 indicated that the resident had dental caries. The care plan stated that the resident's "teeth will be clean and oral mucosa will be free of signs and symptoms of infection at all times." One of the approaches on the care plan was for the "resident to see the Dentist as needed." The resident revealed that she/he had not seen a dentist since admission and desired dental services. Observation of the resident's teeth and gums, indicated that there was evidence of abnormal oral mucosa. There was no documentation in the resident's clinical record to indicate that the resident had seen the dentist since admission. The nursing management staff person was asked on 05/11/01, if there was any information to show that the resident had seen the dentist. Later that day, the nursing management staff indicated that the resident now has a dental appointment scheduled on 05/23/01. The lack of dental services can lead to dental problems, oral infection, changes in food consistency, and decrease resident's self-esteem. Ms. Maloney observed R-16 and noted that the edge of his gums was black, perhaps indicating periodontal disease. R-16 showed no evidence of pain and was eating normally. Ms. Maloney interviewed R-16, who told her he wanted to see a dentist. On May 11, 2001, Ms. Maloney told the director of nursing that she could find no indication in the record that R-16 had ever seen a dentist, and asked for any information not apparent in the record. Later that day, the director of nursing told Ms. Maloney that R-16 now had a dental appointment scheduled for May 23. Ms. Maloney was left with the understanding that nothing had been done for R-16 up to that time, and that his appointment was made only in response to her inquiry. The evidence established that R-16's dental appointment for May 23 had actually been scheduled by the facility on May 7, prior to the survey. The appointment was scheduled because R-16 had expressed to Ms. Hirsch a desire to have his teeth cleaned and whitened. The only complaint R-16 voiced about his teeth was that they were discolored. The key to Ms. Maloney's finding a deficiency was her impression that the facility did not respond to R-16's request to see a dentist until Ms. Maloney herself inquired and pressed the issue. In fact, the appointment had been made before the AHCA survey team arrived at Jacaranda Manor. The nurse manager to whom Ms. Maloney spoke was apparently unaware the appointment had been made. The evidence does not support the finding of a deficiency under Tag F250. Tag F309 As noted above, the deficiencies alleged under Tag F309 were originally placed under Tag F272. Tag F272 is the Form 2567 reference to violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.20(b), which states that a facility "must conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized, reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity," and sets forth at length the standards that must be observed in performing these comprehensive assessments. Tag F309 references 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25, which states that each resident "must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care," and sets forth at length the standards by which a facility's quality of care is measured. The significance of the change from Tag F272 to Tag F309 is that Tag F272 merely alleges a failure to conduct or update the assessment of the resident. Tag F309 alleges a deficiency in the quality of care provided to the resident, inherently a more serious violation. For purposes of the Form 2567, the validation team gave the alleged deficiencies on the May 2001 survey a federal scope and severity rating of D for Tag F272. A rating of D indicates that there are isolated deficiencies causing no actual harm to the residents but with potential to cause more than minimal harm. The IDR panel recommended upholding the deficiencies as cited by the survey team. However, Ms. Acker believed that the presence of a negative outcome for Resident 7, discussed below, merited changing the tag from F272 to F309 and making it a Class II deficiency with a federal scope and severity rating of G, meaning that there are isolated deficiencies causing actual harm that is less than immediate jeopardy to the health or safety of the residents. The May 2001 survey, as modified by the IDR process, set forth two alleged deficiencies under Tag F309. The first alleged deficiency concerned Resident 7, or "R-7:" [R-7] triggered on the Resident Assessment Protocol (RAP) Summary for behavior. On the 06/02/00 Minimum Data Set (MDS) this resident was coded as having moderate daily pain. Subsequently on the 02/22/01 MDS this resident was coded as having daily pain which was sometimes severe. During the initial tour at 9:30 a.m. on 05/08/01, the resident was described as refusing to get out of bed and refusing showers due to pain. Clinical record review and staff interview revealed there was no documentation of an ongoing evaluation of this resident's pain since 1999. The behavior assessment identified pain and chronic illness but did not reflect the increase in pain or an evaluation of the resident refusing care. R-7 was admitted to Jacaranda Manor on March 23, 1999. She received a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation upon admission. R-7 was a 41-year-old female, bipolar with a history of psychosis, dementia, and manic episodes. She was a hermaphrodite. Her physical illnesses included pickwickian syndrome, a condition characterized by obesity, decreased pulmonary function and somnolence. R-7 also suffered from psoriatic arthritis, a condition that caused her chronic pain and limited her movement. She complained of pain when being moved. When she was in bed and not moving, she did not complain of pain. Jacaranda Manor prepared a formal pain assessment of R-7 upon her admission. She was seen weekly by her attending physician, psychiatrists, and therapists, and was seen several times a day by the nursing staff. All of the medical professionals who saw her entered written notes into her medical record. AHCA's observation accurately notes that R-7's medical record lacks a document formally titled "evaluation" or "assessment" of R-7's pain, but testimony and documentary evidence at the hearing established that R-7's condition, including her pain, was consistently monitored and noted by Jacaranda Manor staff. Franklin May, a senior pharmacist, was the AHCA surveyor who made the observation of R-7. Mr. May interviewed R-7 and the treating nursing staff, and he reviewed the available medical records. Mr. May testified that he had "no problems with the way they were treating this lady." Mr. May's concern was that R-7's pain had apparently increased, and her condition deteriorated, but the facility could provide him with no documentation of a formal assessment or evaluation of her pain subsequent to her admission in 1999. Jacaranda Manor did not dispute Mr. May's contention as to documentation of formal assessments, but contended that medical staff "assessed" R-7 on a daily basis and that their chart notes constituted documentation of those assessments. This contention is credited to the extent that Jacaranda Manor established that nothing was lacking in the actual care provided to R-7, and that staff of Jacaranda Manor possessed a nuanced understanding of R-7's condition and of her somewhat mercurial personality as it affected her complaints of pain. It is not credited to the extent that Jacaranda Manor contends that ongoing, formal assessments of R-7's pain were superfluous. Mr. May's impression was that R-7's refusal to get out of bed and to take showers was a recent phenomenon indicating an increase in pain. In fact, R-7 was mostly bed- bound throughout her stay at Jacaranda Manor, and even before her admission. Her reported pain fluctuated from time to time, as did her amenability to taking her prescribed pain medications. The totality of the evidence established that R- 7's condition was at least stable, if not markedly improved, throughout her stay at Jacaranda Manor. In conclusion, the evidence supported Mr. May's contention that Jacaranda Manor's documentation of the care provided to R-7 was insufficient to permit a surveyor to obtain an accurate picture of her condition and treatment, and therefore supported the initial classification of Tag F272 in that R-7's formal assessment instruments were insufficiently updated. However, the evidence did not support changing the classification to Tag F309, because no actual deficiencies in R-7's care were proven or even alleged prior to Ms. Acker's review of the IDR process. The second alleged deficiency under Tag F309 concerned Resident 25, or "R-25:" [R-25] was admitted on 04/10/01 directly to the secure unit upon admission to the facility. The Resident had a primary diagnosis of Cancer of the lung and paranoid schizophrenia. The Resident was receiving Hospice in another skilled nursing facility in Tampa before he/she was sent to the hospital for violent outburst of behavior. Transfer social services document from the hospital indicate [sic] that resident is to be admitted to Jacaranda Manor with Hospice services. Monthly orders for this resident for April and May, 2001 reflected orders for Hospice. Interview of facility social services' staff, state [sic] that Resident was discontinued from Hospice due to "residents [sic] condition being stable" according to hospice. Contact was conducted with Life Path [the Tampa hospice] who confirm that this resident did meet Hospice criteria and that they do not service the St. Petersburg area and that was the only reason they had to discharge the resident. Hospice staff said that Jacaranda admissions person was told that they were responsible to secure the services of the Hospice covering the St. Petersburg area and they would then share their records with that Hospice. This resident was documented to be ambulatory throughout the secure unit and sociable with