Similar Cases - Case Laws -- eLawyers

Find Similar Cases by Filters

You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.

Find 49 similar cases

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs THE HEALTH CENTER OF MERRITT ISLAND, 07-003939 (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Merritt Island, Florida Aug. 28, 2007 Number: 07-003939 Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2025

# 1

MANOR CARE OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A MANOR CARE OF PALM HARBOR vs. MAPLE LEAF OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 87-003409 (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-003409 Latest Update: Nov. 14, 1988

The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether DHRS should approve the application for certificate of need of any one or more of the January, 1987, applicants for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County. STIPULATIONS The parties stipulated to the following facts: All applicants timely filed their respective letters of intent, applications and omission responses with DHRS and the appropriate local health council for the January, 1987, batching cycle. The petitioners each timely filed a petition requesting a Section 120.57(1) hearing and have standing in this proceeding. The parties agree the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. The CON application content requirements of Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985), apply as that was the statute in effect at the time the applications were filed. The review criteria in Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), apply to this proceeding. The following statutory criteria have been met orare not applicable in this proceeding: Section 381.705(1)(d), (f), (g), (j) and (k) and all of Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Except for the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs, the extent to which services will be accessible to schools for health professionals and the availability of alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services, Section 381.705(1)(h) is in dispute and remains to be litigated.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting the applications of HCR (CON Action No. 5000), FCP (CON Action No. 4993) and Manor Care (CON Action No. 5006) and denying the applications of Forum (CON Action No. 4999), HHL (CON Action No. 4978) Palm Court (CON Action No. 4987) and Cypress (CON Action No. 5004). RECOMMENDED this 14th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1988.

Florida Laws (3) 120.57, 120.68, 400.071

# 2

HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION, D/B/A JACARANDA MANOR vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 01-003072 (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:St. Petersburg, Florida Aug. 02, 2001 Number: 01-003072 Latest Update: May 22, 2003

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.

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.

CFR (6) 42 CFR 483.15(a), 42 CFR 483.15(g), 42 CFR 483.20(b), 42 CFR 483.20(b)(1), 42 CFR 483.25, 42 CFR 488.331 Florida Laws (2) 120.569, 400.23

# 3

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs BEVERLY HEALTHCARE - LAKELAND, 00-003497 (2000)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Lakeland, Florida Aug. 21, 2000 Number: 00-003497 Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2001

The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases are: as to Case Number 00-3497, whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should impose an administrative fine against the Respondent's license to operate Beverly Savana Cay Manor, a nursing home in Lakeland; and, as to Case Number 00-2465, whether the Agency should issue a conditional license to the Respondent's facility effective April 28, 2000.

