The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed practical nurse, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.42, Chapter 455, and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 1091251. Laposada Convalescent Home, is a 54-bed nursing home located in Miami, Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse by Laposada, Teresita Garcia was a part owner and manager of Laposada, Angela Barba was the nursing home administrator for Laposada, and Prima Washington was employed as a certified nursing assistant by Laposada. Respondent expected to receive her first paycheck as an employee of Laposada on January 15, 1994. Respondent's understanding was that she was to be compensated at the rate of $11.75 per hour. Respondent tried to obtain her paycheck during the afternoon hours on January 15, 1994. She talked to Ms. Garcia by telephone twice that afternoon and made a special trip to the facility that afternoon with the expectation that her check would be ready for her to pick up. When she came to the facility, her check was not ready and Ms. Garcia was not on the premises. Respondent was told that her check would be ready for her when she came on duty. Respondent was assigned to the night shift that began at approximately 11:00 p.m. on Saturday, January 15, 1994, and ended at 7:00 a.m. on Sunday, January 16, 1994. Respondent was the only licensed nurse assigned to the night shift. The two other employees assigned to the night shift were Prima Washington and another certified nursing assistant. Respondent returned to the facility and clocked in for the night shift at approximately 10:45 p.m. on January 15, 1994. She arrived early to pick up her paycheck and to review the patient reports with staff from the outgoing shift. After she clocked in, she received her paycheck. Respondent's pay was calculated on a rate of $7.00 per hour, not on the rate of $11.75 per hour that she had expected. Respondent became upset when she discovered this discrepancy in pay and called Ms. Garcia at her home at approximately 10:50 p.m. Respondent advised Ms. Garcia that she wanted the discrepancy straightened out immediately. After Ms. Garcia stated that the matter could not be resolved until Monday, Respondent advised that she was quitting her employment and demanded that Ms. Garcia locate a replacement for her. Ms. Garcia made several telephone calls in an attempt to find a replacement for the Respondent, but she could not locate a qualified replacement for Respondent on that Saturday night. The nursing home administrator, Angela Barba, is Ms. Garcia's daughter and resides with Ms. Garcia. Ms. Barba was aware of the conversations Ms. Garcia had with Respondent. Their residence is near Laposada so that they could reach the facility in a matter of minutes. Ms. Garcia instructed Prima Washington by telephone to inform her immediately if Respondent left the facility. Respondent clocked out of the facility at 11:30 p.m. At the time she clocked out, there was no other qualified nurse at the facility. Some of the patients at Laposada were scheduled to take medication at midnight. After Respondent clocked out, there was no one at the facility authorized to administer medication to these patients at midnight. After she clocked out, Respondent called 911 and went outside of the building to await the arrival of the police. It is not clear what Respondent expected the police to do once they arrived. Respondent also attempted to contact the abuse registry to advise the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) as to the situation at Laposada. It is not clear what Respondent expected to accomplish by contacting DHRS, but she received a recorded message to call back during work hours. There was no evidence that DHRS became involved in this incident. The door Respondent used to exit the facility locks automatically. Consequently, once Respondent went outside of the building, she was locked out of the facility. Prima Washington thought that Respondent had left the premises and gave that information to Ms. Garcia. Respondent remained on the premises, but outside of the building, until Ms. Garcia came to the facility at approximately 2:00 a.m. Ms. Garcia was accompanied by Ms. Barba and by Ms. Barba's husband. When Ms. Garcia and Ms. Barba arrived at the facility, the Respondent left the premises. There was no further communication between Respondent and either Ms. Garcia or Ms. Barba as to the wage dispute, as to the condition of the patients, or as to whether a replacement nurse had been located. Respondent did not perform any duties after she clocked out at 11:30 p.m. She did not file a report as to the condition of her patients before leaving the facility. The patients at Laposada were without a qualified nurse between 11:30 p.m. on January 15, 1994, and 6:00 a.m. on January 16, 1994, when a nurse reported early for the morning shift. Respondent left the facility at approximately 2:00 a.m. before a replacement arrived. The accepted standards of conduct in the nursing profession require that a nurse, who wants to leave patients assigned to her care, wait for a replacement to arrive at the facility, discharge her nursing duties to her patients until the replacement arrives, and report the condition of her patients to her replacement prior to leaving. Respondent failed to meet the foregoing standards of conduct in the nursing profession by abandoning her patients at Laposada. Exceptions to these standards may arise in emergency circumstances. The facts of this case do not establish an emergency that would justify deviation from the accepted standards of conduct. While Respondent may have a bona fide dispute with the management of Laposada as to the rate of compensation she was to receive, that dispute does not constitute an emergency circumstance and does not justify her action in abandoning her patients. There was no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Petitioner. There was no evidence that any patient was harmed as a result of Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that finds the Respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct in the provision of nursing services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Petitioner impose an Administrative Fine against Respondent in the amount of $250.00 and place her licensure on probation for a period of one year. The conditions of her probation should require that she complete an appropriate continuing education course dealing with her professional responsibilities for the care of patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 29th day of June, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Cornelius Shiver, Esquire Post Office Box 1542 Miami, Florida 33233 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a registered nurse in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Board of Nursing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of nurses and the regulation of the nursing profession in Florida. Respondent, Drema G. M. Servoss, was licensed as a registered nurse holding license number 1918522. Ms. Servoss holds both an Associate and a Bachelor’s degree in Nursing from the University of Tampa, and is currently completing work on a Master’s degree in family nurse practice, also from the University of Tampa. For several years, she worked weekends at University General Hospital (University), in Tampa, in special care nursing. When she started back to school to earn her Master’s degree, in September 1995, she transferred to the home care unit at University, then identified as Community Home Care Professionals, (CHCP). For the one year leading up to the job change that led to the incident in question, Ms. Servoss worked at CHCP as the weekend scheduler of home health personnel, but made no home visits herself. Finally, because she had worked every weekend for the preceding five years, and wanted to spend more time with her family, and since the remaining classes she needed for her Master’s degree were offered primarily at night, she applied for a weekday field nurse position. She was selected for the position. Though the normal orientation period for new home health nurses normally lasted for approximately two weeks, depending on staffing needs, a part of which included a preceptorship, Ms. Servoss was provided with only four days of orientation, of which two days consisted of following another nurse around. On the Friday before Labor Day, 1996, she was given an assignment of six patients to see starting on Monday, September 2, 1996, which