staff. Resident had episodes of shortness of breath and occasional use of oxygen. On 05/10/01 the resident developed cardiac arrest and was sent to the hospital by EMS where he/she was pronounced dead. The facility did not meet the needs of this resident for his/her terminal care needs. R-25 was a large, heavy-set 67-year-old male who had been diagnosed with lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), paranoid schizophrenia, and seizure disorder. R-25 had been a resident of a Tampa nursing home until a behavioral outburst caused his admission to the psychiatric unit of Tampa General Hospital for an adjustment of his medications. While in the Tampa nursing home, R-25 had received services from Life Path Hospice, which served patients in Hillsborough County, due to his lung cancer diagnosis. The decision had been made not to treat the cancer, and R-25 had been receiving hospice services for over one year. R-25 was an elopement risk and subject to violent outbursts, such that the Tampa nursing home declined to re- admit him after his hospital admission. Staff of Life Path Hospice knew of Jacaranda Manor's reputation for accepting this kind of difficult resident. Grizier Cruz, a mental health counselor at Life Path, contacted Sharon Laird, Jacaranda Manor's admissions director. Ms. Laird agreed to evaluate R-25 for admission, and Jacaranda Manor admitted R-25 on April 10, 2001. Ms. Laird testified that she initially asked Ms. Cruz whether Life Path would continue to provide services to R-25 at Jacaranda Manor, or whether Life Path would transfer the case to the hospice serving Pinellas County. Ms. Laird testified that Ms. Cruz told her that R-25 was stable and no longer in need of hospice services. Ms. Cruz denied telling anyone at Jacaranda Manor that R-25 was stable and not in need of hospice services. Ms. Cruz stated that she informed Jacaranda Manor that Life Path would be withdrawing services from R-25 because he was leaving Hillsborough County, Life Path's area of coverage. She testified that Jacaranda Manor would have to establish a physician for R-25 at the facility. The physician would have to write an order for hospice, at which time Life Path would make the referral to the Pinellas County hospice that would then come to Jacaranda Manor to evaluate R-25 for its program. When R-25 was admitted, Jacaranda Manor followed its standard assessment and care planning procedures, noting his diagnosis of lung cancer and the need to contact hospice. Linnea Gleason, social services director at Jacaranda Manor, testified that she contacted Life Path twice during the care planning process, and was told both times that R-25 was stable and in no need of hospice. Ms. Gleason's contemporaneous notes in R-25's chart are consistent with her testimony. Dr. Gabriel Decandido was R-25's physician at Jacaranda Manor. His examination revealed that R-25's cancer was apparently slow growing, because he was relatively pain free and did not appear to be at the end stage of life. Dr. Decandido was not surprised to learn that R-25 had lasted over one year on hospice; he was surprised that R-25 had been receiving hospice services at all. Dr. Decandido did not believe that R-25 needed hospice services. R-25 was stable, comfortable, not in pain, happy and smiling. At times, he used oxygen due to his COPD and continued smoking. He kidded with the nurses and went outside to smoke throughout the day. Dr. Decandido noted that R-25's schizophrenia made him a poor patient with whom to discuss death because such discussions could increase his psychosis and paranoia. Given R-25's entire situation, Dr. Decandido thought it best to allow R-25 to live out his life at Jacaranda Manor, walking around, talking to people, eating, drinking, and smoking. Another factor influencing Dr. Decandido's opinion was that x-rays taken of R-25 at Jacaranda Manor did not indicate lung cancer. Dr. Decandido did not dispute the diagnosis of lung cancer, but did dispute that R-25 was a man about to die from lung cancer. His findings from the x-rays were that R-25 suffered from congestive heart failure and possibly pneumonia. Ms. Gleason testified that she and her social services staff visited R-25 three times a week to offer counseling, but that R-25 showed no anxiety about his lung cancer and declined services. Elaine Teller was the charge nurse at Jacaranda Manor during R-25's admission. She directly asked R-25 on several occasions whether he wanted hospice. She explained the advantages of hospice care in managing his medications. On each occasion, R-25 declined hospice. Ms. Teller failed to note these declinations in R-25's chart. However, given that there was no physician's order for hospice and that R-25's capacity to consent was questionable at best, Ms. Teller's notations would have been superfluous in any event. Life Path Hospice informed Jacaranda Manor that it would be necessary to obtain the consent of R-25's only known relative, a daughter in Jacksonville, to commence hospice services in the event they were ordered by a physician. Ms. Laird of Jacaranda Manor contacted the daughter by telephone and sent her an admissions package by certified mail. The daughter did not accept delivery of the package. Thus, Jacaranda Manor never received signed admission documents from R-25's family, which would have included advance directives such as hospice. AHCA's contention that "[m]onthly orders for this resident for April and May, 2001 reflected orders for Hospice" is simply a misreading of R-25's record. The notation "hospice" appears under the term "advance directives" on a record document with the title "physicians orders and administration record." Despite its title, this sheet was used by Jacaranda Manor as a medication sheet. A notation of an advance directive for hospice was not a physician's order for hospice. Jacaranda Manor staff was fully aware that a physician's order for hospice would have been indicated by a special sticker on the sheet and by accompanying paperwork. Ms. Gleason explained this procedure to AHCA surveyors, who nonetheless cited these "orders" as deficiencies. R-25 died on May 10, 2001, one month after his admission to Jacaranda Manor. His death was caused by cardiac arrest, unrelated to his lung cancer diagnosis. Jacaranda Manor's version of events involving R-25 is credited. Other residents at the facility receive hospice services, and there is no reason to conclude that the facility would fail to implement a physician's order for hospice services for R-25. The evidence does not support the deficiency cited by AHCA, either under F272 or F309. In summary, the evidence did not support the change of Tag F272 to Tag F309. The evidence did support a Class III deficiency under Tag F272 as to the documentation of Jacaranda Manor's treatment of R-7. II. June 2001 Survey A. Tag F241 The June 2001 survey allegedly found two Class III violations of Tag F241, the "dignity tag," both from observations made on June 19, 2001, at 3:05 p.m. by surveyor Patricia Reid Caufman. The first observation involved Resident 19, or "R-19": [R-19] was lying in bed (mattress) on the floor and receiving one to one supervision from the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The resident was sleeping with the door open and the privacy curtain was not pulled around the resident. The resident faced toward the window with his adult briefs exposed to the hallway. The CNA was sitting on a chair in the hallway observing the resident. The CNA did not attempt to cover the resident to maintain his/her dignity. R-19 was a 60-year-old male with a history of dementia and a propensity for violent outbursts. R-19 had no safety awareness, and had done such things as pull his room air conditioning unit out of the wall and attempt to walk it out into the hallway. He had a great deal of psychomotor agitation, and persistently pulled at things. He was prone to falling into chairs or his bed, pulling down curtains and curtain rods. If approached abruptly, he might strike out. Three or four people could be needed to give him a bath. The medical staff constantly adjusted his medications in an effort to manage his behavior without over-sedating him. R-19 was very resistant to dressing, and could undress himself very quickly. Staff of Jacaranda Manor tried various strategies to keep him dressed, including one-piece outfits, clothing that zipped in the back, and hospital gowns with pajama bottoms, but nothing was entirely successful. Jacaranda Manor had taken steps to ensure his safety. R-19 had been placed in a private room at the back of his hallway to minimize his interactions with other residents. All furnishings had been removed from the room, save for a mattress on the floor. Padding was placed around the mattress to minimize his thrashing. The windowsills were padded, and the air conditioner protected. At the time of the June 2001 survey, R-19 was receiving 24-hour one-on-one care, for his own safety and that of the other residents. When R-19 slept, the CNA assigned to him was instructed to sit in the doorway to his room. A Dutch door was installed to his room. Once R-19 fell asleep, the bottom part of the door could be closed to obscure the view of passersby but still allow the CNA to peek over the top to check on him. Jacaranda Manor conceded the accuracy of Ms. Caufman's observation, but contended there was no alternative plan of care for R-19. The door could not be closed completely, because the resident then could not be observed by the CNA. Placing the CNA on a chair inside the room would defeat the purpose of removing all the furnishings for safety, and would have placed the CNA in jeopardy. The privacy curtain would obscure the CNA's view of the resident. R-19 was easily disturbed. Ms. Redmond, the director of nursing, testified that R-19 "needs to sleep when he wants to, because otherwise he is just up and going all the time." Ms. Redmond believed that any attempt to cover R-19 with a