The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
The Issue The issues are thus whether the acts and omissions charged occurred, whether they constitute violations of Section 400.022(1)(j) and 400.141, Florida Statutes, and related rules, and whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to 400.102(c) and Section 400.121, Florida Statutes. Upon the commencement of the hearing, the petitioner moved to amend paragraph 8 of its Complaint, so that the date "March 4" would read March 14." The motion was granted on the basis that there was only a clerical error involved and paragraph 8 correctly alleges that there-was a nursing staff shortage from February 20 to March 14, 1980. Eight witnesses were called by the Petitioner, and two by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were adduced as evidence. The Respondent has submitted and requested rulings upon ninety-five proposed findings of fact. In that connection, all proposed findings, conclusions, and supporting arguments of the parties have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments made by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith they have been rejected.
Findings Of Fact Manhattan Convalescent Center is a nursing home facility located in Tampa and licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On January 22, February 20, February 25, March 3, March 6, and March 14, 1980, a number of Department employees representing the Department's medical review team, and the Office of Licensure and Certification, consisting of registered nurses, hospital consultants and Department surveillance team members, made inspections of the Respondent's facility for the purpose of ascertaining whether the premises, equipment and conduct of operations were safe and sanitary for the provision of adequate and appropriate health care consistent with the rules promulgated by the Department and whether minimum nursing service staff standards were being maintained. Thus, on January 22, 1980 a member of the medical review team, witness Maulden, observed a rat run across the floor in one of the wings of the nursing home facility. On February 20, Muriel Holzberger, a registered nurse and surveyor employed by the Petitioner, observed rodent droppings in one of the wings of the facility and on February 20, March 12 and March 14, 1980, numerous roaches were observed by various employees of the Department making inspections throughout the facility. On February 20, 1980 strong urine odors were present on the 200, 300 and 400 wings of the facility as well as in the lobby. The odor was caused by urine puddles under some patients' chairs in the hallway, wet sheets, and a spilled catheter. On February 20 and 25, 1980 the grounds were littered with debris and used equipment, the grass and weeds on the grounds needed cutting and there was a build up of organic material, food spills and wet spots on the floors. The Respondent's witness, Ann Killeen, as well as the Petitioner's hospital consultant, Joel Montgomery, agreed that a general state of disrepair existed at the Respondent's facility, consisting of torn screens, ill fitting exterior doors with inoperative or missing door closers and missing ceiling tile. Interior and exterior walls were in need of repair and repainting. Additionally, eleven bedside cords for the nurse paging system were cut, apparently by patients, and on February 25, 1980, a total of 36 nurse paging stations were inoperative. A substantial number of these cords were cut by a patient (or patients) with scissors without the knowledge of the Respondent and steps to correct the condition were immediately taken. On January 22, 1980 Petitioner's representatives, Mary Maulden and Alicia Alvarez, observed a patient at the Respondent's facility free himself from physical restraints, walk down the hall and leave the facility. A search for nursing staff was made but none were found on the wing. After three to five minutes the Assistant Director of Nurses was located and the patient was apprehended. Nurse Alvarez's testimony revealed that the Respondent's nursing staff was in and out of, and working in that wing all that morning except for that particular point in time when the patient shed his restraints and walked out of the facility. On March 3, 1980 Department employee, William Musgrove, as part of a surveillance team consisting of himself and nurse Muriel Holzberger, observed two patients restrained in the hall of the facility in chairs and Posey vests, which are designed to safely restrain unstable patients. The witness questioned the propriety of this procedure, but could not establish this as a violation of the Respondent's patient care policies required by Rule 10D-29.41, Florida Administrative Code. The witness reviewed the Respondent's written patient care policy required by that Rule and testified that their policy complied with it and that the policy did not forbid restraining a patient to a handrail in the facility as was done in this instance. The witness was unable to testify whether patients were improperly restrained pursuant to medical orders for their own or other patients' protection. A hospital consultant for the Department, Bill Schmitz, and Marsha Winae, a public health nurse for the Department, made a survey of the Respondent's facility on March 12, 1980. On that day the extensive roach infestation was continuing as was the presence of liquids in the hallways. On February 20, 1980 witness Joel Montgomery observed a lawn mower stored in the facility's electrical panel room which is charged as a violation in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. The lawn mower was not shown to definitely contain gasoline however, nor does it constitute a bulk storage of volatile or flammable liquids. Nurse Holzberger who inspected the Respondent's nursing home on February 20, February 25, March 3 and March 6, 1980, corroborated the previously established roach infestation and the presence of strong urine odors throughout the facility including those emanating from puddles under some patients' chairs, the soaking of chair cushions and mattresses and an excess accumulation of soiled linen. Her testimony also corroborates the existence of 36 instances of inoperative nurse paging devices including the 11 nurse calling cords which had been cut by patients. This witness, who was accepted as an expert in the field of proper nursing care, established that an appropriate level of nursing care for the patients in this facility would dictate the requirement that those who are incontinent be cleaned and their linen changed more frequently and that floors be mopped and otherwise cleaned more frequently. Upon the second visit to the facility by this witness the nurse call system had 9 paging cords missing, 11 cords cut, and 15 of the nurse calling devices would not light up at the nurses' station. This situation is rendered more significant by the fact that more than half of the patients with inoperative nurse paging devices were bedridden. On her last visit of March 6, 1980 the problem of urine puddles standing on the floors, urine stains on bed linen, and resultant odor was the same or slightly worse than on the two previous visits. An effective housekeeping and patient care policy or practice would dictate relieving such incontinent patients every two hours and more frequent laundering of linen, as well as bowel and bladder training. On March 6, 1980 controlled drugs were resting on counters in all of the facility's four drug rooms instead of being stored in a locked compartment, although two of the drug rooms themselves were locked. The other two were unlocked, but with the Respondent's nurses present. Ms. Holzberger participated in the inspections of March 3 and March 6, 1980. On March 3, 1980 there were no more than 14 sheets available for changes on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight nursing shift. On March 6, 1980 there were only 68 absorbent underpads and 74 sheets available for changes for approximately 65 incontinent patients. The unrefuted expert testimony of Nurse Holzberger established that there should be available four sheets for each incontinent patient per shift. Thus, on these two dates there was an inadequate supply of bed linen to provide changes for the incontinent patients in the facility. On March 6, 1980 Nurse Holzberger and Nurse Carol King observed 12 patients who were lying on sheets previously wet with urine, unchanged, dried and rewet again. This condition is not compatible with generally recognized adequate and appropriate nursing care standards. Incontinent patients should be examined every two hours and a change of sheets made if indicated. If such patients remain on wet sheets for a longer period of time their health may be adversely affected. On March 6, 1980 these same employees of the Petitioner inspected a medical supply room and found no disposable gloves, no adhesive tape, no razor blades and one package of telfa pads. There was no testimony to establish what the medical supply requirements of this facility are based upon the types of patients it cares for and the types and amounts of medical supplies thus needed. The testimony of Robert Cole, the facility's employee, who was at that time in charge of dispensing medical supplies, establishes that in the medical supply room (as opposed to the nurses' stations on the wings) there were at least six rolls of tape per station, 50 razors, four boxes or 80 rolls, 300 telfa pads and 200 sterile gloves. Nurses Holzberger and King made an evaluation of the Respondent's nurse staffing patterns. Ms. Holzberger only noted a shortage of nursing staff on February 24, 1980. Her calculations, however, were based on an average census of skilled patients in the Respondent's facility over the period February 20 to March 4, 1980 and she did not know the actual number of skilled patients upon which the required number of nursing staff present must be calculated on that particular day, February 24, 1980. Further, her calculations were based upon the nurses' "sign in sheet" and did not include the Director of Nurses who does not sign in when she reports for work. Therefore, it was established that on February 24 there would be one more registered nurse present than her figures reflect, i.e., the Director of Nurses. Nurse King, in describing alleged nursing staff shortages in the week of March 7 to March 13, 1980, was similarly unable to testify to the number of skilled patients present on each of those days which must be used as the basis for calculating required nursing staff. She rather used a similar average patient census for her calculations and testimony. Thus, neither witness for the Petitioner testifying regarding nursing staff shortages knew the actual number of patients present in the facility on the days nursing staff shortages were alleged. In response to the problem of the roach infestation, the Respondent's Administrator changed pest control companies on March 26, 1980. The previous pest control service was ineffective. It was also the practice of the Respondent, at that time, to fog one wing of the facility per week with pesticide in an attempt to control the roaches. Further, vacant lots on all sides, owned and controlled by others, were overgrown with weeds and debris, to which the witness ascribed the large roach population. The problem of urine odors in the facility was attributed to the exhaust fans for ventilating the facility which were inoperable in February, 1980. She had them repaired and, by the beginning of April, 1980 (after the subject inspections), had removed the urine odor problem. The witness took other stops to correct deficiencies by firing the previous Director of Nurses on March 14, 1980, and employing a new person in charge of linen supply and purchasing. A new supply of linen was purchased in February or March, 1980. The Respondent maintains written policies concerning patient care, including a provision for protection of patients from abuse or neglect. The Respondent's Administrator admitted existence of the torn screens, broken door locks, missing ceiling tiles and the roach infestation. She also admitted the fact of the cut and otherwise inoperable nurse paging cords in the patients' rooms, but indicated that these deficiencies had been repaired. The various structural repairs required have been accomplished. All correction efforts began after the inspections by the Petitioner's staff members, however.