The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Nursing should discipline the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on charges contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, DPR Case No. 0111292.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed practical nurse who was working as a nurse at Seminole Nursing Pavilion in Seminole, Florida, in January, 1989. She holds Florida license number PN13417. The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on the evenings of January 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, 22, 25 and 26, 1989. On the evenings of January 3, 4 and 28, 1989, another nurse dispensed Mellaril to the patient. On the other 15 evenings in January, 1989, the Respondent was not on duty, and Mellaril was not dispensed to the patient. The doctor's orders for the patient, L. W., were: "Mellaril concentrate 25 mg. give two (2) times daily as needed for agitation." The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on at least one occasion--on January 5, 1989--when the patient was not agitated and showed no sign of becoming agitated. The patient was "calm to the point of being almost placid." The Respondent went in and roused the patient to give her the medication. The Respondent explained to other witnesses that she dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., without symptoms of agitation because the patient ate better and with less agitation at meal time after administration of Mellaril, and also because the patient's family favored this course. The evidence proved that it was below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing for the Respondent to administer Mellaril to this particular patient, L. W., for the stated purpose. It is possible for a patient regularly to become agitated at about meal time. This is not uncommon with some nursing home patients; it is commonly referred to as "sundowner syndrome." In the case of "sundowner syndrome," administration of the medication just before meal time to prevent agitation, so that the patient would eat better and with less agitation, could be in compliance with the doctor's orders, as written, and not below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing. But, in this case, the evidence proved that the patient did not have "sundowner syndrome." On only three of the 16 evenings in January, 1989, when the Respondent was not on duty did the on-duty nurse administer Mellaril for agitation. The Respondent has a history of recurring episodes of major depression. She was fired from her job at the Seminole Nursing Pavilion on or about January 27, 1989. She became angry and then deeply depressed. On or about February 28, 1989, the depression became so severe that the Respondent attempted to end her life, or at least made a suicidal gesture, by an overdose of valium and wine. Fortunately, she recovered and received treatment in various clinical settings through approximately April 24, 1989. She continued to receive therapy, particularly to deal with the stress of this proceeding. But by the time of the hearing, she was fairly stable, and her recurrent depression was in remission. She now is able to work and, in fact, has been working as a nurse without any apparent incapacity. The opinion testimony of the Department expert witness that the Respondent is now incapable, by reason of mental illness, to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients was not persuasive. The testimony was based solely on a review of the records in evidence as part of the Department's case in chief. The witness did not examine the Respondent and had no knowledge of the Respondent's employment history before about 1982 or after her employment at Seminole Pavilion ended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order placing the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on probation for one year, during which time the Respondent's current mental condition can be evaluated and her practice closely monitored to insure that she is rehabilated enough to be able to continue to practice nursing safely. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4. Rejected as not proven that agitation necessarily results in harm to the patient or others. Agitation could result only in what is called resistance to care. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 5.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The Respondent believed that the patient ate better and with less agitation after being given Mellaril, not that the Mellaril "made the patient eat better" in the sense that it increased her appetite. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The evidence suggested that the family approved of the use of Mellaril to counteract anticipated agitation; it did not prove that the family asked the Respondent to keep the patient sedated, as implied by this proposed finding. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 21. Accepted and incorporated. 22.-25. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected. See 22-25, above. 29.-33. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. See 22-25, above. Accepted and incorporated. First clause, accepted. However, the same records indicate that the Respondent's major depression is in remission. The Respondent's history is that her major depression alternately recurs and goes into remission depending on what is happening in her life and what kind of treatment she gets. Therefore, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Findings, the rest is rejected as not proven. 38.-41. Generally accepted but unnecessary. These are vague generalities; no specifics were proven. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 42.-43. Rejected as not proven. 44.-46. The Respondent was not charged with untruthfulness. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 47.-50. The Respondent was not charged with breach of a contractual agreement. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. Proposed finding 50 is based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 51.-52. Rejected as based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 53.-57. Subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 58.-60. The Respondent was charged with only one med pass error--dispensing Mellaril to the patient, L.W. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 61. Rejected as not proven. 62.-72. Rejected as not proven. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Nursing has some unique stresses. It has more stress than some jobs and less stress than other. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. As found, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent is now unable, by reason of her mental condition, to practice nursing safely. However, the Respondent's evidence on this point consisted only of medical records and progress notes created by the Respondent's therapist. Without any testimony to explain these records, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent was more than "fairly stable" at the time of the hearing. On the other hand, the evidence did prove that the Respondent has a history of recurrent major depression, a legitimate concern to the Board of Nursing after the February 28, 1989, suicide attempt. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christina M. Ippolito, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 6 South Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period March 8 through May 30, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, in Palm Bay, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on March 8, 2001 (the "March survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the survey on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on April 17, 2001 (the "April survey"). The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "tags"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. There are five tags at issue in this proceeding. The March survey cites two Class II deficiencies and three Class III deficiencies. The April survey cites repeat violations of three Class III violations. In this case, Section 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000) establishes the deficiency classifications referred to as Classes II and III. All statutory references in this Recommended Order are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(b) defines Class II deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines have a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility resident. . . . Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The March survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F224, F282, F314, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies Tags F224 and F314 as class II deficiencies and Tags F282, F325, and F363 as class III deficiencies. Tag F224 in the March survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse to a resident by another resident. Tag F314 generally alleges that Respondent failed to provide necessary assessment, treatment, and documentation for pressure sores for one resident. Tag F282 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that one resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide menus that meet the nutritional needs of the residents by not following menus for pureed and dysphagia diets. The April survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F282, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies each alleged violation as a Class III deficiency. Tag F282 in the April survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to follow a resident’s plan of care by failing to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that menus designed to meet the nutritional needs of the residents were prepared in advance and followed. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288 establishes the requirement for nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal rules and regulations as found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, the state rule 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. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order). Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign to the deficiencies alleged in the 2567 a scope and severity rating required by federal regulations. In the March survey, Petitioner assigned a "G" rating to Tags F224 and F314, both of which are Class II deficiencies. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated, caused actual harm to one or more residents, but did not involve substandard quality of care. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey. A "D" rating means that there is no actual harm but there is potential for more than minimal harm without actual jeopardy. Petitioner relies on two grounds for changing Respondent's license rating from standard to conditional. When Petitioner alleges two Class II deficiencies in the 2567, as Petitioner did in the March survey, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of a facility's license. Applicable rules also authorize Petitioner to change a facility's license rating when the facility does not correct Class III deficiencies within the time prescribed by Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to correct three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey by the time Petitioner conducted the April survey. Effective March 8, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Effective May 31, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The allegations in Tag F224 in the March survey pertain to two residents in the dementia unit of the facility who are identified individually as Resident 1 and Resident 13. Tag F224 in the March survey alleges that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.13(c). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: The facility must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The facility must not use verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F224 does not allege that the facility failed to develop the written policies required by 42 CFR Section 483.13(c) and Rule 59A-4.1288. Rather, Tag F224 alleges that Respondent failed to implement its policy. Tag F224 alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services to Resident 13 to prevent the resident from sexually intimidating a female resident identified as Resident 1. Tag F224 further alleges that Resident 13 had a past history of abusive and aggressive behavior to other residents but was not reassessed, "care planned," and monitored. The allegations in Tag F224 are based on observations of one of Petitioner's surveyors who participated in the March survey. On March 5, 2001, the surveyor observed Resident 13 in the dementia unit standing over Resident 1. The surveyor did not observe any overt sexual misconduct by Resident 13. Rather, the surveyor concluded that sexual misconduct occurred because she determined that Resident 13 was "invading [the female resident's] space," Resident 1 appeared "very anxious," "nervous," and "uncomfortable", and screamed for 15 minutes for Resident 13 to leave. The surveyor also relied on the history of Resident 13 to conclude that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001. Resident 13 had, on two occasions, previously expressed a desire to have sex with female residents in the dementia unit and on other occasions had wandered into the rooms of female residents. Based on the inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13 prior to March 5, 2001, the surveyor alleged in Tag F224 that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct with Resident 1 on March 5, 2001. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, by standing in front of Resident 1. Resident 13 did not engage in any overt sexual act or gesture. Resident 13 did not utter any inappropriate sexual comments. Resident 13 suffered from dementia and was elderly. He was mentally incapable of forming the requisite intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and was physically incapable of carrying out any such intent. In the absence of any overt sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, the only evidence to support the allegation of sexual misconduct in F224 is the inference of the surveyor based on the gender difference between Residents 13 and 1 and the past history of inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13. The inference of the observer does not satisfy the requirement for a preponderance of the evidence. The resident’s physician was qualified as an expert witness without objection. The physician testified that he was aware of Resident 13’s aggressive behavior, including the two occasions on which the resident expressed a desire to have sex with female residents. However, such incidents are typical of demented residents, do not reflect that Resident 13 was going to attack other residents in the dementia unit, and do not require any alteration to the care plan that was already in place. The only evidence that Petitioner provided to the contrary was the non-expert opinion of its surveyor. The non- expert opinion of the surveyor was insufficient to refute the physician’s expert opinion. Resident 13 suffered from severe cognitive impairment and was not physically or mentally capable of premeditating a plan to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and then carry out that plan. Resident 1 was paranoid of men. Her response to the encounter with Resident 13 was precipitated by her paranoia rather than by Resident 13's intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1. Although Resident 13 voiced a desire to have sex with other residents on two occasions during his stay at the facility, he never acted on those statements and was physically and mentally incapable of acting on them. On those two occasions, Respondent monitored Resident 13 closely but the resident did nothing to indicate that he would act on his stated desires or that he even remembered voicing them. Petitioner did not allege that Resident 13 engaged in any behavior on March 5, 2001, other than sexual misconduct. Even if Tag F224 were to have alleged that Resident 13 engaged in abuse other than sexual abuse, the preponderance of the evidence failed to show that Resident 13 engaged in non-sexual abuse. As a threshold matter, the evidence that the incident lasted for 15 minutes is not credible. It is implausible that a surveyor would allow apparent sexual intimidation to continue after she perceived the incident to be sexual intimidation, much less allow Resident 1 to endure such intimidation for 15 minutes. The surveyor testified that she could not locate a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") on the dementia unit when the incident occurred on March 5, 2001. The dementia unit is a locked unit comprised of resident rooms that open at regular intervals along a 60-foot hallway, and an activities room. There were two CNAs on duty at the time. One of those CNAs was in the hallway at the time of the alleged incident. The surveyor did not inform any member of the staff or administration at the facility that the incident had occurred before Petitioner provided Respondent with the allegations in the 2567 at the conclusion of the March survey. Resident 13’s primary behavior problem did not involve physical aggression toward other residents. Rather, the primary behavior problem was Resident 13's tendency to become aggressive with staff when they attempted to provide personal care, especially that care required for the resident's incontinence. Petitioner incorrectly concluded that the inappropriate behavior by Resident 13 indicated that he was a risk to assault or intimidate other residents. Resident 13’s historical experience at the facility did not involve aggression toward other residents. Instead, Resident 13 directed his aggressive behavior to situations with staff who were attempting to provide personal care for him. Irrespective of the proper characterization of Resident 13's behavior on March 5, 2001, the behavior did not occur because of any failure by the facility to assess Resident 13 or to develop and implement appropriate care plans to address the Resident 13's inappropriate behavior. Respondent acknowledged that Resident 13 wandered the hall, wandered into residents’ rooms, occasionally urinated in inappropriate places, and occasionally made inappropriate sexual remarks. However, those behaviors are typical of residents who suffer from dementia, and the inappropriate behavior cannot be eliminated through a care plan. Facility staff knew to monitor Resident 13 and to re- direct him if he engaged in inappropriate behavior that affected other residents. The chart for Resident 13 is replete with instances of staff consistently implementing those interventions. The care plan for Resident 13 directed staff to approach him calmly, let the resident choose the timing of his care, assess him for pain as a potential cause of agitation, and leave the resident alone and approach him later if the resident became upset during care. All of these interventions were appropriate for the identified behavior problem, and the record is replete with instances of the successful implementation of appropriate interventions. A physician saw Resident 13 and evaluated the resident almost weekly. The physician was aware of and assisted in the evaluation of the resident’s behavior. The physician considered several alternative interventions including the use of anti- anxiety medications to address the resident’s aggressiveness. The physician called in a psychiatric nurse practitioner to evaluate the resident and to recommend medications that might be effective in controlling aggressive episodes. At various times during the course of Resident 13’s stay at the facility, the physician prescribed Seraquil, Risperdal, BuSpar and Ativan for the resident. When aggressive incidents occurred, staff administered these medications with positive effects. Petitioner offered no specific evidence that any intervention used by the facility was not appropriate or that there was another intervention that the facility failed to identify and implement that would have changed any of the inappropriate behavior. Rather, the surveyor concluded that whatever the facility did was inappropriate because Resident 13’s behavioral problems did not subside or disappear while he was at the facility. The surveyor's conclusion fails to adequately understand dementia. The inappropriate behavior displayed by Resident 13 is typical of residents in a dementia unit and cannot be eliminated. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to adequately reassess Resident 13. The resident’s medical record is replete with examples of efforts by the staff to continually re-evaluate the resident and to modify care plan approaches. The facility conducted quarterly re-assessments of the resident. The facility required staff to chart all incidents of inappropriate behavior in the resident’s medical record in an effort to identify any triggering events. The facility provided staff with in-service training for Resident 13 by the resident’s physician. The scope of the training encompassed the care of residents with dementia but focused in particular on the care that was required for Resident 13. The physician wanted to assure that Resident 13 would not become over-medicated and implemented frequent assessments and readjustments of the dosages of the resident's medications. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent failed to assess the resident in a timely manner or that any assessment performed by the facility was inappropriate. Petitioner did not allege in the March survey that the incident between Residents 13 and 1 was a result of Respondent's failure to consistently implement Respondent's policy regarding investigations of abuse. Therefore, any evidence relevant to such an allegation at the hearing is irrelevant to the allegations for which Petitioner provided adequate notice in the March survey. A contrary ruling would violate fundamental due process requirements for notice of the charges that substantially affect Respondent's license to operate the facility. Assuming arguendo that Petitioner can prove charges at the hearing that were not included in the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner's surveyor testified at the hearing that the incident she observed on March 5, 2001, occurred because the facility did not implement its policy and procedure regarding investigations of abuse of residents. As evidence of Respondent's failure to implement its policy, the surveyor contended that the facility did not properly investigate another incident described in nursing notes on January 31, 2001, before the March survey. In the January incident, the nursing notes indicated that Resident 13 made sexual advances to other residents. The implication is that the facility would have done something different with the resident had it properly investigated the January incident and would have, in turn, been able to prevent the occurrence of the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001. Respondent maintains an adequate anti-abuse policy. Respondent’s anti-abuse policy requires its designated staff members to investigate and report to abuse agencies, if necessary, any suspected incidence of abuse of its residents. However, the facility did not fail to implement this policy with regard to Resident 13. Abuse is defined in Respondent's policy as the "willful infraction [sic] of injury . . . resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish." Due to Resident 13's dementia, he was not capable of willfully inflicting harm on anyone. No facility investigator could reasonably conclude that an incident involving Resident 13 constituted abuse within the meaning of the written policy of the facility. Even if the incident described in the January 31, 2001, nursing notes were relevant to the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner failed to show that the incident which the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was the product of any failure by Respondent to implement its policy on January 31, 2001. The facility’s director of nursing adequately investigated the incident described in the nursing notes on January 31, 2001, and determined that Resident 13 made no sexual advances to anyone and did not direct any inappropriate sexual comments to other residents. Rather, the investigation found that Resident 13 made inappropriate sexual comments to a CNA. Staff appropriately monitored Resident 13 after he made that statement to the CNA, and Resident 13 did nothing to act on the statement. The director of nursing notified Resident 13’s physician, and the physician determined there was no need to alter the resident’s care plan. Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F224 was a Class II deficiency. Petitioner presented no evidence that the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was anything other than an isolated incident or presented a threat of harm to other residents. Tag F314 alleges that Respondent violated 42 CFR Section 483.25(c). The federal regulation requires, in relevant part: Pressure Sores. Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that— A resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual’s clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable; and A resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. The March survey alleges in Tag F314 that the facility failed to provide required treatment and services to Resident 2. The surveyor determined the facility was out of compliance after she determined that Resident 2 had pressure sores. The surveyor based her findings on her observation of Resident 2 and a review of the records. In the nursing notes of February 22, 2001, the facility noted small open areas to the left thigh, back of scrotum, and buttocks. On March 5, 2001, the resident’s medical record indicated that the resident had two reddened areas on his buttocks. On March 6, 2001, the surveyor observed that the resident had two open areas on his right buttock and two on his scrotum. Petitioner charged in F314 in the March survey that these areas were pressure sores, and that the areas identified on March 6th were those which had been initially identified on February 22, 2001. Petitioner further charged that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services because staff failed to notify the resident’s