sheet would have awakened him, "and then he would have been up and going again and wouldn't have gotten any rest." Based upon the unique characteristics of this resident, and the extensive steps taken by Jacaranda Manor to ensure R-19's safety with some level of privacy, it is found that the evidence failed to establish that the observation of R-19 constituted a deficiency under Tag F241. Ms. Caufman's second observation under Tag F241 involved Resident 20, or "R-20": [R-20] was observed from the hallway lying in bed with the door open and the privacy curtains not pulled around the resident. The resident was wearing adult briefs and the front half of the resident was exposed. Two staff members passed by the open door and failed to intervene so as to protect resident dignity. R-20 was a male resident suffering from dementia. He would take off his gown or shirt while lying in bed. He was capable of opening and closing his own privacy curtain. Ms. Caufman could not identify the two staff members who passed the open door. Ms. Caufman's handwritten notes state that she observed R-20 uncovered at 3:05 p.m., but that staff had covered him when she next went past the room at 3:09 p.m. She did not explain why her formal statement omitted the fact that the resident was covered no more than four minutes after her observation. Jacaranda Manor offered no explanation as to why the door could not have been closed or the privacy curtain drawn to prevent passersby from seeing R-20 uncovered in his bed. On the other hand, Ms. Caufman's brief description of the incident, her failure to identify the staff members who allegedly ignored R-20, and her omission of a relevant fact render the situation ambiguous. As noted above, staff at Jacaranda Manor do not wear uniforms. Only direct care staff are allowed to approach patients to dress or cover them. Other staff, such as maintenance or cafeteria workers, are directed to be alert to residents' dress and to go get a direct care staff person when they see a problem. Based on Ms. Caufman's narrative and on the fact that the resident was covered within four minutes of her observation, it is as likely as not that the two people she saw pass the room were not direct care staff, and that they alerted the direct care staff, who then covered the resident. It is found that the evidence failed to establish that the observation of R-19 constituted a deficiency under Tag F241. B. Tag F250 The June 2001 survey allegedly found one violation of Tag F250, the "social services tag," involving Resident 14, or "R-14": [R-14] was admitted to the facility on 7/2/98 with diagnoses that include organic brain syndrome, traumatic brain injury and dysphagia. The resident's minimum data set (MDS) of 7/3/00 indicated that the resident had broken, loose teeth and dental caries. The most recent MDS, dated 3/8/01, indicated that the resident had some or all natural teeth and needed daily cleaning. It did not document broken, loose teeth with dental caries. The resident assessment protocol (RAP) for Dental, dated 3/8/01, documented that the resident was missing several teeth, had no dentures and the remaining teeth were discolored, but no gross caries or other problems. The status was documented as no oral hygiene problem, no problem that would benefit from a dental evaluation, but the patient was determined to be at risk for developing an oral/dental problem. The staff was to assist the resident with oral care and monitor for problems. The care plan, dated 3/14/01, documented that the resident had dental caries (in conflict with the RAP assessment) along with missing teeth and the goal was to assist with oral care at least twice daily and obtain a dental consult as needed. A dental evaluation had been done on 8/18/98 (three years prior to the survey), and the evaluation (obtained from the thinned record) revealed that this was an initial oral examination and the resident had several missing teeth, heavy calculus and plaque noted. His teeth were documented as stable with no swelling or fractures noted and the resident was determined not to be a good candidate for routine dental care. During the initial tour with the 7-3 Supervisor, on 6/19/01, at about 9:30 a.m., the resident's teeth were observed. A front tooth was missing and a very large amount of plaque was noted, especially on the lower teeth. The supervisor commented that she observed dental caries. On 6/20/01, at 11:10 a.m., observations of the patient's teeth were made with the director of nursing (DON). The resident was seated in a recliner, sleeping with his mouth wide open. The left front tooth was broken and multiple dark areas in the back teeth were observed. There was a large amount of built up plaque on upper and lower teeth and on the upper and lower gum lines. An unpleasant mouth odor was detected at that time. Review of the social service notes from 7/15/98 through 5/16/01, revealed no documentation that the patient had dental needs. The current record did not contain a recent dental evaluation and the DON stated that she would review the thinned record. The initial dental evaluation, dated 8/18/98 mentioned above, was the only documented dental evaluation provided by the facility for review. Interview with the DON, on 6/20/01, at 1:50 p.m., revealed that the resident had refused dental work as documented on the care plan, dated 2/12/01. The nurses notes did not document that a dental appointment had been made and the resident refused examination. The facility was asked to provide any documentation that the resident had been sent to a dentist and refused care. No other documentation was provided. In addition, the resident was coded as severely cognitively impaired on the MDS of 7/3/00, 2/5/01 and 3/8/01. There was no evaluation of the resident's capacity to provide or deny consent for treatment in the record. The resident's wife was documented as the decision maker on the MDS, but according to the DON she was unable to be contacted for a "long time" and there was no documentation that she had been involved in any decision making. The resident had no other legal representative. On 6/20/01, at 1:50 p.m., the DON stated that a doctor's order had been obtained for a dental appointment and the appointment was made. Lack of appropriate dental care may result in infections and diminish the resident's health status. Patricia Procissi was the surveyor who recorded the observation of R-14. She found a conflict between the July 3, 2000, MDS, which documented broken, loose teeth with dental caries, and the March 8, 2001, MDS, which did not document the tooth problems. However, a RAP prepared on the same date did document dental problems for R-14. Ms. Procissi interpreted the March 8, 2001, RAP as indicating improvement in R-14's condition without any documented dental intervention. She believed that this RAP conflicted with a care plan dated March 14, 2001, that indicated dental caries. In fact, the March 8 RAP stated "no gross caries," which is not necessarily in conflict with a finding that R-14 had some dental caries. Ms. Procissi noted that the director of nursing, Ms. Redmond, had told her that R-14 refused dental care, but Ms. Procissi could find nothing in Jacaranda Manor's records documenting that R-14 had been sent to a dentist and refused care. Ms. Gleason, the social services director, testified that she asked R-14 if he would like to see a dentist, and he had refused dental care. Ms. Gleason testified that she documented this refusal in R-14's care plan, along with a notation that staff should continue to encourage him to accept dental services. Ms. Procissi saw Ms. Gleason's note reflecting R- 14's refusal to see a dentist. However, she believed that this documentation raised the question of why there was no doctor's order that R-14 should be seen by a dentist. She stated that in most cases, there is a doctor's order followed by a nurse's note documenting why the order could not be carried out. Here, there was nothing in the record explaining the circumstances of R-14's refusal. Ms. Procissi also found it "odd" that R-14's refusal was documented in the social services care plan rather than the medical notes. At the hearing, Ms. Gleason and Ms. Hirsch testified as to the general difficulty of obtaining dental services for Medicaid patients. Few dentists are willing to accept adult Medicaid patients. At the time of the survey, Jacaranda Manor had two dentists and an oral surgeon who would see its residents, but even these dentists limited the number of residents they would accept in a given month. If a Medicaid resident needs dental work, the doctor or a nurse will write a note to the social services office, which phones the dentist's office and provides the resident's Medicaid information and the nature of the dental needs. The dentist's office calls back to inform social services whether the resident is eligible under the "medically necessary" criteria for Medicaid reimbursement. If the resident is eligible, social services makes the appointment, arranges transportation for the resident, and accompanies the resident to the appointment, if necessary. Jacaranda Manor also schedules routine appointments several months in advance. R-14 was a 47-year-old cognitively impaired male. He was a Medicaid recipient. R-14 could be verbally and physically abusive when approached. At the time of his admission to Jacaranda Manor, and at all times subsequent, R- was fed exclusively via gastrointestinal tube, meaning that any dental problems would not affect his nutrition. Dr. Stuart Strikowsky, Jacaranda Manor's medical director, opined that R-14 was in no pain or discomfort, had loudly and adamantly stated that he wanted no dental work, and would require complete sedation to undergo a dental evaluation. Dr. Strikowsky believed that a dental examination was medically unnecessary for this resident. Kevin Mulligan, AHCA's Medicaid dental specialist, testified that Medicaid covers only medically necessary dental services, and that a dental examination for a nursing home patient must be requested by the attending physician and the nursing director. Dr. Strikowsky plainly believed that such a request was unnecessary for this resident. It is found that the evidence was at best ambiguous that the observation of R-14 constituted a deficiency under Tag F250. Jacaranda Manor conscientiously monitored and documented R-14's dental condition. R-14's physician believed that a dental examination was medically unnecessary, somewhat mooting Ms. Procissi's concerns regarding the lack of a doctor's order for dental services.