The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent should be subjected to discipline for the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner on July 28, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license no. ME 0031639 on October 26, 1977. Respondent is board certified in general surgery and has worked and trained as a general and vascular surgeon. Respondent has practiced medicine in Tampa since 1988. Respondent offered testimony establishing that his peers respect his ability as a surgeon. Until 1996, Respondent had not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine or by any other licensing entity. On January 26, 1996, the Board of Medicine issued a final order in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 95-3925, imposing discipline on Respondent’s license to practice medicine. Case No. 95-3925 involved two separate incidents in which Respondent performed surgical procedures that had not been specifically consented to by the patients. In the first incident, Respondent removed the severely diseased left leg of the patient when the signed consent to surgery was for removal of the right leg. The patient was well known to Respondent, and it was understood between Respondent and the patient that both legs would eventually require amputation. In the second incident, Respondent removed a toe that had become dislocated during a debridement of the patient’s foot. The toe was connected only by ligament and necrotic tissue, and Respondent removed it during the debridement procedure rather than waiting to obtain specific consent for its removal. In the final order, the Board of Medicine concluded that Respondent had violated Sections 458.331(1)(p) and (t), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain proper consent from a patient and by practicing medicine below the standard of care. Based on these conclusions, the Board of Medicine imposed the following relevant disciplinary measures: Respondent’s license to practice medicine is REPRIMANDED. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000 to the Board of Medicine, within one year of the date this Final Order is filed. Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is SUSPENDED for a period of 6 months including the time served under the emergency suspension. Respondent shall submit a practice plan prior to reinstatement to be approved by the Board’s probation committee. Within 6 months of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent shall have an independent, certified risk manager review Respondent’s practice. Specifically, this independent consultant shall review the Respondent’s practice concerning preoperative procedures including patient consent. This consultant will prepare a written report addressing Respondent’s practice. Such report, if necessary, will include suggested improvements of the quality assurance of Respondent’s practice. Respondent will submit this report to the Board’s Probation Committee with documentation that demonstrates compliance with the suggestions enumerated in the consultant’s report. Upon reinstatement, Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: Respondent shall comply with all state and federal statutes, rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of medicine, including Chapters 455, 458, 893, Florida Statutes, and Rules 59R, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent shall appear before the Probation Committee at the first meeting after said probation commences, at the last meeting of the Probation Committee preceding termination of probation, quarterly, and at such other times requested by the committee. Respondent shall be noticed by the Board staff of the date, time and place of the Board’s Probation Committee whereat Respondent’s appearance is required. Failure of the Respondent to appear as requested or directed shall be considered a violation of the terms of this Probation, and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. * * * 6. Respondent shall not practice except under the indirect supervision of a physician fully licensed under Chapter 458 to be approved by the Board’s Probation Committee.... The responsibilities of a monitoring physician shall include: Submit quarterly reports, in affidavit form, which shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Description of probationer’s practice. Brief statement of probationer’s compliance with terms of probation. Brief description of probationer’s relationship with monitoring physician. Detail any problems which may have arisen with probationer. * * * Respondent shall submit quarterly reports in affidavit form, the contents of which shall be specified by the Board. The reports shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Practice location. Describe current practice (type and composition). Brief statement of compliance with probationary terms. Describe relationship with monitoring/supervising physician. Advise Board of any problems. * * * 11. Respondent understands that during this period of probation, semi-annual investigative reports will be compiled by the Agency for Health Care Administration concerning his compliance with the terms and conditions of probation and the rules and statutes regulating the practice of medicine. On January 31, 1996, Respondent submitted to the Board of Medicine the practice plan required by the final order. The practice plan named Joseph Diaco, M.D., as Respondent’s monitoring physician, and stated that Dr. Diaco would review twenty percent of Respondent’s patient charts. The practice plan stated that Respondent would comply specifically with all the terms and conditions of the final order, and with the recommendations of the certified risk manager. The practice plan further stated: ... Dr. Sanchez will have specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered, wherein he will discuss the intended surgical procedure again, and will have the intended surgical site marked with indelible ink. The record does not document that the Board of Medicine’s Probation Committee formally approved Respondent’s practice plan, or addressed the terms of the practice plan in any way. Such approval is presumed from the fact that Respondent appeared before the Probation Committee on several occasions subsequent to filing the practice plan, and the record does not indicate that the Probation Committee registered any objection or suggested any modifications to the practice plan. Respondent made the required appearances before the Probation Committee. Respondent and Dr. Diaco submitted the required quarterly reports to the Board of Medicine, and Dr. Diaco fulfilled the monitoring requirements of the practice plan. Periodically during the probation period, Mr. Richard Hess, an investigator with the Agency for Health Care Administration, would contact Respondent and Dr. Diaco to inquire as to Respondent’s practice and compliance with the terms of probation. Mr. Hess would inquire regarding such matters as the submission of quarterly reports, the payment of the administrative fine, and the current locations at which Respondent was practicing. Mr. Hess would submit his reports to the Agency for Health Care Administration and to the Board of Medicine, and these reports were used to supplement the information submitted directly by Respondent and Dr. Diaco. Based upon the information he was provided by Respondent and Dr. Diaco, Mr. Hess never found Respondent out of compliance with the terms of his probation. On the morning of November 2, 1997, an order was entered at Vencor Hospital by the primary treating physician for placement of a central venous line for patient D.M., an 80 year- old female patient. A central venous line is most often placed for access to the circulatory system for the provision of medications and/or fluids when the peripheral venous system is not available for such use. A central venous line may be ordered if the patient has no veins remaining for the insertion of a peripheral catheter, or for extended access, such as when a patient requires a long-term cycle of antibiotics for a bone infection. Patient D.M. required the central line for antibiotics to treat infected ulcerations on her lower extremities. The placement of a central line may be performed by any licensed physician, though surgeons are often called in to perform the procedure for primary physicians. Two physicians who teach at the University of Miami testified that third-year residents are allowed to perform the procedure with only indirect supervision. Dr. Diaco testified that nurse practitioners may perform the procedure under the supervision of a physician. The procedure is performed at the patient’s bedside, not in an operating room. No general anesthesia is required. A local anesthetic is administered at the point of insertion. The entire procedure takes two to three minutes to perform. The central line may be placed in at least three locations in the body: the leg, the neck, or the collarbone. In the case of D.M., Respondent placed the line by way of the collarbone. A needle is inserted under the clavicle and into the vein that unites with the jugular vein to form the second largest vein in the human body, the superior vena cava. Using a guide wire, a catheter is threaded through the subclavian vein and placed inside the superior vena cava. Prior to performance of the procedure, the patient’s head is typically placed lower than her feet in what is called the Trendelenburg position. If the patient has a feeding tube, it is typically turned off prior to the procedure to prevent aspiration of tube material. Proper placement of the central line is confirmed by X- ray taken immediately after the procedure. Such confirmation of placement is necessary due to the risks associated with incorrect placement. The most immediate risk is pneumothorax, the puncturing of the patient’s lung. Other less common complications are blood loss, cardiac arrest, infection, and irregular heartbeat. The consensus of the experts who testified at hearing was that the procedure poses no greater risk of complication for elderly patients such as D.M., but that elderly patients who do suffer complications may have a harder time recovering than would younger, more robust patients. D.M. was an 80 year-old female patient who shared Room 218 at Vencor Hospital with J.P., an 89 year-old female patient. D.M. and J.P. were of the same general age, ethnic origin, and gender. They had similar medical problems, including bilateral lower extremity decubiti and ulcerations. D.M. was able to understand conversation and could verbally communicate with staff. D.M. signed on her own behalf the consent form for the insertion of the central venous line. The signature on the consent form was obtained by and witnessed by Elizabeth Rood, a registered nurse on duty during the day of November 2, 1997. Ms. Rood testified that she believed D.M. was