was Labor Day. However, on the Sunday evening preceding Labor Day, when she returned from a weekend trip, Respondent found a message waiting on her answering machine advising her of three more patients to be added to her list. Feeling that nine patients were too many for a new home health nurse, she attempted to contact Ms. Tisdale, her supervisor, to inform her of that and to also advise that Respondent’s husband, Christopher, also a registered nurse and a part-time home health nurse for CHCP, might see some of the nine patients on Labor Day. Ms. Servoss also tried to reach Ms. Watkins, the weekend scheduler, but neither could be reached. Respondent left word for Ms. Watkins to please call her back, but she did not do so, and Watkins did not have a pager through which she could be reached. Respondent’s first patient on September 2, 1997, was P.W., who was to receive medication through an IV medport three times a day. Respondent’s visit was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and the visit included changing the needle in the medport. She did not know how to do this, so she called her husband at home. He worked as a nurse on an intensive care unit and had all the skills required to see the patient received the care she needed. When he arrived at P.W.’s home, Christopher showed Respondent how to do the medport access, which she did, and while she performed the treatment required, he filled out the nursing notes. It was not unusual for this division of labor to take place. Respondent had done it before during her orientation when following Ms. Tisdale. After completing the required treatment on P.W., Respondent assigned her husband several other of her patients to see. She then went to the company office to talk with the supervisor on duty, but it was closed for the holiday. This was a change from previous practice prior to the buyout of the company by Columbia Health Care System. Prior to that, it was company policy to have the office open on holidays. Finding the office closed, she thought about what to do for a while. Mindful of the warning she had received to stay within the boundaries permitted a field nurse and not to act as a supervisor, she decided to visit those patients on her list which she had assigned to her husband. At each of the three patients’ homes, Respondent explained that she was the regular nurse who should have come to see them that day, and that the male nurse who had previously been there, though a nurse, was not the assigned nurse. She assured each patient that they would not be double-billed, but did not leave a second copy of the nursing clinical notes signed by her as required. Aside from B.K., who objected to being seen by a male nurse because of the nature of her problem, none complained about being seen by Christopher or that Respondent made a second visit that day. Petitioner contends that Respondent did not make the visits as she claims, and in support of that position, presented the testimony of B.K. who did not recall Respondent’s being at her home that day. None of the other three patients in issue were present to testify nor were they deposed. In addition, the record of client/family teaching, left with each patient and reflecting the date and subject of each visit, and by whom it was made, which was left with B.K. for the period August 31 through October 14, 1996, fails to reflect a visit by Respondent or any other nurse. By the same token, however, it does not reflect a visit each day, and there is an extended and unexplained hiatus between September 25, 1996 and October 14, 1996. For this reason, it is not given much probative weight. In addition, Respondent described what she said were the residences of each of the patients in issue, and no evidence was submitted by Petitioner to dispute this, save the testimony of B.K. Based on the state of the evidence, it is found that she made the repeat visits as claimed. That evening, after completing all nine visits, Respondent completed the paperwork for the visits she had made on Labor Day, including those patients previously seen by Christopher. In doing so, she utilized the information contained on Christopher’s copies of the unsigned nursing clinical notes, the yellow copies of which he had, as required, left at the house. She supplemented that information with her own memory. Two days later, on September 4, 1996, as Respondent was getting ready to leave for the day, she was paged by Joyce Kovacs, the clinical home care supervisor, who took her to the office of the director of professional services, Ms. Bilgutay. There, Respondent was accused of assigning patients to her husband, which was out of her area of authority. She was also accused of not making any of those visits, and was informed right away that she was fired. Because she was afraid her husband would leave his job in protest over her treatment, she initially did not indicate she had also made the visits. She was humiliated by the way she was treated, and in order to get out of the room as quickly as possible, she did not strenuously contest what her accusers said. During that encounter, nothing was said to her about her signing the nursing notes allegedly prepared by her husband. Later, however, she was again called in and asked to reimburse the company for the tuition assistance she had previously received because, it was alleged, she had fraudulently signed the notes. She was also threatened that the matter might be referred to the Board of Nursing. It was. Several months later Respondent was interviewed by David Berry, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration. During this interview, the investigator would not release to Respondent the names and addresses of the patients in issue. She, therefore, requested he visit the patients and refresh their memories regarding her subsequent visit. During the course of his investigation, on February 21, 1997, in excess of five months after the date in issue, Mr. Berry spoke with three of the four patients to whom the allegations herein relate. All are elderly. Though two of them, including B.W., professed to remember that only a male nurse came to see them on September 2, 1996, neither could identify Christopher from the photograph presented. The third could remember very little of the incident. Only B.W. was present to testify. D.D. could not remember much of the incident, and S.W. declined to appear voluntarily at the hearing. He claimed he was too elderly, and, besides, the day was scheduled for his golfing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the misconduct alleged and dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Cynthia A. Mikos, Esquire A. S. Weekley, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight 510 Vonderburg Drive Brandon, Florida 33511 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewod Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marylin Bloss Executive Director Board of Nursing 4080 Woodcock Drive Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a skilled nursing home facility located in Blountstown, Florida, and is licensed by HRS. During a routine survey (inspection) of Apalachicola Valley Nursing Center on January 7-8, 1980, a staffing analysis revealed that for the three weeks prior to the survey, Respondent was short one licensed nurse on the night shift (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) for this 21-day period. During the entire period here involved, the adjusted average census of the Respondent was over 60 patients. At the time of this survey, Petitioner's policy was not to cite staff shortages as deficiencies on HRS Form 553D unless they affected patient care or there was a deficiency in patient care to which a staff shortage could relate. At all times here relevant, Mrs. Margaret Z. Brock was Administrator and part-owner of the Respondent. Following the January 7-8, 1980 survey, the results were discussed with Mrs. Brock. The head of the survey team advised Mrs. Brock of HRS' policy on staff shortages which did not affect patient care. As a result of unfavorable publicity regarding HRS' laxness in enforcing regulations involving medical facilities, by memorandum dated January 10, 1980 (Exhibit 2), HRS changed the policy on staff shortages which did not affect patient care. This change directed all staff shortages to be noted on the inspection report (Form 553D), which would thereby require action by the facility to correct. It further provided that all such shortages be corrected within 72 hours and if not corrected within the time specified, administrative action against the facility would be taken. By letter dated January 15, 1980, Mrs. Brock was forwarded the survey report containing the deficiency relating to the shortage of one LPN on the night shift during the three-week period prior to the survey. A follow-up visit was made to the Respondent on February 21, 1980, at which time it was noted that the LPN shortage on the night shift remained uncorrected. By letter dated February 27, 1980 (Exhibit 3), Mrs. Brock was advised of this finding and the accompanying Form 553D stated that the deficiency was referred for administrative action. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1443. A second follow-up visit was made on March 25, 1980, at which time it was noted that the LPN shortage on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift was still uncorrected. By letter dated April 1, 1980 (Exhibit 4), Mrs. Brock was advised of this finding and the accompanying Form 553D indicates that the deficiency is again being referred for administrative action. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1444. There is a shortage of nurses, both registered and licensed practical, nationwide, as well as in the panhandle of Florida. This shortage is worse in smaller towns and rural areas than in more metropolitan areas. Respondent is located in a rural area. Respondent has encouraged and assisted potential employees to attend the LPN courses given in nearby technical schools. One of these enrollees is currently working for Respondent. Respondent has advertised in newspapers for additional nursing personnel and has offered bonuses to present employees if they can recruit a nurse to work for Respondent. Other hospitals and nursing homes in the panhandle experience difficulties in hiring the number of nurses they would like to have on their staff. All of those medical facilities, whose representatives testified in these proceedings, have difficulty employing as many nurses as they feel they need. The LPN shortage is worse than the RN shortage. None of these medical facilities, whose representatives testified to the nurse shortage, except Respondent, was unable to meet the minimum staffing requirements of HRS although they sometimes had to shift schedules to meet the prescribed staffing. Respondent has found it more difficult to keep nurses on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift than other shifts, particularly if these employees are married or have families. Because of this staffing shortage, on July 18, 1980, a moratorium was placed on Respondent's admitting additional patients. This moratorium was lifted presumably after Respondent met the prescribed staffing requirements by employing a second nurse for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Failure to meet minimum staffing requirements is considered by Petitioner to constitute a Class III deficiency.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1443 be dismissed. It is further recommended that for failure to comply with the minimum staffing requirements after February 21, 1980, Respondent be fined $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District 2 Legal Office Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Dempsey & Slaughter Suite 610, Eola Office Center 605 E. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (the “Department”), was “substantially justified” under section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes,1 in initiating the underlying action against the nursing home administrator license of Petitioner, Sebrina Cameron, N.H.A. (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Cameron”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department, through the Board, is the entity authorized by statute to issue licenses to nursing home administrators and to impose discipline on those licenses when warranted. § 468.1685(4), Fla. Stat. Ms. Cameron is a licensed nursing home administrator, having been issued license number NH 4950. Case No. 20-3025PL was initiated by the Department, a “state agency” for purposes of section 57.111(3)(f). Ms. Cameron qualifies as a “small business party” as defined in section 57.111(3)(d). Because the Administrative Complaint underlying Case No. 20- 3025PL was ultimately dismissed by the Board, Ms. Cameron is a “prevailing small business party” under section 57.111(3)(c)1. The sole issue presented in this bifurcated proceeding is whether the Department was substantially justified in bringing the Administrative Complaint against Petitioner’s nursing home administrator license. Section 57.111(3)(e) states that a proceeding is “substantially justified” if “it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” On May 4, 2020, the Department presented its investigation and recommendation in Department Case No. 2020-12066 to the Panel, which decides whether there is a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Department to move forward with formal charges in license discipline cases. The Panel reviewed the following materials (hereinafter “Panel Materials”): a draft of the proposed Administrative Complaint; a copy of the Department’s Order of Emergency Suspension of License; Petitioner’s detailed response to the allegations; a 980-page Supplemental Investigative Report dated April 23, 2020; and a 196-page Final Investigative Report dated April 22, 2020. The Panel found probable cause and authorized the filing of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron. The investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint related to an outbreak of COVID-19 involving several residents at Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home in Monticello. The outbreak commenced on or about April 5, 2020, when a resident at Cross Landings tested positive for COVID-19. By April 14, 2020, 11 additional residents had tested positive. On April 9, 2020, a team of four registered nurses (“RN Team”), contracted by the Department’s Division of Emergency Management, arrived at Cross Landings with the stated assignment of assessing the facility’s infection control procedures and providing education and training on hygiene practices, infection control, isolation procedures, and the proper use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”). The RN Team was also tasked with identifying and recommending actions to be taken to control the spread of COVID-19 infections. The RN Team worked at Cross Landings until April 14, 2020. The record indicates that the RN Team’s dealings with the staff of Cross Landings was contentious, particularly with regard to the facility’s owner, administrators, and senior nursing staff, who regarded the team’s behavior as high-handed, intrusive, and not consistent with its supposed mission of helping Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak. From the RN Team’s point of view, Cross Landings’ leadership was uncooperative when not outright obstructive. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Cross Landings had two licensed nursing home administrators on site responding to the outbreak. The administrator of record was Mark Daniels. However, Mr. Daniels submitted his resignation to Cross Landings on April 7, 2020. During the team’s stay, Ms. Cameron was also at the facility in her role as regional administrator for the parent company of Cross Landings, to ensure continuity of care for the residents and to help on the administrative side. Petitioner argues that the title “regional administrator” was an honorific bestowed upon her by the parent company in recognition of her years of service to the organization. The title carried no additional powers or duties. Petitioner states that Ms. Cameron had no supervisory authority over Mr. Daniels, who was at all relevant times the administrator of record at Cross Landings. At the time of the investigation, the Department was unaware that the title “regional administrator” carried no actual authority. The Department understood the title to mean that Ms. Cameron was senior to Mr. Daniels and exercised some level of administrative authority at Cross Landings. It appeared to the RN Team that Ms. Cameron was a figure of authority at Cross Landings and that she was treated as such by the staff of the facility. The RN Team created daily reports detailing its observations at Cross Landings for April 9 through 11, 13, and 14, 2020. During its subsequent investigation, the Department interviewed the members of the RN Team regarding their observations at Cross Landings. The daily reports and the interviews were part of the investigative file that was before the Panel when it deliberated probable cause in Ms. Cameron’s case. The RN Team reported widespread failure in Cross Landings’ infection prevention and control measures, including the improper use of PPE by staff, inadequate hygiene procedures, the failure to properly isolate COVID-19 suspected or positive residents, the failure to timely notify staff members of COVID-19 positive residents, and the failure to properly screen individuals entering the facility, including Ms. Cameron.2 The RN Team also reported an overall failure to deliver adequate resident care, including residents who were soiled with feces or urine, 2 The RN Team’s reportage was disputed by Cross Landings and would have been subject to challenge by Ms. Cameron at any subsequent hearing. The RN Team’s reportage is relayed in this Final Order not as fact but as information that was available to the Panel in its deliberations. residents who did not have bed sheets, residents who were not receiving adequate wound care, and residents with undated and soiled surgical dressings. The RN Team reported being “shocked and horrified” by the conditions at Cross Landings. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron instructed Cross Landings’ staff to not listen to the RN Team’s recommendations and that Ms. Cameron called the RN Team “nothing but trouble.” Ms. Cameron and her fellow senior employees believed, not without reason, that the main purpose of the RN Team was not to help Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak, but to compile a record for the purpose of disciplinary action against the facility and its administrators. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Director of Nursing Mary Lewis actively obstructed the RN Team’s efforts to improve conditions at the facility. The RN Team reported that the trio became increasingly hostile to the RN Team. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. Lewis stated that they were following orders from the facility’s owner, Karl Cross. On or about April 14, 2020, the Department issued Quarantine/ Isolation Orders directing that 13 of Cross Landings’ 42 residents be relocated to another facility due to Cross Landings’ insufficient infection control practices and the resultant spread of COVID-19 within the facility. On or about April 15, 2020, the Department issued additional Orders requiring the remaining Cross Landings’ residents to undergo COVID-19 testing. Petitioner’s Motion does not dispute the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint as to her actions at Cross Landings between April 9 and 14, 2020. Petitioner’s case rests on the legal argument that the Department cannot take disciplinary action against Ms. Cameron’s nursing home administrator license under the facts alleged because Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings. The Motion states: Here, the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron was not substantially justified because Mark Daniels—and NOT Sebrina Cameron—was the designated administrator of Cross Landings at all times referenced in the Amended Complaint. Ms. Cameron was at all relevant times, and continues to be, the administrator of a completely different facility, Crosswinds Health and Rehabilitation Center (“Crosswinds”). These facts were known to the [Department]. The identity of the actual administrator was readily available to [the Department] and was easily determined through a simple review of readily available state records. Petitioner relies on a rule of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) regulating the licensure, administration, and fiscal management of nursing homes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.103(4) provides: Administration. The licensee of each nursing home must have full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the facility. The licensee of each facility must designate one person, who is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators under Chapter 468, Part II, F.S., as the Administrator who oversees the day to day administration and operation of the facility.[3] Each nursing home must be organized according to a written table of organization. (emphasis added). 3 This portion of the rule implements section 400.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that a licensed nursing home facility shall “[b]e under the administrative direction and charge of a licensed administrator.” Section 400.021(1) defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The Motion notes that the Administrative Complaint acknowledges that Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings by repeatedly referring to her as the “regional administrator” of the facility. The Motion goes on to argue as follows: There are no rules, codes, statutes, or any other authoritative sources that recognize the existence of or define the responsibilities of a “regional administrator.” Ms. Cameron was given the honorific title as recognition of her years of quality service, but the title did not come with any legislatively recognized responsibilities, official responsibilities, authority, or monetary incentives for any time she chose to spend helping out at Cross Landings during the once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. To be clear, Ms. Cameron was not required by contract, duties, law, or regulation to step foot in Cross Landings and put herself at risk during a deadly pandemic. Despite this, the [Department] elected to proceed against her license through [sections] 468.1755(1)(h) and (k). Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(h), by engaging in fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration, which is defined as follows by section 468.1655(4): “Practice of nursing home administration” means any service requiring nursing home administration education, training, or experience and the application of such to the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling of the total management of a nursing home. A person shall be construed to practice or to offer to practice nursing home administration who: Practices any of the above services. Holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any form of nursing home administration by written or verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card; or in any other way represents himself or herself to be, or implies that he or she is, a nursing home administrator. The Department argues that the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration does not limit its regulatory reach to the designated administrator of a nursing home, but reaches a person who holds herself out as able to perform or who does perform nursing home administration. The Department states that an AHCA rule regarding the overall operation of nursing home facilities does not govern the Department’s regulation of an individual licensee. The Department contends that Ms. Cameron’s undisputed actions at Cross Landings met the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration and that it was reasonable for the Panel to find probable cause based on those actions. The Department points out that Ms. Cameron used her title of regional administrator to order supplies on behalf of Cross Landings, including PPE and sanitizing products. Ms. Cameron verbally directed Cross Landings’ staff members. In one instance noted by the RN Team, a newly hired Cross Landings certified nursing assistant (“CNA”) was given a painter’s mask that was too large for her face. The RN Team instructed her to replace it with a smaller mask. The CNA told the RN Team that Ms. Cameron had given her the mask and that she had been given no training on COVID-19 procedures or PPE. Ms. Cameron subsequently refused to give the CNA a smaller mask and instead offered her a used N95 mask from the trunk of her car. When the CNA refused to put on the used mask, she was forced to resign from her position. Ms. Cameron represented Cross Landings in dealing with the Department regarding the placement of a resident who was suspected to have COVID-19. Ms. Cameron met with the RN Team on behalf of Cross Landings. The Department notes that Ms. Cameron held herself out as able to perform nursing home administration and/or represented or implied that she was a nursing home administrator at Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron was physically present at Cross Landings in her role as regional administrator. She employed the title “regional administrator” to some effect and used the administrator’s office while at Cross Landings. She was privy to communications between Mr. Cross and AHCA regarding the RN Team and COVID-19 infection control procedures at Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record, Ms. Cameron held herself out and was treated as having actual administrative authority at Cross Landings during the COVID-19 outbreak and the RN Team’s visit in April 2020. There was a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner engaged in the practice of nursing home administration at Cross Landings as defined in section 468.1655(4)(a) and/or (b), due to her performance of nursing home administrator services and/or by her holding herself out to be a nursing home administrator. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(k), by repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility in which she is the administrator. Chapter 468, enacted to ensure that every nursing home administrator practicing in Florida meets the minimum requirements for safe practice, defines a nursing home administrator as, “a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of nursing home administration in this state under the authority of this part.” § 468.1655(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). As noted above, section 400.021 defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The stated purpose of chapter 400, part II, is to provide for the development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for the health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and the maintenance and operation of such institutions in a manner that will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment, and health of persons in such facilities. § 400.011, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cameron was a licensed nursing home administrator pursuant to chapter 468 and used the title of regional administrator. The title “regional administrator” is not defined by statute but in context carries an ordinary meaning that the individual is the administrator supervising more than one nursing home in a geographic area. Ms. Cameron stated that she was at Cross Landings to ensure continuity of care after Mr. Daniels tendered his resignation. It was not illogical for the Department to conclude that “continuity of care” meant that Ms. Cameron was sent to Cross Landings to perform the duties of administrator as Mr. Daniels prepared for his departure. Ensuring “continuity of care” would certainly require control over the various components of a nursing home to provide health care and activities of daily living, including the management of nursing and housekeeping staff, oversight of meal services, and the facilitation of social and recreational activities. Such oversight or control is tantamount to the general administrative charge of the facility. Ms. Cameron would not have been able to ensure continuity of care if she did not have de facto general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron’s general administrative charge over the facility was evidenced by her actions at Cross Landings, including ordering supplies, distributing supplies to staff members, directing staff members, communicating on behalf of the facility, meeting with the RN Team in the place of Mr. Daniels, and using the administrator’s office as her own. Ms. Cameron’s licensure as a nursing home administrator, her use of the title regional administrator, her stated purpose for being present at Cross Landings, and her actions at Cross Landings provide sufficient grounds for a reasonable person to believe that she had the general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record and did not have sole administrative charge of the facility, Ms. Cameron presented herself as the person in charge and was treated as such by Cross Landings’ staff. Based on the foregoing, at the time this proceeding was initiated, the Department had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner was the administrator at Cross Landings as defined in sections 468.1655(3) and 400.021(1), and was subject to discipline for repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility. During the probable cause hearing on May 4, 2020, the Panel discussed and considered whether Ms. Cameron was subject to discipline for her actions at Cross Landings. Members of the Panel raised questions about her status as the administrator of Cross Landings. The Department informed the Panel that Mr. Daniels was the administrator of record for Cross Landings. The Panel discussed what duties and obligations a licensed administrator other than the administrator of record would have in this specific scenario. The Panel considered that Ms. Cameron was the regional administrator for the parent company, that she was acting in an administrative capacity on the ground at Cross Landings, and that she therefore had some degree of responsibility. The Panel concluded that Ms. Cameron was operating in the capacity of administrator by being the regional administrator on site. The chair of the Panel reasonably concluded that a regional administrator would be in a position to exercise control over Mr. Daniels and that Mr. Daniels was reporting to Ms. Cameron. It is found that the information before the Panel was sufficient to support the Panel’s decision. The Department was substantially justified in finding probable cause and deciding to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adele "Nikki" Leon, holds Florida teaching certificate number 413436, covering the area of emotional disturbances and special learning disabilities. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. At all times material hereto, respondent was employed by the Dade County Public Schools, Palmetto Adult Education Center, as a part-time teacher, and was assigned to teach Adult Basic Education for the Elderly (ABE) at Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Pertinent to this case, respondent's assignment during September and October 1992, included the teaching of an ABE class at Snapper Creek Nursing Home each Tuesday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. According to respondent's attendance reports for that period, twenty-five residents were enrolled in the class. On September 15, 1992, Ivette Morgan, assistant principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, at the request of Edward Gehret, principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, visited Snapper Creek Nursing Home to evaluate the adult education program. During the course of that visit, as well as visits on September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, Dr. Morgan had an opportunity to observe respondent's Tuesday class. On those occasions, Dr. Morgan noted only four to six residents in the classroom. 4/ Dr. Morgan reported her observations regarding class attendance to Dr. Gehret who, at the time, had been involved with enrollment and attendance review for, inter alia, Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Based on that review, Dr. Gehret observed that respondent had routinely marked all twenty-five residents in her class as "present," which did not square with Dr. Morgan's observations. On October 22, 1992, Dr. Gehret met with respondent to review the discrepancies he perceived in her attendance report procedures. At that time, it was the School Board's policy to mark residents "present" for an ABE class if they appeared at any time during the class period, no matter how briefly; but if they never appeared, to mark them as "absent." 5/ Respondent advised Dr. Gehret that she was of a different perception, and understood that nursing home residents enrolled in an ABE class were not to be marked as "absent" but, rather as "present," whether attending or not, so long as they were still in the facility. Notwithstanding, following the meeting, respondent agreed to conform her attendance procedure to the policy Dr. Gehret outlined. Regarding the discrepancies in respondent's attendance reports, when measured against the School Board's policy, the proof demonstrates that for the attendance reporting periods of September 14-27, September 28-October 11, and October 12-25, 1992, respondent completed and signed the attendance report for her Tuesday class on which she marked as "present" nursing home residents Helen Ambler and Gertrude Monge. Ms. Ambler and Ms. Monge were not, however "present" during such periods since they had died September 2, 1992, and June 15, 1992, respectively. The proof further demonstrated that for the same reporting periods, respondent had marked as "present" nursing home residents Agaton Bolanio, Nazario Lopez, and Martin Ruiz. Mr. Bolanio, Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ruiz were not, however, "present" during such periods since they had been discharged from the nursing home on June 19, 1992, July 20, 1992, and May 14, 1992, respectively. Finally, based on Dr. Morgan's observations of respondent's Tuesday class on September 15, September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, wherein she observed no more than four to six residents in attendance, it is reasonable to conclude that a significant number of residents who were marked as "present," other than the residents heretofore mentioned, were likewise not "present" on those dates. Which residents and why they were not present was not, however, established of record. 