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED that for the violations charged in Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX and X of the Administrative Complaint and found herein to be proven, the Respondent should be fined a total of $1,600.00. Counts III, V, VII and VIII of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1981. (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: AMELIA PARK, ESQUIRE JANICE SORTER, ESQUIRE W. T. EDWARDS FACILITY 4000 WEST BUFFALO AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR TAMPA, FLORIDA 33614 KENNETH E. APGAR, ESQUIRE EDWARD P. DE LA PARTE, JR., ESQUIRE 403 NORTH MORGAN STREET, SUITE 102 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint concerning three nursing home residents, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation, whether Petitioner should change the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional, and whether Petitioner should recover investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida. Respondent is licensed to operate an 87-bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida (the facility). From February 9 through 11, 2004, Petitioner's staff inspected the facility pursuant to regulatory requirements for an annual survey of such facilities (the survey). At the conclusion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document identified in the record as CMS Form 2567L (the 2567 form). The 2567 form alleges violations of federal nursing home regulations that Petitioner has adopted by rule. The Administrative Complaint incorporates the factual allegations from the 2567 form and charges Respondent with committing four violations alleged to be Class II violations defined in Subsection 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Counts I through III in the Administrative Complaint allege that facility staff committed acts involving residents identified in the record as Residents 14, 7, and 8. Count IV alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III show that Respondent administered the facility in a manner that violated relevant regulatory provisions. Counts I through IV propose an administrative fine of $2,500 for each alleged violation and the recovery of unspecified investigative costs. Count V alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III require Petitioner to change Respondent's license rating from standard to conditional while the alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected. Count I alleges that a staff nurse at the facility abused Resident 14, an elderly female. The substance of the allegation is that the nurse "intentionally caused pain" to Resident 14 by raising the resident's left hand above her head so the resident would open her mouth and allow the nurse to ensure the resident had swallowed her medication. Respondent admitted Resident 14 to the facility on January 31, 2000, with multiple health problems, including anxiety, paranoia, psychosis, delusions, and disorientation due to dementia. Resident 14 was not ambulatory and suffered poor wheel chair positioning for which she had been evaluated and received therapy. Resident 14 was non-verbal, angry, aggressive, combative with staff and other residents, displayed territorial aggression, and a tendency to strike out at others. Prior to admission, Resident 14 had suffered a fracture of the left arm resulting in a limited range of motion in her left shoulder of 60 degrees. At the time of the survey, Resident 14 was approximately 93 years old. Two surveyors observed a staff nurse administering medication to Resident 14 while the resident was sitting in her wheel chair in her room. Resident 14 did not respond to repeated cues from the nurse to open her mouth so the nurse could ensure the resident had swallowed her medication. The nurse continued to observe Resident 14 for some indication the resident had not swallowed her medication and offered pudding to the resident. Resident 14 remained unresponsive. The nurse directed a certified nurse assistant (CNA) to give Resident 14 breakfast and left to care for other residents. The surveyors asked the nurse to return to the room to ensure that Resident 14 had swallowed her medication. Resident 14 did not respond to additional cues from the staff nurse to open her mouth because the resident was distracted by the surveyors. The staff nurse attempted to redirect the attention of the resident to the nurse's cues to open her mouth by holding the resident's left hand and raising her hand and arm. Resident 14 opened her mouth, and the staff nurse observed no medication in the resident's mouth. The disputed factual issues call into question how quickly and how high the staff nurse raised the left hand of Resident 14, whether the resident suffered pain, and whether the staff nurse knew the action would cause pain. Although Resident 14 was non-verbal, Count I alleges, in relevant part, that Resident 14 cried "OW" when the staff nurse, without warning, raised the resident's hand over her head. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the staff nurse lifted the hand of Resident 14 in an abrupt manner. During cross-examination of the surveyor, counsel for Respondent conducted a reenactment of the alleged incident. The witness verified the manner in which the person acting as the staff nurse in the reenactment raised the left hand and arm of the person acting as Resident 14. The demonstration did not show the staff nurse acted abruptly. The reenactment showed that the description of the incident by the surveyor was less than persuasive. Petitioner admits in its PRO that a determination of whether the staff nurse raised the resident's hand gently or abruptly is a "matter of perspective." Petitioner argues unpersuasively at page 14 in its PRO that the surveyor's perception should be accepted because: Clearly, the surveyor would not have made comment if the resident had been treated in a gentle manner. Petitioner cites no evidence or law that precludes the written statement provided by the staff nurse during the facility's investigation of the incident from enjoying a presumption of credibility equivalent to that Petitioner claims for the report of the surveyor. The staff nurse had been a nurse at the facility for 19 years without any previous complaints or discipline and had ample experience with residents that suffered from dementia. The nurse had cared for Resident 14 for most of the four years that Resident 14 had been a resident at the facility. Irrespective of how fast and high the staff nurse raised the hand of Resident 14, a preponderance of evidence does not show that Resident 14 suffered an injury or harm that is essential to a finding of abuse. The surveyor asked Resident 14 if the resident had been in pain prior to the incident. Resident 14 was "unable to speak," according to the surveyor, but nodded affirmatively. Resident 14 did not indicate the source or location of any pain, and there is no evidence that the surveyor asked Resident 14 to indicate to the surveyor where the resident was experiencing pain. After the incident, the surveyors undertook no further inquiry or investigation, did not question the nurse or the resident further, and refused a request by facility administrators for a written statement describing the incident. The surveyors at the facility did not make a determination of whether the incident resulted in "harm" to Resident 14. Rather, the allegation of harm arises from Petitioner's employees who did not testify at the hearing. The determination of harm is uncorroborated hearsay, and the trier of fact has not relied on that determination for any finding of fact. Upon learning of the incident, Respondent's nursing staff immediately examined Resident 14 for injuries, had Resident 14 examined by her physician, and had Resident 14 x-rayed for possible injuries. No injury was found. Resident 14 did not complain of pain when her physician performed a range of motion examination on the suspect arm. Resident 14 was able to move both of her arms without pain. The medical records for Resident 14 and the testimony of her occupational therapist show that the resident had use of her left arm. Resident 14 frequently flailed both arms in an effort to strike others. Notes in the medical records show that Resident 14 "lashes out," "swings her arms," was "physically abusive to staff when attempting to provide care," and "refused to open mouth and became agitated and combative." The limited range of motion in the left shoulder of Resident 14 did not prevent Resident 14 from raising her left hand above her head while seated in a wheel chair. Resident 14 sat in a wheel chair with a forward pelvic thrust, causing her to slump with a lateral lean to the left. The wheel chair position effectively lowered the resident's head, reduced the distance between her head and left hand, and enabled the resident to raise her left hand above her head without pain. Count II alleges that Respondent failed to assist Resident 7 in "coping with changes in her living arrangements in a timely manner" after Resident 7 became upset that her guardian was selling her home. The allegation is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Respondent admitted Resident 7 to the facility in September of 2003. Prior to admission, the circuit court for Sarasota County, Florida, entered an order appointing a guardian for Resident 7. In relevant part, the court order authorized the guardian to determine residency of Resident 7 and to manage her property. Prior to December 28, 2003, Resident 7 was reasonably content. Social service's notes in October 2003, show that Resident 7 was "alert with no mood or behaviors." Nurses notes in November 2003, show Resident 7 to be "pleasant" with a "sense of humor." On December 28, 2003, Resident 7 became angry when her guardian revealed plans to sell the resident's home. Resident 7 continued to exhibit anger for several weeks. On January 6, 2004, Respondent conducted a care plan conference with the guardian for Resident 7, discussed Resident 7's emotional state, and obtained the guardian's consent for counseling. Pursuant to the care plan, Respondent's social services staff met with Resident 7 regularly and provided psychological counseling twice a week. Facility staff did not undertake discharge planning for Resident 7. Staff provided other assistance to the resident, but that assistance was minimal and consisted mainly of giving Resident 7 telephone numbers to contact the Long Term Care Ombudsman in the area and the attorney for the guardian. The sufficiency of the other assistance provided by Respondent is not material because the court convened a second hearing to consider the objections of Resident 7 to her guardian and to consider a competency examination by another physician. On February 6, 2004, the court entered an order denying the resident's suggestion of capacity and authorizing the guardian to sell the residence. The allegation that Respondent should have undertaken discharge planning is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Pursuant to two court orders, Resident 7 continued to be in need of a nursing home level of care, and her expectations for discharge to a lower level of care were unrealistic. Count III alleges that a facility staff nurse failed to administer analgesic medication to Resident 8 causing "continued pain and emotional stress to the resident." Resident 8 experienced chronic pain from a joint disorder. A care plan for pain management, in relevant part, authorized Tylenol as needed. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to provide Tylenol to Resident 8 in accordance with the care plan. During the survey, a surveyor observed staff at the facility reinserting a catheter into a vein of Resident 8. The witness for Petitioner testified that the procedure did not cause Resident 8 to experience pain. It is undisputed that Resident 8 did not request pain medication and that no pain medication was medically required prior to the procedure. Respondent did provide Resident 8 with a prescription medication to calm the resident. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to ensure that Resident 8 obtained optimal improvement or that Resident 8 deteriorated. Petitioner submitted no evidence that Resident 8 experienced any lack of improvement or decline in functioning or well-being. Count IV in the Administrative Complaint alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively and efficiently to maintain the highest practical well-being of Residents 14, 7, and 8. For reasons previously stated, the preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent committed the acts alleged in Counts I through III. Without the violations charged in Counts I, II, or III, the charges in Count IV are moot. Assuming arguendo that the staff nurse abused Resident 14, a preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to take action that could have prevented such abuse. Petitioner's surveyor was unable to explain in her testimony how Respondent could have prevented the alleged abuse. The surveyor did not report the incident to management at the facility for approximately 1.5 hours. Management immediately suspended the staff nurse and undertook an investigation required by law. Petitioner's surveyors refused to provide written statements describing the incident. The staff nurse provided a written statement that Respondent included as part of its investigation and report to Petitioner. Respondent maintains adequate policies and procedures for background screening and regular training for its staff relating to abuse and neglect of residents. Respondent had accomplished all background screening and abuse training requirements for the staff nurse involved in the incident. Respondent had no information in the nurse's history that would have enabled the facility to predict any potential for this staff nurse to intentionally harm a resident. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that would ensure the highest practical well-being for Resident 7. Two court orders determined that Resident 7 was incompetent and authorized the guardian to sell the resident's real property. The opinion of a surveyor that Resident 7 was "clearly competent" does not eviscerate the findings of the court. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that would ensure the highest practical well-being for Resident 8. Respondent maintained an adequate pain management care plan for Resident 8 that included Tylenol as needed. It is undisputed that the care plan did not require Tylenol before or after the re-insertion of the catheter into the vein of Resident 8, that insertion of the catheter caused Resident 8 no pain, that Tylenol was not medically required before or after the procedure, and that Respondent provided Resident 8 with a stronger prescription medication for anxiety. Count V of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the allegations in Counts I through IV require Petitioner to change the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional. In the absence of the violations charged in Counts I through IV, there is no factual basis to support the proposed change in the status of Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of committing the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 4th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 1, 2002, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nursing home facilities, including ensuring that nursing homes are in compliance with criteria established by Florida statute. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2002). AHCA is authorized in Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2002), to assign a licensure status to a nursing home and in Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2002) to impose administrative fines on nursing homes that fail to meet the applicable criteria. The Nursing Center is a skilled nursing home located in Homestead, Florida. At the times material to this proceeding, the Nursing Center was licensed by AHCA and was required to comply with all rules, regulations, and statutes applicable to skilled nursing homes. On May 16 and 17, 2002, AHCA conducted an investigation at the Nursing Center in response to a complaint regarding an incident involving a resident named J.D. Helen Ahmed was the principal investigator; Christina Garcia participated in the complaint investigation on May 17, 2002, only. The results of the complaint investigation were set forth in a Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction, which is a form prescribed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, and is commonly referred to as a "Form 2567." The Form 2567 completed by the AHCA investigators as a result of the May 16 and 17, 2002, complaint investigation identified three deficiencies, only one of which is at issue herein. The deficiency at issue herein was identified in the Form 2567 with the federal tag number "F 309," which is associated with a violation of the quality of care requirements set forth in Title 42, Section 483.25, Code of Federal Regulations; F 309 is the tag number assigned to a deficiency that is not covered by Section 483.25(a) through (m).1 The deficiency was classified in the Form 2567 at a federal scope and severity level of G, on a scale of A to L, with A being the most severe.. The deficiency was also identified as a violation of Rule 59A-4.106(aa), Florida Administrative Code, and as a Class II deficiency under Florida law. The AHCA investigators supported the citation for a Class II deficiency under F 309 with the assertion in the Form 2567 that, "[b]ased on interview, record review and review of policies and procedures, the facility staff failed to prevent hypoglycemia as a result of inappropriate insulin use and failed to adequately treat a severe hypoglycemic incident in one of four sampled residents, resident #1 [J.D.]." J.D. was admitted to the Nursing Center with the diagnoses of pneumonia; congestive heart failure; left hydronephrosis; hypertrophy (benign) of the prostate; atrial fibrillation; Type II [diabetes] (non-insulin dependent type); status post myocardial infarction; old cerebrovascular disease; dementia; depression; cardiac pacemaker; and aortocoronary by-pass status. At the time material to this proceeding, J.D. was a "brittle" diabetic whose blood sugar levels were difficult to control. The Care Plan developed for J.D. on April 18, 2002, identified as a priority problem his potential for abnormal blood sugar related to diabetes mellitus. The goal developed for this problem stated: "Resident will not exhibit s/s [signs/symptoms] of hypo/hyperglycemia thru 7/18/02." This goal was to be met by administering medications as ordered by J.D.'s physician and by providing J.D.'s diet as ordered. In accordance with the recommendation dated April 24, 2002, of an endocrinologist who examined J.D. on April 3, 2002, J.D.'s treating physician wrote a medication order dated April 24, 2002, for Humalog insulin, which was to be administered by injection, in an amount to be determined on a sliding scale depending on his blood sugar levels. The order specified that the Humalog insulin was to be administered "A/C", or before meals. "A/C" is commonly understood in nursing practice to mean that a meal should be given within 30 minutes after medication is administered. Humalog is a very fast-acting type of insulin, with a therapeutic onset time of six to 15 minutes and a peak of 45 minutes to one hour. The therapeutic effect of Humalog insulin on blood sugar levels lasts from four to six hours. It is optimum to provide a meal within 15 minutes after the administration of Humalog insulin, and a delay in the ingestion of food after Humalog insulin is administered can result in the onset of severe hypoglycemia, or insulin shock. At the time material to this proceeding, the early morning medication pass at the Nursing Center routinely began at 6:00 a.m. and was completed at about 7:00 a.m. A medication pass is the discrete period of time during which prescription medications are administered to the nursing home residents. The practice of the nurse who administered the Humalog insulin injection to J.D. on the morning of April 26, 2002, was to give insulin injections at the end of the medication pass. When checked during the 6:00 a.m. medication pass on April 26, 2002, J.D.'s blood glucose was 84. In accordance with the sliding scale included in the physician's orders for J.D., six units of Humalog insulin were administered to J.D. by injection. J.D. was the last resident on his wing to receive an insulin injection on the morning of April 26, 2002, which would have placed the time of the injection at approximately 7:00 a.m., a time that was within acceptable nursing standards for administration of medication during a medication pass. At the time of the injection, the nurse observed that J.D. opened his eyes and shook his head in response to her calling his name. The usual practice at the Nursing Center was to deliver breakfast to the wing on which J.D. resided at 7:15 a.m. Pursuant to the policy at the Nursing Center, meals were to be served first to diabetic residents. In the normal course of business at the Nursing Center, delays in delivery of meals are reported to the administrator. The administrator received no report indicating that breakfast was delivered late to J.D.'s wing on April 26, 2002. The nurse who administered the insulin injection to J.D. on the morning of April 26, 2002, checked on him between 7:15 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., and his status did not appear to have changed since she administered the injection. J.D.'s breakfast tray was being delivered at the time of the nurse's visit, but she did not