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding a Class II deficiency for Tag F241, a Class III deficiency for Tag F272, and assigning conditional licensure status to Jacaranda Manor for the time period from May 15, 2001 to February 28, 2002. It is further recommended that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed and no civil penalty assessed against Jacaranda Manor. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 25th day of July, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Plantation was a licensed nursing home facility and participated in the Medicaid program. A nursing home that receives a superior rating is entitled to incentives based on the Florida Medicaid Reimbursement Plan. Plantation has met all the requirements for a superior rating that are enumerated in Rule lOD-29.128, Florida _Administrative Code. The only reason Plantation was not granted a superior rating was based on the Medicaid Inspection of Care, Team report. (stipulated facts) From August 21 through August 31, 1984, Plantation underwent a routine inspection by the HRS Medicaid Inspection of Care (IOC) Team. The purpose of the inspection was to review the care and treatment of Medicaid recipient patients in accordance with state and federal standards in order for the facility to receive Medicaid payment for those individuals. During the course of the inspection, several deficiencies were found by IOC Team. The deficiencies were summarized in the Medicaid Inspection of Care Team report, entitled Facility Evaluation Summary, prepared by Ms. Tranger. The report listed the deficiencies as follows: Fifteen skilled and two intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have medication revalidated by the attending physician within the proper time frame Four of forty-six records reviewed failed to have available documentation that laboratory tests were completed in accordance with doctors' orders and medication regimen, Fourteen skilled and thirteen intermediate out of 46 medical records reviewed failed to have the Plan of Care reviewed within the proper time frame: Ten medical records were not certified within the proper time frames and fifteen medical records were not current for recertification. As to the first deficiency noted, the problem was not that the physician failed to revalidate medication, but that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician appropriately dated the revalidation. In almost all of the cases, the problem was that Ms. Tranger did not think that the physician had personally entered the date because the date was written with a different color of ink than the doctor's signature or the handwriting appeared to be different. Ms. Tranger did not know whether the dates were written by someone in the physician's office or someone at the nursing home. It is very difficult for a nursing home to get a physician to sign and date orders properly. Plantation had a procedure for securing the doctor's signature and having records dated. When a record was received that was not properly signed and dated, Plantation returned the record to the doctor with a letter or note telling the doctor what needed to be done. When returned by the doctor to Plantation, the record would bear the later date, which caused some records to be out of' compliance with the required time frames. The return to the doctor of records that were not properly dated may also explain why some of he dates were written in a different color ink than the doctor's signature. In those few cases where the dates on the report were not within the proper time frame, the dates were only a few days off. In one case a 34 day period, from July 7, 1984 to August 10, 1984, elapsed before the medication was revalidated. In another case, there were 33 days between the dates. In both cases the medication should have been revalidated every 30 days. The problem with the revalidation dates was strictly a paperwork problem and not one that affected the care of the patients. As stated before, in the majority of the cases the medication was revalidated within the proper time frame. The problem was simply that it appeared that someone other than the doctor had written down the date. The second deficiency was a finding by the surveyors that 4 of the 46 medical records reviewed failed to have available documentation regarding laboratory tests being completed in accordance with doctors' orders. However, Jean Bosang, Administrator of Plantation, reviewed all of the records cited by the IOC Team as the basis for these deficiencies and could only find two instances in which laboratory tests were not performed. HRS did not present any evidence to establish the two other alleged instances. Dr. Lopez reviewed the medical records of the two residents in question and determined that there was no possibility of harm to the patient as a result of failure to perform these tests. One of the two residents is Dr. Lopez' patient, and he normally sees her every day. He stated that the test, an electrolyte examination, was a routine test, that the patient had had no previous problems, and if any problem had developed, she would have had symptoms which would have been observable to the nurses. The tests performed before and after the test that was missed were normal, and the failure to perform the one test had absolutely no effect on the patient. Dr. Lopez was familiar with the other resident upon whom a test was not performed and had reviewed her records. This resident was to have a fasting blood sugar test performed every third month. Although this test was not performed in April of 1984, it was performed timely in every other instance. All tests were normal, and the failure to perform this test did not have any effect on the resident. Had she been suffering from blood sugar problems, there would have been physical signs observable to the nurses. The fourth deficiency listed in the report was a paperwork problem similar to the first deficiency. Patients in a nursing home are classified by level of care and must be recertified from time to time. Certification does not affect the care of the resident. The recertification must be signed and dated by the physician. Again, there was a problem on the recertification because some of the dates were in a different color ink than the physician's signature. Again, the problem was primarily caused by difficulty in getting proper physician documentation. The deficiency did not affect the care of the residents. Mr. Maryanski, who made the decision not to give Plantation a superior rating, testified that of the four deficiencies cited in the IOC report, he believed that only the third deficiency listed, in and of itself, would have precluded a superior rating. An analysis of that deficiency, however, shows that it also was mainly a paperwork deficiency and had no impact on patient care. The third deficiency listed involved a purported failure to have the plans of care reviewed within the proper time frames. Patient care plans are to be reviewed every 60 days for "skilled" patients, those that need the most supervision, and every 90 days for "intermediate" patients, those that need less supervision. A patient's plan of care is a written plan establishing the manner in which each patient will be treated and setting forth certain goals to be reached. A discharge plan is also established, which is basically what the nursing home personnel believe will be the best outcome for the patient if and when he or she leaves the hospital. The patient plan of care is established at a patient care plan meeting. Patient care plan meetings are held by the various disciplines in the nursing home, such as nursing, dietary, social work and activities, to review resident records and discuss any problems with specific residents. The manner in which the problem is to be corrected is determined and then written down on the patient's plan of care record. The evidence revealed that the basis of the deficiency was not a failure to timely establish or review a plan of care, but a failure to timely write down and properly date the plan of care. During the time in question, care plan meetings were held every Wednesday, and all of the disciplines attended the meetings. However, all disciplines did not write their comments on the patients' records at the meeting; some wrote them later. Usually, when they were added later, the comments were dated on the day they were written, rather than on the day the meetings were held. The evidence presented did not show any case in which all disciplines were late in making notes, but revealed only that specific disciplines were tardy. Since all the disciplines attended one meeting, it is apparent that when the date for any discipline was timely, the later dates of other disciplines merely reflected a documentation or paperwork problem. In late 1984 or early 1985, Plantation changed its system to avoid the problem in the future. There appeared to be problems with some of the discharge plans being untimely. The discharge plan is not utilized in the day-to-day care of the resident. Discharge plans at Plantation were kept in two places, and Ms. Tranger recognized that she may have overlooked some plans if they had been written only on the separate discharge sheet. The four deficiencies cited all involved time frames. There are innumerable