rational enough to sign the form on her own behalf. Vencor Hospital policy dictated that informed consent be obtained from the patient by the surgeon who was to perform the procedure. The nursing employees of Vencor Hospital and Respondent all testified that, despite the stated policy, it was common practice at the time for nurses to obtain the signatures of patients on the consent forms. The express terms of Respondent’s practice plan also required Respondent to have “specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered. ” J.P. suffered from organic brain syndrome and was generally unable to communicate verbally. J.P. was unable to give consent for surgical procedures on her own behalf. Ms. Rood obtained D.M.’s signature on the informed consent form at about 10:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter, hospital staff contacted Respondent to inform him of the order and request that he perform the placement of the central line. Respondent replied that he was unable to perform the procedure at that time because of a more urgent consultation at St. Joseph’s Hospital, but would come to Vencor Hospital later to perform the procedure. Shortly before the start of the nursing night shift, the central line cart with supplies for the procedure was brought by the day supervisor to the second floor of Vencor Hospital and placed outside Room 218. Lisa Cotroneo was the night charge nurse. When she arrived for her shift, she received report from the day charge nurse. That report indicated that D.M. was to receive a central line placement at some time during the evening. The nursing staff at Vencor was divided into teams of two or three nurses assigned to particular rooms on the floor. Team three was responsible for Room 218. At the start of the night shift, Nurse Cotroneo informed two of the three nurse on team three, Donna Maranto and Fortune Ndukwe, that a central line was to be placed on patient D.M. that evening. Nurse Cotroneo did not inform the third nurse, Mary Shogreen, because Nurse Shogreen was a pool nurse called in to work on short notice and had not yet arrived for her shift. Nurse Shogreen was the nurse on team three who was assigned primary care duties for the patients in Room 218. Nurse Shogreen was later informed by Nurse Ndukwe that one of her patients would be receiving a central line placement that evening. Nurse Shogreen testified that she intended to check with the charge nurse to confirm the order for a central line placement, but that she never did so. At around 8:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned the nursing unit to inform the charge nurse that he was on his way to perform the placement of the central line. Nurse Cotroneo conveyed this information to Nurses Maranto and Ndukwe, and told them to be sure everything was ready for Respondent’s arrival. Respondent arrived at Vencor Hospital shortly after 8:00 p.m. and proceeded to the second floor nursing station, where he asked for and received the chart for patient D.M. He reviewed the chart, which contained the signed consent form and the order for placement of the central line. After reviewing the chart, Respondent inquired as to the location of D.M. and the nurse who would assist him in the procedure. Respondent was told that D.M.’s nurse was down the hall. Respondent walked down the hall and approached a group of three or four nurses. Respondent did not know any of them. He informed the group that he was Dr. Sanchez and was there to perform the central line placement. One of the nurses, later identified as Mary Shogreen, told him she was ready for him. She led him down the hall toward Room 218. Respondent paused at the central line cart outside Room 218 to pick up a pair of surgical gloves and the kit used for the central line placement. When Respondent entered the room, he observed Nurse Shogreen already at the bedside. The room was dark, save for a single light over the bed of the patient where Nurse Shogreen was working. Respondent saw that Nurse Shogreen was turning off the feeding tube to the patient, a common precursor to performance of a central line placement. Respondent walked to the other side of the patient’s bed and addressed the patient by the name of D.M. He told her that he was Dr. Sanchez and that her physician had asked him to insert a central venous catheter in her. Respondent looked into the patient’s eyes and realized she was not comprehending what he said. Nurse Shogreen was standing directly across the bed and could hear Respondent’s efforts to talk to the patient, including his addressing that patient as “D.M.” Respondent asked Nurse Shogreen if the patient was “always like this,” i.e., unresponsive. Nurse Shogreen answered that she had never had the patient before, but believed that was the usual condition of the patient. It would not be unusual for an elderly patient such as D.M. to be communicative and able to understand and sign a consent form at 10:00 a.m., but then be uncommunicative in the evening. The medical community informally refers to this phenomenon as "sundown syndrome." Respondent told Nurse Shogreen to assist him in placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position, and to get a rolled towel to place between the patient’s shoulder blades. While Nurse Shogreen was getting the towel, Respondent examined the patient’s neck and chest. Nurse Shogreen returned with the towel, but was unable to adjust the bed into Trendelenburg position. Respondent told her to go get another nurse who knew how to work the bed. She brought in Nurse Ndukwe, who was also unable to get the bed into the proper position. At length, they found a certified nurse assistant who was able to place the bed into position. Neither Nurse Shogreen nor Nurse Ndukwe expressed any concern to Respondent regarding the identity of the patient. Nurse Ndukwe had received an explicit report concerning the fact that patient D.M. was to receive a central line placement. Nurse Shogreen had heard Respondent address the patient as D.M. Respondent completed the procedure, which took about one minute. He proceeded to the nurse’s station and ordered the standard X-ray to confirm the proper placement of the central line, completed the consult form, and dicated both his consultation report and operative report. Nurse Shogreen remained behind in the room to clean up after the procedure. She made notations in the bedside chart of patient J.P., the mistaken recipient of the central line. Even at this point, Nurse Shogreen did not realize that the wrong patient had received the central line. The findings as to events in Room 218 on the evening of November 2, 1997, were based on the testimony of Respondent. Nurse Shogreen testified that it was Respondent who led the way into the room, Respondent who proceeded to the wrong bed, and Respondent who prevented Nurse Shogreen from going out to get the patient’s chart to confirm her mental condition after questioning by Respondent. Nurse Shogreen agreed with Respondent’s version of the problems with getting the bed into proper position, but testified that Respondent was so angry and in such a hurry that he performed the central line placement before the staff was able to place the bed in the proper position. Based on both the substance of the testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Respondent’s version of events is more believable, and that Respondent is a more credible witness than Nurse Shogreen. The undersigned is unable to credit testimony that a physician of Respondent’s skill and experience would plunge ahead into the room and commence a procedure on a patient he had never seen, without doing anything to ascertain her identity. The undersigned finds it more plausible that Respondent followed Nurse Shogreen’s lead, observed the visual cues she was providing, and assumed that the patient to whom Nurse Shogreen attended was in fact patient D.M. Respondent's proffer of testimony regarding inconsistencies in Nurse Mary Shogreen's testimony before the Peer Review Committee was disregarded in formulating these findings of fact. Several physicians offered expert testimony as to whether it is within the standard of practice for a surgeon to rely on his assisting nurse for patient identification. Dr. David Shatz, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that any surgeon must be absolutely sure he is working on the right person. He testified that once Respondent was unable to get a verbal response from the patient, he should have asked the nurse if he was speaking to patient D.M. Dr. Shatz concluded that it is a deviation from the standard of care to perform a procedure on a noncommunicative patient without checking the patient’s identification bracelet. Dr. Stephen Michel agreed that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by placing the central line in the wrong patient. Dr. Michel’s other conclusions regarding the events in question cannot be credited because he admitted he was assuming that Dr. Sanchez was not permitted by the terms of his probation to be working in Vencor Hospital at all. This assumption was incorrect, and colored the remainder of his conclusions. Dr. Enrique Ginzburg, also an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that a surgeon is usually unfamiliar with the patient in a central line placement, and stated that he could not remember the last time he checked an identification bracelet when the nurses were in the room with him. He agreed that it would be easy to check the armband, but that physicians simply do not check the armband if nurses are present to identify the patients. Dr. Jerry Diehr, an anesthesiologist at St. Josephs Hospital in Tampa, testified that a reasonably prudent physician would do what Respondent did. He stated that he relies on nurse identifications in similar circumstances, and that it is common practice for physicians to do so. Dr. Diehr testified that physicians rely on nurses for all manner of patient identification. He noted that care is often dictated by telephone calls. When a nurse calls him and tells him about the condition of his patient, the underlying assumption is that the nurse has correctly identified the patient and adequately reported the condition. Physicians may base their entire course of treatment on such reports from nurses, and must be able to rely on the nurses for such identification and reporting. Dr. Diaco strongly opined that physicians must be able to rely on nurses for patient identification. It is the nurse’s responsibility to identify the correct patient when the physician does not know the patient. Dr. Diaco testified that if physicians cannot rely on nurses for such basic information as the identity of their patients, they may as well live in the hospital and administer their own medications. Peter Shute, an expert in general nursing practice, opined that the three nurses on duty at Vencor Hospital