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of nursing homes and the regulation of the nursing home industry in this state. It is also the agency responsible for conducting surveys to monitor the compliance of nursing homes with the conditions of Medicare and Medicaid participation. Respondents, Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Healthcare Lakeland, and Beverly Enterprises - Lakeland, are licensed by the Agency to operate a skilled nursing home at 1010 Carpenter's Way in Lakeland. On August 31, 1999, the Agency conducted an investigation into a complaint that Savana Cay had failed to provide sufficient nursing service and related services to allow residents to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required by Federal rules governing Medicare and Medicaid. The Agency surveyor, Patricia Mills, observed several residents who did not have their call buttons within reach so that they could summon help if needed. Ms. Mills also talked with residents and family members and from these interviews determined that even when the resident could reach the call button and summon help, the response time was excessively long or, in some instances, the call went unheeded. This sometimes resulted in resident's suffering from the results of their incontinence because the staff did not timely respond to the help calls. Ms. Mills concluded, based on her extensive experience in surveying nursing homes, that the number of staff on duty was not sufficient to meet the residents' needs. It did not allow for the best possible well-being of the residents. Though the information related by Ms. Mills came from her interviews with residents and their families and was clearly hearsay testimony, it was admissible and considered as corroborative of her direct observation. The parties stipulated that a follow-up survey of the facility was conducted on October 13, 1999, at which time the deficiency described was deemed to have been timely corrected. The Respondent, by stipulation, does not concede the validity of this discrepancy on the August 19, 1999, survey, and the Agency does not rely on it to support the administrative fine sought to be imposed herein. Another survey of the facility was conducted by the Agency on April 26-28, 2000. On this occasion, surveyor Patricia Gold interviewed residents regarding the everyday life of the facility and reviewed resident council reports to follow up on any resident or family concerns which did not appear to have been addressed by the facility staff. During the resident interviews, Ms. Gold was advised that call lights were not answered in a timely fashion. In that connection, early on the morning of April 28, 2000, Ms. Gold observed a resident request a nurse to bring something to drink. The nurse was overheard to tell the resident the request would have to wait until she finished her report. Ms. Gold also noted on April 28, 2000, that dirty dishes were left uncollected over night in the facility common corridor and that one resident had two dirty trays left in the room. The dishes in the corridor were also seen by surveyors Donna Edwards and Marie Maisel. Based on their observations, the interviews, and the review of the council reports, the surveyors concluded that the staff on duty were insufficient in number. Another surveyor, Joanne Stewart, reviewed the resident files and medical reports of several of the residents and determined that in several cases the facility had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent falls and inconsistently applied the interventions that were put in place. For example, Ms. Stewart observed Resident 12 on the floor at 2:40 p.m. on April 27, 2000. This resident, a cognitively impaired individual, had been placed in the facility from the hospital after he had sustained a fracture to his right hip and, at the time of the fall, still had staples in his hip. Ms. Stewart's review of the kardexes maintained by the certified nursing assistant (CNA) revealed there were no entries thereon indicating a need for special care to prevent this resident from falling. Although he was supposed to wear a tab alarm at all times, the facility staff knew the resident would periodically remove it, and when Ms. Stewart saw him prior to the fall, he was not wearing it. No other interventions, such as quick-release seat belts or Velcro belts, had been implemented to prevent his falls. It was just the kind of fall that he had which caused his placement in the facility and which gave rise to the need for supervision adequate to prevent further injury. He did not get the needed supervision. In fact, though the resident sustained a skin tear and bleeding of the arm as a result of the fall, the nurse who came to the scene of the fall went back to her desk and did some paperwork for between twenty and twenty-five minutes before the resident was provided any treatment for his injury. Ms. Stewart concluded the facility did not provide adequate supervision and assistance to Resident 12, and it is so found. Due to a cognitive impairment and an inability to ambulate due to an intracerebral hemorrhage, diabetes, and a cardio-vascular accident, Resident 9 was assessed at high risk for falls, and a determination was made that the resident should wear a tab alarm while in bed and in the wheelchair. During the course of her survey, Ms. Stewart observed this resident on several occasions without the tab alarm when she should have been wearing it. The resident had previously sustained falls, one of which occurred while the resident was on leave, on March 31 and April 1, 2000, but the only caveat on the CNA kardex for the resident was the caution not to leave her on the toilet alone. Ms. Stewart did not consider the supervision and assistance rendered Resident 9 to be adequate. It is so found. Ms. Edwards focused her review on the records of Resident 22 who was not at the facility at the time of the survey. The records indicated the resident had been assessed at a high risk for falls at the time of her admission and a tab alarm was used. However, according to the nurse's notes, on April 10, 2000, the alarm went off causing the resident to lose her balance and fall while in the merry walker. She lacerated her scalp and sustained a large swelling in the occipital area. The only fall assessment of this resident was done when she was admitted to the facility. The evidence does not indicate when this was, but presumably, it was not done timely. There is a requirement that fall assessments be done quarterly, but it cannot be determined when it was done here. Even when, on April 11, 2000, the day after the fall, the physical therapy staff re-screened this resident for a merry walker, no change in care notation was noted in her record or implemented. Resident 22 sustained another fall on April 16, 2000. On this occasion, the resident was found on the floor of the day room, out of the merry walker. There was no indication she was being supervised or monitored at the time of her fall. This time she sustained another head injury just above the old one. After this fall, the facility staff ordered a new merry walker even though there was no indication a different one would provide additional protection. The resident sustained a third fall on April 18, 2000, sustaining another injury to the head which resulted in substantial blood loss. As a result of this fall, she was taken to the hospital. Because of this, she was not present when the survey was done, but based on her review of the resident records, Ms. Edwards concluded that the facility did not provide sufficient supervision or assistive devices to this resident. During the period of the survey, Ms. Gold observed Resident 3 on five separate occasions. On none of them was the resident wearing a Tabs alarm even though the facility's care plan called for one to be used. A falls assessment had been started on the resident but not completed. The record also revealed that the resident fell on March 29, 2000, resulting in a skin tear to the right arm. Based on the above, Ms. Gold concluded that the resident was not provided with adequate care and assistive devices. Resident 10 was a resident with a history of falls both before and after admission to the facility. The resident's care plan called for chair alarms, a merry walker, a safety seat belt, a low bed, and a bike horn. Though Ms. Maisel, the surveyor, observed that the resident had a chair alarm, she did not see that any of the other interventions called for in the plan were provided. She did not ever see the resident with a merry walker, and on at least two occasions, she saw the resident when the chair alarm was not in use. In her opinion, the use of one intervention does not make the use of other interventions unnecessary, and she considers the facility's supervision and assistive device provision to be inadequate. Resident 4 was an individual who had sustained a hip fracture, was senile, and was taking pain medications. The resident required help in getting out of bed or a chair. The care plan for the resident called for the use of a Tabs alarm, but on none of the occasions that Ms. Stewart observed this resident was the tabs alarm in use. She considered the supervision and assistive devices provided by the facility to this resident to be inadequate. Respondent does not contest that the incidents cited by the Agency took place. Rather, it contends that the interventions implemented by it were sufficient. It also disputes the effectiveness of some interventions called for, specifically the Tabs alarms, suggesting that the alarm does not prevent falls and often contributes to them by startling the wearer. There is some evidence to support that claim. Respondent further contends that the safety provided by the use of an intervention device, such as the Tabs alarm, straps, bed rails, or the merry walker, restrictive as they are, must be weighed and evaluated against the loss of dignity of the resident caused by their use. It is also urged by the facility that the use of certain interventions such as Tabs alarms is made unnecessary when the resident is immobile and safety is provided by the use of other interventions such as bed rails, which are more pertinent to the condition of the resident. In the case of Resident 9, the failure to provide for the use of a Tabs alarm when the resident was on leave with her husband was off-set by the one-on-one supervision she received during that period. Respondent contends that falls will occur among residents of the type in issue here regardless of the planning to identify the risks of fall, the efforts made to prevent them, and the implementation and use of interventions designed to avoid them. While this may be so, the facility nonetheless has a duty to provide necessary and adequate supervision and assistive devices to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the risk of injury as the result of falls. In some cases, this was not done here. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of Theresa Vogelspohl, a nursing home consultant and an agreed expert on falls, issues of the elderly, issues of care of the elderly, and nursing practices and standards in nursing homes. Ms. Vogelspohl indicated that as a general practice when patients are admitted to a nursing home they are considered at risk for falls until the facility staff gets to know them. Each facility sets its own standard as to the length of the observation period, during which the residents are studied for their gait and safety awareness. In addition, the residents are evaluated for safety awareness by the staff of the physical and occupational therapy departments. Ordinarily, the assessment includes only the minimum data set (MDS) criteria, but increasingly during the last few years, a separate falls assessment has become common. In addition to the initial assessment, the attending nurses do an independent admissions assessment, and Ms. Vogelspohl found that such an assessment process was followed as to each of the residents in issue here. Ms. Vogelspohl found that an incomplete falls assessment had been done on Resident 3. Based upon her own review of the resident's records, however, had the full assessment been completed, other than the fact that she was a new resident, the resident would have been classified as a low risk for falls. She opines that the failure to complete the falls assessment did not deny the resident any care or a care plan for falls. Ms. Vogelspohl determined that the facility had opted, instead, for a more cautious approach to this resident in the care plan which, in her opinion, was appropriate for a new admission. A care plan is a map for the staff to be made aware of the care being provided and the specific interventions pertinent to the resident. If the resident is at increased risk for falls, the care plan would list the interventions designed to decrease the risk of falls. One of the most significant risk factors for falls is increase in age. Others are disease conditions, medications, cognitive functioning levels, eyesight, and other impairments. The interventions available to a facility to address the issue of risk of falls depend upon the condition of the resident. The first consideration should be the need to maintain a safe physical environment for the resident. Appropriate footwear is important as is the availability of assistive devices such as a cane or walker. If the resident has a history of falls, consideration should be given to changing those factors which were related to the prior falls. Included in that is consideration of different seating or a more frequent toileting schedule. According to Ms. Vogelspohl, the last thing one would want to do is to apply physical restraint, but, if all else has failed, the least restrictive physical or chemical restraint may be necessary to decrease the likelihood of falls. Ms. Vogelspohl emphasizes that only the likelihood of falls can be reduced. It is not possible to prevent all falls. Room cleanliness is not something which should appear in a care plan. It is a given, and nurses know to place furniture in such a way and to reduce clutter to the extent that the resident can safely navigate the room either with a walker or a wheelchair. Obviously, in this case the survey staff concluded the placement of the dirty trays in the hallway and in the resident's room constituted a hazard. In Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, supervision and monitoring of residents in a nursing home is a basic. That is generally the reason for the resident's being admitted in the first place. While they should be done on a routine basis, supervision and monitoring are still sometimes placed in a care plan, but the failure to have the requirements in black and white is not a discrepancy so long as the appropriate supervision and monitoring are accomplished. The residents most at risk for falls, and those who are the most difficult to manage, are those who have full physical functioning yet who have almost nonexistent cognitive functioning. Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that for these residents, the best intervention is the merry walker. This is better than a regular walker because the resident cannot leave it behind. If the resident is one who falls from bed, then a low bed, with rails if appropriate, is the primary option. A low bed was called for for Resident 10 but was not provided. Ms. Vogelspohl does not have a high opinion of the Tabs alarm because it can cause as many falls as it prevents. It has a place with the cognitively aware resident who will sit back down if she or he hears the alarm sound. More often than not, however, the routine resident will automatically react by trying to get away from the noise, and, thus, be more likely to engage in rapid, impulsive behavior that can lead to a fall. Ms. Vogelspohl considers the use of the Tabs alarm as only one factor in assessing the degree of supervision provided. She looks at the care plan to see if the Tabs alarm even meets the needs of the resident. If the resident is cognitively alert and at no risk of falls, a Tabs alarm is not appropriate. There are other interventions which can be used such as quick release, velcro seat belts which better prevent falls because they provide a resistance when the resident attempts to stand up. To determine whether a care plan has been developed and implemented, Ms. Vogelspohl reviews the record. She looks at the nurse's notes and those of the social services personnel. She evaluates the records of the physical, occupational, and recreational therapy staff. Finally, she reads the resident's chart to see what staff is actually doing to implement the interventions called for in the care plan. However, on the issue of supervision, she does not expect the notes or the record to affirmatively reflect every incident of supervision. There is no standard of nursing practice that she is aware of that calls for that degree of record keeping. What she would expect to see is a record of any kind of unsafe behavior that was observed. By the same token, Ms. Vogelspohl would not expect a facility to document every time it placed an alarm unit on a resident. The units are applied and removed several times a day for bathing, clothing changes, incontinence care, and the like, and it would be unreasonable, she opines, to expect each change to be documented. Further, she considers it inappropriate and insulting to the resident to require him or her to wear an alarm when cognizant and not displaying any unsafe behavior. If a resident who is not cognitively impaired declines intervention, it would, in her opinion, be a violation of that resident's rights to put one on. In that regard, generally, interventions are noted in the resident records when initiated. Usually, however, they are not removed until the quarterly assessment, even though the intervention may be discontinued shortly after implementation. Ms. Vogelspohl took exception to Ms. Edwards' finding fault with the facility for the three falls experienced by Resident 22. The resident was under observation when the first fall occurred, but the staff member was not able to get to the resident quickly enough to catch her when she stood up and immediately toppled over in her merry walker. The resident had been properly assessed and proper interventions had been called for in the care plan. Ms. Vogelspohl attributes the fall to the resident's being frightened by the Tabs alarm going off when she stood up and believes she probably would not have fallen had she not had the tab unit on. The second fall took place while the resident got out of her marry walker in the day room. Though the day room was visible to anyone out in the hallway, the fall was not witnessed, but Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that it is not reasonably possible to keep every resident under constant visual supervision unless an aide can be assigned on a one-on-one basis to every resident. On the third fall, which occurred at about 10 p.m., the staff had put the resident to bed and had put a Tabs unit on her at that time, but the resident had detached the unit and gotten out of bed. There was nothing the staff could do to prevent that. The resident was able to remove the unit no matter how it was affixed to her. Taken together, the actions taken by the facility with regard to this resident were, to Ms. Vogelspohl, appropriate. Some things could have been done differently, such as perhaps using a heavier merry walker, but she did not consider these matters as defects in the care plan, in assessment, in design, or in application. Further, she concluded that the actions taken by the facility subsequent to the first fall on April 10, 2000, wherein the resident's medications were adjusted to compensate for their effect on the resident, constituted a recognition of a change in the resident's condition which was properly addressed. Too much supervision becomes a dignity issue. There is no formula for determining how much supervision is adequate. It is a question of nursing discretion based on the individual resident. An unofficial standard in place within the industry calls for a resident to be checked on every two hours, but rarely will this be documented. Staff, mostly nurses and CNAs, are in and out of the residents' rooms on a regular basis, administering medications and giving treatments. Those visits are documented, but not every visit to a resident's room is. Resident 12, a relatively young man of 62 with several severe medical problems, sustained a fall which resulted in a fractured hip just two weeks after admission to the facility and two weeks before the survey. He was far more mobile than expected. According to the records, he was mostly cognitive intact and had been assessed for falls. As a result of this assessment, the facility developed a care plan to address his risk for falls. Implementation of the plan was difficult, however, because he was aware and could make up his own mind as to what interventions he would accept. As to the resident's April 27, 2000 fall, the only evidence in the file shows that he was found on the floor of his room in front of a straight chair, having sustained a small skin tear in addition to the fracture. From Ms. Vogelspohl's review of the record she could find no indication that the facility had failed to do something that it should have done to prevent the fall. The staff had put a Tabs alarm on the resident, and he removed it. They tried to keep his wheel chair as close to him as possible. They tried to restrict his water intake by giving him thickened liquids to reduce his trips to the rest room. He would pour out the thickened fluids and replace them with water. Because of this resident's mobility, Ms. Vogelspohl does not accept the surveyor's conclusion that the facility did not use Tabs alarms. He was able to get out of them by himself and frequently did. She is also of the opinion, in light of the way the resident behaved, that the blank kardex observed by the surveyor in no way contributed to the resident's fall. The CNA's were aware that the Tabs units were supposed to be used, and Ms. Vogelspohl has concluded that there were no more aggressive interventions that could have been used with this resident. To attempt the use of restraints, either belt or vest, would have been futile because he could have gotten out of them easily. The only other thing Ms. Vogelspohl feels could have been done was to put him in a geriatric psychiatric unit, and this was ultimately done, but not in the Respondent facility. Ms. Vogelpohl also addressed the surveyors' write- ups as they related to Residents 9, 4, 3, and 10. Resident 4 was bed-ridden as a result of Parkinson's Disease and did not need a Tabs alarm, the deficiency cited, while in bed. When seated in a wheel chair, his postural deficits were compensated for by lateral supports and a padded cushion, and she was of the opinion that a Tabs alarm was not required. She opines its absence would not have addressed his risk for falls. His January 2000 fall apparently did not relate to the failure to use a Tabs unit. Resident 3, also the subject of a write-up for failure to use a Tabs alarm, was not, in Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, at risk for falls because she did not move around a lot due to her physical condition. Nonetheless, she experienced a fall in late March 2000 and shortly thereafter, the facility placed a Tabs alarm on her and made the appropriate entry in her care plan. Resident 9 was ambulatory only with assistance and had a special seating device to keep her in her wheel chair. After the resident sustained two falls close together, a Tabs alarm was placed on her, and from that time until the time of the survey she had no further falls. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that it was an appropriate nursing decision not to place a Tabs unit on her. The rationale for this position is not at all clear. The care plan for Resident 10, also one of the residents observed without a Tabs alarm in place, was described as "somewhat cluttered." It showed multiple interventions initiated as early as April 1999. The initial care plan was crossed through and a new one substituted in September 1999 with the family's concurrence. Nonetheless, Ms. Vogelspohl did not find it too cluttered to be understood. The evidence shows that the resident's chair was outfitted with a soft seat belt and a pressure-sensitive alarm, both of which are considered to be more effective than the Tabs alarm. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that the facility did not ignore the requirement to assess the residents for falls or the requirement to address that issue in care planning. She admits that in some cases, the plan addressing falls prevention was covered in another assessment than the one wherein it might most likely be expected, but it is her contention that if the subject is properly and thoroughly addressed somewhere in the resident's care record, that is sufficient. She considers placing it in several areas to be a redundancy and though it is frequently done so, it is done to meet a paper compliance without having any impact on the quality of care provided.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order sustaining the Conditional license for the Respondent effective April 28, 2000, and, based only on the conditions observed at the facility on that date, imposing an administrative fine of $700.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 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

