The Issue Whether Petitioner was in violation of 42CFR 483.25(l)(1), 42CFR 483.60(d), Rules 59A-4.112(5) and 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of its annual survey in July 2000, and, if so, whether those violations were uncorrected at the time of resurvey in September 2000, in order to justify the issuance of a Conditional licensure rating.
Findings Of Fact Tampa Health Care Center (Petitioner) is a licensed nursing home in Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, Respondent surveys Petitioner to determine whether it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If there are deficiencies, it determines the level of deficiency. When Respondent conducts a survey of a nursing home, it issues a survey report, commonly called by its form number, a "2567." The particular regulation, and the allegedly deficient practices which constitute a violation of that regulation, are cited in a column on the left side of the paper. After receiving the 2567, the facility is required to develop a plan of correction which is put in the right hand column corresponding to the alleged deficiency. The facility is required to develop this plan regardless of whether it agrees that it is in violation of any regulations, and it is prohibited from being argumentative. Respondent conducted its annual survey of Petitioner, ending July 27, 2000, and issued a 2567 survey report noting certain deficiencies. The deficiencies are designated as tag numbers. Among those noted were Tag F329, which is the shorthand reference to 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.25 (1)(1), and Tag F431, which incorporates 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d). Respondent rated these deficiencies as Class III deficiencies. Respondent conducted a follow-up survey on September 5, 2000, and determined that the deficiencies under tags F329 and F431 were uncorrected, and, as a result, issued a Conditional rating to the facility. On December 2000, Respondent conducted another follow- up survey and determined that all deficiencies had been corrected and therefore issued a Standard license to Petitioner effective that date. The 2567 constitutes the charging document for purposes of issuing a Conditional license. No other document was offered to describe the offenses, or deficiencies, which resulted in imposition of the Conditional license. The parties stipulated at the hearing that Tags F329 and F431 were the only ones at issue in this proceeding. In conducting its survey, Respondent uses a document developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), called the State Operations Manual. It indicates guidance on how are to interpret regulations. TAG F 329 The 2567 from the July survey asserts, under Tag F 329, that the facility "failed to monitor psychotropic medications for 5 of 5 sampled residents." The regulation states that residents are to be "free from unnecessary drugs," and elaborates that a drug given without adequate monitoring is considered unnecessary. The guidelines establish that monitoring is expected only for residents on psychotropic medications. Therefore, for a violation to occur, there must first be a resident who is receiving psychotropic medications, and secondly, a lack of monitoring of the use of that drug. Respondent alleged and put on evidence that certain residents (numbers 1, 9, 19, and 21) identified in the July survey did not have "behavior monitoring records" in their files. Specific forms are not mandatory, and evidence of monitoring can be documented elsewhere in a resident's clinical record. Monitoring can be documented in nurses' notes, and those notes were not thoroughly reviewed, as Respondent's surveyors only had limited time for the survey. Respondent presented no evidence that Residents 9, 19, or 21 were receiving psychotropic medications. Petitioner presented evidence of numerous systems in place to monitor residents, including those receiving psychotropic medications. Residents are given a complete clinical assessment within 24 hours of admission; there is then a 14-day more thorough observation and assessment process, culminating in the development of care plans which address particular issues and direct staff to care for residents in particular ways. Nurses regularly document issues or concerns in nurses notes; a physician visits the residents at least once a month, which, as all drugs are ordered by the physician, includes review of the resident's medication. If necessary, a psychiatric evaluation is completed. Once a week a transdisciplinary team meets to discuss any residents "at risk," which includes those receiving psychotropic medications. Additionally, a consultant pharmacist reviews all residents' medications once a month. This review is to determine how well the resident is doing on the drug regimen. It includes reviewing nurses' notes, physicians' notes, the medication administration record, the record of dosages taken on an "as needed" basis, and discussions with nursing staff. The pharmacist reviews whether there are medications administered in excessive doses, in excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, or in the presence of adverse consequences. With regard to the September survey, Respondent alleged in the Form 2567 that "Residents numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 lacked Behavior Monitoring Forms in their records" and that all were on psychotropic medications which required monitoring. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara Bearden who stated that Residents 3 and 4 were on psychotropic medications, and that there were no behavior monitoring forms. With regard to Resident 4, Respondent asserted that there was no assessment of behaviors in any records after August 14. Bearden acknowledged that both Residents 3 and 4 received reasonable doses, and that there was no reason to believe the level of medication was too high. Respondent's witness also asserted that there was no "AIMS" assessments, no initial assessment, and no indication of the reason for or effectiveness of the medications. These matters were not alleged in the charging document, which only asserted the lack of behavior monitoring forms. During her testimony, Respondent's witness acknowledged that there was no standard to determine how often there should be behavior monitoring. Marie Maisel testified for Respondent regarding Residents 9, 11, and 13. With regard to Resident 9, she testified that the resident received Restoril, a sleeping medication, and also Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and that there was no "systematic behavior monitoring." Sleeping medications do not require behavior monitoring, according to the State Operations Manual, and at deposition, the surveyor indicated that the only medication the resident received was Restoril. Petitioner therefore had no notice of the additional allegation regarding Zoloft and this fact cannot be considered. With regard to Resident 11, Maisel testified that the resident received Risperdal, a psychotropic medication, and that, in her opinion, the behavior monitoring was not adequate. At hearing the surveyor testified that Resident 13 was receiving Haldol and there was no systemic behavior monitoring. However, the witness acknowledged that when her deposition was taken, she did not know why Resident 13 had been cited. Petitioner therefore had no notice of these allegations regarding Resident 13. Petitioner presented evidence, including excerpts from the resident's clinical record, that Resident 3 had been assessed for drug use, and that behaviors were monitored. The resident had been admitted less than three weeks before the September survey, which means that an initial assessment had been performed, as well as the complete 14-day assessment, just prior to survey. Respondent admitted that it would be inappropriate to reduce medication soon after admission. There was a care plan which addressed the resident's use of Risperdal, and another which addressed the resident's ability to function with the activities of daily living. These care plans directed staff to monitor the resident's condition and behavior. Numerous nursing notes documented the resident's condition and behaviors. Resident 3 was not noted in the pharmacist's monthly report, meaning the review revealed no problems with medications. Furthermore, the resident's medications were significantly reduced while in Petitioner's care, and her condition improved dramatically, from being nearly comatose, to being alert and oriented, and needing only limited assistance with mobility. Resident 4 had been admitted just a month before the survey and had also just undergone an extensive assessment process. Her medications were also reduced from those she had been receiving on admission, and nurses notes clearly documented her condition and behaviors throughout the period up to the survey. These notes document not only the monitoring of behaviors, but the reason and need for the medication, as she exhibited combative behaviors. Resident 4 also did not appear on the pharmacist's report. With regard to Resident 9, Petitioner presented evidence that there was a care plan specifically addressing the resident's use of Zoloft, that there were other care plans which addressed behaviors and condition which required that the resident be monitored, and that there was periodic consideration of reductions. Resident 9 did appear on the pharmacist's report, suggesting consideration of a reduction in dosage; thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the system. Resident 11 had a care plan addressing her use of Risperdal, which required monitoring and other interventions. Monthly nursing summaries reflected that she was monitored, as did nursing notes. Generally, nurses notes indicate when there are problems or unusual occurrences, not when everything is routine. Petitioner also presented evidence with regard to Resident 13's use of Haldol, which showed the reason for its use (wandering, verbal abusiveness), numerous efforts to reduce the dosage, review by the pharmacist, a care plan to address its use, which required monitoring, and monthly summaries summarizing her condition and behaviors. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to show that Residents 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13, cited in the September survey, were appropriately monitored and were not receiving unnecessary drugs. TAG F431 Respondent charged in the September 2000 survey that several insulin vials in the medication room were not marked with the date they were opened. The regulation under Tag F431, 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d), requires that drugs be labeled "in accordance with currently accepted professional principles" and "the expiration date when applicable." The surveyor guidelines indicate that the critical elements of labeling are the name of the drug and its strength. Additionally, the guidelines advise that drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration (F.D.A.) must have expiration dates on the manufacturer's container. Respondent's witness acknowledged that all insulin had the manufacturer's expiration date. Although there is a chance of contamination after opening a vial of insulin, it was acknowledged that it is customary to have a policy allowing use for six months after opening. Petitioner has a policy of discarding insulin 60 days after opening. While it is customary to write the opening date on the vial, a failure to do so will only reduce the amount of time it can be used, because of other systems in place. The pharmacy which dispenses the insulin puts a dispensing date on it, and the pharmacist reviews, monthly, stored medications. Within every three months, all medications are checked, and if there is no date of opening, the pharmacist looks to the dispensing date. If the vial was dispensed more than 60 days prior, it is given to the nurse for discarding. Instead of being able to be used for six months beyond the date opened, the medication is discarded sixty days, or at most ninety days, after it was dispensed. Writing the date opened on the vial is not an item encompassed by the regulation as explicated in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is no potential for harm, as there are redundant systems in place.
Recommendation Based of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 27 and September 5, 2000, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F329 and F431, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by Petitioner and was so licensed at all times here relevant. On 6-7 August 1979 Petitioner conducted a survey (inspection) of Respondent's facility and upon completion submitted HRS Form 553D (Exhibit 1). This report of inspection listed no Class I deficiency, one Class II deficiency and 19 class III deficiencies. The Class II deficiency noted was that medications are being administered not in accordance with physician's orders. On Exhibits 1 and 2, five examples of this Class II deficiency are listed where specific drugs or other medications were not recorded, not administered in accordance with physician's orders. Or in which the incorrect dosage was administered and/or recorded as having been given. At a follow-up inspection on or about September 27, 1979, the results of which are memorialized in HRS For 553E (Exhibit2), the Class II deficiency is noted as corrected. By letter dated December 17, 1979 Petitioner notified Respondent that despite Respondent's representations made at an informal conference on 6 December 1979 the "C" rating would stand and advised Respondent of his right to appeal by requesting an administrative hearing within 30 days. Such a request was duly made which let to the instant proceedings.
Recommendation DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of June 1980. 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 19th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire District XI Legal Counsel, HRS 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Barry D. Schrieber, Esquire Suite 301, County National Bank Building 801 Northeast 167th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed violations of Section 468.1755, Florida Statutes, as alleged in an Administrative Complaint dated October 7, 1988, and if so, what discipline should be taken against his nursing home administrator's license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Allen Maurer, is a licensed nursing home administrator, holding State of Florida license number NH 0002026. He is currently employed by Central Park Lodges, Inc., as a corporate administrator out of the corporate offices in Sarasota, Florida. From July 19, 1985, until February 9, 1989, Robert Maurer was the administrator at Central Park Lodges' retirement center and nursing home facility, Central Park Village, in Orlando, Florida. On April 28, 29 and 30, 1986, Grace Merifield and other staff from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) Office of Licensure and Certification conducted their first annual inspection of Central Park Village. Ms. Merifield is an RN Specialist and licensed registered nurse. Ms. Merifield found several licensing rule violations, including the following, and noted them on a deficiency report form: NURSING SERVICES NH127 3 of 3 bowel or bladder retraining program patients charts reviewed lacked documentation of a formal retraining program being provided. The documentation lacked progress or lack of progress towards the retraining goal, ie., in the care plan, nurses notes or the monthly summaries. 