time frames that must be met by a nursing home. The great majority of the deficiencies involved a failure to properly document. None of the deficiencies affected the care of the patients. Indeed, Ms. Tranger indicated that the patients were all receiving proper nursing care. The decision to give Plantation a standard rating was made by Mr. Maryanski based solely on the IOC report. He relied upon section 400.23,(3) Florida Statutes, which states: "The department shall base its evaluation on the most recent annual inspection report, taking into consideration findings from other official reports, surveys, interviews, investigations and inspections." There are no regulations or written or oral policies implementing this provision. Mr. Maryanski looked solely at the face of the IOC report and did not do any independent investigation. He never visited the nursing home, and he never talked to the on-site surveyors to determine whether the deficiencies cited by the IOC Team were significant. He never saw the underlying documentation which formed the basis of the report. Mr. Maryanski has no background either in nursing or medicine and had no knowledge of purpose the tests that were allegedly not performed. On October 4, 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) conducted the annual survey of the facility. Mr. Maryanski did not determine whether the deficiencies found by the IOC Team had been corrected at the time of the annual survey. An IOC Team surveyor returned on November 21, 1984, and found that all of the deficiencies cited during the IOC inspection had been corrected. A resurvey of the facility was conducted on December 27, 1984, by OLC. All deficiencies noted in OLC's original inspection had been corrected. All nursing home facilities in Florida are rated by HRS as conditional, standard, or superior. In addition to its financial significance, the rating of a facility is important because it affects the facility's reputation in the community and in the industry. The rating for a facility goes into effect on· the day of the follow-up visit of OLC if all deficiencies have been corrected. Therefore, Plantation would have received a superior rating, effective December 27, 1984, had it not been for the IOC report Mr. Maryanski never tried to determine whether the deficiencies in the IOC report had been corrected subsequent to the report being issued. Under rule lOD-29.128, Florida Administrative Code, there are extensive regulatory and statutory requirements which must be met for a facility to be granted a superior rating. Plantation met all of the enumerated requirements, yet it received only a standard rating. Mr. Maryanski based his determination on the IOC report despite the fact that it was outdated and the deficiencies in that report were corrected by November, 1984, prior to the December, 1984, resurvey by the OLC. There was nothing in the annual survey report of the OLC to preclude a superior rating. This is the first time a facility has been denied a superior rating based upon a report other than the annual report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Plantation Nursing Home be given a superior rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 3rd day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Braynon; Esquire District X Legal Counsel, 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Accepted as set forth in Finding of Fact 21. 5-6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 22-23. 7-9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 10. Rejected as immaterial. 11-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24-25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. 15-16. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 20 and 24. 17-19. Accepted generally as set forth in Finding of Fact 26. In Background section. Cumulative. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-31. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 4-7. 32-43. Accepted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-10. 44. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 45-46. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 48-49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 50-57. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13-16. 58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Findings of Fact 1, 20, 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted generally in Finding of Fact 19 and Background. 5-8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 13 except as to time frame for intermediate patients which should be 90 days. Accepted that the documentation showed a gap, but proposed finding rejected in that the evidence did not show that, in fact, the patient was not reviewed with the proper time frame. Accepted, without naming the patients, and explained in Finding of Fact 6.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether a civil penalty in the amount of $1,400.00 should be imposed on the Respondent for the repeated deficiencies cited in the Administrative Complaint dated September 14, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent, Heartland of Zephyrhills ("Heartland"), is a nursing home licensed by and subject to regulation by AHCA, pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes, requires AHCA to evaluate all nursing home facilities and make a determination as to their degree of compliance with the established rules at least every 15 months. The inspection and evaluation is to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal standards. The standards relevant to this case are 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-4.128, Florida Administrative Code. On August 17-20, 1998, AHCA surveyed Heartland and allegedly found violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25(c), Florida Statutes, which states that a facility must ensure that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the resident’s clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable, and that a resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new sores from developing. In the parlance of the Federal Health Care Financing Administration Form 2567 ("Form 2567") employed by AHCA to report its findings, this requirement is referenced as "F 314" or "Tag 314." Katherine Robbins is a Registered Nurse with over 20 years experience, including working as a director of nursing in an 86-bed nursing home. She is a federally certified surveyor, and now works for AHCA as a surveyor of long-term care facilities such as nursing homes. Ms. Robbins performed a portion of the survey of Heartland and wrote the deficiency notes under Tag 314 for Resident No. 1. Resident No. 1 was admitted to Heartland on January 29, 1998, with a diagnosis of dementia, osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression. Ms. Robbins testified that diagnoses of dementia and osteoarthritis indicate a predisposition to the development of pressure sores. She testified that a diagnosis of anxiety could indicate a predisposition to pressure sores, if the patient is receiving psychoactive medications. The initial skin assessment on Resident No. 1 indicated there was no skin breakdown at the time she was admitted. Review of the patient records indicated that skin breakdown was evident on July 26, 1998, when a stage II pressure sore on the coccyx was reported. Pressure sores are graded on a scale from stage I for the least severe to stage IV for the most severe. On August 5, 1998, the facility developed a care plan to deal with the skin breakdown and prevent further breakdown caused by Resident No. 1’s decreased mobility, medications, and lack of awareness of her own needs. The resident was completely unable to care for herself, and was unable to get in and out of a chair or the bed on her own. The approaches set forth in the plan included changing the resident after each incontinent episode, increasing her intake of protein foods, and naps in the afternoon to relieve sitting pressure on the coccyx. Ms. Robbins testified that this plan was not adequate in all respects, but would have been workable had it been properly implemented. On August 17, 1998, the first day of the survey, Resident No. 1 was observed at 9:20 a.m. sitting in a wheelchair in her room. She was observed sitting in the activity room from 11:35 a.m. until 12:50 p.m., at which time she was taken to the dining room for lunch. Following lunch, she was observed sitting in her wheelchair without a change in position until 3:20 p.m., when she was taken to the shower room for a shower. Ms. Robbins testified that allowing the resident to sit in the same position would create pressure on the coccyx, where the resident already had a pressure sore. It is routine preventive care to reposition a resident who has a pressure sore or is at risk of developing pressure sores. On August 18, 1998, Resident No. 1 was observed in her room, sitting in a wheelchair and eating breakfast at 8:15 a.m. She was observed at 12:40 p.m. in the dining room, sitting in a chair without a pressure relieving air flotation jell cushion. Ms. Robbins testified that use of such a cushion would be good practice to help heal a pressure sore. Ms. Robbins testified that she asked the director of nursing about this situation, and that the director of nursing told her that Resident No. 1 was sitting in the wrong chair. The clinical record showed that wheelchair modifications had been included in Resident No. 1’s physical therapy plan, but the resident was not placed in the correct chair. Therapy notes indicated that the goal for the resident was to have a chair that would prevent posterior pelvic pressure and lower the seat so that the resident could maneuver the wheelchair safely. The resident would be able to tolerate sitting up in the wheelchair for three or four hours with repositioning being provided every two hours for bathroom needs and pressure relief. The care plan for Resident No. 1 also called