6/ Regarding the ABE program and the preparation of enrollment and attendance reports at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, the proof demonstrates that the ABE program was under the direction of the nursing home activities director who, without the participation of the instructors, prepared the enrollment for each class. 7/ Accordingly, respondent would not necessarily have known the residents assigned to her class, and reasonably assumed that the list of residents she received from the activities director contained current residents of the nursing home. Likewise, respondent relied on the activities director to advise her when residents died, were discharged or were otherwise no longer able or interested in attending before removing them from the roll; however, such information was rarely provided by the activities director. Finally, absent advice to the contrary from the activities director, respondent did not consider a resident's failure to attend on a given day an absence, as in the traditional classroom setting, and routinely marked them "present." Such practice in the ABE program was reflective of the voluntary nature of the program, as opposed to compulsory attendence in the traditional school setting, and the unavailability of information, except from the activities director, as to the reason a resident did not attend. Notably, residents frequently did not attend because, inter alia, nurses aides failed to bring them to class or they were too ill to attend, as opposed to not wanting to attend the course any longer. That such was the procedure at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, and perhaps other adult education centers in Dade County, finds other support in the record apart from respondent's testimony. For example, another instructor, Evelyn Foster, during the times in question, carried Francies Lambrou as "present" on her attendance record until July 27, 1992, although she was discharged July 2, 1992; and carried Maria Diaz, Carmen Morela, and Lorenzo Legundo as "present" until at least October 9, 1992, although Ms. Diaz and Ms. Morela were discharged September 5, 1992, and Mr. Segundo was discharged September 24, 1992. Moreover, Dr. Morgan found it necessary, at sometime between September 15 and October 26, 1992, to give the activities director specific instructions on how attendance was to be recorded, and Dr. Gehret found it necessary to conduct a "rollbook workshop" at Snapper Creek Nursing Home for all instructors, as well as agreeing to urge the nurses aides to bring the residents who desired to attend to class. [Petitioner's exhibit 1, pages 17 and 21, and respondent's exhibit 12.] Finally, there is of record a memorandum of July 8, 1993, almost one year after the events at issue in this case, from Connie Gilbert, District Director, Division of Adult Education, Dade County Schools, to all adult education center principals, which suggests continued confusion in attendance procedures for off- campus classes and that the practice at Snapper Creek Nursing Home was not an isolated occurance. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows: SUBJECT: ATTENDANCE PROCEDURES Off-campus visitations have revealed problems and confusion about attendance procedures. Please inform all teachers of the following procedures: Students must be present in a teacher's class and participate in the class activities in order for the teacher to mark this student present in that class. * * * Please make sure that off-campus teachers understand that students present "someplace in the facility" can not be considered present in a particular class. Students must be physically present in a class in order to be marked present in that class. Given the proof, it must be concluded that respondent's failure to record attendance in accordance with school board policy was, more likely than not, a consequence of a misunderstanding of, or ignorance of, that policy. In this regard, it is observed that no state policy for recording ABE attendance was established of record, and no proof that any policy established by the school board had been reduced to writing or imparted to respondent, or any other adult education instructor, prior to the events giving rise to the issues in this case. Accordingly, it follows that there was no compelling proof that respondent, by completing the attendance reports in the manner she did, had any intent to deceive the school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative compliant. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of May 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 18th day of May 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues involved in this hearing, Respondent, Phyllis Carol Holmes, was a licensed practical nurse licensed by the State of Florida under license number 31075-1, employed as a licensed practical nurse at Crestview Nursing and Convalescent Home (CNCH), in Crestview, Florida, as a charge nurse on the 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. shift. When Respondent first began work at CNCH, she was required to go through a modest training and orientation program starting on June 21, 1983. As part of this program, she was briefed by various section heads on such matters as personnel policies and procedures, knowledge of working units and various aspects of nursing procedures. The checklist utilized in accomplishing this orientation was signed by four different nurses who accomplished the orientation briefings and it reflects that all aspects of the orientation were accomplished. In addition, Respondent was furnished with a complete written job description outlining the summary of work to be performed and the performance requirements for each which she acknowledged. She was also furnished with a policy letter on nursing personnels' responsibilities for charting and a policy letter on decubitus care procedure. Under the above-mentioned policies and procedures, as charge nurse Respondent had the responsibility for some 60 patients. Part of the requirements of her position included: Making rounds when coming on duty to see that there were no special problems; Administering medications; Preparing and controlling all documenta- tion for individual patients; Making rounds at least every two hours and checking on seriously ill patients more often than that; and Administering treatment immediately as needed in those areas where appropriate. Charge nurses also have the responsibility to insure that patients are moved every two hours to be sure that pressure sores (bed sores) do not develop. On or about July 19, 1983, Barbara Ann Griffin was working as a nurse's aide for Respondent who was charge nurse over her on the 11 - 7 P.M. shift. She observed the Respondent involved in a catheter insertion into an elderly female patient whose name she cannot remember. The records admitted at the hearing do not identify the patient by name but merely as a patient number. In any case, the evidence clearly reflects Respondent inserted a catheter into the female patient's rectum by mistake, then pulled it out, wiped it off and then inserted the same catheter into the patient's meatus. The term meatus means passage or opening. In this case, the witness was referring to the external opening of the urethra. This incident was also observed by Linda Gibbons, an aide who also cannot recall the name of the patient. She recalls, however, that Respondent has had difficulty in inserting catheters on other occasions and in each case, would insert it, perhaps in the wrong opening, withdraw it, and insert it again. At the hearing Respondent admits that she had a problem one time with Mrs. Henderson in inserting a catheter, but