return to see if J.D. had eaten the breakfast; rather, she gave her report at 7:30 a.m. and left the facility. J.D. was unresponsive and could not eat his breakfast by the time it was delivered to his room.2 It is the normal practice at the Nursing Center for staff to check to make sure a resident has eaten; the staff will feed a resident if the resident cannot feed himself or herself and if a family member has not fed the resident. Normally, J.D.'s wife was with J.D. and fed him his meals. On the morning of April 26, 2002, J.D.'s wife was unable to go to the Nursing Center, and, at a time that is unspecified in the record, J.D.'s daughter arrived to feed J.D. his breakfast. The Nursing Center's nursing notes reveal that, at 8:30 a.m. on April 26, 2002, J.D. was unresponsive; his pupils were symmetrical and reactive to light; his blood pressure was 110/70, his pulse was 88, and his respiration was 24; his breathing pattern was even, unlabored and non-diaphoretic; and there was no cyanosis. In addition, J.D. had no detectable blood sugar. The Nursing Center's written policy and procedure for the treatment of insulin shock, or severe hypoglycemia, in effect at the time material to this proceeding required that a physician be notified immediately; that sugar be administered orally or through a glucose IV as ordered by the physician; that the resident be transported to the hospital if ordered by a physician; and that a responsible party be notified. These procedures were consistent with the practices generally found in skilled nursing homes at the time, although the policies and procedures would ideally have included more creative and proactive treatment options. The Nursing Center's procedures for the treatment of insulin shock were followed: A nurse placed a call to J.D.'s treating physician. Emergency response personnel were called; they arrived before the doctor and administered a dextrose solution intravenously. The doctor was located in the facility and arrived at J.D.'s room at approximately 8:40 a.m. J.D. was transferred to the Mercy Hospital Emergency Room at approximately 8:45 a.m., with a transfer diagnosis of "altered mental status." The nurse's notes reflect that he was unresponsive at the time of his transfer.3 J.D.'s daughter, who had been present throughout the emergency, accompanied him to Mercy Hospital. At the time of the incident on April 26, 2002, there was no glucose gel at the Nursing Center to administer to patients who became hypoglycemic, nor was there a standing physician order for glucagon injections for patients who became hypoglycemic. In the opinion of one of the AHCA investigators, these changes in the Nursing Center's procedures for treating hypoglycemic residents would improve its procedures for the treatment of insulin shock: Glucose gel is a better option than glucose tablets because there is no need for the gel to dissolve before becoming effective, and glucagon injections avoid the need for administering glucose intravenously, which may sometimes be difficult in a person experiencing insulin shock. These treatments for severe hypoglycemia are not, however, standard in nursing homes. Summary The evidence presented by AHCA, together with facts not in dispute herein, are sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the Nursing Center staff failed to provide the care necessary to prevent J.D. from becoming severely hypoglycemic after he received six units of Humalog insulin at or about 7:00 a.m. on April 26, 2002. It is uncontroverted that, because Humalog is a very fast-acting type of insulin, it is necessary that the injection precede a meal by no more than 15 to 30 minutes. In addition, the April 24, 2002, order of J.D.'s physician specified that Humalog insulin was to be administered to him before a meal, and it is understood in the nursing profession that a physician's order requiring that a medication be administered before a meal means that the meal should be provided no more than 30 minutes after the medication is administered. Although the evidence establishes that J.D.'s breakfast was delivered between 7:15 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., the Nursing Center admitted that J.D. was unable to eat his breakfast at the time it was delivered. The Nursing Center's practice is to check on a resident to make sure meals are eaten and to feed a resident if a family member is not present to do so, but there was no evidence presented to establish that any member of the Nursing Center's staff checked at or about 7:30 a.m. to see if J.D. had eaten his breakfast. The only member of the Nursing Center's staff who checked on J.D. within 30 minutes of the time the Humalog insulin injection was administered was the nurse who had administered the injection, and J.D.'s breakfast was just being delivered when she looked in on him. Although the evidence reflects that J.D.'s daughter arrived the morning of April 26, 2002, to feed J.D. his breakfast, there is no evidence establishing the time of her arrival. The failure of the Nursing Center's staff to ensure that J.D. ate his breakfast within 15 to 30 minutes after receiving the Humalog insulin injection was a material omission in his care; a violation of the physician's order that the Humalog insulin be given before meals; and inconsistent with the goal set forth in J.D.'s care plan to prevent J.D. from exhibiting signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia. No evidence was presented to establish an alternative cause for J.D.'s severe hypoglycemia on the morning of April 26, 2002, and the credible evidence is sufficient to prove clearly and convincingly that the failure of the Nursing Center to ensure that J.D. actually ate his breakfast caused him to become severely hypoglycemic.4 As a result his severe hypoglycemic condition, J.D. was unresponsive for an unspecified period of time and required intravenous administration of a dextrose solution by emergency response personnel and transfer to a hospital emergency room. Although there was no evidence presented to establish that J.D. failed to recover fully from the hypoglycemic incident, the facts that he went into insulin shock and was unresponsive for more than 15 minutes are sufficient to support the inference that, until he was fully alert and responsive, he was unable to maintain his optimal physical condition during the hypoglycemic incident. The greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence presented by AHCA is not sufficient to establish that the staff of the Nursing Center failed to adequately treat J.D. during the hypoglycemic incident. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the staff of the Nursing Center followed the facility's insulin shock policy and procedures in treating J.D. and that the policy and procedures prescribed treatment of hypoglycemia that was the standard among skilled nursing homes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order Sustaining the reduction in the licensure status of Egremont Health Care Associates, d/b/a Nursing Center at Mercy, to conditional for the period extending from May 17, 2002, to October 31, 2002; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2003.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Section V. B. 7. of the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan which is incorporated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Manor Pines Convalescent Center, LLC, operates a skilled nursing home located in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, known as Manor Pines Convalescent Center. Manor Pines currently participates in the Medicaid program and has been issued provider number 25417700. Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, administers the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (hereinafter "the Plan") which is incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010 and which establishes the methodology for determining reimbursement to nursing homes for the care provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. In accordance with the Plan, nursing homes participating in the Medicaid program are reimbursed by Medicaid on a per diem basis. The Medicaid per diem rate consists of four cost components: the operating costs component, the indirect patient care component, the direct patient care component, and a property component. Rates are calculated by following the provisions of the Plan and are cost-based in nature. Medicaid rates are normally set twice per year, once in January and again in July. The Plan contains numerous cost-saving mechanisms that are employed to limit a provider's actual costs. Examples of the cost-saving measures are class ceilings, cost ceilings, and targets. Each of those cost-saving measures uses a "lesser of" mechanism to ensure that a provider's Medicaid rate does not exceed the various mechanisms regardless of the actual costs to the provider. The class ceiling limits the amount that any facility in a particular class of providers can be reimbursed in an affected cost component. The class ceilings are based upon the size of the facility and the facility's geographic location. The cost ceiling caps the amount of costs that Medicaid will reimburse in any given component. The target limits check the amount of growth that Medicaid will reimburse a provider in any one component between rate semesters. Additionally, the Plan also contains a provision that is commonly referred to as the "low occupancy adjustment." According to Section V. B. 7. of the Plan, nursing homes are penalized in their reimbursement rates if they do not meet occupancy thresholds. In the version of the Plan in effect on January 1, 2006 (Version XXIX), the low occupancy adjustment provision reduced the reimbursement rate established for nursing homes for each of the reimbursement components (except the property component under the fair rental value system) that make up the nursing homes' Medicaid reimbursement rate. The Agency amended the low occupancy adjustment on July 1, 2006 (Version XXX). The effect of the amendment was that the adjustment no longer affected the direct patient care component and only affected the operating and indirect patient care components of the Medicaid per diem. The low occupancy adjustment is calculated by determining a low occupancy threshold and then reducing the established Medicaid per diem of any provider that does not meet that threshold. The low occupancy adjustment is a statement of general applicability that applies to all nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid program. In the January 1, 2006, rate-setting semester, Manor Pines' Medicaid per diem was limited by the low occupancy adjustment. Manor Pines was penalized $11.30 per patient day in the operating component, $25.40 per patient day in the direct patient care component, and $15.90 per patient day in the indirect patient care component. In the July 1, 2006, rate-setting semester, Manor Pines' Medicaid per diem was also limited by the low occupancy adjustment. At that time, Manor Pines was penalized $7.61 per patient day in the operating component and $10.23 per patient day in the indirect patient care component. It is illogical to adjust any component of the Medicaid nursing home per diem due to occupancy because the Medicaid per diem is determined based upon an allocation of costs that already factors Medicaid utilization in the methodology. Simply