for her to be assisted to bed for a nap in the afternoon. Ms. Robbins observed that the resident was not taken for a nap on either August 17 or August 18, 1998. The survey team made a collective decision to cite the Tag 314 deficiency as a class II deficiency, because the stated care plan for the resident was not followed and this was a repeat licensure deficiency. A class II deficiency is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000. However, the Administrative Complaint erroneously cited this as a class III deficiency and recommended a civil penalty of only $700. The August 17-20, 1998, survey also found alleged violations of Life Safety Code ("LSC") standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA"), in particular NFPA 90A LSC 12-5.2.1 and 13-5.2.1 air conditioning and ventilation standards. In the parlance of Form 2567, this requirement is referenced as "K 067." Peter Cranfield is a fire protection specialist employed by AHCA. He has over 35 years experience in the design, installation, and sales of fire protection systems, mostly in the private sector, including fire protection systems for nursing homes. Mr. Cranfield participated in the survey of Heartland and cited the facility for the K 067 deficiency. Mr. Cranfield found that the following areas of the facility did not have an operable exhaust ventilation system: the main dietary and dishwasher independent units; the No. 300 wing nurse station toilet room; and the No. 400 wing and No. 100 wing janitor closets. Mr. Cranfield brought these deficiencies to the attention of Heartland’s maintenance director, who agreed upon examination that the exhaust units did not appear to be operational. Mr. Cranfield testified that the maintenance director later told him an electrical malfunction was causing the problem. The K 067 deficiency was noted as a repeat class III citation.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order requiring Heartland of Zephyrhills to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,400 for the two cited class III deficiencies. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Terrie Restivo-Mock, Esquire Heartland of Zephyrhills 38220 Henry Drive Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That Manor Care be issued a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Palm Bay Care Center be awarded a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Forum Group be awarded a CON for a 40 bed nursing home and Courtenay Springs be awarded a CON for 36 nursing home beds. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-99675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 180 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Suite 100 Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan G. Tuttle, Esquire 402 South Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Suite B 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties herein. 1-13 Accepted. 14 & 15 Accepted. 16-18 Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. 19-23 Accepted. 24 Accepted. 25-29 Accepted. 30 & 31 Accepted. 32 Irrelevant. 33-34 Accepted. 35-37 Accepted. 38-46 Accepted. 47 & 48 Accepted. 49 & 50 Accepted. 51 Discussion, not Finding of Fact. 52-56 Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted to the fact that there were no sheltered beds in existence. Irrelevant. 61-63 Accepted but not of substantial positive value. 64 & 65 Accepted. Opinion not Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68-75 Accepted. 76-80 Irrelevant based on part operation and evidence shows facility is to be sold. 81-85 Irrelevant - see next 86-90 Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a Finding of Fact. 91 Not a Finding of Fact. 92-94 Accepted. 95 Irrelevant as to local district. 96-103 Accepted. 104-105 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman supported. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman indicated. 108-110 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact. 114-118 Accepted. 119&120 Not a Finding of Fact. 121&122 Accepted. 123 Accepted as to the one facility currently operated. 124-127 Accepted. Speculation insufficient to support a Finding of Fact. Argument, not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 131-133 Accepted. 134 Not a Finding of Fact. 135-137 Accepted. 138 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139-147 Accepted. 148&149 Not a Finding of Fact. 150-164 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony, not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. 167-176 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a summary of testimony. Accepted. 180&181 Accepted. 182 Irrelevant. 183&184 Accepted. 185 Rejected as a conclusion. 186&187 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. As to Manor Care 1 Accepted. 2&3 Rejected as not a part of the case. 4 Accepted. 5-7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 10-11 Accepted. 12 Accepted. 13-19 Accepted. 20-22 Accepted. As to Forum 1-13 Accepted. 14-16 Accepted. 17-22 Accepted. 23&24 Accepted. 25-27 Accepted. 28-31 Accepted. 32 Accepted. 33-35 Accepted. 36 Rejected as speculation. 37-42 Accepted. 43 Accepted. 44-47 Accepted. 48&49 Accepted. 50-55 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion not consistent with the evidence. Accepted. 58&59 Accepted. 60-64 Accepted. 65-69 Accepted. 70&71 Irrelevant. 72&73 Accepted. 74-76 Accepted. Accepted as to the first sentence. Second sentence is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. As to PBCC 1&2 Accepted. 3 Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. 46 Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. 10-12 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence except for the first sentence which is accepted. Rejected. 15-20 Accepted. 21-27 Accepted. 28 Rejected as an overstatement and not supported by the evidence. 29&30 Accepted. 31 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 32-38 Accepted. 39-43 Accepted. 44-50 Accepted. 51-57 Accepted. Accepted except for the first sentence which is unsupported by credible evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. As to Courtenay This party failed to number or otherwise identify its Findings of Fact individually. Therefore, no specific ruling as to each Finding of Fact is hereby made. In light of the ultimate recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the party's CON be approved, no prejudice to this party can be said to have occurred. As to DHRS 1-4 Accepted 5 Summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 6-1 Is an argument of the party's position, not a Finding of Fact. 12-14 Rejected as matters not a part of the party's position at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-22 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 25-28 Accepted. 29-31 Accepted.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was in violation of 42CFR 483.25(l)(1), 42CFR 483.60(d), Rules 59A-4.112(5) and 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of its annual survey in July 2000, and, if so, whether those violations were uncorrected at the time of resurvey in September 2000, in order to justify the issuance of a Conditional licensure rating.
Findings Of Fact Tampa Health Care Center (Petitioner) is a licensed nursing home in Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, Respondent surveys Petitioner to determine whether it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If there are deficiencies, it determines the level of deficiency. When Respondent conducts a survey of a nursing home, it issues a survey report, commonly called by its form number, a "2567." The particular regulation, and the allegedly deficient practices which constitute a violation of that regulation, are cited in a column on the left side of the paper. After receiving the 2567, the facility is required to develop a plan of correction which is put in the right hand column corresponding to the alleged deficiency. The facility is required to develop this plan regardless of whether it agrees that it is in violation of any regulations, and it is prohibited from being argumentative. Respondent conducted its annual survey of Petitioner, ending July 27, 2000, and issued a 2567 survey report noting certain deficiencies. The deficiencies are designated as tag numbers. Among those noted were Tag F329, which is the shorthand reference to 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.25 (1)(1), and Tag F431, which incorporates 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d). Respondent rated these deficiencies as Class III deficiencies. Respondent conducted a follow-up survey on September 5, 2000, and determined that the deficiencies under tags F329 and F431 were uncorrected, and, as a result, issued a Conditional rating to the facility. On December 2000, Respondent conducted another follow- up survey and determined that all deficiencies had been corrected and therefore issued a Standard license to Petitioner effective that date. The 2567 constitutes the charging document for purposes of issuing a Conditional license. No other document was offered to describe the offenses, or deficiencies, which resulted in imposition of the Conditional license. The parties stipulated at the hearing that Tags F329 and F431 were the only ones at issue in this proceeding. In conducting its survey, Respondent uses a document developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), called the State Operations Manual. It indicates guidance on how are to interpret regulations. TAG F 329 The 2567 from the July survey asserts, under Tag F 329, that the facility "failed to monitor psychotropic medications for 5 of 5 sampled residents." The regulation states that residents are to be "free from unnecessary drugs," and elaborates that a drug given without adequate monitoring is considered unnecessary. The guidelines establish that monitoring is expected only for residents on psychotropic medications. Therefore, for