10D-29.l08(5)(b), FAC, Rehabilitative and Restorative Nursing Care. DIETARY SERVICES NH193 1) Stainless steel polish containing toxic material was observed in the dishwasher area. Bulk ice cream and cartons of frozen foods were stored directly on the floor in the walk-in freezer. 10D-29.110(3)(g)1, FAC, Sanitary Conditions INFECTION CONTROL NH448 Infection control committee had not insured acceptable performance in that the following was observed: After a dressing change the nurse failed to wash her hands; three nurses failed to cover the table they were working off, one nurse used the bedstand along with the syringe for a tube feeding resident and returned the supplies to medical cart or medical room, cross contaminating the supplies. Floors of utility rooms were observed with dead bugs unmopped for two days of the survey. Syringe unlabeled and undated. Urinals and graduates unlabeled. Clean linen placed in inappropriate areas and soiled linen on floors, laundry bucket overflowing being pushed down the hall. 10D-29.123(2), FAC, Infection Control Committee (Petitioner's Exhibit #3) During the survey, Robert Maurer, as Administrator, and other nursing home staff met with the inspection team, took partial tours with them and participated in exit interviews, wherein the deficiencies were cited and recommendations were made for corrections. The infection control deficiencies required immediate correction, the dietary services deficiencies required correction by May 5, 1986, and the other deficiencies were to be corrected by May 30, 1986. On July 14, 1986, Ms. Merifield returned to Central Park Village for reinspection and found that most of the violations had been corrected. These, however, still remained: Stainless steel polish containing toxic materials was found in the dishwashing area, a violation of Rule 10D-29.110(3)(g)(1), Florida Administrative Code; Bulk ice cream and frozen food was stored directly on the floor in the walk-in freezer, and one of the five gallon ice cream container lids was completely off, exposing the ice cream, a violation of Rule 10D-29.110(3)(g)(1), Florida Administrative Code; Three out of three bowel or bladder retraining program program charts of residents reviewed lacked documentation, from all shifts of nurses, of a formal retraining program where progress or a lack of progress should be documented, a violation of Rule 10D-29.108(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code; The infection control committee had not insured acceptable performance, a violation of Rule 10D-29.123(2), Florida Administrative Code, in that: two nurses failed to properly cover the bedside table they were working from and cross contaminated dressing supplies; urinals and graduates were unlabeled; clean linen was placed in inappropriate areas, soiled linen was in the bathroom basin, and laundry buckets were overflowing with soiled linens in two utility rooms. After the survey in April, the facility was given a conditional license. That was changed to a standard license in October, 1986, when another inspection was conducted and no deficiencies were found. The following April, in 1987, the facility was given, and still maintains, a superior license. All of the deficiencies noted in April and July 1986 were class III, the least serious class of deficiencies, denoting an indirect or potential threat to health and safety. Deficiencies in Classes I and II are considered life-threatening or probably threatening. The number of deficiencies found at Central Park Village was not unusual. After the April inspection and before the July inspection, Robert Maurer took steps to remedy the deficiencies. Although the staff already had in-service training, additional training was given. Mr. Maurer met with the food service director and was told that a delivery had been made the morning of inspection, but that items had not been placed on the shelves by the stockman. Some of the food items had been left out to be discarded. Prior to the case at issue here, no discipline has been imposed against Robert Maurer's nursing home administrator's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 468.1755(1)(m), F.S., with a letter of guidance from the Probable Cause Panel of the Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in part in paragraph 5. Some of the deficiencies had to be corrected before the 30-day deadline. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 6. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in part in paragraph 1. Petitioner's exhibits #1 and #2 and Respondent's testimony at transcript, pages 54 and 55, establish that he was administrator from 1985-1989. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence, including Respondent's testimony. Adopted in paragraph 6. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 9. through 11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 12. and 13. Adopted or addressed in paragraph 8. 14. and 15. Adopted in paragraph 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Victoria Raughley, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 10651 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Mildred Gardner Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Nursing Home Administrators 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Was Petitioner properly cited for a Class III deficiency.