on the evening of November 2, 1997, were negligent in their duty to know the patients on their assigned unit. He testified that Nurse Shogreen was particularly negligent, because she had not received full report on her patients, found out that one of her patients was to receive a central line placement that evening, but did not immediately obtain a full report and take steps to ensure that all preparations had been made. The weight of the evidence is that it was within the standard of care under the conditions and circumstances for Respondent to rely on Nurse Shogreen’s identification of the patient. This finding does not minimize the fact that Respondent bears ultimate responsibility for the performance of an invasive procedure on a patient who did not give informed consent. After Respondent dictated his notes and left the hospital, David Vallejo, the X-ray technician, came to the floor to obtain the X-ray ordered by Respondent. He discovered that the patient who received the central line was J.P., not D.M. Mr. Vallejo went to the nurse’s station and informed Nurse Cotroneo, who called the nursing supervisor to come to the room with her. Nurse Cotroneo and the supervisor confirmed that both patients in Room 218 were wearing their identification bracelets. The nursing supervisor called J.P.’s primary physician, who ordered an X-ray, which confirmed that J.P. suffered no ill effects from the placement of the central line. He also ordered removal of the central line, which was accomplished without incident. Respondent was informed of the error by telephone. He came to Vencor Hospital the next day, November 3, 1997, and documented the error in the medical records of both D.M. and J.P. On that day, a different surgeon performed the central line placement on D.M. All of the expert witnesses agreed that Respondent’s charting and recording of the incident, both before and after he learned of the error, were adequate and indicated no effort to conceal the facts of the situation. The experts also agreed that marking the intended surgical site with indelible ink serves no purpose in a central line placement. Petitioner's own expert, Dr. Shatz, stated that marking the site of a central line placement would be "silly." On November 3, 1997, Vencor Hospital suspended Respondent’s hospital staff privileges pending an investigation of the incident. Respondent immediately contacted Dr. Diaco, his indirect supervisor, as soon as he learned of the error. Respondent fully informed Dr. Diaco of the facts of the situation. Dr. Diaco told Respondent that he did nothing wrong and that “the nurse is in big trouble.” Respondent also sought the counsel of his attorney, Michael Blazicek. Mr. Blazicek conferred with Dr. Diaco, and also concluded that this was a nursing problem, not a standard of care problem for Respondent. The results of the hospital’s internal Peer Review Committee review seemed to bear out the opinions of Dr. Diaco and Mr. Blazicek. On November 26, 1997, Respondent was restored to full privileges at Vencor Hospital. Nurse Shogreen received verbal counseling and a one-day suspension for failure to render proper treatment to the correct patient. Vencor Hospital’s “Root Cause Analysis Team” found that nursing protocols should be changed to prevent a recurrence of patient misidentification. Patients would henceforth be identified by bed letter designation. Identification of the patient and consent to treatment would be verified by two people, one of whom must be a hospital employee. On November 17, 1997, the quality review manager of Vencor Hospital submitted an Adverse or Untoward Incident Report (Code 15) regarding the incident, pursuant to Sections 395.0197(6) and 641.55(6), Florida Statutes. A Code 15 Report is a report of serious adverse incidents in licensed facilities. The Code 15 Report identifies the physicians and nurses involved by their license numbers, and identifies the patient and facility. It describes the nature of the incident and all actions taken by the hospital in response to the incident. The purpose of the Code 15 Report is to notify the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Health within 15 days of a serious adverse incident so the Agency may review the incident and begin an investigation. Respondent appeared before his Probation Committee on November 13, 1997. At this time, Respondent knew that the hospital would be filing a Code 15 Report, though it had not actually done so. Respondent was still on summary suspension at Vencor Hospital, pending review. Prior to his Probation Committee appearance, Respondent conferred with his attorney, Mr. Blazicek, who counseled him to answer any questions forthrightly, but not to volunteer information about the incident to the Probation Committee. This advice was based on the facts that the incident was still under investigation, that there had been no finding of wrongdoing by Respondent, and that summary suspension was a standard procedure for such incidents indicating no conclusions as to ultimate responsibility. Mr. Blazicek testified that he knew Respondent still had one more written quarterly report to file in January 1998. He reasoned that if the hospital's investigation resulted in adverse findings, Respondent could report the incident in that later filing. The Probation Committee raised no questions as to the Vencor Hospital incident, and determined that Respondent’s probation would terminate as scheduled upon payment of the administrative fine. Respondent did not volunteer information about the incident or the summary suspension. Respondent and Dr. Diaco filed their final quarterly reports in January 1998. Neither of them reported the Vencor Hospital incident. Respondent reported that he was in full compliance with all probationary terms. By the time the final quarterly reports were received, the Department of Health was aware of the Code 15 Report. Nonetheless, the Department issued an Order of Termination on February 2, 1998, finding that Respondent had satisfactorily completed the term of his probation as of January 26, 1998.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine enter a final order determining that Rolando R. Sanchez has violated Section 458.331(1)(p), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license for a period of nine months from the date of the Order of Emergency Suspension of License, imposing a fine of $2,500.00 and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years from the date the suspension expires. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent, a registered nurse, committed the acts alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 832942. In the fall of 1997, Respondent enrolled in FAU's ARNP program, which she continued until the spring of 1999, when she was dismissed from the program. Respondent was dismissed from FAU's ARNP program after she received a failing grade (an F) in a required clinical course (NGR 6602L). All students in the FAU ARNP program are required to make a grade of B or higher in clinical courses to continue in the program. On May 7, 1999, Ellis Younkin, the Graduate Program Coordinator for FAU and an associate dean, advised Respondent in writing that she had been dismissed from the ARNP program. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was advised of her right to seek permission to retake the clinical program she had failed and her right to appeal her dismissal from the ARNP program. Respondent attempted to gain permission to retake the clinical program and to appeal her dismissal from the ARNP program. In the spring of 2000, after her dismissal from the FAU ARNP program, Respondent asked Dr. Morris, a physician in private practice, to be her preceptor for the FAU clinical program she had failed (NGR 6602L). Respondent told Dr. Morris that she had failed the earlier clinical program (NGR 6602L), but she misled Dr. Morris into believing that she was nevertheless a student in good standing in the FAU ARNP program by her statements and by the papers she showed him, including an outdated preceptor request form, a cooperative agreement form, and a form cover letter. In the spring of 2000, when Respondent had the dealings with Dr. Morris described in this Recommended Order, Respondent knew or should have known that she had been dismissed from the FAU ARNP program and she knew or should have known that her actions to appeal that dismissal had not stayed her dismissal from the program. The preceptor arrangement was for Respondent to perform the clinical duties of an ARNP under Dr. Morris's supervision and responsibility for a total of 60 hours. Dr. Morris would thereafter evaluate her performance and submit that evaluation to the FAU ARNP program. Because of Respondent's deception, that arrangement was a sham. The FAU ARNP program requires that all preceptor arrangements and the physicians who are to serve as preceptors be approved before a preceptor program begins. When he agreed to the preceptor arrangement with Respondent, Dr. Morris was unaware that FAU required prior approval of a preceptor program, and he believed that Respondent would be responsible for any required paperwork. Respondent never requested the FAU ARNP program's approval of her preceptor arrangement with Dr. Morris, nor did she request authorization from FAU for Dr. Morris to serve as her preceptor. Between May 2 and May 26, 2002, pursuant to her arrangement with Dr. Morris, Respondent routinely talked to patients alone in the examination room about the reasons for the patient's visit, to obtain a medical history, and to ascertain the patient's current medication regime. Respondent would make a diagnosis and create a treatment plan, which could include the prescription of medication, for Dr. Morris's consideration. Dr. Morris would next come in and examine the patient. Respondent wrote patient notes in the medical records that were subsequently reviewed and co-signed by Dr. Morris. Respondent performed acts in Dr. Morris's office that were beyond the scope of her license as a registered nurse. Ms. Harriett Brinker testified, credibly, that as a registered nurse Respondent could not prescribe treatment plans for patients, nor could she prescribe medication. Respondent completed approximately 60 hours of clinical work with Dr. Morris under the guise of the preceptor arrangement. Dr. Morris would not have permitted Respondent to perform the work she performed in his office but for the sham preceptor arrangement. Respondent asked Dr. Morris to submit certain paperwork pertaining to the preceptor arrangement that had been completed, including an evaluation of her performance as an ARNP student, to FAU's School of Nursing. Thereafter, Dr. James Fisher, Associate Provost at FAU, contacted Dr. Morris about the paperwork he had submitted to FAU at Respondent's request. Dr. Morris learned from Dr. Fisher that Respondent was not a graduate nursing student at FAU. Until his conversation with Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morris believed that Respondent was a student in good standing in the FAU ARNP program. After working for Dr. Morris, Respondent provided FAU with her work evaluations from Dr. Morris, medical records from patients she had cared for, clinical encounter logs containing patient-specific information, and a taped recording containing a series of questions posed by Respondent to one of her patients and the patient's responses. The questions and answers pertained to the level of care Respondent provided the patient. Respondent did not have the permission of Dr. Morris or of any patient to provide these medical records to FAU. G.M. is a patient Respondent saw when she was serving as an ARNP student while she was enrolled in the FAU clinical course NGR 6602L. Dr. Archie McLean was Respondent's supervisor for that clinical course. Respondent hand-copied a portion of G.M.'s medical record and submitted it to FAU. Respondent did not have the permission of Dr. McLean or of G.M. to copy G.M.'s medical records or to submit the copied record to FAU at the time she did so. G.M. subsequently gave Respondent permission to use his copied medical record in the manner she did.