physician and obtain a treatment order to the areas in accordance with the facility's policy relating to pressure sore care. A threshold issue is whether the reddened areas on Resident 2 were pressure sores or were reddened areas that did not satisfy Petitioner's definition of a pressure sore. If the areas were not pressure sores, Petitioner acknowledges that there would be no deficiency and no violation of the facility's pressure sore policy. The guidelines promulgated by Petitioner to guide its surveyors in the interpretation of the standard applicable under Tag F314 define a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. The areas identified on February 22, 2001, were located on Resident 2’s buttocks, scrotum, and thigh. None of those areas were located over any bony prominence within the meaning of Petitioner's promulgated definition of a pressure sore. Additionally, the areas identified on February 22nd were healed the next day. Pressure sores do not typically heal overnight. A nurse practitioner examined the areas identified on March 5th and 6th during the survey. The nurse practitioner diagnosed those reddened areas as a rash. Petitioner relies on records that identify the reddened areas on forms that the facility uses for both pressure sores and reddened areas that are not located over a bony prominence. For convenience, the facility uses a single form to identify both reddened areas and pressure sores. Petitioner seeks to rely on the facility forms, including elements of the plan of care on such forms, as though they were admissions by the facility that define pressure sores and then attempt to require the facility to prove the areas are not pressure sores. Petitioner is bound by its own definition of a pressure sore, cannot deviate from that definition, and cannot rely on a different definition as a basis for disciplinary action against the licensee. Petitioner limits the definition of a pressure sore to those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that overlie a bony prominence. Those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that do not overlie a bony prominence are not pressure sores within the meaning of the definition adopted by the state agency. The use by the facility of pressure sore treatment forms and the use of the term pressure sore in the medical records does not create a bony prominence where none exists. The preponderance of evidence shows that the reddened areas at issue were not located over a bony prominence. Clearly, there is no bony prominence in the scrotum, thigh, or buttocks where the reddened areas were located on Resident 2. Assuming arguendo that the areas were pressure sores, Respondent provided all treatment and services to the areas necessary to promote their healing. The facility treated the areas identified on February 22, 2001, by cleansing and application of Lantiseptic, a skin protector. The effectiveness of the treatment is reflected by the complete healing of the areas on the next day. Facility staff properly notified the treating physician and treated the areas identified on March 5th with Lantiseptic. A physician’s assistant examined the areas identified in the March survey and confirmed the use of Lantiseptic on the areas. The surveyor found no record of any plan of care for the pressure sores alleged in the March survey. The facility subsequently produced a note by a nurse practitioner dated March 6, 2001, stating that Lantiseptic was applied to a rash on the buttocks and scrotum, a doctor’s order for treatment, and a care plan for pressure sores after the physician’s note of February 23, 2001. The surveyor testified that the additional documents did not alter her testimony that the areas were pressure sores and that the facility failed to provide an adequate plan of care. The testimony of the surveyor does not refute the preponderance of evidence at the hearing. The areas at issue did not overlay a bony prominence. In any event, Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F314 in the March survey was a Class II deficiency. Even if the areas were pressure sores and it were determined that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, the evidence does not demonstrate that the problem suffered by Resident 2 was systemic or likely to occur with other residents in the facility. At most, the evidence demonstrates a limited failure to provide care to one resident. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove that the identified deficiency presented an immediate threat to other residents in the facility. At the conclusion of Petitioner's case in chief, Respondent moved to dismiss the allegations in Tag F282 on the grounds that Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleged different deficiencies and therefore were not relevant or material to a change in license that is based on uncorrected deficiencies. After hearing arguments from both parties, the ALJ granted the motion to dismiss with leave for Petitioner to revisit the issue in its PRO if Petitioner could provide legal authority to support its position. Petitioner argues in its PRO that the ALJ erred in granting the motion to dismiss. However, Petitioner does not cite any legal authority to support its argument. Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents in violation of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written plan of care. The federal standard is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. In the March survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent provided services to residents by unqualified staff. Instead, Tag F282 charged that Respondent's staff incorrectly fastened a clip belt in the back of Resident 21 while she was in her wheel chair and failed to toilet her once in accordance with a physician’s order. In addition, Tag F282 alleged that staff did not weigh Resident 3 weekly as required by his care plan. However, a preponderance of the evidence showed that the facility did not miss any required weights after January 13, 2001. In the April survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies alleged in the March survey regarding Residents 21 and 3. Nor did Tag F282 allege that Respondent failed to comply with the plan of corrections submitted by Respondent after the March survey. Rather, Tag F282 in the April survey alleged that Respondent failed to provide a plate guard and weighted spoon for Resident 7 in violation of a physician's order. Petitioner argues that the alleged deficiencies in Tag F282 in the March and April surveys, pertaining to Residents 21 and 7, respectively, involved the failure to comply with a