put, Medicaid's share of costs is limited in the per diem rate by a facility's Medicaid utilization. Further limiting those costs based upon occupancy creates a penalty that has no basis in law or fact. At the time of the final hearing in this cause, Manor Pines had been participating in the Medicaid program for four or five years after 35 years as a private-pay facility. Nearly two-thirds of all residents in nursing homes in Florida and in Broward County are Medicaid recipients. However, the low occupancy adjustment creates a disincentive to accept Medicaid residents because a nursing home affected by the adjustment loses reimbursement on each Medicaid resident in its facility. The low occupancy adjustment is illogical because it creates this disincentive to admit Medicaid residents. The adjustment is illogical because a facility attempting to increase its occupancy to escape the adjustment must admit two Medicaid-eligible individuals for every individual that is not Medicaid-eligible. Yet, each Medicaid-eligible patient causes the facility affected by this adjustment to lose more money. The effect, therefore, of this adjustment is that it actually and illogically hampers the facility's ability to increase its occupancy and ultimately escape the penalty. The Legislature has created five different diversion programs that are designed to divert people eligible for nursing home care from nursing homes to home- and community-based services. One of the major diversion projects has helped to reduce nursing home occupancies in Broward County. It has created a reduction in the overall need for nursing home beds in Broward County despite increasing population and, therefore, has created increased competition for nursing home residents among the nursing home community. The low occupancy adjustment forces nursing homes to recruit and retain residents in their facilities, contrary to the legislative intent enumerated in the various diversion statutes. The low occupancy adjustment illogically imposes a penalty based upon occupancy when the Legislature is actively creating programs designed to reduce nursing home occupancies. Nursing homes are required to provide minimum staffing hours to their residents. During the January 1 and the July 1, 2006, rate semesters, Manor Pines complied with those minimum staffing requirements. The costs, as stated in the direct care component of the January 1, 2006, rate sheets, accurately reflect the costs associated with complying with the minimum staffing requirements. The low occupancy adjustment has created a situation at Manor Pines where in order to meet the minimum staffing requirements, Manor Pines has had to reduce staff in other areas, has had to forego completing certain repairs brought on by recent hurricanes, and has cancelled numerous projects at the facility that were intended to improve and enhance the facility in the eyes of prospective nursing home residents, such as replacing crank beds with electric beds. The addition of new nursing home beds in Florida has been under a moratorium for years and will be for, minimally, four more years unless modified by law. Despite increasing population, there has been no corollary increase in nursing home residents. The statistics demonstrate the success of the legislative programs to divert residents from nursing homes, and they render the Agency's low occupancy adjustment a penalty, unsupported by reason.
Findings Of Fact Americana operates 48 nursing homes in the United States, including three in Florida. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CENCO, Inc., a diversified, publicly-owned corporation. Americana's application for the certificate of need was approved by DHRS over the recommended denial of The South Central Florida Health Systems Council (HSA). The HSA has health planning responsibilities for a nine-county area which includes Naples (Collier County). See Sections 381.493(3)(h) and 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1980). 1/ However, DHRS has the authority to grant or deny. See Section 381.494(7), Florida Statutes (1980). The HSA prepared the Health Systems Plan, which indicated a requirement for 95 additional nursing home beds in Collier County for 1980-81. However, the HSA apparently recommended denial based on a project review committee determination that cost of construction and the resulting charges to patients would be too high. Americana estimates cost of construction at $1.714 million. Financing is to be arranged by the parent corporation at 11 percent annual interest (estimated) . There was no evidence to indicate that excessive charges for patient care would result from these construction and financing costs. Further, Americana, through CENCO, is now seeking to finance the project with tax-exempt bonds to be issued by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority. A $3.5 million bond limit and a 120-bed facility were proposed to the Authority. If these bonds are successfully issued, mortgage interest expense would be substantially below the market rate. Petitioner contends that both the bond request and the proposed 120 beds violate the terms of the certificate of need. However, Americana demonstrated that the $3.5 million represents only a ceiling and that the original $1.7 million estimate remains an operative figure. The testimony of DHRS, the Collier County Development Council and bonding company witnesses established that none of these agencies were misled as to proposed costs. However, the continuing inflation and the questionable construction starting date necessitated a "cushion" to the original estimate. This was not shown to be improper but is, rather, a prudent measure to be taken during an inflationary period. There was no deception involved in the 120-bed facility proposed to the Collier County Development Authority. This plan calls for construction of the 95-bed approved facility with a shelled-in area to provide for future expansion. This plan was made known to the HSA and DHRS during the processing of the application and was accepted by these agencies even though separate certification of the additional 25 beds would be required. There are currently 213 extended care nursing home beds in Collier County. These are provided by Petitioner (99) and by the Gulf Drive Nursing Home (114). Both facilities are about 12 years old. In addition, there are 180 beds currently under construction. These include 120 beds at the Naples Villa, which will be available to the general public, and 60 beds at the Moorings Presbyterian. The latter will initially open its facility to the general public but will eventually restrict access to these who are residents of its affiliated congregate living community. All of these facilities are or will be licensed for skilled and intermediate care and, except for the Moorings, will offer a substantial portion of their beds to Medicare/Medicaid patients. The standard used by the HSA sets the upper limit of need for nursing home beds at 27 per 1,000 persons 65 years of age or older. This standard is used by health planning agencies throughout Florida. It results in a computed requirement for 95 additional beds in Collier County which, in the view of Respondents, supports grant of the Americana application. Petitioner points out that this standard produces a maximum figure, and that other factors must be considered in calculating actual need. Such other factors include projected area growth, utilization of existing nursing homes, the availability of alternate care facilities, any average or deficit in beds in surrounding counties, effect of competition on other facilities, and the cast to patients of the new service. The evidence established that Collier County is a rapidly growing area and one which is attracting a substantial number of new residents age 65 or older. The two existing nursing homes average about 90 percent occupancy and regularly have patients awaiting admission during the winter months. A waiting list of Medicaid applicants, which is increasing each year, is maintained by the local DHRS office. In addition, placement inquiries are frequently received by this office from outside the area but are discouraged due to the lack of assured acceptance. A significant number of patients now residing in Naples nursing homes could be cared for at other facilities such as "foster homes" if they were available. Conversely, some patients who do not require acute care must remain at the hospital due to the lack of nursing home beds. Facilities in neighboring counties are limited and offer no real alternative for Naples residents seeking nursing home care. Petitioner established that a shortage of nursing personnel in the area now exists and asserted that this shortage will become severe if Americana opens a nursing home as planned. Petitioner further contends that Americana will necessarily compete for area nurse, thus driving up wages and, ultimately, the cost of care. Americana views the shortage of nurses as a national problem and has implemented an active nurse recruitment program. It has adequately considered its staffing needs and reasonably believes it will be able to attract the necessary personnel. The evidence was inconclusive as to the impact the proposed facility would have on local wages.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Greater Naples Care Center, Inc. to revoke Certificate of Need No. 1288 be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of January, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Angell Care of Hialeah, Inc., d/b/a Hialeah Convalescent Home (Hialeah), is a nursing home licensed under the authority of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On April 26, 1985, Hialeah submitted its license renewal application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), to renew its nursing home license for license year August 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986. The Department issued Hialeah Standard License No. 2134; however, by letter of September 30, 1985, the Department cancelled Hialeah's standard license, and replaced it with Conditional Rating License No. C-985. The Department's action was premised on its assertion that the results of a survey concluded by its Office of Licensure and Certification on August 1, 1985, established a conditional rating. Hialeah filed a timely request for formal administrative review of the Department's action. Hialeah asserted that the Department's action downgrading its license from standard to conditional was unwarranted and that, as opposed to a standard rating, it was entitled to a superior rating. At hearing, the parties stipulated that if this de novo review of the Department's action, which was premised on the deficiencies found in the survey conducted by its Office of Licensure and Certification, resulted in a finding that Hialeah was qualified to receive a standard rating, as opposed to a conditional rating, then it should receive a superior rating. Accordingly, the issues in this case are resolved to the validity of the deficiencies noted by the Office of Licensure and Certification. Deficiencies noted by the Department: Pertinent to these proceedings, 1/ the survey conducted by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification classified the deficiencies noted at Hialeah into ten major categories, and listed the deficient nursing home licensure requirement number (NH) and applicable statutory or code provision violated, 2/ as follows: Administration and Management (1) NH 3 10D-29.104(1)(b), F.A.C. (2) NH 21 10D-29.104(5)(d)1g, F.A.C. (3) NH 25 10D-29.104(5)(d)4, F.A.C. (4) NH 26 10D-29.104(5)(d)5, F.A.C. Patient Care Policies NH 57 10D-29.106(2), F.A.C. Physician Services (1) NH 60 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Nursing Services (1) NH 77 10D-29.108(3)(c)16, F.A.C. (2) NH 80 10D-29.108(5)(b)6, 13, 15a & b, 16b & i, F.A.C. Dietary Services (1) NH 125 10D-29.110(3)(g)2; 10D-13.24(1)(4), F.A.C. Maintenance (1) NH 352 10D-29.122(1)(a), F.A.C. (2) NH 357 10D-29.122(1)(f), F.A.C. Infection Control (1) NH 365 10D-29.123(3)(a), F.A.C. Disaster Preparedness (1) NH 404 10D-29.126(5), F.A.C. Statutory Requirements (1) NH 405 Section 400.165, Fla. Stat. Life-Safety (1) NH 241 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (2) NH 250 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (3) NH 251 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (4) NH 269 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (5) NH 273 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (6) NH 277 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (7) NH 295 10D-29.121(10)(e), F.A.C. With the exception of the deficiencies listed for NH 3 (administration and management), NH 60 (physician services), and NH 250, NH 251, NH 269, NH 277, and NH 295 (life safety), Hialeah concedes that the deficiencies noted by the Department were appropriate. 