she denies reinserting it once she discovered it had been improperly inserted. She states that she got a new catheter from the supply room and inserted it rather than utilizing the one previously inserted and denies ever having any other problems with catheters on any other patients. However, the incident in question was brought to the attention of Mr. Hopkins, the nursing home administrator, at the time in question, and when he spoke with Respondent about it, she admitted that she made a mistake, but said the room was dim and she was in a hurry at the time. From the above, it is found, therefore, that Respondent on or about the date alleged, improperly inserted a catheter into a patient without insuring that it was sterile. Ms. Griffin, an aide, also indicates that on or about September 15, 1983, when she was conducting her midnight rounds, she observed the resident in Room 213A having some sort of problems. According to Ms. Griffin, from the symptoms the patient was displaying, it appeared that the patient had had a stroke. She immediately reported this to the Respondent at the nurse's station and then went back to the patient's room. Approximately 15 minutes later the Respondent came in, looked at the patient, and decided not to call the doctor because, according to Ms. Griffin, "it was too late." Ms. Griffin contends that Respondent did not check on the patient again that night, but at 6:00 A.M., told her to get the patient up for the day. Ms. Griffin went off duty at 7:00 A.M. and did not again see the patient who she later heard had been hospitalized with a stroke. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that instead of waiting 15 minutes when advised by Ms. Griffin, she went to the patient's room almost immediately. Admittedly, she did not make any notes in the patient's record about this situation but claims this was because she was giving her midnight medicines and thereafter forgot. However, she claims she checked the patient approximately every 30 minutes all through the night. Respondent contradicts Ms. Griffin's description of the patient indicating that when she first saw her, the patient was displaying no symptoms and when she saw the patient later that morning, she looked fine. Though she did not make notes at the time, the following day Ms. Holmes entered an after-the-fact note in the records which indicated that the patient was checked at 30 minutes past midnight due to an elevation in blood pressure. Her observation at the time was that the patient's color was good and her skin was warm and dry. The patient appeared cheerful and smiling but not talkative and appeared to be in no acute distress. The admission physical done at the time the patient was admitted to the hospital on September 15, 1985, reflects that there was no swelling of the extremities which had a full range of motion and there was no evidence of Babinski's symptoms which relate to a reflex when the tendons to the extremities are palpated. The history also shows that on the day of admission, the patient was found to have a right-sided weakness and slurred speech but there is no evidence to support the symptoms reported by Ms. Griffin. In substance, then, it appears that while the Respondent failed to report the patient's symptoms to the physician, there is some substantial question that the patient was in the acute distress indicated by the witness, Ms. Griffin. Further, Ms. Griffin admitted that she was in and out of other rooms in the home throughout the remainder of the shift and though she contends she is sure Respondent did not visit the patient during the remainder of the shift, there is no way she can be so certain. In paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleged that on or about April 11, 1984, Respondent administered Ascriptin to a patient in her care even though the physicians's order for the patient had discontinued administration of this substance on April 4, 1984. Review of the documentation submitted by the Petitioner in support of its claim here, specifically the medication administration record for patient number 17, reflects that on April 11, 1984, the Respondent did administer Ascriptin to the patient. The physician's orders clearly reflect that on April 4, 1984, Ascriptin, along with several other medications were discontinued by the physician. However, on April 16, 1984, according to the medication administration record, another nurse also administered Ascriptin. Petitioner admits that the medical administration record did not show the fact that the medication was discontinued. The entry indicating discontinuance was made well after the second administration by the other nurse. However, Ms. LeBrun, the then Director of Nursing for CNCH, contends that even though the medication administration record did not show the discontinuance, Respondent should have noted that the medicine had not been given for quite a while and gone to the doctor's orders to see why that was the case. Had she done so, she would have noticed the order indicating the medication was discontinued. Ascriptin, however, is a pain medication and the doctor's original order indicated it was to be given in the event of pain. If the patient was not suffering pain, the patient would not have called for it and it would not have been given even if authorized. Respondent indicated that the patient did not complain of pain often. When she administered the medication last, there was no indication on the medication administration record that it had been discontinued and even as of April 11, 1984, when the medication was administered by the Respondent, seven days after the doctor's order discontinuing it, the medication was still in the patient's drawer on the medication cart. Inez Cobb has worked at CNCH for approximately 15 years as a nurse's aide and worked for Respondent during the 1983-1984 period. As she recalls, on the morning of May 2, 1984, while getting the patients up for the day, between 6:00 and 6:45 A.M., she entered the room of patient Haas. When she came in she observed the patient slumped in his chair. She checked his blood pressure and found it to be very low and his pulse was weak and faint. She immediately reported this to the Respondent who did nothing and as of 7:00 A.M., when the witness left duty, Respondent had failed to check on the patient. As she recalls, however, the incoming charge nurse who was to replace Respondent on the next shift also failed to check on the patient. Respondent contends that when she was notified of Mr. Haas' condition, she had the medicine nurse for the day shift check him and this nurse, acting on Respondent's instructions, called the doctor almost immediately after the Respondent was notified. Respondent was giving report to the oncoming charge nurse when Ms. Cobb mentioned Mr. Haas to her, and when she finished this report, she went and checked on him. Admittedly, she did not notify the physician. The nurse's notes made by Respondent on the day in question fail to reflect any mention of this incident. Ms. LeBrun noting that Respondent's nurse's notes fail to reflect any acknowledgment of the problem, indicated that proper practice would have been for Respondent to have immediately gone to observe the patient, made her own assessment, immediately called the physician, and then made her nurses notes entry. This is so especially in light of the comment regarding the incident in the flow sheet made by Ms. Cobb regarding the patient's condition. Also, according to Ms. Cobb, on May 11, 1984, she noticed a red area on the coccyx of patient Martin. She reported this to the Respondent several times even after the skin broke, but to her knowledge, nothing was done about it for several days. It is her understanding that when an aide sees an area like this, she is not allowed to treat it herself but must report it to the nurse on duty which she did. Unfortunately, the red spot turned into an ulcer which remained on the patient until he died at some later date. The decubitus care procedure and policy letter reflected above outlines the method of care to be taken with regard to the prevention of ulceration. It calls for keeping the patient's skin dry, massage and frequent turning. Ms. Gregg noted this situation on the flow sheets for May 11, at 5:15 A.M. The nurse's notes prepared by the Respondent at 5:15 A.M. in the morning on May 11 reflect merely that a bed bath was given with a linen change and that a broken area was noted on the patient's right buttox. There is no indication that any treatment was given by the