CFR (3) 42 CFR 483, 42 CFR 483.25(h)(2), 42 CFR 483.30 Florida Laws (3) 120.57, 400.23, 483.30 Florida Administrative Code (2) 59A-4.108, 59A-4.1288

# 4

VENICE HOSPITAL, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 90-002738 (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida May 02, 1990 Number: 90-002738 Latest Update: Aug. 30, 1990

Florida Laws (2) 120.57, 395.003

# 5

HOLMES/VHA LONG TERM CARE JOINT VENTURE, D/B/A HOLMES REGIONAL NURSING CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 94-002393CON (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida May 03, 1994 Number: 94-002393CON Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1995

The Issue Which of two competing applications for nursing home beds better meets the statutory and rule criteria to satisfy the numeric need for 79 additional beds in Agency for Health Care Administration District 7, Subdistrict 1, Brevard County.

Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the single agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws in Florida. AHCA published a numeric need for an additional 79 beds in District 7, Subdistrict 1, for Brevard County for the July 1996 planning horizon. There was no challenge to the numeric need determination. After reviewing the applications of Holmes/VHA Long Term Care Joint Venture ("Holmes/VHA") and National Health Corporation d/b/a NHC of Merritt Island ("NHC"), among others, AHCA published its intent to approve the application of NHC and to deny that of Holmes/VHA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") issued on March 13, 1994, for the July 1996 Planning Horizon, summarizes AHCA's review of the applications and the reasons for its decision. Holmes/VHA timely challenged AHCA's preliminary approval of CON 7527 to NHC and denial of CON 7539 to Holmes/VHA. In a pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the specific statutory criteria at issue, related to the contents of the letter of intent and application are subsections 408.037(2)(a), (2)(c), (4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties also agreed that the CON review criteria at issue are subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (i), (l), (m), (n) and (0), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated to the need for 79 additional community nursing home beds in the subdistrict. At the formal hearing the parties also agreed that quality of care is not at issue and that staffing schedules and proposals to fund or finance both projects are reasonable, thereby removing from consideration subsections 408.035(1)(c) and portions of (1)(h). HOLMES/VHA Holmes/VHA, the applicant for CON 7539, is a Florida general partnership formed between Holmes Regional Enterprises, Inc. ("Holmes Enterprises"), a Florida not-for-profit corporation, in Brevard County, Florida, and Vantage Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a VHA Long Term Care ("VHA"). The partnership, Holmes/VHA, owns and operates an existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Regional Nursing Center ("Holmes Nursing Center") in Melbourne. VHA is a division of Service Master Diversified Health Services of Memphis, Tennessee, which manages 106 facilities in 30 states. Holmes Enterprises operates Holmes Regional Medical Center ("Holmes Regional"), a 528-bed acute care hospital, with open heart surgery and neonatal intensive care services and approval for 30 skilled nursing beds. Sixty of Holmes Regional's licensed beds are located at Palm Bay Community Hospital in Palm Bay, approximately 8 to 15 miles south of Holmes Regional. Although it is a separate municipality, Palm Bay was described as a suburb of and contiguous to Melbourne. The site for the Palm Bay Center, which is across the street from Palm Bay Community Hospital, is in another community known as Mallibar. VHA has entered into similar partnerships with acute care hospitals in Jacksonville, Florida, and Greensboro, North Carolina, to operate nursing homes in those areas. The Service Master organization provides management and support services, including data processing, legal, personnel, dietary, and architectural and design services for nursing homes. Holmes/VHA, the joint venture general partnership, has a management committee of four people, two from the hospital and two from the VHA company. The management committee, functioning like a board of directors, adopted a resolution authorizing Holmes/VHA to file the Con application. When formed, the joint venture obtained an older 60-bed facility, and then constructed a replacement facility. During the construction, it obtained a 60-bed CON from another company and combined beds to build its existing 120-bed nursing home, Holmes Nursing Center. Holmes Nursing Center is rated superior and offers inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative and restorative services, including a head and spinal cord injury program. The rehabilitative services are directed by Holmes Regional, which is located a block and a half from the nursing home. The original CON for Holmes Nursing Center required that 35 percent of total patient days be provided to Medicaid. The requirement was increased to 45 percent with the 60-bed addition, which Holmes Nursing Center has exceeded. The 120 beds are divided into 20 percent Medicare certified, 50 percent Medicaid certified and 30 percent non-certified or private pay. Holmes Nursing Center also operates a 24-bed subacute unit for persons qualifying under Medicare criteria for skilled nursing care. Patients in the unit receive intensive assessments on each nursing shift and services which include pain, respiratory, and wound management. Holmes Regional Hospice, Inc. ("the hospice") is an affiliate of Holmes Enterprises, for which Holmes Regional holds the CON to take care of hospitalized hospice patients The current hospice census of over 200 patients includes 70 percent cancer, 9 percent AIDS, and 21 percent other terminal illnesses, such as heart disease and Alzheimers. Holmes/VHA applied for a CON to construct the 79-bed Palm Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("Palm Bay Center") conditioned on the provision of 61 percent of total patient days to Medicaid and the establishment of a 12-bed sub- acute unit, one room for hospice patients, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, and respite care. The total gross square footage is 42,691 square feet. The Holmes Enterprises affiliates propose to provide support services for the Palm Bay Center, as they do for Holmes Nursing Center. The estimated total project cost for the Palm Bay Center is $4,732,790, of which the construction cost is $82,720,000 or $63.71 a square foot. An equity contribution of land valued at $420,000, will be provided by the hospital. Service Master will provide the funds or obtain financing for the project. The assumptions in the pro forma, including the expectation that interest may be due for a commercial loan, are reasonable. AHCA's expert's conclusion that the project is financially feasible is accepted. The financing by Service Master can be structured to avoid being treated as a related party transaction, which would adversely affect Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Holmes/VHA listed as capital projects three other pending CON and an additional $25,000 in annual capitalized routine expenses for furniture, fixtures and equipment attributable to Holmes Regional Nursing Center. The total of the capital projects listed on Schedule 2 of the application is $13,256,701. NHC National HealthCorp, L.P. ("NHC"), the applicant for CON 7527, began operations in 1986, with 14 nursing homes. Currently, NHC owns or manages 96 nursing homes primarily in the southeast United States. It manages 36 nursing homes in Florida, 6 of which are also owned by NHC. NHC proposes to add 60 beds to National Healthcare Center of Merritt Island ("NHC-Merritt Island"), a superior rated, 120-bed community nursing home on a 7 acre site in Merritt Island, Brevard County. NHC-Merritt Island has a 22-bed Alzheimers' unit. NHC's regional office provides support services, including speech, occupational, and physical therapies, nursing, dietary, and administrative services to NHC-Merritt Island. With the addition of 60 beds, NHC intends to provide respite care, a dedicated 20-bed subacute unit, and an additional 16-bed Alzheimers' unit. Without a subacute unit, NHC already has an average census of 9 subacute patients. NHC will triple the size of the therapy space and more than double the size of the building. The projected total capital expenditure is $3,891,850, with construction costs of $2,955,000, or $85.00 a square foot. To accommodate the addition, NHC has entered into a contract to purchase an additional 1.3 acres, adjacent to the current 7 acres, for a cost of $175,000. For the past few years, NHC has experienced 94 to 100 percent occupancy. Fifty-four people are on NHC's waiting list and an additional 16 are on the waiting list for the Alzheimers' unit. The projected annual fill-up rates for NHC's additional beds are supported by the demand for its service and its historical experience, even though the monthly fill-up rates in the application are not adjusted to reflect the specific number of days in each month. Medicaid resident days are 55 percent to 57 percent of the total at present, below the 60.31 percent average in the subdistrict and the current 60 percent CON condition. If the expansion CON is approved, NHC will commit to providing 60.31 percent Medicaid patient days and will increase the number of Medicaid certified beds from 77 to 108. NHC was profitable in 1992 and 1993, by approximately $100,000 and $250,000, respectively, but currently is not profitable, with an approximate deficit of $8,000. The deficit is attributable to (1) a decline in the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which was initially higher due to start up costs, (2) the expiration of a new provider exemption from Medicare cost limits, and (3) the transfer of assets by NHC, in exchange for stock, to a newly formed subsidiary, from which NHC-Merritt Island is now leased. Lease payments are $517,000 a year whether the facility has 120 or 180 beds, and profits are returned to stockholders, including NHC. Using Medicaid rates, calculated by the state, as inflated forward, and Medicare rates in excess of routine cost limits, based on the current experience of NHC-Merritt Island, NHC reasonably projected its costs and profit margin. NHC-Merritt Island has a positive cash flow and its expenses and revenues are at the goal set by NHC. With a total of 180 beds, the projections are reasonable that NHC-Merritt Island will be profitable. As AHCA's expert opined, NHC's proposal is financially feasible. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - need in relation to district and state health plans The 1991 District 7 health plan has three preferences related to nursing homes, one favoring a section of Orange County, is inapplicable to the Brevard County applications. A second, for applicants proposing pediatric services, is inapplicable because both proposals in this batch are to provide adult services. The third preference favors applicants proposing to establish units providing psychiatric or subacute services, with emphasis on treating medically complex patients and AIDS/HIV positive patients. Holmes/VHA's health planner considers the subacute care and AIDS/HIV services proposed by Holmes/VHA superior to those proposed by NHC. NHC, however, proposes to provide specialized care in designated units for both subacute and Alzheimers's patients. Although Holmes/VHA argues that Alzheimers' care is required in every nursing home and is, therefore, not a specialized program, the physical design of a separate unit for such patients was shown to enhance their comfort. No AIDS/HIV positive patient has been treated at either Holmes Nusing Center or at NHC-Merritt Island. NHC-Merritt Island has accepted AIDS/HIV positive patients who did not come to the facility. The state health plan has twelve allocation factors for use in comparing nursing home applications. Both applicants comply with the factors favoring locations in a subdistrict in which occupancy levels exceed 90 percent, proposals to meet or exceed that average subdistrict Medicaid occupancy of 60.31 percent, proposals with respite care and innovative therapies, multi- disciplinary staffing, for staffing in excess of minimum state requirements, and which document means to protect residents' rights and privacy. Both Holmes/VHA and NHC also meet the preference for proposing charges that do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. NHC asserted, but failed to demonstrate that its therapy services with in-house staff are superior to those provided to Holmes/VHA by contract staff from Holmes Regional. The state health plan factor number 3, for specialized services, is largely duplicative of district health plan preferences. Neither applicant meets the part of one preference for providing adult day care, or the preference for proposing lower than average administrative costs and higher than average resident care costs. The fifth state allocation factor, for maximizing resident comfort and the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes, related to the cost and methods of construction, are at issue. NHC questions the adequacy of three acres for the building proposed by Holmes/VHA and the design of the building. Holmes Regional Nursing Center has 120 beds and approximately the same building area as that proposed for Palm Bay Center. The architects of the building have constructed a 163-bed facility on four acres in Jacksonville, and a 240-bed facility in Memphis, Tennessee on approximately six acres. Homes/VHA expects to construct the building in half the time required for completion of NHC's proposed addition. AHCA's architect noted, however, that Holmes/VHA has no Alzheimers unit and that its subacute area is not separated from the areas used by other patients and their families. Holmes/VHA has showers only in the 13 private rooms. By contrast, NHC has an Alzheimers unit with its own lounge and courtyard and a subacute unit at the end of a wing with a separate waiting room. NHC's rooms are larger, with larger windows. NHC's costs are higher than Holmes/VHA's, but not above the high average cost guidelines for construction used by AHCA. NHC has one nursing station for 60 beds, which meets the state requirement while Holmes/VHA is better equipped with two nurses stations for 79 beds. In general, Holmes/VHA established that its building could be built on 3 acres, and that its interior spaces exceed the requirements to be licensed. NHC established that its building and grounds will be larger, higher quality construction with more non-combustible materials, and better meet the preference for maximizing resident comfort. The preference for superior resident care is met by both Holmes/VHA and NHC-Merritt Island. An NHC facility in Stuart was rated conditional for 80 days of the 36 months, prior to the filing of the application. NHC had just purchased the Stuart facility at the time of the conditional rating, and had, in total, many more months of superior operations. In addition, the parties stipulated to quality of care issues at the hearing. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (1)(d) - availability, accessibility, efficiency, extent of utilization of like and existing services; alternatives to the applicants' proposals Brevard County is 80 miles long from north to south, 22 miles wide at its widest point, with 62 percent of its population in the southern area of the county. Holmes/VHA contends that its application should be approved based on the greater need for nursing home beds in southern Brevard County. Using ratios of beds in existing or approved nursing homes as compared to the population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, a need is shown for more beds in the southern area, including Palm Bay. In the central area, there are 31.52 beds per 1000 people over 65, as compared to 26.53 in the southern area of Brevard County. For the population over 75, the ratios are 82.53 in the central and 68.47 in the southern area. The over 75 population is also projected to increase by a greater percentage in the southern as contrasted to the central areas of the county. AHCA claims to reject the use of any "sub-subdistrict" analysis of need, other than the test for geographically underserved areas, as defined by Rule 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. That test which applies to proposed sites more than 20 miles from a nursing home, is not met by Holmes/VHA or NHC. However, AHCA has, in at least one other case, considered geographic accessibility within the planning area in determining which applicant should be approved, without the applicants having to demonstrate that the proposed sites are geographically underserved areas. NHC takes issue with Holmes/VHA's data on bed availability in the southern and central portions of the county. NHC maintains that its central location better serves the entire county. NHC's expert also criticized the methodology used by Holmes/VHA for demonstrating need in the southern area. The comparison of existing beds to population, shows a lack of county-wide parity, but not necessarily need. Other factors related to the need for nursing homes were not presented, such as poverty, migration, mortality and occupancy rates. In addition, NHC's expert questioned Holmes/VHA's experts calculations of bed- to-population ratios. The ratios arguably were skewed by using beds for Wuesthoff Hospital Progressive Care in the central area data, but including the population of the zip code in which Wuesthoff is located in the southern area. Holmes/VHA noted that the majority of the population in the zip code is in the southern area. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid/indigent care Holmes/VHA's expert criticized NHC because two of its facilities, Merritt Island and Stuart, have been below the subdistrict average for Medicaid occupancy. For 3 six month periods during the last 4 years, they also were below their CON Medicaid commitments. One other NHC facility, in Hudson, has been below the subdistrict average, but significantly above its CON condition. NHC claims that it treats its Medicaid condition as a minimum, while Holmes/VHA uses its conditions as an artificial ceiling or maximum. Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(o) - cooperative or shared health care resources; continuum of care Holmes/VHA has established linkages to its various related companies to provide cooperative care and shared resources. Palm Bay Nursing Center would enhance the multi-level care provided by the Holmes Enterprises group and provide another integral step in the continuum, particularly in rehabilitative therapies. NHC, however, as an existing provider, is part of a well-established network of health care providers in the community. NHC has also purchased land to build an adult congregate living facility near or adjacent to NHC-Merritt Island. Subsections 408.039(2)(a), (2)(c) and 408.037(4), and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code - capital projects list; board resolutions; and impacts on costs AHCA interprets the requirements for the submission of a board resolution to allow an original resolution accompanying the letter of intent to be treated as a part of the complete application. A board resolution with an application, which the statute requires "if applicable," applies to expedited applications for which a letter of intent would not have been received, according to AHCA. NHC submitted an original board resolution with its letter of intent, and a copy of that resolution with its application for CON 7527. The authority of Holmes/VHA's management committee to authorize the construction of a new nursing home, and the authority to operate a nursing home outside the city of Melbourne was questioned. The testimony that the joint venture agreement authorizes the management committee to adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of CON 7539 was not refuted. In addition, the testimony that operations are restricted to the "Melbourne area" as opposed to some more specifically defined geographic area was not refuted. Repeatedly, witnesses described Palm Bay, although a separate municipal corporation, as a suburb of Melbourne. Holmes/VHA claims that NHC failed to disclose certain capital equipment leases from its schedule 2 list of capital projects and failed to evaluate the impact on costs, as required by subsection 408.037, Florida Statutes. In NHC's annual reports, the costs of capital equipment leases were $204,000 in 1991, $43,000 in 1992, and $88,000 in 1993. In fact, the NHC witness who prepared schedule 2 included a total of $21,653,468 for the category "Renovations (Including Furnishings and Equipment) 1994", taken from the capital expenditure budget of each NHC facility. The listing is consistent with the footnote indicating the budget items "are subject to final approval and cash reserves availability." In addition, $100,000 is also listed under "Other Capitalization" for equipment, for which a footnote explains "[a]mount included in an abundance of caution to cover any items unknown at the time of filing." NHC, according to Holmes/VHA, also failed to provide a detailed evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the cost of other services it provides, as required by subsection 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes. NHC merely states that the impact is "nominal" and "negligible." NHC satisfied the impact analysis requirement in the notes to schedule 2 and in schedules 11, 13 and 14 of the application. The incremental pro forma analysis of the effect on costs with or without the proposed project, and projected financial ratios and costs, give detail support for the statements in the application. Assuming, arguendo, that Holmes/VHA omitted $50,000 in capital costs from schedule 2, the omission is not material or fatal to consideration of the application on the merits. Holmes/VHA's financial expert testified that $50,000 is less than on-half of one percent of the total project expenditures listed on schedule 2 and is, therefore, immaterial. As AHCA concedes, Holmes/VHA and NHC have the resources to establish their projects and to provide the services described in their applications. On balance, the demand for additional beds, the enhancement of a superior, existing physical plant and the expansion of specialized services at NHC outweigh the community linkages demonstrated by Holmes/VHA and the desirability of county- wide parity in the distribution of nursing homes beds, at this time.