3/ Accordingly, resolution of the question of which rating should be accorded Hialeah is dependent upon the propriety of seven disputed deficiencies. The Administration and Management Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 3 found: The provision for the resident's rights to privacy during treatment and care was not routinely adhered to. On the morning of July 24, 1985, staff members were observed attending to residents in rooms 7 and 8 of the Center Court while other residents were in the rooms and without the use of the portable privacy curtains. Chapter 400, Part 1, F.S. 10D-29.104(1)(6), F.A.C. Section 400.022(1)(h), Florida Statutes, accords a nursing home resident a right to privacy during treatment and care. Hialeah's failure to use available portable privacy curtains while patients were being bathed violated their right to privacy, and NH 3 was properly cited. The Physician Services Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 60 found: There was no documented evidence to verify that staff incident reports were reviewed by the Medical Director. 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: Responsibilities of the Medical Director . . . shall include, at a minimum, the following: * * * (c) Reviewing reports of all accidents or unusual incidents occurring on the premises and identifying to the facility Administrator hazards to health and safety . . . . The proof in this case established that the Medical Director did review all incident reports; Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., does not require documentation. Accordingly, deficiency NH 60 was not substantiated. The Life-safety Deficiencies: The life-safety surveyor noted the following disputed deficiencies: NH 250: One required-stairway from the second floor discharges internally at the first floor and is not enclosed or separated to provide exiting directly to the exterior. This is a repeat deficiency. Architectural plans must be submitted to Jacksonville Plans and Construction Section for approval, indicating physical changes required to this deficiency, prior to corrective action . . . . * * * NH 251: The southwest exit door to 27th Street was locked and exit lights were removed. This created a dead end area with only one means of exiting for the south portion of the center court. This is part of a repeat deficiency form (sic) 1984 survey. * * * NH 269: a storage closet in the activities office is not protected by the automatic sprinkler system. * * * NH 277: The following air conditioning deficiencies were found: 1. The heat sensor for the air conditioner unit located on the first floor at the dining room did not activate properly when tested. NH 295: Rooms where soiled linen is stored and soiled utility rooms are not exhausted to the exterior in accordance with Table II. 4/ Hialeah asserts that the Department has waived or deleted deficiency NH 250, or is estopped from counting it as a deficiency for rating purposes. Hialeah's assertion is unpersuasive. The record reveals that during the October 24, 1984 life-safety survey, Hialeah was cited for the same deficiency, NH 250/K32, that is subject matter of these proceedings. 5/ In response to Hialeah's request for a waiver of this deficiency, the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) advised Hialeah by letter of January 28, 1985: We have reviewed your request for a waiver of items K-32 . . . cited as deficiencies to you. Based on this review we concur with the State Agency's recommendation to deny this request. We expect you to submit an accept- able Plan of Correction to these deficiencies to the State Agency within 15 days of the date you receive this letter. We are notifying the State of this action. Notwithstanding the unequivocal denial of Hialeah's request for waiver, a life- safety follow-up inspection on April 17, 1985, revealed that the deficiency had not been addressed or corrected. As of April 26, 1985, the date Hialeah submitted its renewal application which is the subject matter of these proceedings, a plan of correction had still not been submitted nor had the deficiency been corrected. 6/ At this juncture, faced with an uncorrected deficiency from its last survey, Hialeah submitted its second request for waiver of NH 243/K 32. 7/ Hialeah's request for waiver, dated May 23, 1985, was forwarded by the Department's Miami office to the Director of its Office of Licensure and Certification on July 23, 1985, with a recommendation of denial predicated on HCFA's previous action. Before the Department acted, however, the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey were published and the same deficiency cited. On October 30, 1985, the Department responded to Hialeah's May 23, 1985 request for waiver, as well as the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey. That letter provided: A thorough review has been made of the citations found in OPLCM report of life safety deficiencies found during the survey conducted July 29 - August 1, 1985. As a result of that survey NH 250; NH 277 item #2, NH 282, and NH 219 will be deleted from the report . . . . Your letter of July 23, 1985 (sic) addressed to Alvin Delaney requesting waivers of items K 32 . . . cannot be granted and corrections must be made . . . . However, by letter of December 12, 1985, the Department advised Hialeah that: the indication . . . (in my letter of October 30) . . . that NH 250 citation related to a second floor stairway would be deleted as a deficiency was an error . . . and that deficiency must be corrected. Hialeah's assertion that NH 250 was waived or deleted by the Department is contrary to the evidence. Hialeah's assertion that the Department is estopped from raising that deficiency because of its delay in passing on Hialeah's "second" request for waiver is equally unpersuasive. Hialeah knew of the deficiency because of the October 24, 1984 survey, knew by letter of January 28, 1985, that the deficiency would not be waived, and took no action to correct the deficiency. The fact that the Department erroneously advised Hialeah that NH 250 was deleted did not prejudice Hialeah since such announcement was made after the current survey. Further, that letter affirmatively advised Hialeah that K 32 (the federal equivalent) could not be waived. In sum, NH 250 was properly cited as a deficiency. Hialeah asserts that NH 251 was improperly cited because it had complied with an "alternative plan of correction," approved by the Department, which allowed the 27th Street exit to remain locked so long as staff carried keys to the exit. The proof supports Hialeah's assertion. Since staff do carry keys, NH 251 was improperly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 269 was improperly cited because the closet in question measured less than 100 square feet is unfounded. The closet was created by erecting a partition in an existing room, and was used for the storage of activity supplies, including combustibles, for nursing home residents. The life-safety code required that the subject closet be sprinkled, and the Department had no policy which deviated from the code. Accordingly, NH 269 was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 277(1) was improperly cited because the heat sensor was not correctly tested is unfounded. At the time of inspection the heat sensor was properly tested and failed to function. Therefore, NH 277(1) was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 295 was improperly cited, because cited on a consultative visit, is not supported by the record. NH 295 was cited as a result of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 life-safety inspection, not a consultative visit, and its citation was proper. Conditional vs. Superior Rating: The parties have stipulated that if Hialeah meets the requirements for a standard rating that it is likewise entitled to a superior rating. To qualify for a standard rating Hialeah must have no more than 20 Class III deficiencies and no more than 5 Class III deficiencies in the specific areas delineated by Hialeah's Exhibit 20, Item 3. While each of the cited deficiencies are Class III, and the number of deficiencies correctly cited do not exceed 20, Hialeah amassed more than 5 deficiencies in the area designated by Rules 10D-29.119, 10D-29.121, 10D-29.123, and 10D-29.125. Accordingly, Hialeah does not qualify for a standard or superior rating but, rather a conditional rating.