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 464.018(1)(h) and 456.072(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as set forth in this Recommended Order. For each violation, Respondent's license to practice nursing in the State of Florida should be reprimanded; she should be fined in the amount of $1,000.00 ($750 for the Count I violations and $250 for the Count II violation); she should be required to take continuing education classes on the topic of patient's rights and the topic of nursing ethics; and her license should be placed on probation for four years for the Count I violations and four years for the Count II violation, which should be served concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of the practice of nursing in State of Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license no. 2003552, with a last known address of 1407 Wekewa Nene, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Respondent was employed at all times material to this case by Tallahassee Memorial Hospital (TMH) until December 1, 2000, when her employment was terminated. On November 23, 1999, Respondent was working a day shift at TMH as a nurse at 1300 Miccosukee Road, Tallahassee, Florida. On November 23, 1999, Sharissa Holloway was a student nurse from the Florida State University (FSU) School of Nursing and happened to be doing a clinical rotation on the TMH orthopedic/neurological floor. Respondent was the primary nurse for the patients on that floor who were under the care of the student nurse. The student nurse received the patient assessment sheets from Respondent prior to 8:00 a.m. with entries already charted by Respondent for estimating Patient N.C.'s pain, and a sedation scale already charted by Respondent covering the period of time that stretched all the way to 12 o'clock noon. When handing the patient assessment sheets to the student nurse at approximately 7:30 a.m., Respondent stated "I have already started the notes." The note entries had Respondent's initials next to them in the appropriate column. Narrative notes on Patient N.C. had already been written indicating that a dressing change of a surgical wound had been done at 8:00 a.m. These notes bore Respondent's signature. The student nurse also got these notes from Respondent before 8:00 a.m. Concerned with the advanced notations that she discovered, the student nurse took the patient assessment sheets which bore Respondent's entries for future times up to 12 o'clock noon to her FSU clinical nursing instructor who was on the premises at the time. Proceeding to Patient N.C., the instructor verified that the patient's wound dressing had not been changed. The student nurse did the dressing change at approximately 8:30 a.m. The nursing instructor took the documents to the head nurse for the orthopedic/neurological floor, Kay Keeton. Keeton requested that both the student nurse and the nursing instructor submit independent written statements. They complied with Keeton's request. Contemporaneously with the drafting of statements by the clinical nurse instructor and the student nurse, photocopies of the patient assessment sheets were made at least two hours prior to 12 o'clock noon. Keeton made notes on the sheets to show entries charted by Respondent as opposed to entries charted by the student nurse. Keeton is familiar with Respondent's signature. After determining that Respondent had charted something that had not been done yet, Keeton made her report to the TMH administration. When questioned about the entries on December 1, 1999, Respondent denied making the entries. She was given a disciplinary form entitled "Notice of Corrective Action." Upon her refusal to sign the form, Respondent was terminated from her employment. Respondent has experienced employment problems at TMH for which Notices of Corrective Action were issued which date back to 1996. This history, in conjunction with Respondent's demeanor while testifying and her lack of candor, dictate that her denial of improper action in this case, cannot be credited. Minimal acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice require that documentation of care provided to patients be recorded contemporaneously with the provision of the care. Respondent's "before the fact" documentation of care provided to the patients identified herein fails to meet minimally acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice. The placing of a care provider's initials on a medication administration record indicates that medication has been administered to patients. "Pre-initialing" or signatures on medication administration records poses a risk of confusion to other care providers working in the facility and is not an acceptable practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order against Respondent, imposing a fine of $250, requiring completion of appropriate continuing education in nursing records documentation in addition to any existing continuing education requirement, and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under such conditions as the Board of Nursing determines are warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 24th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Duclos, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Room 3240 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D., R.N. Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent, and certified to participate in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respondent conducted the annual licensure survey of Petitioner during the period August 6-8, 1984 and its findings were transmitted to Petitioner on August 31, 1984, on HRS Form 553. In conducting the annual survey the Respondent pulled a sample of 10 patient records out of a census of 96, census being the number of patients in the facility on a particular day. Of the 10 records pulled and reviewed, 4 of the patients' records indicated that physicians' orders had not been followed. The 4 patients records where physicians orders had not been followed revealed: (a) the failure to apply Lotromin Cream to patient's left foot and toes twice a day for a week as prescribed; (b) the failure to apply Clears eyedrops 4 times daily as prescribed; (c) failure to timely take a potassium blood test as ordered; and (d) failure to timely take a test for occult blood in the stool as ordered. Lotromin Cream prescribed by Dr. Gary Goodman on June 30, 1984 to be applied to the patient's left foot was never administered by Petitioner. Lotromin Cream prescribed in this situation for a fungus condition may improve the conditions but generally, is not a cure. During the time frame of the annual survey, Clears eyedrops were prescribed by Dr. Arthur Barlin for a patient to be administered 4 times a day to the left eye. This order was not followed because the patient had lost his contact lens and the purpose of eyedrops was to lubricate the contact lens. The reason for not administering eye drops was not documented at the time by Petitioner. The test for occult blood in the stool ordered by Dr. Raymond D. Hansen on July 20, 1984 was never taken. A stool specimen is necessary for this test and is usually obtained where there is a bowel movement but there are other methods of obtaining a stool specimen. The patient's bowel movements were irregular and no stool specimen by any method was ever obtained to run this test. However, on July 30, 1984, the patient had a nasogastric tube inserted for tube feeding and the patient's condition improved and it was subsequently determined that the problem was not related to any gastrointestinal bleeding. No further order was given for testing occult blood in stool on this patient. On June 22, 1985 Dr. Samuel A. Pettina ordered a potassium blood level test to be taken in approximately 1 month. This potassium blood level test was not taken until August 7, 1984, approximately 6 weeks after the order when it was brought to Petitioner's attention by a member of the survey team, Carol Edwards. No other potassium blood level test was ordered by the physician for this patient during this period of time. None of the 4 patients suffered any identifiable ill effects in regard to their health as a result of Petitioner's noncompliance with the physicians' orders as prescribed. 10 Under a previous Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification a NH-68 violation was considered to be a Class II deficiency unless the surveyor could justify to the Director that it deserved another classification. This survey was conducted under a different Director and the memorandum classifying a NH-68 violation as a Class II deficiency was no longer being used. Carol Edwards, a member of the survey team, requested from Barbara Ladd (Ladd) Director of Nursing, the following information in regard to the staffing of orderlies and aides for the 6 months (February - July, 1984) previous to the survey: (a) the census of patients for each day of 1 week, the week to be picked by Ladd, for each of the previous 6 months; and (b) the actual number of orderlies and aides on any 2 of 3 shifts for each day, the shifts to be picked by Ladd, for each week selected in (a) above. Barbara Ladd collected this information and calculated the adjusted census for Carol Edwards. Based on the adjusted census provided by Barbara Ladd, Carol Edwards then calculated the minimum staffing requirements for orderlies and aides for each shift on each day in the weeks selected by Ladd for the previous 6 months. Based on this information, the Petitioner failed to substantially exceed the minimum staffing requirements for aides and orderlies on 5 out of 14 shifts during the week of February 13-19, 1984, on 6 out of the 14 shifts during the week of March 5-11, 1984, on 4 out of 14 shifts during the week of April 9-15, 1984 and on 1 out of 14 shifts during the week of June 11-17, 1984. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 shows Petitioner substantially exceeding the minimum staffing requirements for aides and orderlies on the p.m. and night shifts during the July, 1984 and during June, 1984 with the exception of the night shift on June 1 and 4, 1984, and the P.M. shift on June 22, 1984. While Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 shows Petitioner substantially exceeding the minimum staffing requirements for orderlies and aides, calculated on a monthly basis by hours, in all shifts for February, March, April, May, June, and July, 1984 with the exception of the a.m. shift in February and March, 1984, the more credible evidence is contained in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 since they are calculated by shifts on a daily basis. The record is not clear, but it appears that Respondent considers exceeding the minimum requirements by 10 percent satisfies the language "substantially exceeds" the minimum requirements. The testimony of Ladd in regard to aides and orderlies assisting patients beyond their normal duties was credible and could be considered as demonstrating "unusually effective functioning" of orderlies and aides. This testimony was supported by documents in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 from members of patients' families and from the aides. The record is unclear but apparently the Respondent did not consider whether or not orderlies and aides had demonstrated "unusually effective functioning" but was concerned more with staffing and whether the minimum staffing requirements had been substantially exceeded.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order classifying the NH-68 violation as a Class II deficiency and denying Petitioner a Superior Rating. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August,1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Suite 500, Day Building 605 East Robinson Street P. O. Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Gerry Clark, Esquire District VII Legal Counsel 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 David Pingree Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to appropriately chart the administration of medications and make the appropriate entries in the drug inventory procedures, and whether this constituted a departure from the accepted and prevailing nursing standards.
Findings Of Fact Jane Adelaide Drake is a registered nurse licensed by the Florida State Board of Nursing. She was employed at Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, Florida from approximately 1973 until March, 1978. She was the assistant head nurse on Ward 4 South on March 23, 24 and 25, 1978. Her duties included responsibility for the narcotics and other controlled substances maintained on 4 South, and the administration of controlled substances to patients. The scheme or procedure for control of narcotics and other; controlled substances called for their issuance in individual dosages daily by the hospital pharmacy to each ward, including 4 South. A Controlled Substances Disposition Record (CSDR) was used to issue controlled substances to the wards. Each ward was issued sufficient new stock daily to maintain its stockage level at the level indicated by the numbered entries on the CSDR for each drug. Additional stockage was indicated by the addition of letters following the numerical entries for a particular drug on the CSDR. Each individual drug dose was issued in an envelope which was clear on one side and had a preprinted form on the other. As drugs were administered, an entry was made by the person responsible for narcotics control on the CSDR opposite the type and strength of drug to be administered. An inventory was conducted daily from this sheet to check drugs on hand against those which had been administered. Doctor's orders for medication were transferred to an electronic data system, and daily printouts were received by each ward for each patient indicating the drugs to be administered and the times or conditions for administration. This preprinted form was referred to as the medication administration record (MAR) or patient profile. Administration of the medication was indicated by striking through the time for administration and initialing, or writing in the time of administration and initialing when it was a drug not given at a specified time. One apparent exception to the use of preprinted MARs existed when a new patient was received on a ward. In this event, hand written orders were taken prior to the preparation of the preprinted MAR. Nursing notes were maintained by each shift on each patient. Nursing notes were kept on a form which provides spaces for the patient's name and identifying data to be stamped at the top of the form, and headings for the date, time, treatment or medication administered, remarks, and signature and title of the individual making the entry. The work force on 4 South was organized into LPNs and RNs who worked directly with patients and are referred to in the record as bedside nurses. The ward supervisors, to include the Respondent, maintained the ward records, drug inventory records, doctor's orders, and administration of controlled medication. Nursing notes for the various shifts and by various RNs and LPNs reflect that only rarely did entries in nursing notes indicate that a specific drug had been administered by the bedside nurse. When recorded at all in nursing notes, generally the only remark is that the patient complained of pain and was medicated. Although acceptable nursing practice would dictate that the nurse who administers medication would sign out for a drug, administer the drug, make an entry on the MAR, and chart the drug on nurse's notes, this was not uniformly followed by the nurses on 4 South at Holy Cross Hospital. This was the result of a hospital policy that personnel not trained in the drug records system would not make entries in the drug record, complicated by a shortage of nursing staff that necessitated utilization of "pool" nurses or nurses obtained from local registries. The majority of these nurses were not trained in the hospital's drug records system. These nurses, who were used as bedside nurses, could not make entries on the drug administration records, therefore, they could not administer the drugs. This necessitated that the administration and maintenance of the drug control records be done by the regular staff. Because bedside nurses were responsible for patient charting generally, it became the prevailing practice for bedside nurses to chart the administration of medications which were administered by other staff. The specific allegations of the complaint relate to Rose Ferrara, Minnie C. Ward, and Josephine Locatelli. Regarding Locatelli, the allegation of the complaint is that the Respondent signed out for and administered Demerol (Meperidine) to the patient on March 23, 1978 but failed to properly sign out for the drug on the C8DR. Exhibit 12 is a handwritten 4AR for both March 23 and 24, 1978, on which Demerol is listed under the date March 23. Entries on this record would appear to reflect that the patient was administered Demerol by the Respondent at 1100 and 1430 on March 23, and by Ann Fosdick at 1900 on that date. The CSDR indicates that Meperidine was signed out for Locatelli at 1035 and 1435 by the Respondent and at 1900 by Ann Fosdick on March 24. The hospital records indicate that the patient was not admitted to the hospital until March Obviously, neither the Respondent nor Fosdick could have administered the drug on March 23. What the records do reflect is that on March 24, the Respondent and Fosdick signed out for Demerol which was administered to the patient on March 24, but recorded on the handwritten MAR under the date of March 23, the date the doctor's order was entered. The administration of pain medication by Fosdick is reflected in the nursing notes of J. Hughes, GN, for 2000 hours March 24, 1978. No nursing notes exist in the record for the Respondent's shift. See Exhibits 2, 12 and 13. The CSDR reflects the Respondent signed out on March 25 for Meperidine at 0700. 1000, and 1430 hours for Locatelli. The nurses notes reflect no entry relating to the administration of these medications for March 25, 1978. The MAR for March 25, 1978, was not introduced. The nursing notes for March 23, 24 and 25, 1978, were maintained by persons other than the Respondent or Fosdick. Regarding Ferrara, the testimony indicates that the Respondent signed out for medications on the CSDR and made appropriate entries on the MAR except in one instance. Again, the administration was not charted in nurses notes. However, the MAR submitted as an exhibit is for March 24, 1978, while the nurses notes cover primarily March 23, 1978. The primary failure reflected in the testimony relates to Respondent's failure to chart nurses notes. However, review of the nurses notes on this patient from February until March reveals that the only pain medication received by the patient, and that only on one occasion, was Percodan which was given several weeks after the patient's leg was amputated. Although there may be individual variations to pain, it is hardly conceivable that Ferrara could have undergone the amputation of her leg without any pain medication except Percodan which was administered one time several seeks after the operation. Presumably, the patient did receive pain medication and this was not charted in nurses notes by any of the nursing staff. Regarding Minnie Ward, the CSDR shows that the Respondent signed out for Meperidine at 12 noon on March 23, 1978. The nurses notes show no complaint of pain or administration of pain medication at 12 noon on that date. However, the CSDR reflects that "PM" signed out for 50 mg of Meperidine at 0200 hours for the same patient. The MAR for March 23 does not reflect administration of the drug by "PM'. or charting of administration in the nurses notes on March 22, 23, or 24, 1978, by "RM." See Exhibits 1, 9 and 10. Further, regarding Ward, a review of her records for other dates reflects that on March 17, the Respondent signed out for Meperidine at.1105 and 1530. The nurses notes, which on that date were kept by the Respondent, reflect administration of the drug at 1100. No entry was made regarding the 1530 administration. An entry is contained at 1900 hours on that date indicating that Ward complained of pain and was medicated; however, no corresponding entry is contained in the CSDR indicating that a controlled substance was signed out for administration to this patient. The shift on 4 South would have changed between 1500 and 1530 hours. The pain medication