Florida Laws (4) 120.57, 408.035, 408.037, 408.039 Florida Administrative Code (2) 59C-1.008, 59C-1.036

# 6

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION, D/B/A JACARANDA MANOR, 01-003616 (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:St. Petersburg, Florida Sep. 12, 2001 Number: 01-003616 Latest Update: May 22, 2003

CFR (6) 42 CFR 483.15(a), 42 CFR 483.15(g), 42 CFR 483.20(b), 42 CFR 483.20(b)(1), 42 CFR 483.25, 42 CFR 488.331 Florida Laws (2) 120.569, 400.23

# 7

FORUM GROUP, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 87-000704 (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-000704 Latest Update: Apr. 01, 1988

Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of the parties and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES The parties stipulated to the following facts: Forum timely filed its letter of intent and application with DHRS and the District IX Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. DHRS ultimately deemed the application complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the application. Forum timely filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The sole issue is whether there is a need for Forum's proposed services; additionally, it is DHRS's position that a lack of need for the project results in the project not being financially feasible in the short or long term. All other statutory and rule criteria were satisfied, at least minimally, except proof of need pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [formerly 10-5.11(21)(b)], Florida Administrative Code, and financial feasibility as it relates to need. FORUM'S PROPOSAL Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Palm Beach County that would consist of 120 to 150 apartment units for independent living, a separate personal care unit (known in Florida as an adult congregate living facility), and a 60-bed nursing home component certified for skilled and intermediate care. Palm Beach County is in HRS Service District IX, Subdistrict 4. All three components of Forum's retirement living center would be physically connected and share some operational functions, such as dietary facilities and the heating plant. Such a design provides for an efficient operation as well as an economic distribution of costs facility wide. No specific site has been selected , although Forum has narrowed its focus to the eastern half of Palm Beach County. It is not economically feasible to acquire property or pay for an option on property until after receiving CON approval. The projected total cost of Forum's proposed 60-bed nursing home is $2,329,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Forum proposes to seek Medicare certification and will provide up to 25 of its beds for Medicaid patients. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. If need for the facility is shown, Forum would be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible while at the same time having no material negative impact on existing providers in the district. NUMERIC NEED Need for new or additional community nursing home beds in Florida is determined, preliminarily, by use of the methodology found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Additional beds normally are not approved if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. Pursuant to the rule, need for a defined nursing home subdivision is projected to a three- year planning horizon, in this case July 1989. The need methodology prescribed in the rule is as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) or: The District's age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] (The population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental districts projected three years into the future [POPA] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]) + (The population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future [POPB] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB].) BA LB/(POPC) + (6 x POPD) or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA] (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]/the current population age 65-74 years [POPC] + (6 x the current population age 75 years and over [POPD]) BB 6 x BA or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB] 6 x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]. SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) or: The preliminary subdivision allocation of community nursing home beds [SA] The district's age-adjusted number of community nursing home bids for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] x (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict [LBD]/the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]) x (The average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district [OR]/.90) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: The new bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for CON approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs a. through i., unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The appropriate planning horizon for the instant case is July 1989, corresponding to the review cycle which began July 15, 1986, and the subdistrict is Palm Beach County. THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (LB)/THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT SUBDISTRICT (LBD) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) requires that "review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding this cycle..." On June 1, 1986, there were 5,459 licensed community nursing home beds in District XI (LB) and 4,084 licensed community nursing home beds in subdistrict 4 (Palm Beach County LBD). These figures include 220 licensed beds that were previously categorized as sheltered. In the instant case, the appropriate figure for LB is 5,459, and the appropriate figure for LBD is 4,084. APPROVED BEDS WITHIN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL SUBDISTRICT DHRS's interpretation of the rule is to include in the count of approved beds, those approved up to the date of the supervisor's signature on the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). In this case, there were 640 approved beds in Palm Beach County at that time. As of June 1, 1986, the same date as the licensed bed cutoff, there were 640 approved beds in the subdistrict. In Dr. Warner's opinion, approved beds should be determined as of the same time period as licensed beds in order to have consistency and avoid anomalies in the formula. This opinion is reasonable and appropriate. In the instant case, the figure to be applied in the formula for approved beds in the subdistrict is 640 approved beds. THE POPULATION AGE 65-79 YEARS IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPA). THE POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPB). The rule provides that the three year projections of population shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. For the purposes of calculating need, DHRS utilizes at the final hearing the figures for estimated population obtained from data available at the time of initial application and review. The set of population projections which were available when Petitioner's application was filed and reviewed were those published on July 1, 1986. Based on this data, which is reasonable to use, POPA 170,639; and, POPB 122,577. THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 65-74 YEARS (POPC)/THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER (POPD). In calculating POPC and POPD, DHRS also utilizes at final hearing the most current data available at the time of initial application and review, in this case the July 1, 1986, release. Based on that data, POPC 153,005 and POPD 112,894. In the opinion of Dr. Warner, Forum's expert, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. According to Warner, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of this time period, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD in this case. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating the estimated current bed rate requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. It is reasonable and appropriate for the base for POPC and POPD to correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate is calculated. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of DHRS. Between December 1984 and December 1986, DHRS routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date in determining "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, DHRS utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon data for "current population" when it awarded beds. DHRS offered In this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon dated for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Using the July 1986 population release, POPC for January 1986 is 149,821 and POPD for January 1986 is 98,933. THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE FOR ALL LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OF THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (OR). The rule requires the use of occupancy data from the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development for the months of the previous October through March when calculating a July batch of nursing home applicants. However, the rule is not instructive as to how one calculates this number. In this case, DHRS computed average occupancy rates based on the existing occupancy rates at applicable facilities on the first day of each month. Based on this occupancy data, which includes the data for the 220 previously sheltered beds in the subdistrict, occupancy rates for the July 1986 batch of Palm Beach County nursing home applicants is 83.75 percent. Forum's witness, Dr. Warner, determined that the correct occupancy rate was 85.46 percent for Palm Beach County for the period October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner arrived at this figure by including paid reservation days. A paid reservation day is a day which is paid for by the patient or the patient's intermediary during which the patient is not physically in the bed. Typically, the patient will either be in the hospital, visiting relatives or otherwise away from the facility and will continue to pay for the nursing home bed, so that they will be able to return and not have someone occupy the bed. One of the goals and objectives of the District IX Local Health Plan is that paid reservation days be considered when bed need calculations are made. Calculating prepaid reservation days is consistent with the Rule because such beds are no longer available to the public and are therefore in use. Dr. Warner determined that during the applicable period, 1.25 percent of the licensed beds in the subdistrict were paid reservation days. Although taking paid reservation days into account would not be inconsistent with the rule, Forum failed to demonstrate that the 1.25 percent figure arrived at is valid for the applicable period, i.e., October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner merely calculated a two-year average number of paid reservation days, broke this figure down to a six-month average and applied this average to the six-month period specified in the Rule. Gene Nelson, an expert called on behalf of Forum, calculated the occupancy rate as 88.72 percent in Palm Beach County for the appropriate period called for in the Rule. Nelson used the average monthly occupancy data obtained from medicaid cost reports for some facilities rather than first-day of the month data as used by DHRS. In addition, Nelson did not factor in the occupancy date of licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based on his belief that the District IX Local Health Plan mandates that the western area not be considered in any way with the eastern coast section of Palm Beach County for purposes of determining competitiveness. While the use of average full-month occupancy data is generally more reliable than using first-day of the month data, it is best, from a health planning prospective, to be able to use either all full-month data or all first- day of the month data. In making his calculations, Mr. Nelson mixed the two types of data, using full-month data when available and in other cases using first-day of the month data when full-month data was not available. It is inappropriate to fail to consider licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based solely on the local health plan. Among other reasons, the rule does not provide for exclusions for any of the subdistricts licensed facilities from the methodology. The appropriate and most reasonable occupancy rate (OR) in the instant case for the applicable time period is 83.75 percent. NET NEED Applying the above-referenced variables to the Rule formula produces the following results. July, 1986. District Allocation BA LB (POPC + (6 x POPD) - 5459 [149,821 + (6 x 98,833)] - .007349 BB - 6 x BA .044094 (.007349) July, 1989 Allocation (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) - (170,639 x .007349) + (122,577 x .044094) - 6659 Subdivision Allocation and Need SA A x (LBD / LB) x (OR 1.9) - 6659 x (4084 / 5459) x (.8375/.9) - 6659 x .74812236673 x .93055555555 4636 Subdistrict Allocation for Palm Beach County 4084 (Licensed Beds) 576 (90 percent of 640 Approved Beds) -24 (Bed Surplus)

Florida Laws (1) 120.57

# 8

BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER - RIO PINAR vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 97-002017 (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Apr. 30, 1997 Number: 97-002017 Latest Update: Jul. 06, 1998

The Issue Whether the Petitioner was properly issued a conditional license on March 24, 1997.