a violation to occur, there must first be a resident who is receiving psychotropic medications, and secondly, a lack of monitoring of the use of that drug. Respondent alleged and put on evidence that certain residents (numbers 1, 9, 19, and 21) identified in the July survey did not have "behavior monitoring records" in their files. Specific forms are not mandatory, and evidence of monitoring can be documented elsewhere in a resident's clinical record. Monitoring can be documented in nurses' notes, and those notes were not thoroughly reviewed, as Respondent's surveyors only had limited time for the survey. Respondent presented no evidence that Residents 9, 19, or 21 were receiving psychotropic medications. Petitioner presented evidence of numerous systems in place to monitor residents, including those receiving psychotropic medications. Residents are given a complete clinical assessment within 24 hours of admission; there is then a 14-day more thorough observation and assessment process, culminating in the development of care plans which address particular issues and direct staff to care for residents in particular ways. Nurses regularly document issues or concerns in nurses notes; a physician visits the residents at least once a month, which, as all drugs are ordered by the physician, includes review of the resident's medication. If necessary, a psychiatric evaluation is completed. Once a week a transdisciplinary team meets to discuss any residents "at risk," which includes those receiving psychotropic medications. Additionally, a consultant pharmacist reviews all residents' medications once a month. This review is to determine how well the resident is doing on the drug regimen. It includes reviewing nurses' notes, physicians' notes, the medication administration record, the record of dosages taken on an "as needed" basis, and discussions with nursing staff. The pharmacist reviews whether there are medications administered in excessive doses, in excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, or in the presence of adverse consequences. With regard to the September survey, Respondent alleged in the Form 2567 that "Residents numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 lacked Behavior Monitoring Forms in their records" and that all were on psychotropic medications which required monitoring. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara Bearden who stated that Residents 3 and 4 were on psychotropic medications, and that there were no behavior monitoring forms. With regard to Resident 4, Respondent asserted that there was no assessment of behaviors in any records after August 14. Bearden acknowledged that both Residents 3 and 4 received reasonable doses, and that there was no reason to believe the level of medication was too high. Respondent's witness also asserted that there was no "AIMS" assessments, no initial assessment, and no indication of the reason for or effectiveness of the medications. These matters were not alleged in the charging document, which only asserted the lack of behavior monitoring forms. During her testimony, Respondent's witness acknowledged that there was no standard to determine how often there should be behavior monitoring. Marie Maisel testified for Respondent regarding Residents 9, 11, and 13. With regard to Resident 9, she testified that the resident received Restoril, a sleeping medication, and also Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and that there was no "systematic behavior monitoring." Sleeping medications do not require behavior monitoring, according to the State Operations Manual, and at deposition, the surveyor indicated that the only medication the resident received was Restoril. Petitioner therefore had no notice of the additional allegation regarding Zoloft and this fact cannot be considered. With regard to Resident 11, Maisel testified that the resident received Risperdal, a psychotropic medication, and that, in her opinion, the behavior monitoring was not adequate. At hearing the surveyor testified that Resident 13 was receiving Haldol and there was no systemic behavior monitoring. However, the witness acknowledged that when her deposition was taken, she did not know why Resident 13 had been cited. Petitioner therefore had no notice of these allegations regarding Resident 13. Petitioner presented evidence, including excerpts from the resident's clinical record, that Resident 3 had been assessed for drug use, and that behaviors were monitored. The resident had been admitted less than three weeks before the September survey, which means that an initial assessment had been performed, as well as the complete 14-day assessment, just prior to survey. Respondent admitted that it would be inappropriate to reduce medication soon after admission. There was a care plan which addressed the resident's use of Risperdal, and another which addressed the resident's ability to function with the activities of daily living. These care plans directed staff to monitor the resident's condition and behavior. Numerous nursing notes documented the resident's condition and behaviors. Resident 3 was not noted in the pharmacist's monthly report, meaning the review revealed no problems with medications. Furthermore, the resident's medications were significantly reduced while in Petitioner's care, and her condition improved dramatically, from being nearly comatose, to being alert and oriented, and needing only limited assistance with mobility. Resident 4 had been admitted just a month before the survey and had also just undergone an extensive assessment process. Her medications were also reduced from those she had been receiving on admission, and nurses notes clearly documented her condition and behaviors throughout the period up to the survey. These notes document not only the monitoring of behaviors, but the reason and need for the medication, as she exhibited combative behaviors. Resident 4 also did not appear on the pharmacist's report. With regard to Resident 9, Petitioner presented evidence that there was a care plan specifically addressing the resident's use of Zoloft, that there were other care plans which addressed behaviors and condition which required that the resident be monitored, and that there was periodic consideration of reductions. Resident 9 did appear on the pharmacist's report, suggesting consideration of a reduction in dosage; thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the system. Resident 11 had a care plan addressing her use of Risperdal, which required monitoring and other interventions. Monthly nursing summaries reflected that she was monitored, as did nursing notes. Generally, nurses notes indicate when there are problems or unusual occurrences, not when everything is routine. Petitioner also presented evidence with regard to Resident 13's use of Haldol, which showed the reason for its use (wandering, verbal abusiveness), numerous efforts to reduce the dosage, review by the pharmacist, a care plan to address its use, which required monitoring, and monthly summaries summarizing her condition and behaviors. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to show that Residents 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13, cited in the September survey, were appropriately monitored and were not receiving unnecessary drugs. TAG F431 Respondent charged in the September 2000 survey that several insulin vials in the medication room were not marked with the date they were opened. The regulation under Tag F431, 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d), requires that drugs be labeled "in accordance with currently accepted professional principles" and "the expiration date when applicable." The surveyor guidelines indicate that the critical elements of labeling are the name of the drug and its strength. Additionally, the guidelines advise that drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration (F.D.A.) must have expiration dates on the manufacturer's container. Respondent's witness acknowledged that all insulin had the manufacturer's expiration date. Although there is a chance of contamination after opening a vial of insulin, it was acknowledged that it is customary to have a policy allowing use for six months after opening. Petitioner has a policy of discarding insulin 60 days after opening. While it is customary to write the opening date on the vial, a failure to do so will only reduce the amount of time it can be used, because of other systems in place. The pharmacy which dispenses the insulin puts a dispensing date on it, and the pharmacist reviews, monthly, stored medications. Within every three months, all medications are checked, and if there is no date of opening, the pharmacist looks to the dispensing date. If the vial was dispensed more than 60 days prior, it is given to the nurse for discarding. Instead of being able to be used for six months beyond the date opened, the medication is discarded sixty days, or at most ninety days, after it was dispensed. Writing the date opened on the vial is not an item encompassed by the regulation as explicated in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is no potential for harm, as there are redundant systems in place.