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed deficient practices as alleged in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b) and 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288; and if so, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 and issue a conditional license to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida under state and federal statutes. Petitioner is charged with evaluating nursing homes facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for concluding federally-mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." Respondent is a 98-bed nursing home located at 1024 Willow Springs Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, and is licensed as a skilled nursing facility. On May 30, 2003, Petitioner's staff conducted an inspection, also known as a survey, at Respondent's facility. Upon completion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document entitled, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS Form 2567L, also known as a "2567," which contains a statement of the alleged violations of regulatory requirements, also referred to as "deficiencies," titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The evaluation or survey of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of a record, reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on the 2567 Form, and if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Petitioner's surveyors use the "State Operations Manual," a document prepared by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 C.F.R. Chapter 483. Count I In Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent's staff subjected three residents (Resident Nos. 6, 13, and 18) to verbal and mental abuse in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), which provides that a nursing home resident has the right to be free from verbal and mental abuse. As to Resident No. 6, Petitioner contends that this resident stated to a surveyor that the resident had "overheard" a certified nursing assistant (CNA) loudly tell another staff member that the resident was "going to the bathroom 25 times a day." Petitioner believes the CNA's statement, which was allegedly "overheard," occurred sometime during the month of March 2003, based upon nurses' notes which indicate Resident No. 6 had an episode of diarrhea during this time. However, the nurses notes also reveal that during this time Resident No. 6 was subject to confusion and nonsensical outbursts. Petitioner's belief that Resident No. 6 was a reliable historian is based on Petitioner's mistaken belief that Resident No. 6 was admitted about March 30, 2003, and was alert and oriented and not confused upon admission. Petitioner's staff exhibited a lack of understanding of the timing and significance of the Multiple Data Set (MDS) forms describing Resident No. 6's mental condition upon which they relied. In fact, Resident No. 6 was admitted in mid-February 2003 and exhibited confused and eccentric behavior. The "overheard" comment was not reported to Respondent until the survey. Therefore, the evidence that this incident occurred as described by Petitioner is unreliable hearsay. Surveyors reviewed Respondent's records, which contained a complaint from a family member of Resident No. 6 that the same CNA had noticed that the resident had a physical anomaly. The CNA called other CNAs to view this anomaly, which was located in Resident No. 6's genital area. Respondent learned of the allegations relating to Resident No. 6's physical anomaly on April 21, 2003, from a family member of Resident No. 6. Respondent immediately began an investigation, including an interview with and physical examination of Resident No. 6 and an interview with the CNA. The resident only stated that she did not want this CNA taking care of her any longer. The CNA denied the allegations. The CNA was suspended pending investigation and later terminated based upon directions from Respondent's corporate office based on additional, unrelated information. The incident was reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hot Line on April 22, 2003. Although Resident No. 6 and her family member had frequent contact and conversation with Respondent's director of nursing (DON), neither had ever complained about the CNA's conduct. Respondent's DON observed no mental distress on the part of Resident No. 6 after Respondent's DON learned of the allegations. Petitioner alleges that this CNA had observed the physical anomaly for the first time. If that is true, it would be expected that the CNA would consult other nursing staff to address potential nursing issues. As to Resident No. 13, Petitioner alleges verbal abuse based upon the allegation that Resident No. 13 reported to a surveyor that she found a male resident sitting on her bed in her room. When this was reported by Resident No. 13 to one of the Respondent's nurses, the resident alleged that the nurse "laughed at" the resident. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON shortly after it happened. Respondent's DON interviewed the resident and the two nurses who were on duty at the time. The nurses reported that they assured Resident No. 13 that everything was okay, escorted the male resident to his room, and Resident No. 13 went to bed with no complaint or distress. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON in a joking manner, as an event and not as a complaint. Although Respondent's DON was concerned that the nurses should respond appropriately and was also concerned that the wandering resident be identified, Respondent's DON did not believe that the incident constituted any form of abuse. Respondent's DON did not observe this incident to have any adverse impact on Resident No. 13. During the survey, Petitioner's surveyor advised Respondent that the incident should have been investigated and reported to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON completed a written report and called the DCF Abuse Hot Line and related the incident. The incident did not meet the DCF guidelines for the reporting of abuse. On or about March 30, 2003, two surveyors observed Resident No. 18 in her wheelchair as she approached the nurse's station. One of Respondent's nursing staff spoke in a "curt, loud voice" to Resident No. 18. The resident had approached the nurses' station to ask for her medication, to which the nurse replied: "I told you I will give you your medicine." Resident No. 18 was hearing-impaired and was documented in her medical record as one to whom staff "must speak loudly." This resident did not wear any hearing assistance devices. Respondent's staff credibly described this resident as one to whom staff had to speak loudly and in clipped words for the resident to understand. Petitioner's surveyors did not speak to this resident after the alleged incident. There is no evidence that this incident had any effect on the resident or even that the resident heard the staff member. The incident does not rise to the level of verbal abuse of the resident. Count II Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), which provides that a nursing home must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse; and that the nursing home must not employ individuals who have been found guilty of abuse or neglect or are listed in the state nursing aide registry with a finding of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Count II is based on the allegation that Respondent failed to report to Petitioner (the appropriate "state agency") the incidents involving Resident No. 13 and 18 and other allegations of abuse or neglect, which the surveyor allegedly identified in Respondent's log of grievances. Respondent has in place written policies and procedures regarding abuse and neglect and its staff receive regular training regarding these policies and procedures. Petitioner has offered no evidence that these written policies and procedures or the staff's knowledge of these policies and procedures is inadequate. With regard to Resident No. 13, when Respondent's DON learned of the incident from the resident, Respondent's DON made inquiries of nursing staff who were on duty at the time, in addition to interviewing the resident. Respondent's DON did not consider any aspect of the incident to constitute abuse or neglect. Later, after Petitioner alleged, during the survey, that the incident should have been reported to DCF, Respondent's DON prepared a written report of the incident and called and related the incident to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON was advised by DCF that the incident did not meet DCF's requirements for reporting. Respondent is required to report all allegations of abuse and neglect to the DCF's Abuse Hot Line. Petitioner does not dispute this fact. Instead, Petitioner contends that Respondent is also required to report allegations of abuse and neglect to the "state agency" and that Respondent failed to do so. The "state agency" for the purpose of federal regulations is Petitioner. Petitioner's allegations are based upon its review of Respondent's grievance log, which Petitioner's surveyors say allegedly records 18 incidents of alleged abuse, none of which was reported to the state agency. At the time of the survey, Respondent was a part of the Mariner Corporation. It has since disassociated from that corporation and changed its name to Tuskawilla Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, effective October 1, 2003. At the time of the survey, all reporting of abuse allegations were done by the corporate regional risk management department, and it is not known if they reported any of the incidents cited by the surveyors to Petitioner. However, the document received in evidence, which has many more than 18 entries in summary style, is almost completely illegible. Petitioner's witness was unable to identify any entries on this document which could be identified as alleged abuse and which had not been properly reported. Understanding this document requires substantial explanation, which was never provided. Standing alone, this document is not probative of any fact. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent employed any individuals who had been found guilty of or who had been listed on the nurse aide registry of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating residents. Even if it is assumed that Respondent should have reported but did not report to Petitioner the 18 alleged incidents or the incident regarding Resident No. 13, Petitioner offered no evidence that reporting this information to DCF, but not to Petitioner, had any impact on any resident or prevented a resident from maintaining or achieving the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. Count III Since there is no proof of Class II deficiencies, there is no basis for imposing a conditional license status on Respondent for the period May 30, 2003, until July 8, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency care for a nursing home resident in respiratory distress in violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 483.25 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect as of the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the State of Florida. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 830 West 29th Street, Orlando, Florida (the facility). Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of the facility on September 14, 2001. The survey cited the facility for a deficiency described in F309, and rated the deficiency with a scope and severity of "G" and Class II, respectively. The deficiency classifications authorized in Subsection 400.23(8) range from Class I through Class IV. Class I deficiencies are not relevant to this case. The statute defines the remaining classifications as follows: A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. . . . A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines will result in no more than minimal physical, mental or psychosocial discomfort to the resident or has the potential to compromise the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined. . . . A Class IV deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident. . . . Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the state of Florida to adhere to federal regulations found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 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. The "G" rating adopted by Petitioner for the scope and severity rating of the deficiency alleged in F309 is a rating authorized in relevant federal regulations. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated. Applicable state law authorizes Petitioner to change a facility's licensure rating from standard to conditional whenever Petitioner alleges that a Class II deficiency exists. Petitioner alleged in the survey report that a Class II deficiency existed at the facility and assigned a conditional rating to the facility's license. The conditional rating was effective September 14, 2001, and continued until substantial compliance was achieved. When Petitioner proves that a Class II deficiency exists, applicable law authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil money penalty. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking to impose a fine of $2,500.00 and subsequently filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The allegations on which both the change in license status to a conditional license and the proposed fine are based are set forth in F309. The deficiency alleged in F309 is set forth on CMS Form 2567, entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" (the 2567). The 2567 that Petitioner used to charge Respondent with the deficiency described in F309 involved only one resident. In order to protect this resident's privacy, the 2567, F309, the Transcript, and all pleadings refer to the resident as Resident 1. F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25. In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Use F309 for quality of care deficiencies not covered by 483.25(a)-(m). F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 CFR Section 483.25 because: Based on interview and record review the facility neglected to provide appropriate emergency care for [Resident 1] in respiratory distress and failure. 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 facility admitted Resident 1 to the pediatric long-term care unit on November 20, 2000. The admitting diagnosis was cerebral palsy, pneumonia and convulsions, a tracheostomy, and a gastrostomy. Resident 1 could breathe on her own and was being weaned from the trach. She could breathe through her nose at times. She was not on a ventilator but could breathe room air. At all times, Resident 1 was making respiratory effort. Resident 1 was on an apnea monitor. Resident 1 had three stomas. Stomas are the openings for the tracheostomy tube. Her throat structures were very frail. She had received numerous throat reconstructions. She had significant scar tissue and a granuloma at her stoma sites. A granuloma is a tumor-like growth. The granuloma was vascular, and the blood vessels were easily broken. Resident 1 was spastic as a result of her cerebral palsy. On September 7, 2001, at 2:50 a.m., Resident 1's apnea monitor alarm sounded. Staff immediately responded to find that Resident 1 had pulled out her tracheostomy tube and was bleeding profusely. Facility staff called 911 and notified the treating physician and the parents. An ambulance was dispatched to the facility at 2:51 a.m. on September 7, 2001. While awaiting the ambulance, the Registered Nurse on duty (RN) could not detect an apical or radial pulse. The RN did not administer CPR. Rather, the RN established an airway by successfully replacing the tracheostomy tube. Securing a patent airway was the first thing that the RN should have done for Resident 1 under the circumstances. No oxygen can be given without a patent airway. It was difficult for the RN to visualize the trach opening because of the profuse bleeding. The RN was able to tactilely reinsert the tube. Vital signs taken by the RN showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. CPR is not appropriate when vital signs are present. The ambulance and EMT personnel arrived shortly after the RN reinserted the trach tube. At 2:56 a.m., EMT personnel took over the care of Resident 1. EMT personnel worked on Resident 1 for 23 minutes before transporting her to the hospital. Resident 1 died at the hospital at 3:35 a.m., 38 minutes after the EMTs took responsibility for her care. EMT personnel generated EKG strips indicating that Resident 1's heart was beating at some point after they took over. Two sets of x-rays subsequently taken at the hospital substantiate that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel took over her care. EMT personnel removed the trach the nurse had inserted and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. Removing the trach eliminated the airway that the RN had established for Resident 1 before EMT personnel arrived. The endotracheal tube was 22 centimeters long and significantly longer and larger than the regular trach tube used for Resident 1. The physician's order for Resident 1 stated that nothing should go past 6 centimeters into Resident 1's trach. It took the EMTs three attempts to get the endotracheal tube placed. The EMTs should have hyperventilated Resident 1 before placing the endotracheal tube. They did not do so. The x-ray taken at 3:42 a.m. in the hospital, shows that the endotracheal tube was improperly positioned in Resident 1's lung. All steps taken by the RN were appropriate for Resident 1 under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between any act or omission by the facility and the harm to Resident 1. The care plan for Resident 1 called for suctioning of her tracheal tube. Care plans are to be followed under normal circumstances. Emergency procedures take precedence in critical situations. Suctioning for Resident 1 was appropriate under normal circumstances when she had a patent airway. If Resident 1 did not have an airway, the first priority is to establish an airway. The RN first established a patent airway for Resident 1. It would have been inappropriate for the RN to suction Resident 1 before establishing an airway because it would have sucked out the air remaining in Resident 1's lungs. Suctioning also could have caused a vasovagal response that could stop the heart and could have caused tissue damage. After the RN opened an airway for Resident 1, the next priority would have been for the RN to check for vital signs. The RN checked Resident 1's vital signs after opening an airway, and the vital signs showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. The presence of vital signs made it inappropriate for either the RN or EMT personnel to administer CPR. CPR is appropriate only in the absence of vital signs. When EMT personnel arrived, they continued the same procedure that the RN had followed. EMT first established an airway by removing the trach tube used by the RN and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. The resident had vital signs after placement of the trach and CPR was inappropriate. F282 relates to failure to implement a care plan. Respondent was not cited under F282. Petitioner stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation that both the conditional license and fine were based on F309 alone.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in F309 and the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint, and changing Respondent's conditional license to a standard license effective September 4, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, Room 3106 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. Post Office Box 2011 2180 Park Avenue, North Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Sections 400.23(4) and 400.141, Florida Statutes (1979), and Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to correct alleged deficiencies in its nursing center; and whether Respondent should he penalized.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. is licensed to operate southside Nursing Center at 40 Acme Street in Jacksonville, Florida and is under the direction and charge of a licensed administrator, Raymond R. Savage. The nursing home was built in 1965 and has been in operation since that date. It has 119 beds and is usually fully occupied with elderly people. On December 30, 1980 an Administrative Complaint was served on Mr. Savage notifying him that after 30 days from receipt of the complaint Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services intended to impose a civil penalty of $2,000 upon the nursing home for alleged violations of the statutes and rules of Florida pertaining to nursing homes. Respondent was cited for the following: Corridor to office windows have wired glass panels in aluminum frames with glass areas exceeding 1,296 square inches; Two doors between kitchen and the dining room do not have any automatic positive latching hardware and the window from the kitchen to the accounting office is wired glass in an aluminum frame exceeding 1,296 square inches; Eight skylights are not boxed in vertically with a one-hour fire rated sheathing and the steel roof structure is unprotected from fire through the plastic panels. The dining room and lobby have six built-in ceiling light fixtures; nurses station #2 has two built-in light fixtures and nurses station #1 has one built-in light fixture; arts and crafts room has two built-in fixtures, all of which compromise the one-hour fire rated ceiling assembly; and Smoke detectors have not been tested and logged in conjunction with the weekly fire alarm system tests. On January 9, 1981 Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At the bearing Petitioner called one witness and offered one exhibit which was entered as evidence. The Administrator, Mr. Savage, testified on behalf of Respondent. An inspector for Petitioner made an on-site inspection of the subject nursing home on September 6, 1979 and filed his report on September 15, 1979. He listed certain deficiencies and classes of deficiencies and designated the date of October 10, 1980 as the date by which the deficiencies must be corrected (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). Inspection on September 24, 1980 showed that tests of the smoke detectors were being made and logged as required and for which Respondent had been cited in violation (d), Page 2 supra, but no changes had been made as to violations (a) , (b) and (c). On both occasions the inspector informed Respondent's administrator of each alleged violation, but Respondent failed to change the structural deficiencies outlined by Petitioner. Respondent admitted that the violations of the Life Safety Code cited by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint existed and stated that they had existed since the building had been constructed. They were first called to his attention in 1978 but, except for the smoke detectors, he had not rectified the alleged deficiencies and felt they were no danger. He said that if he complied with the subject requirements of the statutes and rules the home would not look as good as it presently does. Mr. Savage noted that he had recently corrected the violation noted in (d) , Page 2 supra. Petitioner acknowledged that reports on tests of the smoke detectors as required by the statutes and rules were being made at the time of hearing. Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order, which instrument has been considered in the writing of this order. 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 Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services assess a penalty against Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc., doing business as Southside Nursing Center, of $500 for each of the three (3) violations of Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, prohibited and continuing on the date of the formal hearing. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 9th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Raymond R. Savage, Administrator Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. d/b/a Southside Nursing Center 40 Acme Street at Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