Respondent or that the physician was notified. Respondent admits that she knew Mr. Martin had a broken area and she treated it often. Admittedly, she did not chart her treatment properly because she had to give all medicines at the time and do all the charts for more than 60 patients and did not get around to it. She contends she may not have heard Ms. Cobb report this situation to her because she is somewhat hard of hearing from time to time and as a result, has asked all her aides not to just give her information on the run but to be sure to get her attention when they need to report something. On the issue of whether Respondent's performance measures up to the standard of care required of nurses in Florida, Ms. LeBrun contends that the standard of care for licensed practical nurses is not that much different or much less than that required for registered nurses because in this State, licensed practical nurses do many of the same procedures often reserved for registered nurses elsewhere. In the area of medications, for example, there is no room for error. As a result, standards are high and Ms. LeBrun feels there is a need for checking and double checking. In the situation regarding the Ascriptin here, she believes that even though it is strictly a pain medication, the Respondent should still have checked the doctor's orders to insure the requirement was still valid before administering a medication which the records show had not been administered for quite a while. With regard to the catheter insertion, Ms. LeBrun states the fact that the patient did not develop an infection is irrelevant. The issue concerns the following of a procedure using a contaminated catheter which could easily have developed an infection for the patient. Referring to the stroke patient, Ms. LeBrun agrees with the testimony of Ms. Barrow, another licensed practical nurse, who was the day shift charge nurse relieving Respondent at 7:00 A.M. in the morning. As she recalls the situation on September 15, she observed the patient in question being brought out of the dining room. At that time, the patient was semi-lethargic. Ms. Barrow is of the opinion that if the patient was wakened at 6:30 A.M.; she would not have been in the condition she was in at 11:30 A.M. for a long time. Therefore, the stroke must have taken place just before 11:30 A.M.; as the patient was not in such poor shape during the preceding 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. shift. Ms. LeBrun feels that if the patient was in condition as described by the night nurse, it is not likely they would have gotten her up at 6:30 A.M. to go to the dining room. Nonetheless, she feels that Respondent should have responded sooner as the symptoms described by the night nurse are consistent with strokes as well as other things. On that basis, the Respondent should have made an assessment on the vital signs and notified the doctor immediately. Turning to the issue of the decubitus situation on the patient with the ulcer, Ms. LeBrun feels that the Respondent should have documented what she did for the broken area. If the records do not say what was done, it is presumed not to be done. When notified that the broken area was getting larger, the Respondent should have documented what treatment she administered since the nursing home had a procedure to be followed for this type of condition and it appears respondent did not follow this procedure. Several of the nurses who worked for the Respondent indicated that they had had other professional problems with her. For example, Ms. Griffin indicated that in addition to the catheter incident, she had instances when she would report problems to the Respondent but Respondent would make no record of it. She would, for instance, report patients with rashes to the Respondent but nothing would be done about it. It got so bad that the witness finally started to request Respondent to initial reports she made. Ms. Gibbons also has noticed Respondent to have had difficulty on other occasions than that involved in this hearing with the insertion of catheters. Ms. LeBrun prepared at least one efficiency report on Respondent which had to be reaccomplished because the Respondent would not sign for it and acknowledge the rating. In addition, Ms. LeBrun counseled Respondent on at least one occasion for jumping channels. On the basis of Ms. LeBrun's testimony, it would appear that there was some friction between the two nurses but this does not necessarily, in light of all the other evidence, indicate that Ms. LeBrun's testimony is biased or tainted. On the basis of the above incidents, Ms. Holmes was terminated from employment with the nursing home on June 29, 1984, because of poor performance. On December 21, 1983, the Board of Nursing entered an Order pursuant to a stipulation executed by the Respondent in another case which resulted in her being fined $250.00, being placed on probation, and being required to take certain continuing education courses. The stipulation reflects that the Respondent denied the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint which supported it which related to various failures by Respondent to conform to the minimal standards of nursing practice. Respondent indicated that she entered into the stipulation simply because she had no money with which to retain an attorney and was forced, therefore, to utilize the services of Legal Aid. It was her Legal Aid attorney who talked her into stipulating on the basis that she had no witnesses to support her position. She continues to deny the allegations in the former Administrative Complaint, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of one year or until such time as she has completed a course of remedial study prescribed by the Board of Nursing and to its satisfaction, and that upon her completion of such course of study, she be placed on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Board of Nursing. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Furlow, Esquire, and Celia Bradley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale E. Rice, Esquire Post Office Box 687 Crestview, Florida 32536 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504, 111 E. Coastline Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the duly promulgated rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services by designating and continuing to designate the same person as the Assistant Administrator and the Director of Nursing of the Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., after having been cited for such deficiency and allowed sufficient time to correct the deficiency.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed by Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 27, 1980 notifying Respondent Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., a skilled nursing care home, that Petitioner intended to impose a civil penalty of $100 for violating duly promulgated rules by designating the same person to act as Assistant Administrator and Director of Nursing of the nursing home. At the formal administrative hearing the Administrator admitted that he served more than one health facility, that at all times pertinent to the hearing the acting Assistant Nursing Home Administrator was also designated as the Director of Nursing, and that she was the only registered nurse on duty. It was admitted that no change had been made after the inspector for the Petitioner Department had called attention to this alleged violation until after the time period allowed for correcting this situation had expired and after the Petitioner had informed Respondent it intended to impose a $100 civil penalty. In mitigation Respondent presented testimony and adduced evidence showing that as the owner and operator of the nursing home he had made an effort to employ registered nurses at the home and that on the date of hearing the nursing home was in compliance with the statutes, rules and regulations. It was evident to the Hearing Officer that the nursing home serves a need in the community and that the residents appreciate the service. Petitioner Department submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the writing of this order. Respondent submitted a memorandum. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered by the Petitioner assessing an administrative fine not to exceed $50. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. J. E. Speed, Administrator Bonifay Nursing Home 108 Wagner Road Bonifay, Florida 32425 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