Recommendation Based of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 27 and September 5, 2000, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F329 and F431, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether there was negligence involved in treating Lewis Dougal, a patient in the Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home. Whether the Respondent kept records in compliance with the statutes and the requirements of Chapter 10D-29 of the Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home had Lewis Dougal, an adult mentally retarded male, as a patient in January of 1976. On Thursday, January 29, 1976, Mr. Dougal was taken to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for a neurological brain scan. His exact whereabouts have not been established during the period of time from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. on that day, but he was in the emergency room area or in the radiology area of the hospital. At approximately 3:00 p.m. he was returned to the Respondent nursing home. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on January 30, a nurses aide discovered that Lewis Dougal had a reddened and swollen penis, a swollen scrotum and red marks on the buttocks. She called the charge nurse, an L.P.N., who did not call the doctor, but noted on the "nurse's log" that the patient should see a doctor the following day. No notation was made on the patient's individual medical record at that time. Mr. Dougal was transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital late in the morning of January 31, 1976, whereupon he received a 50 mm injection of demerol for pain upon his admission to the hospital. He was released February 25, 1976. An investigative team from the Office of Health Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which consisted of a Hospital Nursing Home Consultant and a Registered Nurse, investigated the circumstances surrounding the incident on February the 25th and 27th, 1976. The injuries sustained by Mr. Dougal and his hospital records from the date of his admission, January 31, 1976, to the hospital, to the date of his release, February 25, 1976, were reviewed. The investigative team thereupon visited the Miracle Hill Convalescent and Nursing Home on February 27, 1976 and requested all medical records of the patient, Lewis Dougal. No medical records had been kept and the only reference to the incident was made on the "nurse's log" January 30 and 31, 1976. These entries were made subsequent to the dates thereof. Other information was placed on the records long after the incident occurred. On March 26, 1976, Petitioner State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued an order charging Respondent with two violations: The first being in violation of Section 400.102(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29.11(7), Florida Administrative Code, to-wit: "1. That the facility failed to protect a patient from neglect and abuse, in that a mentally retarded patient, incontinent of bowel and bladder, was allowed to acquire burns of the scrotal area, genitalia and buttocks, of sufficient severity to require hospitilization, such burns being caused by inadequate and improper nursing care on the part of the nursing service staff of the facility. As a result of the subject burns, the patient was hospitalized for treatment and care during the period January 31, 1976, and February 25, 1976, at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. The admission diagnosis for this patient at the hospital in part was, "burns of the genitalia and buttocks." The admitting physician further noted that the admission examination revealed an obvious burn in the skin from the scrotum which had already desquamated indicating the burn had occurred some time previously, maybe as much as a couple of days. Further, a circular burn involving the buttocks was observed with the notation that it appeared the patient had been sitting in some very hot solution. The second charge was alleged to be in violation of Chapter 10D- 29.11(10) and (13) 1.(c), of the Florida Administrative Code in the following language: "(2) In that the required medical record documentation concerning how or when the above injuries occurred to this particular patient was lacking, and the investigating team was unable to determine just how or when the burns occurred or the specific person responsible for this."
Recommendation Section 400.121(1) (8), Florida Statutes, Denial, suspension, revocation of license; procedure.- (1) "The [department] may deny, revoke, or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine for a violation of any provision of s. 400.102 only after written notice to the applicant or licensee setting forth the particular grounds for the proposed action and a hearing, if demanded by the applicant or licensee." (8) The [department], as a part of any final order issued by it under the provisions of this chapter, may impose such fine as it deems proper, except that such fine shall not exceed $500 for each violation. Each day a violation of this chapter occurs shall constitute a separate violation and shall be subject to separate fine. An action for recovery of the fine may be maintained in the circuit court of the county in which the facility is located, and appeal from any judgment rendered shall be in the manner and within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules for reviewing judgments rendered by circuit courts in action at law." Record keeping is such an important and necessary adjunct to nursing home care the Respondent should suffer a fine of at least $200 for violation of the foregoing statutes and rules. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Health Program Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John K. Folsom, Esquire 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about January 7, 1981, HCM was issued CON No. 1616, authorizing construction of a 78-bed nursing home facility to be located in Lee County, Florida. HCM has commenced construction of this project on a 120-bed frame. Subsequently, HCM applied to HRS for a CON for an additional 42 nursing home beds to be added to the above-described project. By letter dated April 28, 1983, HRS informed HCM of its intent to deny HCM's application for the additional 42 nursing home beds on the grounds that the proposed project was not consistent with the nursing home bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Lee County has been established as a specific subdistrict of HRS District VIII for determination of nursing home bed need. Rule 10-5.11(21)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The record in this cause establishes a percentage of 8.61 of elderly living in poverty in Lee County, as compared to a percentage of 12.70 statewide. There exists a statewide bed need of 27 community nursing home beds per 1,000 population age 65 years and older. Finally, a population of 65,703 is projected for Lee County in 1986. When these factors are combined in accordance with the need methodology formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), a need of 1,203 community nursing home beds is established for Lee County in 1986. When this same calculation is made districtwide, using a projected 1986 population for District VIII of 201,392 age 65 and older, a need for 3,686 community nursing home beds results. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 748 existing licensed community nursing home beds in Lee County, and an additional 222 such beds which had previously been approved by HRS. When the total of 970 existing and approved beds are subtracted from the 1986 projected bed need in Lee County, a net bed need of 233 beds results for 1986. At the time of final hearing in this cause, there were 3,335 existing licensed community nursing home beds in District VIII, and an additional 1,337 which had been approved. The total of 4,512 existing and approved community nursing home beds in District VIII exceeds the need in District VIII according to the requirements of Rule 10-5.11(21) by 824 beds. Where, as here, the evidence establishes that a subdistrict indicates a need for additional bed capacity, but the district as a whole shows no additional need, Rule 10- 5.11(21)(f)2, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a current utilization threshold of 90 percent or higher in the subdistrict. In this case, the evidence establishes that the appropriate current utilization rate for Lee County is 91.5 percent. In addition, Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2, Florida Administrative Code, requires a prospective base rate of utilization of 80 percent when the need methodology indicates a subdistrict need and the lack of need in the district as a whole. The evidence in this cause establishes an average Lee County patient census of 684, and 970 currently licensed and approved community nursing home beds which must be factored together with HCM's request for an additional 42 beds. When the formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(g) is applied to this data, the prospective utilization rate is 67.6 percent, which fails to meet the threshold 80 percent requirement contained in Rule 10-5.11(21)(h)2. HCM apparently does not contest the results of the application of the bed need methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), but instead argues that the results of the formulae should not be applied to its application because of the existence of exceptional circumstances in Lee County. In this regard, HCM adduced testimony attempting to establish an historical imbalance between the number of community nursing home beds located in Lee and Sarasota Counties, purportedly necessitating the placement of Lee County residents receiving Medicaid or assistance from the Veterans Administration 70 to 100 miles from their families, or continuing hospitalization of those patients in a more costly acute care facility. It is specifically concluded, that the record in this cause fails to contain any competent, credible evidence to establish that Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County have been so historically underserved as to merit the granting of the 42 additional nursing home beds requested by HCM. Further, even if this were not the case, HCM has failed to establish that the 222 additional community nursing home beds approved for Lee County will not adequately serve the interests of Medicaid and VA recipients in Lee County in 1986. Rule 10-5.11(21) purports on its face to account for the needs of the elderly over 65 years of age living in poverty, and this record contains no showing that the rule in any way underestimates that need.