Findings Of Fact Survey Background Rio Pinar (Petitioner) is a 180-bed nursing home in Orlando, Florida, licensed by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to its licensing authority the Respondent conducts surveys of nursing homes to determine compliance with statutes and regulatory standards that are established by the state, as well as the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. On February 13, 1997, the agency conducted an annual re- certification survey of Petitioner. The multi-disciplinary survey team was comprised, in part, of Sharon Hudson, Zola Whitmore, James Lang, and Lisa Privett. The team met with facility staff, then toured the facility to develop a sample of residents on which to conduct an in-depth review. Two of the issues on which the team focused were falls and restorative care by patients. The information was obtained by the team from patient examinations, records' review, and discussions with staff. At the conclusion of the survey inspection, Respondent issues a survey report which sets forth the factual findings made by the surveyors (which are organized as deficiencies by Tag numbers), the applicable federal and state regulations which the surveyors believe have been violated by the facility, and a federal scope and severity rating and state class rating for each tag numbered deficiency. Respondent issues a nursing facility a conditional license anytime it finds a state Class I or II deficiency or anytime it finds a Class III deficiency that is not corrected within the time frame mandated by AHCA. (Section 400.023, Florida Statutes.) In each of the nine annual surveys preceding February 1997, Petitioner received a Superior licensure rating. Falls The nursing home is required to ensure that each patient receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. An accident is an unexpected, unintended event that can cause bodily injury. It does not include adverse side effects or reactions to drugs. The most common accidents in nursing homes are falls by patients. The facility is expected to provide the supervision necessary to prevent those falls, and each patient must be assessed for being at risk. Tag F324 of the survey report alleges that Petitioner violated 42 CFR s. 483.25(h)(2), which provides that a facility "must ensure that a resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents." Respondent's surveyors testified that 11 residents: residents numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 23, 27, and 30 identified under Tag F324 of the survey report did not receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents because the facility did not timely assess these residents for interventions to prevent falls. They also testified that one of the residents, Resident number 4, did not receive appropriate restorative training that could have prevented a fall suffered by that resident. Finally, Respondent alleged that the number of surveyed residents at Rio Pinar who had fallen was exceptionally high and reflected inappropriate care. Petitioner comprehensively assesses each of its residents for their risk for falls and, where appropriate, provides a preventive care plan for those residents. An assessment is a thought process designed to lead a care-giver to determine the appropriate plan of care for a resident. Each resident is assessed for his or her risk for falls through a variety of assessment mechanisms. Resident 1 fell on November 24, 1996, after having been admitted to the facility on October 28, 1996. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Resident 1 was assessed by Petitioner upon admission for her risk for falls using the MDS assessment and Physical Therapy Assessments. She was determined to be independently ambulatory but cognitively impaired so that there was no care plan to prevent falls that could have been written or implemented for her other than "common sense" nursing. While sitting in a chair in her room, Resident 8 fell asleep, slumped over and hit her head on the windowsill next to her chair. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Resident 8 had been comprehensively assessed for her risk of falls by Petitioner, was determined to be totally dependent upon the facility for assistance in transfers and ambulation, and had a written care plan in place to prevent falls at the time she slumped over and hit her head on the windowsill. The resident was not considered to be at risk for falls while sitting in her chair, and there were no care plan interventions written to address that risk. The use of a helmet would be highly intrusive and is not a viable preventative measure in this case. Resident 14 fell on January 15, 1997. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Prior to her January 15, 1997, fall, Resident 14 had been at Petitioner for four years and had not fallen. However, she had been assessed for her risk for falls and was determined to be independent in her ambulatory skills so that she needed no care plan to prevent falls. There was no evidence submitted by Respondent regarding Resident 30. Resident 5 fell on December 7 and December 17, 1996. Resident 5 had been assessed by Petitioner using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Physical Therapy Assessments. Like many of the other cited residents, she was independently ambulatory and had dementia. She had a tendency to wander and thus a specific care plan was in place to address that problem. However, her other conditions did not merit a specific care plan to prevent falls. Resident 5's fall on December 7, 1996, was investigated and no cause was found. However, because the Resident fractured her femur and suffered a decline, the facility re-assessed her and properly deemed her to be at risk for future falls. A care plan to prevent falls was drawn up by the physical therapy department that included providing the Resident with assistance in all transfers and ambulation, putting the side rails up while the Resident was in bed, and providing the Resident with a wheelchair and a walker. Her fall of December 17, 1996, was investigated and no cause was found, nor was there any supervision or assistive device that was lacking. Resident 11 did not fall during this period. Petitioner assessed Resident 11 for her risk for falls and had a care plan in place to address her need for assistance in transfers and ambulation. In addition, she was put on an ambulation program, was given a wheelchair and had a "lap buddy" to use to prevent falls from the wheelchair. Resident 3 fell twice over the course of four months, once on August 5, 1996, and once on November 10, 1996. Resident 3 was assessed by Rio Pinar when she was admitted to the facility and four days prior to her initial fall. Those assessments determined that the Resident was independent in ambulation and transfers and had dementia. Accordingly, there was no written care plan to prevent falls prior to August 5, 1996. After her fall on August 5, the incident was investigated and no preventable cause for the fall was identified. However, the facility prepared a written care plan to prevent falls that essentially emphasized common sense preventative measures because the Resident's assessed conditions did not merit additional supervision or assistive devices. Likewise, the November fall was investigated and no preventable cause was found that merited a change in this Resident's care plan. Resident 2 wore a halo device and was found sitting on her floor on December 4, 1996. The Resident's fall was investigated by nursing but the investigation did not identify any preventable cause that merited a change in the care plan approaches. The Resident had been assessed for falls and a care plan had been in place to prevent falls since November 19, 1996. That plan included physical therapy, a wheelchair and walker, assistance in ambulation, and side rails while in bed. Because the halo device was heavy, the Resident was also instructed to be careful; however, she would frequently ignore those warnings. Resident 10 was found sitting on the floor on January 21, 1997, and slipped on February 1, 1997. No preventable causes were identified for either fall. The first fall was caused by the Resident being startled by another resident in the facility. The second fall occurred because the Resident slipped while wearing shoes with slippery soles. Neither of the falls could have been prevented by Petitioner with interventions that were not already addressed in the Resident's plan of care. The Resident had been assessed for her risk for falls and, even though she was independent in her ambulation, had a care plan in place in September of 1996 to prevent falls. The facility was particularly concerned that the Resident, who was capable of dressing herself, would put on shoes that had slippery soles. Accordingly, the care plan provided that the facility would encourage the Resident to wear shoes with non-slip soles. The facility could do nothing more than encourage the Resident to wear appropriate shoes since the Resident could dress herself and her choices had to be respected by the facility. Resident 27 fell on December 8, 1996. No preventable cause of the fall was identifiable. Resident 27 was assessed upon admission to the facility in November 1996, and was determined to be at high risk for falls. A care plan to address falls was developed for this Resident that included assistance with ambulation, a daily ambulation program and side rails up while the Resident was in bed. Resident 4 fell twice on February 1, 1997. The February 1st fall was investigated by nursing and was determined to have been caused when the Resident attempted to get in bed by herself and missed the bed. The Resident was cognizant enough to know that she should call for assistance when needed so that it was determined that there was no additional supervision or assistive device that could have prevented the fall that was not already in place. This Resident had a care plan in place to prevent falls that was based on common sense preventative measures. The common sense approach was used because the Resident was independent in ambulation. Because of that independence, there was never any recommendation made by physical therapy or nursing that the Resident receive gait or balance programs, and none was given. Resident 23 fell on January 29, 1997. The Resident fell while going to the bathroom. No preventable cause of the fall was determined. This Resident had been assessed for her risk for falls, and her fall on January 29, 1997, was thoroughly investigated. The Resident had been initially assessed as being at risk for falls, but that risk was addressed through physical therapy and restorative ambulation. Respondent suggested that deficient care was given at Rio Pinar to prevent falls because there was an unusually high number of residents at Rio Pinar who experienced falls. Respondent surveyed 30 residents at Rio Pinar and 12 of them -- 40 percent of the sample -- had fallen. However, the sample pool of residents was compiled from the files of residents who had fallen. The sample used by the surveyors -- and the percentage of residents who fell -- was not randomly created but produced a high percentage of residents who had fallen. Petitioner experiences approximately 360 falls per year by its residents. Three hundred and sixty falls a year by its residents is within the average number predicted by one clinical study. Respondent proposed that a facility must provide one- on-one care, 24-hours a day to residents who are at risk for falling if that is the only way to ensure that a resident will not fall. This type of staffing would significantly exceed the staffing requirements set forth in the state regulations and is unreasonable. Petitioner was not cited as being in violation of any minimum staffing requirements. Such a high level of supervision would require a tremendous increase in staff which would, in turn, result in a tremendous cost to the facility and its residents. Petitioner would be required to double its current staff. Providing that level of care is neither feasible nor consistent with generally accepted standards of care. Restorative Care Tag F311 of the survey report alleges that Petitioner violated 42 CFR 483.25(a)(2), which provides that a facility must ensure that "a resident is given appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve" his or her activities of daily living ("ADLs"). Specifically, Respondent alleged that five residents did not receive restorative ambulation programs, two residents did not receive bowel and bladder programs, and one resident did not receive a restorative feeding program. A resident's ADLs include ambulating, feeding, toileting, grooming and bathing. When a resident's ability to do these activities has declined, the facility will frequently implement a restorative care program to address the decline, or will implement a maintenance program to maintain the resident's status if the resident's decline cannot be improved. At Petitioner Rio Pinar restorative or maintenance programs are developed by one of the therapy departments in the facility after an assessment of the resident's needs by the appropriate therapist. The programs are implemented by the nursing staff based upon instruction from the therapist who developed the program. Programs dealing with ambulation are developed by the Physical Therapist. Programs dealing with feeding are developed by the Occupational Therapist. The bowel and bladder program at Petitioner is developed and implemented by the nursing staff. Most bowel or bladder programs which are implemented for residents in a nursing home are for residents who have suffered irreversible declines in their bowel or bladder functions. In these cases, there is little prospect that they can be restored to independent status. The objectives for those residents are preventing incontinent episodes from occurring, keeping the resident dry and free of skin breakdown, and maintaining the resident's dignity. At Petitioner, the preferred toileting program for incontinent residents is a program that requires a staff member to check on a resident every two hours and toilet the resident if appropriate. An alternative program for residents is a "patterning program" which attempts to determine the resident's bathroom pattern and uses that pattern to schedule when a resident should be toileted. Either of these programs can meet the needs of an incontinent resident, and neither program is a demonstrably better program than the other. Although the program of choice at Petitioner is the two-hour program, Petitioner does attempt to ascertain toileting patterns for residents, and will follow those patterns instead of the two-hour system where the patterns can be ascertained. Respondent alleged that three Certified Nursing Assistants ("CNAs") at Petitioner had not completed a restorative training course offered at the facility and implied that they were inadequately prepared to give restorative care. The training course the CNAs missed was only an in-house refresher course of restorative care techniques which the CNAs had previously been taught during their certification training. The course was not required by any state or federal regulation. Furthermore, the CNAs received individualized instruction for restorative care from the Physical Therapy department for each resident for whom restorative care was ordered. Respondent alleged that Resident 1 had an unsteady gait and did not receive any restorative ambulation program for that problem. This was based upon an assessment done when the Resident was admitted to the facility which indicated that the Resident's gait was "wide based." That assessment was interpreted to mean that the Resident was unsteady when she walked. Resident 1 was assessed by the Physical Therapy Department upon her admission to the facility and it was that Department which determined that the Resident had a wide-based gait. A wide-gait is a steady gait. Resident 1 was further assessed to be independent and at her optimal level of ambulation. No restorative ambulation program was needed by or ordered for the Resident. It was alleged that Resident 7 did not receive required restorative ambulation, and that he had family members who were concerned about their ability to ambulate this Resident as a result of the absence of that program. Resident 7's ambulation program was daily ambulation with hand-held assistance from the nursing staff. It was not a restorative program but was designed to maintain the Resident's ambulatory abilities because he was ambulating at his highest capability. Resident 17 was admitted to Petitioner with orders for physical and occupational therapy. She began taking her occupational therapy; however, due to a bad experience she had with physical therapy while in the hospital, she refused to take physical therapy while in the hospital. She also refused to take physical therapy at Petitioner. She was given a psychiatric evaluation which recommended that the physical therapist go by and say "hello" to the Resident to try and help increase the Resident's confidence. Petitioner was required to honor the Resident's choice not to participate in physical therapy. It was alleged that there was no evidence to indicate that the physical therapist acted on the psychiatrist's recommendation. Going by and saying hello to a resident is not part of physical therapy or restorative care. Nonetheless, the physical therapist went by and visited with Resident 17 in an effort to build rapport with her. Because she was not giving physical therapy to this Resident, the physical therapist did not document these visits in her notes. Furthermore, the Resident's restorative needs were being met by the Occupational Therapy department at Petitioner. The Resident was in need of upper body strengthening, and the therapy provided by the Occupational Therapist was addressing that need. The Resident was not deprived of any ADL by her failure to participate in a physical therapy program. Resident 28 had declined, but maintained some ability to feed himself with assistance. He was discharged to a restorative self-feeding program. It was alleged that there was no evidence that the program was ever implemented for this Resident. Resident 28 had only minimal ability to feed himself, and the Occupational Therapist who developed his restorative feeding program was not optimistic that the program could improve the resident because he had declining dementia. The prescribed program was started but had to be discontinued almost immediately. The Resident suffered a significant weight loss, and the nurses were instructed to discontinue the feeding program in that event. Thereafter, the program was not re-started because the Resident suffered a further decline due to his dementia and could not have any of his feeding abilities improved. In the brief time between the implementation of the program and its termination, the Resident's wife attempted to feed the Resident by herself. This act, motivated out of an understandable difficulty in watching her husband struggle to feed himself in the restorative program, was counter-productive to the goal of the program that the Resident learn to feed himself. The wife had been involved in the training instructions for the program and had been reminded frequently of the need for the Resident to feed himself, but she fed him anyway. The Occupational Therapist was not interviewed prior to citing this deficiency. There was no deficiency if the Occupational Therapist determined that the Restorative Program for this Resident should be discontinued. The Occupational Therapist made that determination for this Resident. Resident 27 was discharged from physical therapy to a restorative ambulation program. It was alleged that there was no evidence that the ambulation program was administered in December. However, the program was given for 14 of the 17 days that the Resident was in the facility. Respondent claimed that Residents 19 and 30 suffered declines in bowel and bladder functions and were not further assessed to determine if they could be placed in a retraining program. The Residents were not observed to be wet or otherwise unattended regarding their toileting needs. Both Residents were assessed using the MDS, which contains a comprehensive assessment (including a RAP key) for incontinence. Neither Resident could be restored to continence or independent status. They were both placed on a two-hour toileting program.

Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter its Final Order granting Petitioner's request to change its conditional license rating for the period contemplated by the February 1997 survey. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Box 11300 DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308

CFR (2) 42 CFR 483.25(a)(2), 42 CFR 483.25(h)(2) Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 400.023, 400.23 Florida Administrative Code (1) 59A-4.128

# 9

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS vs EUGENIA DEPONTE, 00-002927PL (2000)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Jul. 17, 2000 Number: 00-002927PL Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2004

The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 28, 2000, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with regulating nursing home administrators licensed by the Board of Nursing Home Administrators to practice in Florida. Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes (1997). AHCA is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida. Chapter 400, Florida Statutes (1997). Among its duties, AHCA is required to inspect nursing homes every 15 months "to determine compliance by the licensee with statutes, and with rules promulgated under the provisions of those statutes, governing minimum standards of construction, quality and adequacy of care, and rights of residents." Section 400.19(2), Florida Statutes (1997). Recertification surveys are conducted each 9-to-15 months, are unannounced, and are conducted for both federal certification and Florida nursing home rating and licensure purposes. The surveys are conducted by a team of surveyors each of whom must pass an examination entitled the Surveyor's Minimum Qualification Test before being allowed to participate as an independent member of a survey team. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. DePonte was a Florida-licensed nursing home administrator, having been licensed in Florida for a period in excess of 28 years. Ms. DePonte's license has never been suspended, revoked, or otherwise sanctioned. Ms. DePonte was employed as the Executive Director/Administrator of Darcy Hall of Life Care ("Darcy Hall") in West Palm Beach, Florida, from July 1989 until September 4, 1998. Darcy Hall is a 220-bed nursing home that was built in 1960 as a 160-bed nursing home; 60 beds were added in 1972, making Darcy Hall one of the oldest and largest nursing homes in Palm Beach County, Florida. Darcy Hall received superior ratings from AHCA for six of the nine years Ms. DePonte was the Executive Director/Administrator, and Darcy Hall received a deficiency-free recertification survey in 1996, during Ms. DePonte's tenure. From July 20 through 24, 1998, an unannounced recertification survey was conducted at Darcy Hall. The survey team identified a number of deficiencies, which deficiencies were itemized in the survey report, commonly referred to as a "Form 2567."4 In an action unrelated to the present proceeding, Darcy Hall challenged the results of the survey, and that challenge was resolved through a settlement agreement.5 The following were observed by the surveyors who inspected Darcy Hall during the July 1998 recertification survey: Call lights were "out of reach" of several residents when the rooms in one wing of the facility were inspected in the pre-dawn hours of July 23, 1998. A totally dependent middle-aged person with multiple schlerosis could not use the pneumatic call light she had been given, because it was not in her hand but was close to her arm, where she was unable to reach it. The nurses' station was located too far away from the resident's room for the resident to be heard at the station if she needed help. An elderly female resident was sitting in a wheelchair outside the facility, about one-half hour after lunch. The resident was in the garden area, close to the nurse's station. The resident, who could understand but not express herself, had lost control of her bladder. A totally dependent resident whose nose was draining was sitting in a wheelchair, with the call light, tissues, and water out of reach. An elderly resident was wearing clothing with what appeared to be burn marks from a cigarette on the front. Dust had accumulated on the filter of an oxygen concentrator. Ceiling tiles were missing from several areas in the facility; some of the rooms contained chipped furniture; a baseboard under an air conditioner was loose; a ceiling tile in a bathroom had a brownish stain; and dust had accumulated in the corners of a bathroom. A geri-chair6 had peeling tape and a black-brown stain on the seat, which the surveyor attributed to a resident becoming incontinent at some point. Approximately 50 ants were found in and around an empty juice cup sitting on a bedside table. Two treatment carts were stained with dried liquid and had an accumulation of debris in the crevices. Hand cranks were protruding from the foot of several beds. Prescription medications were found in the bedside table of one resident; zinc oxide was found on the top of the bedside table of another resident; and a bottle of Caladryl was found on top of the bedside table of a third resident. No physician's orders for these medications were found in the residents' clinical records. A cup left sitting on a bedside table in a room whose residents were cognitively impaired contained a white, thick, creamy ointment. A supply room containing pump sets with pins, syringes, tubing, catheter tips, and special nutritional supplements was found unlocked at approximately 9:00 a.m. on July 22, 1998. During a two-hour period one morning, a nurse dispensed medications to residents by opening the medication and putting the medicine in her bare hands before placing it into a cup and handing it to the resident. The temperature in the medication storage refrigerator was six degrees below the minimum acceptable temperature. The staff member washing pots in the facility's three pot sink obtained from the chemical storeroom a gallon jug of what he thought was dish sanitizer; the chemical was actually Sysco Fry and Grill Cleaner. The fry and grill cleaner was used in the sink in place of sanitizer from 9:00 a.m. on July 22, 1998, until approximately 1:00 p.m. that day, when the error was discovered by a surveyor. All of the pots, pans, and cooking and storage wares were re-washed and sanitized. The residents were monitored for 24 hours, and only one resident had intestinal distress, the source of which was undetermined. During the time that all of the pots and pans were being re-washed and sanitized, a cook washed a pot so that she could begin cooking the soup for the evening meal. She failed to sanitize the pot. Cold food on the tray line in the dining room was not maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below; applesauce was at 51 degrees, pear halves were at 66.2 degrees, whole milk was at 55.5 degrees, chocolate milk was at 42.8 degrees, and cranberry juice was at 55.2 degrees. All of the items noted in paragraph 7 were identified in the Form 2567 as Class III deficiencies, except for the deficiencies cited regarding the incontinent resident who was sitting outside in the garden area after lunch and the resident who was wearing clothing with cigarette burns on the front, which were designated Class II deficiencies. A Class II deficiency is one that the agency determines has "a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents." Section 400.23(9)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). A Class III deficiency is one that the agency determines has "an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents." Section 400.23(9)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). As the Executive Director/Administrator of Darcy Hall, Ms. DePonte was responsible for overseeing all operations of the facility, for hiring and firing employees, and for ensuring compliance with all government regulations. At the time of the survey, Darcy Hall employed a dietician, a dietary technician, and a certified dietary manager on staff, who were responsible for running the dietary department. A trained head of maintenance and environmental services, who supervised several full-time employees, and a head of housekeeping services were on staff. Darcy Hall employed two social workers, who were supervised by a director of social services. Darcy Hall was also staffed with a full complement of trained registered nurses, licensed nurses, and certified nurse assistants, who were supervised by a Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing. It was Ms. DePonte's practice at Darcy Hall not to use nurses provided on a temporary basis by a registry, and all of the nurses employed at Darcy Hall during her time there were employees of the facility. Darcy Hall had written policies and procedures governing the operation of the facility, which were kept both in Ms. DePonte's office and at each unit on the floor. Darcy Hall employed a full-time in-service training coordinator, and Ms. DePonte arranged for outside consultants to conduct in-service training seminars for the staff. Ms. DePonte also made sure that the staff was apprised of any changes in state law and regulations. In-service training was also scheduled whenever Ms. DePonte became aware of an on-going problem. Ms. DePonte personally monitored the facility regularly. Each morning, the first thing she did was visit each nurses' station to determine the staffing levels for the day. She stopped and spoke with residents and family members in the hall, and she entered some of the residents' rooms. She spoke daily with the professional staff of the dietary department and checked with housekeeping and maintenance to make sure there was adequate staff. She also would let the maintenance department know of any problems she found during her morning rounds and would follow up each day to make sure the problems had been corrected. Each afternoon, around 3:30 p.m. or 4:00 p.m., after the change of shift, Ms. DePonte would again visit each nurses' station to follow-up on any issues that had arisen during the day. In addition to personally monitoring the floor twice each day, Ms. DePonte assigned responsibility for monitoring a particular area of the facility to each department head. The department heads were expected to go through their assigned areas at least twice a day to make sure, among other things, that the residents' needs were being met, that call bells were answered timely, that call bells were within reach of residents, and that bed cranks were underneath the beds. Any maintenance problems were also noted. Any problems observed by the department heads were to be reported. Ms. DePonte's policy was to see that problems were addressed within 24 hours. It was the policy at Darcy Hall to discipline staff members who were observed violating an established policy or procedure in accordance with the three-point disciplinary program in place at Darcy Hall. Ms. DePonte had in place at Darcy Hall policies and procedures implementing the requirement that call lights be accessible to residents. The policy required that call lights be positioned within reach of the residents when they were in bed, and the staff was trained to place the call light in accordance with the policy. In addition, Ms. DePonte had every wheelchair equipped with a bell so that the resident could ring the bell if the resident needed help and the call light was out of reach, and there were call lights in all of the residents' bathrooms. As Ms. DePonte made her rounds, she would check the rooms of certain residents to make sure their call lights were accessible. It is not, however, possible to ensure that call lights are within arm's reach of each resident at all times. Ms. DePonte had in place policies and procedures at Darcy Hall regarding the need for staff to recognize and respect the dignity of its residents. Staff training was on-going, and the staff were continually made aware of the residents' rights. Darcy Hall had in place policies and procedures regarding the placement of hand cranks for the residents' beds that required that the staff put away any bed crank they saw sticking out from a bed. Protruding hand cranks were on-going problems because often residents and/or family members would adjust the beds and fail to remove the cranks and place them under the beds. A cleaning schedule was in place for oxygen concentrators and other equipment used in the facility, and cleaning was to be done on a routine basis. Darcy Hall had an on-going program to replace old and worn materials and equipment. Some of the equipment was stained but this did not mean the equipment was not clean. Pursuant to the policy and procedure in place at Darcy Hall during Ms. DePonte's tenure as administrator, nurses were not allowed to dispense medications by placing the pills into their bare hands prior to giving them to residents. Much of the chipped furniture noted in the Form 2567 was furniture belonging to the residents and not furniture owned by Darcy Hall. Because Darcy Hall is an older facility, much needed to be done to maintain the facility. The number of ceiling tiles that were stained constituted a very small percentage of the total number of ceiling tiles in the facility, and ceiling tiles were missing in some places because a new roof was being installed. The baseboard that was coming apart from the wall was located behind an air conditioning unit that was being repaired at the time of the survey. Replacement of ceiling tiles and baseboards was on-going at Darcy Hall. Darcy Hall had a regular extermination service and, if insects were found in the facility, the exterminator would be called immediately and would take care of the problem. The deficiencies identified in the Form 2567 prepared after the July 1998 recertification survey were corrected by September 1, 1998, the time specified by AHCA in the Form 2567. Ms. DePonte left Darcy Hall on September 4, 1998, to take a job as administrator at another nursing home. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the "deficiencies" at Darcy Hall identified by its witnesses in this proceeding were attributable to the negligence, incompetence, or misconduct of Ms. DePonte.7 The position reiterated by the Department's witnesses is that a nursing home administrator is strictly liable for all deficiencies cited on a Form 2567 and that her license is subject to discipline simply because deficiencies were found. The Department has failed to present evidence to establish with the requisite degree of certainty any lack of competence, misconduct, or act or omission on Ms. DePonte's part that caused the deficiencies. Indeed, the Department did not controvert the evidence presented by Ms. DePonte that there were policies and procedures governing the day-to-day operation of Darcy Hall in place, that in-service training was provided to the staff with respect to the policies and procedures on a regular and an as- needed basis, or that Ms. DePonte and her department heads regularly monitored the performance of the staff and their adherence to the policies and procedures.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Eugenia DePonte. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2000.

Florida Laws (8) 120.569, 120.57, 20.43, 400.19, 400.23, 415.102, 468.1655, 468.1755

# 10