physician's order and, therefore, represent uncorrected deficiencies. Even if Petitioner's definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" were accepted, it would not be dispositive of the issue. The evidence showed that the physician who ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 terminated the order at the conclusion of the April survey. Even if Respondent failed to follow a physician's order for Residents 21 and 3 in the March survey, Respondent did not fail to follow a physician's order for Resident 7 during the April survey. Moreover, the termination of the physician's order evidences a medical determination that the failure to comply with the order did not cause any harm to Resident 7. In any event, the definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" asserted by Petitioner is not persuasive. Notwithstanding the request of the ALJ, Petitioner did not submit any legal authority to support its asserted definition of the phrase "uncorrected deficiency." In the absence of a technical definition established by statute, rule, or judicial precedent, the phrase "uncorrected deficiency" is properly construed in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. The allegations in Tag F282 in the March survey are rooted in a physician’s order that called for a clip belt to be placed around Resident 21 while she was in her wheelchair. The purpose of the order was to guard the safety of Resident 21. The order further directed staff to check the belt every thirty minutes and release it every two hours to toilet the resident. During the March survey, a surveyor observed that staff had placed the clip belt on Resident 21 improperly on one day, and further determined that the resident had not been taken to the toilet. Based upon that information, the surveyor charged that the facility failed to follow the doctor’s order for checking and releasing the belt. The surveyor’s observations established, at most, a single isolated instance of failure to follow the care plan for Resident 21. The surveyor's observations failed to establish a consistent failure to implement the care plan. The alleged deficiency presented no potential for harm to Resident 21. Resident 21 was cognitively alert and could notify staff if she needed to be toileted or needed her belt removed. At the time that the surveyor observed Resident 21, the resident was in a supervised setting with staff readily available to her in the event she needed attention. She was not shown to have experienced any incontinent episode or to have even requested that she be toileted or otherwise released from the belt. Petitioner acknowledges that any failure by staff to remove the resident’s belt during this time presented nothing more than a minimal risk of harm to the resident. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on January 13, 2001, and had a care plan that called for the resident to be weighed weekly. Between the resident’s admission to the facility and the March survey, the facility weighed the resident in accordance with the care plan except for one omission in late February. This one instance of failing to do a weekly weight did not demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no evidence that this single instance of failing to weigh the resident caused the resident harm or presented even the potential for harm to the resident. After the March survey, Respondent submitted a plan of correction to address the alleged deficiencies relating to Tag F282. Applicable law precludes Respondent from arguing the validity of the alleged deficiencies in its plan of correction. In the plan of correction, Respondent indicated that it would focus on restraints and weekly weights to insure that the alleged deficiencies would not re-occur. Petitioner accepted the plan of correction and, in April, did not find that staff at the facility failed to properly apply restraints to residents, failed to do weekly weights for residents, or otherwise failed to implement the plan of correction. Petitioner charged that Respondent violated Tag F282 in April because the facility failed to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard to Resident 7 as required by a physician’s order. It is uncontroverted that the plan of correction adopted to address the March F282 deficiency pertaining to Residents 21 and 3 did not address the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey with respect to Resident 7; and would not have prevented the deficiency alleged in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7. Accordingly, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7, even if true, did not represent an "uncorrected" deficiency. Instead, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey represented a new deficiency. In any event, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged failure of the facility to comply with any of the orders at issue denied residents any necessary care and treatment, or presented even the possibility that the residents would be harmed. The physician ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 due to the loss of dexterity in the resident's hand needed to assist him in the consumption of his meals. Even though the plate guard and spoon were not provided to the resident after they were ordered for him, the resident had no trouble with meal consumption. His medical records reflected that he consistently consumed his meals and that he gained almost 20 pounds during the time period that the spoon and plate guard were ordered. The weight gain and food consumption are significant because the facility initially admitted the resident as a hospice resident. The absence of any medical necessity for the physician's order requiring the spoon and plate was confirmed when the facility contacted the doctor during the survey, and the doctor issued an order discontinuing the use of the plate guard and spoon. Tag F325 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to comply with the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.25(i)(1). The federal regulation provides, in pertinent part: Nutrition. Based on a resident’s comprehensive assessment, the facility must ensure that a resident-- Maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the resident’s clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible. . . . The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F325 alleges in the March survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 4. Respondent does not dispute this charge. Tag F325 alleges in the April survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 9. Resident 9 lost approximately 20 pounds between August of 2000 and April 8, 2001. However, Petitioner provided no evidence that the weight the resident lost was "unacceptable" or caused by inadequate nutritional care. Petitioner neither contended nor demonstrated that a 20-pound weight loss over seven or eight months violates any accepted dietary or health standard. Even if such a rate of weight loss were an "unacceptable nutritional parameter," Petitioner provided no evidence that Respondent failed to properly monitor Resident 9's weight, assess his dietary needs, provide the resident with an appropriate diet, or otherwise caused the weight loss. Rather, the resident’s medical records demonstrate on-going assessments of the resident by the dietary staff and numerous interventions to address the resident's weight. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to comply with several directives for supporting care for Resident 9. Facility staff had been directed to cue Resident 9 to use a "chin tuck" to address his risk of aspiration due to swallowing difficulties. Staff were directed to cue the resident to cough and tuck his chin anytime the staff determined that the resident's voice sounded wet. During the survey, the surveyor observed three meals in which the staff provided no cues to Resident 9. However, no cues were required of staff if the resident did not have a wet sounding voice, and the surveyor acknowledged that she did not hear the resident cough during any of her meal observations. Even if cues were required to be given to Resident 9 during the meals observed by the surveyor, the surveyor did not demonstrate that the failure to cue the resident had any negative impact either on the resident's ability to eat or on the resident's weight. Rather, the evidence shows that Resident 9 weighed 151.6 pounds on April 8, 2001, and weighed 160.2 pounds on April 20, 2001, the day after Petitioner completed the April survey. Thus, the failure of the staff to cue the resident during the observed meals did not violate a nutritional parameter. The surveyor testified that the facility failed to provide fortified foods to Resident 9 during the April survey in violation of the resident's dietary care plan. The allegations in Tag F325 in the April survey do not include the allegation of inadequate care to which the surveyor testified during the hearing. In the absence of adequate notice in the written allegations, the testimony of the surveyor cannot be used as a basis for any finding of deficiency. Even if the testimony were considered as a basis for a finding of fact, the failure to provide fortified foods did not violate any nutritional requirements. Resident 9's wife provided the resident with "home-cooked" meals to satisfy his food preferences. Petitioner acknowledges that the meals the wife supplied effectively precluded the resident from eating fortified foods provided by the facility. Moreover, Resident 9 gained weight between April 8 and 17, 2001. Tag F363 alleges in the March and April surveys that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.35(c)(1)-(3). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: (C) menus and nutritional adequacy. Menus must-- Meet the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with the recommended dietary allowances of the Food and Nutrition Board of the national Research Council, National Academy of Sciences; Be prepared in advance; and Be followed. The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F363 alleges that the facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, included cranberry sauce and that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in the rehabilitation dining room. The surveyor who made this charge did not evaluate the meal actually provided to the residents for its nutritional adequacy. Rather, the surveyor cited the facility because the facility failed to comply with the literal terms of the printed menu. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in its rehabilitation dining room on the day in question. The facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, consisted of roast turkey, poultry gravy, cornbread dressing, peas and carrots, mandarin oranges, bread, and cranberry sauce. The menu called for one-half tablespoon of cranberry sauce. The omission was not significant. The dietician did not include the cranberry sauce in calculating the nutritional content of the meal. The cranberry sauce was only a garnish to the plate. The remainder of the food items offered in the meal met all of the requirements for residents’ nutritional needs. Any failure by Respondent to provide the cranberry garnish presented no risk of harm to any resident. Tag F363 alleges in the April survey that Respondent provided a saltine cracker during one meal to a resident who required a pureed diet. Tag F363 also alleges that Respondent gave a bologna sandwich to a resident whose food preferences did not include bologna sandwiches. Petitioner provided no evidence that either of these residents received nutritionally inadequate meals. Petitioner’s apparent concern with the resident who was served the cracker was that she might attempt to eat it and choke on it because she required pureed foods and the cracker was not pureed. The surveyor who observed the resident acknowledged that the resident did not eat the cracker. She also acknowledged that there is a regulatory standard which requires a facility to provide a therapeutic diet to residents who require such a diet, and that a pureed diet is a therapeutic diet. Accordingly, this observation is, at most, a violation of that standard, not Tag F363, and presented nothing more than a minimal chance of harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show that the resident who did not get the bologna sandwich was deprived of any required nutrition, or that placing a bologna sandwich in front of the resident created any risk of harm to the resident. The surveyor acknowledged that the sandwich did not remain in front of the resident for long and that the facility immediately corrected the situation by providing the resident with an acceptable substitute. Tag F363 also alleges that the facility posted for resident observation the same menu on Monday, April 17, 2001, that the facility posted on Sunday, April 16, 2001. The regulation at issue does not address how or even if menus must be posted in a nursing home. Petitioner failed to explain why posting the same menu on consecutive days would violate any regulation, rule, or statute. Respondent acknowledged that the Sunday menu was not removed on Monday, but demonstrated that different, nutritionally adequate meals were planned and served to residents on each of those days.