Findings Of Fact Horizon Healthcare & Specialty Center (Horizon), is an 84-bed nursing home located at 1350 South Nova Road, Daytona Beach, Florida. It is licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida. On August 14, 2000, AHCA conducted a survey of Horizon. This was accomplished in part by Rose Dalton, a nurse. At the hearing Ms. Dalton was determined to be an expert in nursing care. A report on a nursing home survey is made on a Form 2567-L which is approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration. A Form 2567-L was generated as a result of Ms. Dalton's survey. It was reported under the category Tag 327. Resident 7. Ms. Dalton, in conjunction with the survey team accompanying her, determined on August 17, 2000, that Resident 7 was dehydrated. This conclusion was reached because facility records indicated that Patient 7 had a blood urea nitrogen (BUN) of 57 on August 7, 2000, with normal being 6-26, and a high normal creatinine of 1.6. Another factor used in concluding that Resident 7 was dehydrated was a report dated August 8, 2000, which revealed a BUN of 34. On August 12, 2000, a report indicated a BUN of 43 and a creatinine of 1.9. The survey team was also aware that Resident 7 was ingesting Levaquin, a powerful antibiotic which requires that a patient remain well-hydrated. Ms. Dalton and the survey team cited the facility with a Class III deficiency, for state purposes, and a "G" on the federal scale. The federal scale goes from "A", which is a deficiency which causes no harm, to "J", which is harm which may cause death. The "G" level meant that it was the team's opinion that there was great potential for actual harm. Resident 7 was admitted on August 3, 2000. Among other ailments, Resident 7 was suffering from a femoral neck fracture and renal insufficiency when admitted. The resident contracted a urinary tract infection (UTI), and was being administered Levaquin, an antibiotic appropriate for UTI treatment. On August 8, 2000, a physician's order requested that the patient be encouraged to consume fluids. It is Ms. Dalton's opinion that Resident 7 was not provided proper fluid intake by the facility which could have caused serious health consequences for Resident 7. When Resident 7 was in the hospital, prior to being admitted to Horizon, his BUN was 41 and his creatinine was 2.3, which is consistent with Resident 7's chronic renal insufficiency. The BUN of 43 and creatinine of 1.9 observed in the facility on August 12, 2000, did not indicate Resident 7's condition was worsening, and in fact, it was improving marginally. The values for a normal BUN might vary from laboratory to laboratory but generally a normal BUN would be around 25 or less. Because of Resident 7's underlying renal disease and ischemic cardiomyopathy, it was unlikely that Resident 7 would ever manifest a BUN which would be considered normal. Dr. Elizabeth Ann Eads, D.O., an expert in the field of geriatric medicine, reviewed the laboratory values and the nursing notes in the case of Resident 7. It is her opinion, based on that review, that the facility provided appropriate care, that the patient improved during the stay at the facility, and that there was nothing in the record which suggested any actual harm to Resident 7. This opinion was accepted. Resident 8. Ms. Dalton opined that, based on her personal observation and a review of Resident 8's medical records, that the facility failed to respond to the hydration needs of Resident 8 and did not follow the care plan which was developed for Resident 8. Ms. Kala Fuhrmann was determined to be an expert in the field of long-term care nursing. She noted that Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on August 1, 2000. Resident 8's hospital records indicated that Resident 8 might be developing a UTI based on a urinalysis performed on July 31, 2000, which revealed blood and protein in the urine. On August 3, 2000, Resident 8's doctor started an antibiotic, Levaquin, and ordered another urinalysis. On August 4, 2000, a culture determined that Resident 8 was positive for a UTI, so the antibiotic treatment was continued. On August 15, 2000, it was determined the UTI had been cured. During the course of the UTI, Resident 8 was incontinent, which is often the case when elderly patients are afflicted with UTI. By August 18, 2000, Resident 8 was continent. It is Ms. Fuhrmann's opinion that the care provided to Resident 8 was appropriate and that there is nothing in the record which demonstrates that anything less than adequate hydration was provided to this resident. This opinion was accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the allegations set forth in relation to the TAG 327. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 12th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith & Grout, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