administered necessarily had to come from some source, presumably the 1530 sign-out by the Respondent. However, it is unclear whether it was administered at 1530 and not charted until 1900, or not administered until 1900 when it was charted. On March 18, 1978, the CSDR reflected that Ward was given 50 mgs of Meperidine at 1300 hours by the Respondent. Nurses notes for that date reflect administration of pain medication at that time. The CSDR also reflects that Ann Fosdick signed out for 50 mgs of Meperidine at 1900 hours on March 18. However, the nurses notes for Fosdick's shift do not reflect that the patient complained of pain or received pain medication. On March 19, Ann Fosdick signed out for 50 mgs of Meperidine at 1800 hours as reflected on the CSDR for that date. The nurses notes kept by M. Green, title illegible, for that date reflect that Ward was medicated for pain by the team leader at approximately 1800. On March 20, 1978, the Respondent signed out for 50 mgs of Meperidine at 0900 hours and at 1330 hours, and "REK" signed out for Mereridine at 2100 hours. The nurses notes by R. Ezly, R.N., for March 20, reflect the administration of medication at approximately 1330 and the nurses notes by an LPN whose name is illegible reflect the administration of pain medication at 2000 hours. Again, the nurses notes were kept by an individual other than the person administering the medication. The MARs on March 17, 18, 19 and 20, 1978, were properly executed by the Respondent and the other nurses referred to above. The nurses notes for Minnie Ward do not reflect any remarks between 1400 hours on March 23, 1978 and 1530 hours on March 24, 1978, and two separate sets of entries for March 25, 1978. A supervisor was called to testify to what constituted acceptable and prevailing nursing practices at Holy Cross Hospital. She had been a nursing supervisor since 1976, and was supervisor on the 3 to 11 shift in March, 1978. In addition, she stated that she had only administered medication four times in the approximately four years she had been at Holy Cross Hospital as a supervisor. Her testimony was based solely upon her observations on her own shift and the review of the records of her shift which she stated that she spot- checked. The supervisor's testimony revealed that she was aware of the fact that shifts on the wards were divided into those nurses giving bedside care and those nurses administering medication. Her testimony and the testimony of the director of nursing shows that the records of the shift on which the Respondent served were spot-checked. Spot-checking was reportedly the means by which the alleged discrepancies in the Respondent's charting were noted. From even cursory inspection of the records, it is evident that medication nurses were not charting the nurses notes and bedside nurses were charting the administration of medication in nurses notes. Such spot-checking also reveals the discrepancies in charting noted above. All of those discrepancies constitute a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The Respondent offered the only explanation of why these practices had occurred. During the winter months of 1977-78, there had been an increase in patient census, and shortage of staff nurses which caused working conditions to deteriorate. Some regular staff members quit their jobs worsening the already bad situation. The number of Nurses on 4 South varied between three and six to treat forty-eight patients. Even with six nurses on duty, this was 1.3 nurse hours below the hospital's goal of 4.3 nurse hours per patient per twenty-four hours. An attempt was made to make up the personnel shortages by using "pool" or registry nurses; however, hospital policy prevented these nurses from making entries on the CSDRs and MARs which kept all but a very few from administering medication. Theme nurses were used to provide bedside care and were permitted to chart nurses notes. Because of the acute shortages, the medication nurses, to include the Respondent, executed the CSDRs and MARs, prepared medications, and administered them, but permitted the bedside nurses to chart the administration in nurses notes. The Respondent complained concerning the staffing levels to her supervisor and to the director of nursing. The director of nursing requested a written memorandum from the Respondent, which she received; however, the situation was not improved. Thereafter, the Respondent was terminated for errors in charting, although there had been no prior complaints or counseling with regard to her charting errors, and in spite of the fact that her charting was consistent with the patterns seen with other nurses on other shifts. The general practice concerning charting errors was that nurses were counseled, required to correct errors, and required to prepare incident reports where necessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Nursing issue a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene A. Peer, Esquire 2170 NE Dixie Highway Jenson Beach, Florida 33457 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Licensing and Investigation State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Jane Adelaide Drake North Western University Institute CASE NO. 78-1450 of Psychiatry 3203 E. Huron Chicago, Illinois 60611 As a Registered Nurse License Number 76252-2 /
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lorrie Neumann Dupuis (Dupuis or respondent), was licensed as a practical nurse and held license number PN 0766491 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). When the events herein occurred in 1990, respondent was known as Lorrie Neumann. She has since changed her name to Lorrie Neumann Dupuis. Counts I and II At hearing respondent admitted that the charges in Counts I and II are true. The admitted allegations which underpin these counts are briefly as follows. On July 23, 1990, respondent applied for employment with Upjohn Health Services (Upjohn). On her application, Dupuis indicated that she was a registered nurse when in fact she was a licensed practical nurse. In addition, respondent submitted to Upjohn an altered nursing license which had been changed to indicate the designation "RN" and title "Registered Professional Nurse". Finally, respondent gave Upjohn a resume indicating the designation "RN" after her name. Accordingly, it is found that respondent (a) engaged in unprofessional conduct by improperly using the name or title Registered Nurse and (b) knowingly violated a statutory provision that prohibits any person from assuming the title of registered nurse or using the abbreviation "R.N." without being so licensed. There is no evidence, and the Board has not alleged, that any unlawful practice as a registered nurse occurred as the result of the application nor that respondent was subjected to criminal prosecution for this act. Count III Respondent is charged in Count III with "making or filing a false report or record which the licensee knows to be false". This charge stems from a factual allegation that, while employed by Consolidated Staffing Services (CSS), respondent altered a time verification form by increasing the number of hours she had allegedly worked on July 26, 1990, from four to nine. Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) by CSS from April through July 1990. CSS, which is a for-profit division of St. Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville, has agreements with various clients in the Jacksonville area to supply nurses to the clients on a supplemental staff basis. One such agreement was with the Jacksonville Naval Air Station (NAS) and called for CSS to furnish nurses to the NAS emergency room. During her tenure with CSS, respondent worked on various occasions as a LPN at the NAS emergency room. On Tuesday, July 24, 1990, Dupuis worked an eight hour shift at the NAS. Based on erroneous advice received from a CSS employee, respondent was under the impression she was to work again at the NAS on Thursday morning, July She accordingly reported to duty that day at 6:45 a.m. However, Dupuis was not actually scheduled to work that day since the emergency room already had a full complement of nurses on duty. After realizing that the emergency room had more persons on duty than was customary, the emergency room nursing manager contacted CSS and verified that respondent was not scheduled to work that day. Accordingly, around 10:45 a.m., the manager advised respondent that she must leave but that she would be paid for the four hours she had worked that morning. Just before leaving the premises, respondent filled out a CSS time verification form. The form is made up of four pages, an original and three copies, and the CSS nurse is instructed to leave one copy with the client, retain one copy for herself, and to return the original and one copy to CSS offices. On the form, respondent noted she had worked from 6:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., or a total of four hours. After she departed the NAS, respondent noted that the time sheet reflected a date of July 25 when in fact the correct date was July 26. She accordingly altered the three copies of the form still in her possession to reflect the correct date. The copy left with the NAS still carries the incorrect date of July 25. In accordance with her normal procedure, respondent accumulated her time verification forms from the week and turned them all in at one time to CSS on Sunday afternoon, July 29. She did so by placing them in an envelope and sliding the envelope under the locked doors of CSS's offices. Such a procedure was acceptable with her employer. When the envelope was opened by CSS the next day and sent to accounting for computation of pay, CSS personnel noted that on respondent's July 26 time verification form the number "4" had been altered to read "9" so that it appeared respondent had worked nine hours at the NAS. Also, the "time finished" column, which is the time Dupuis finished her stint of duty, reflected that "10:45" had been altered to read "15:45", which is the military time for 3:45 p.m. CSS then had the NAS fax its copy of the form to CSS. This form had not been altered and correctly reflected that Dupuis worked only four hours. When Dupuis would not agree to meet with CSS management to discuss the altered form, respondent was terminated from employment and the matter was turned over to the Board. Except for changing the date on the form from July 25 to July 26, respondent denied that she had altered any other numbers. She suggested at hearing that someone at CSS may have altered the copies after she turned them in on Sunday, July 29. She also suggested that the nurse manager at the NAS emergency room disliked her and may have set her up. However, these contentions are not deemed to be credible. Accordingly, it is found that respondent made a report which she knew to be false. Mitigation There is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. In addition, there is no evidence that her actions endangered the public or resulted in actual damages of any nature, or that she engaged in any other similar misconduct. Finally, there are no complaints of record regarding the quality of work performed by respondent as a LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 464.018(1)(f),(h), and (l), Florida Statutes (1989), and that her nursing license be suspended for thirty days. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lorrie Neumann Dupuis 4156 Piney Branch Court Jacksonville, FL 32257 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ruth Theresa Healey, was, at all times material hereto, licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0983072 by the Board of Nursing. On May 20, 1988, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Broward Convalescent Home for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Included in Respondent's responsibilities were the assessment of each patient under her care; the administration of medication to her patients according to the physician's orders; and the correct documentation of each medication administration on each patient's medical chart. Under Respondent's care on May 20, 1988 was the patient, E.M. The physician's orders for E.M. during Respondent's shift indicated that she was to be fed with one-half strength Entrition at 60 cc's per hour with water flushes through the gastrostomy tube (G Tube) which had been inserted into her abdomen. One-half strength Entrition is a nutrition substitute which is supplied in a self-contained package. On May 20, 1988, the supply of one-half strength was on special order and would not be available for use at Broward Convalescent Home until the next morning during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. E.M.'s G Tube was clearly marked on E.M.'s chart and easily observed upon patient assessment since it was protruding from her abdomen. Sometime during Respondent's shift, a naso-gastric tube, NG Tube, was also inserted into E.M. Without a physician's order, the insertion of a NG Tube into a patient with an existing G Tube could prove harmful to the patient and is contrary to the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. It was Petitioner's contention that Respondent inserted the NG Tube into her patient. Petitioner's position was supported by the testimony of Geraldine Hamilton, a nurse who came on duty the morning of May 21, 1988. Ms. Hamilton recalled that Respondent admitted to Ms. Hamilton that Respondent was in trouble because she, "put an NG Tube in one of the patients who has already got a G Tube." However, Respondent, at the hearing, consistently denied having made the statement. She asserted, instead, that a co-worker, Bunster Martinez, inserted the NG Tube. During Respondent's shift, she had sought Mr. Martinez's advice concerning the procedure she should use to feed E.M. since the one-half strength Entrition was not available. Mr. Martinez was not present at the hearing. Respondent's speech pattern, as observed at the hearing and as noted through the testimony of others is not clear. Rather, it is cryptic and disjointed. Given Respondent's poor diction and syntax, Respondent's consistent denial that she inserted the NG Tube and the lack of corroborating evidence that Respondent did, in fact, insert the NG Tube, the literal meaning of Respondent's statement to Ms. Hamilton is unclear. Respondent did not perform an assessment of E.M. which would have revealed the G Tube. Instead, contrary to the physician's order, Respondent began the administration of full strength Entrition through the NG Tube. In an attempt to create one-half strength Entrition, Respondent knowingly administered full strength Entrition for one hour at 85 cc. per hour followed by water flushes. However, the quality of one-half strength Entrition can not be obtained by diluting full strength Entrition in this manner, and the administration of full strength Entrition could have harmed F.M. Respondent's failure to perform an assessment of her patient and her action with regard to this feeding were contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice and constituted unprofessional conduct on her part. Also, although Respondent administered to E.M. full strength Entrition through the NG Tube, she entered the feeding on E.M.'s chart as Entrition one- half strength at 60cc/hour via G tube. Accordingly, Respondent knowingly falsified the medication administration report. The following morning, May 21, 1988, when the presence of the NG Tube was questioned, Respondent abruptly and forcibly removed the NG Tube from E.M. The procedure Respondent used to remove the NG Tube was also contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, constituting unprofessional conduct on her part and placing her patient in more jeopardy. Respondent acted somewhat incoherently on several occasions around the end of May, 1988. She was observed "talking to herself", was unresponsive to questions and appeared disoriented. No competent evidence was presented that such conduct resulted from a physical or mental condition or from medication. Respondent was previously suspended by the Board of Nursing and required to undergo psychiatric treatment. She was subsequently reinstated. No competent and substantial evidence was presented that Respondent disobeyed the previous order or any order of the Board of Nursing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the a final order be entered suspending Respondent's license for a period of one year, and thereafter, until she can demonstrate the ability to practice nursing in a safe and proficient manner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12 day of October 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12 day of October 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3401 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 2. Subordinate to the result reached. In part, addressed in paragraph 3 ;in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. In part, subordinate to result reached; in part, addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. In part, addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6; in part, subordinate to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 7. In part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence, in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. In part, addressed in paragraphs 10 and 11. In part, subordinate to the result reached, in part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. Addressed in paragraph 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Ruth Theresa Healey, R.N. 1075 N.E. 39th Street, Apartment 110 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered nurse holding License No. 0936792 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. The Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville, Florida, from August of 1978, until April, 1979. Her duties were as a nursing team leader and medication nurse on the fourth floor. The fourth floor unit to which the Respondent was assigned was a 52-to-56- bed unit. Staff on this floor consisted of a charge nurse in charge of the floor and two to four registered nurses. Patient census on this unit ran from 40 to 56 patients. This was a general medical ward whose patients included the chronically ill. (a) Regarding the allegations of Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint related to the patient Gussie Sims Gardner, the hospital records reveal the patient was not admitted to the hospital until 2225 hours on March 24, 1979. The individual responsible for initial preparation of the medication administration record (MAR) did not cross through the times prior to the administration of the patient's first medications as required by the hospital's protocols. See Exhibit 1, Medication Record (Form No. 15-02-41-2), page 2, paragraph 5. Because of this failure, the initial entries for medication administered to the patient on March 25 were transposed to the date of March 24, and the entries for March 26 were placed in the column far March 25. After two days this error was apparently discovered, and no entries were made in the column for March 26. The Respondent cannot be held responsible for this error, because she was not on duty when the patient was admitted. Under the hospital's standard operating procedures (SOP), the first individual administering medication should have crossed out the dates and times in such a manner that this error could not occur. (b) Regarding Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint, the Control Substance Form (CSF) does reflect that the Respondent withdrew two Darvon 65, a Class IV controlled substance, on March 25, 1979. The Respondent recorded the administration of the Darvon at the appropriate time but under the date of March 24, 1979. Only the administration of this medication at 0830 hours on March 25 was noted by the Respondent in the nurses' notes. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 4, recording of the entries for March 25 and 26 under the dates of March 24 and 25 resulted in no entries being made on the MAR on March 26 by any of the nursing staff. (d) Regarding the allegations of Counts 6 and 8 that the physician's order entered March 24 for Oarvom 65 was no longer effective on March 28, Exhibit 1, the Formulary, page VIII, provides that stop orders occur automatically at the end of 48 hours for narcotics and at the end of seven days for all other drugs unless renewed. The Formulary differentiates on page IX between narcotics and other controlled substances. Darvon, while a controlled substance, is not a narcotic and therefore would not be terminated at the end of 48 hours, but at the end of seven days. The administration of this drug by the Respondent on March 28 was not precluded by the hospital's regulations. (e) Regarding the allegations contained in Counts 3, 5, 7 and 9, there is no substantial evidence that the Respondent possessed any controlled substance for any purpose other than the administration of the substance to the patient. No substantial and competent evidence was presented that the medications were not administered to the patient as recorded in the written records of the hospital. (a) Regarding the allegations concerning the patient Mary Lee Love Graham contained in Count 10 of the administrative Complaint, the CSF reflects two doses of Codeine were signed out by the Respondent for this patient on March 25, 1979. The appropriate entries were made on the MAR by the Respondent. Although the 1200 hour administration of medication was charted in the nurses' notes, the administration of the medication at 0830 hours was not charted by the Respondent. Similarly, the administration of Codeine 60 to this patient at 2200 hours was not charted by Nurse Wigginton on March 24, 1979. (b) Regarding Count 12 of the Administrative Complaint, the MAR reflects that Graham received Codeine 60 at 0400 hours from Wigginton and at 0800 hours from the Respondent on march 26, 1979. The nursing notes do not reflect the administration of Codeine 60 at either time. On March 27, 1979, the Respondent apparently administered no medications to this patient; however, the administration of Codeine 60 to this patient at 1600 hours on March 27, 1979, was not charted in the nursing notes. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 14 in the Administrative Complaint, the MAR and CSF agree regarding the administration of Codeine 60 to Graham on March 26, 1979, at 0800 and 1400 hours by the Respondent. The administration of the medication at 0800 hours was not charted in the nursing notes, as was the administration of the same medication at 2300 hours on the same date by another nurse. Although the physician's orders were not renewed and therefore terminated at the end of 48 hours as discussed above, the MAR was not changed to reflect discontinuation of this medication, and all staff nurses, to include the Respondent, continued to administer Codeine 60 to this patient after the physician's orders ceased. (d) Regarding the allegations contained in Counts 11, 13 and 15, there is no substantial and competent evidence that the Respondent possessed any controlled substance for any purpose other than its administration to a patient. There is no substantial and competent evidence that the medications were not administered as charted. (a) Regarding the allegations contained in Count 16 concerning the patient Marshal Rex Burk, the MAR and CSF records reflect administration of Darvon 65 by the Respondent to this patient at 1000 hours on March 24, 1979. This was not charted by the Respondent in the nursing notes. As stated above, the drug Darvon 65 is not a narcotic drug and not subject to automatic termination at the end of 48 hours. Thee administration of Darvon 65 on March 24, 1979, was pursuant to a physician's order entered on March 19, 1979. (b) Regarding the allegations of Count 18, the CSF and MAR reflect administration of Darvon 65 to Burk at 1000 hours on March 25, 1979, by the Respondent. The Respondent did not chart this in the nurses notes. The physician's order for Darvon remained valid on March 25, 1979. (c) Regarding the patient Burk, the MAR reflects that Dalmane, a Class IV controlled substance, was administered March 21, 22, 23 arid 25 by a staff nurse. The administration of this medication was not charted in the nursing notes, and a review of the physician's orders for this patient does not reflect an order for Dalmane being entered until March 29, 1979. A review of the nursing notes for this patient reveals no charting for March 27, 1979. The SOP for charting provides a minimum of one charting for each patient per shift. (d) The allegations contained in Counts 17 and 19 are not proven. The records reflect the Respondent signed out for Darvon 65 and administered it to the patient. (a) Regarding the allegations contained in Count 20 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Willie Mae Bender Tison, the CSF shows the Respondent signed out for two doses of Darvon 65 on March 24, 1979, for this patient. The MAR reflects administration at 0330 hours on March 24, 1979. The nursing notes do not reflect administration of Darvon 65 to his patient on March 24, 1979. One Darvon 65 was not accounted for in the records. (b) Regarding this patient, his MAR indicates the patient started receiving drugs on March 17, 1979; however, the admitting data and nursing notes reflect that this patient was not admitted until 1450 hours on March 21, 1979. The data contained in the MAR from March 17 until March 24 is clearly in error. (c) Regarding Count 21, although the facts indicate the Respondent did not chart the administration of one Darvon 65 to the patient Tison, no evidence was introduced that the Respondent took the medication herself or retained the medication for sale or distribution. (a) Regarding the allegations in the Administrative Complaint contained in Count 22 relating to the patient Frances Louise Blocker Medina, the MAR reveals that Percodan was administered to this patient on March 24, 1979, at 0530 hours, 0930 hours by the Respondent, 1300 hours by the Respondent and 2200 hours. The CSF reflects that the Respondent withdrew two doses of Percodan for the Respondent on March 24, 1979. The Respondent recorded the administration of the medication to this patient at 1300 hours in the nursing notes. No entries were made in the nursing notes for March 24, 1979, reflecting the administration of Percodan at 0530 hours, 0930 hours and 2200 hours by the Respondent and others. (b) Regarding the allegations of Count 24, the MAR reflects that the Respondent administered Percodan to this patient at 0700 hours and 1100 hours on March 25, 1979. The Respondent charted the administration of this medication to this patient in the nursing notes at 0730 hours and 1030 hours. The CSF shows the Respondent signed out for two Percodan for this patient on March 25, 1979. The MAR also reveals that this patient received Percodan at 1830 hours on March 25, 1979, from another nurse. The nursing notes do not reflect charting of this medication. (c) Regarding the allegations in Count 26, the CSF reflects that the Respondent signed out for two doses of Percodan for this patient on March 26, 1979. The MAR reflects administration of Percodan to this patient at 0200 hours, 0800 hours by the Respondent, 1400 hours by the Respondent and 2000 hours on March 26, 1979. The nursing notes reflect only the administration of this medication for 2000 hours. (d) Regarding the allegations of Count 28, the medical records of this patient reflect that staff nurses, to include the Respondent, continued to give the patient Percodan, a narcotic, although the physician's order for this medication automatically terminated. (e) Regarding the allegations of Count 30, the MAR and CSF reflect that the Respondent administered one Percodan to this patient on March 28, 1979. The Respondent failed to chart the administration of this medication to this patient in the nursing notes. (f) Regarding Counts 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31, no substantial and competent evidence was presented that the Respondent maintained possession of any drug. The records reflect that all drugs signed out by the Respondent were administered to the patient. (a) Regarding allegations contained in Count 32 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Ruby Lee Denson Standback Woodburne, the times on the exhibit copies of the CSF are illegible. However, the MAR and CSF do reflect that the Darvon 65 checked out for this patient by the Respondent on Marcy 24, 1979, was administered to the patient. The nursing notes reflect administration of the medication to the patient. (b) Regarding the allegations in Count 34, the CSF shows the Respondent signed out for Darvon 65 two times on March 25, 1979, for this patient. The MAR reflects the Respondent administered Darvon 65 to the patient at 0830 hours and 1200 hours. The nursing notes reflect that Darvon 65 was administered at 1200 hours but not at 0830 hours. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 36, the MAR and CSF records show the Respondent medicated the patient at 0800 hours and 1200 hours on March 26, 1979, with Darvon 65. The Respondent charted the administration at 1200 hours in the nursing notes but failed to chart the administration at 0800 hours. (d) Regarding the allegations of Count 38, the CSF reflects the Respondent withdraw one Darvon 65 for this patient on March 27, 1979. The MAR does not reflect administration of this medication; however, the nursing notes reflect the administration of Darvon at 0830 hours on March 27, 1979. (e) The medical service orders for this patient were renewed March 22, 1979, after Use patient's surgery. Presumably, this would have renewed the Darvon 65 order of March 17, 1979, and it would have been effective through March 29, 1970. (f) Regarding Counts 33, 35, 37 and 39, there is no evidence that any medication was net administered to the patient as reflected in the records. Although the MAR entry was not made on March 27, 1979, a nursing note does reflect administration of Darvon 65 on that date by the Respondent. (a) Regarding the allegation contained In Count 40 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Willie Mae Hair, the CSF and MAR records reflect the Respondent administered Darvon 65 to this patient at 0830 hours on March 24, 1979. No entry was made in the nursing notes by the Respondent for this date. Although the patient was discharged on March 24, she was medicated for pain in the evening of March 23, and the nursing note for 0145 hours of March 24 reflects that the nursing staff apparently expected her to experience pain. (b) There is no substantial and competent evidence to support the allegation of Count 41. All medications checked out by the Respondent for this patient were administered according to the records. Regarding Count 42 of the Administrative Complaint, Exhibit 11 reveals that on several occasions the Respondent wasted medications without the required countersignatures of another staff member. There was no substantial and competent evidence presented that the Respondent converted any of the drugs wasted to her own use. To the contrary, although improperly witnessed, the records reflect that the medications were wasted. Review of Exhibit 1, containing extracts of the hospital's SOP's for controlled substances and charting, does not reveal any requirement that the specific time of withdrawal of a controlled substance be entered on the CSF. Exhibit 1 does reflect that medication may be prepared and placed upon a lockable medicine cart. The nature of the entries on the MAR reflect that medications were drawn at one time from the controlled substance container for administration to patients during a shift. The SOP for charting nursing notes does not require that the administration of medication be noted. However, the SOP for administration of medication would require noting the patient's complaint and the patient's response to medication in the nursing notes if a prn medication were administered. Gross departures from the hospital's SOP's regarding controlled substances and charting of nursing notes occurred among staff nurses employed on the fourth floor at the time in question due to staffing shortages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken against the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Irving J. Whitman, Esquire 9595 North Kendall Drive, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33176 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. State Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