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 finding that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a factual basis existed upon which Petitioner should have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on March 8, 2001, and revising the March 8 and April 16, 2001, 2567 reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F224, F314, F282, F363 and F325 (April only); and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating that was in effect from March 8, 2001, until May 31, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, 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 4th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Qualified Representative Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's license should be classified as conditional, pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(8). Petitioner is a licensed nursing home located in Titusville, Florida (the "facility"). Chapter 400 originally required Respondent to conduct a survey of each nursing home in Florida every 12 months. Each survey was commonly referred to as an annual survey. The legislature subsequently changed the survey interval to every 15 months, but each survey is still referred to as an annual survey. Respondent conducted an annual survey of the facility on November 17 through 19, 1999. The survey report is identified in the record as the "2567 Report." The parties agree that the 2567 Report is the charging document. The 2567 Report expressly determined that Petitioner failed to ensure that resident number four (the "resident") did not develop pressure sores on September 16, 1999, and that Petitioner failed to ensure that the resident received the necessary treatment and services to prevent pressure sores from developing. The parties stipulated that no other deficiency is at issue in this proceeding. The resident had developed pressure sores on June 18, 1999, but those sores had healed before September 16, 1999, and are not at issue in this proceeding. The 2567 Report determined that the alleged deficiency violates 42 Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") Section 483.25(c). Rule 59A-4.1288 applies relevant federal regulations to Florida nursing homes. The 2567 Report identifies the standard of care at issue as Tag F314. Based on the Tag 314, Respondent issued Petitioner a nursing home operating license rated as "Conditional" for the period November 19, 1999, through December 23, 1999. The conditional license decreased the license rating for Petitioner from "Standard" to "Conditional" within the meaning of Section 400.23(8). On December 23, 1999, Respondent conducted a follow-up survey. Respondent determined that Petitioner had corrected the deficiencies in Tag F314 and issued a "Standard" license pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(a). Respondent rated the severity of alleged deficiency between November 19 and December 23, 1999, with a rating of "II". A severity rating of "II" means the deficiency presented an immediate threat to the health, safety, or security of residents in the facility. Respondent is also required to rate the deficiency under a federal classification system. Respondent assigned a scope and severity rating of "G" to the alleged deficiency between November 19 and December 23, 1999. A "G" rating means an isolated incident creates actual harm to a resident, but the resident is not in immediate jeopardy. Applicable law requires that Petitioner post the conditional license in a conspicuous place near the entrance of the facility. Petitioner did so and filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent. The Petition challenged the finding of the November survey that Petitioner committed a Class II deficiency and also challenged Respondent's decision to issue a conditional license to Petitioner. Respondent referred the Petition to DOAH and this proceeding ensued. Open Areas A threshold issue is whether the resident developed pressure sores or whether the open areas were reddened areas or friction blisters that did not satisfy the definition of pressure sores. A pressure sore is defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(c) as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or shear. Neither of the open areas over the resident's left and right hips satisfied the definition of a pressure sore. Neither open area was located over a bony area. Both wounds were located over a fatty area of the resident's hips. The medical records describe the area over the right hip as having peeled-back skin, being small in size, and having yellow slough. That description is consistent with chafing and is not descriptive of a pressure sore. Unlike the two open areas over the resident's hips, the open area over the resident's coccyx was located over a bony area of the tailbone. However, the small size and rapid healing time of two weeks are consistent with contact dermatitis caused by diarrhea rather than a pressure sore. The open area did not have the deep tissue damage associated with a pressure sore. Pressure sores start deep in the muscle and work their way to the surface. They are caused by prolonged pressure to skin over a bony area and typically require a prolonged healing time. The open area over the resident's right hip had healed by December 23, 1999, when Respondent conducted the follow-up survey. However, the open area over the resident's left hip had not healed as of the date of administrative hearing on May 12, 2000. The long healing time for the open area over the resident's left hip is consistent with a pressure sore even though the area is not located over a bony area. Petitioner performed an MRI bone scan to determine why the open area over the resident's left hip was not healing. The scan revealed that the resident had a prosthetic hip and that the prosthesis had loosened. The MRI scan noted that the "skin wound shows no associated bone activity." The failure of the wound to heal, more likely than not, was caused by stress on the resident's skin from the interaction between the loose prosthesis and the contraction and relaxation of the resident's muscles. The resident's clinical condition demonstrates that the occurrence of the open area over the resident's left hip and its failure to heal were unavoidable. Petitioner did not fail to provide the treatment and services necessary to prevent the open area over the left hip from developing. The treatment measures used by Petitioner for the open area over the resident's left hip included debridement, or surgical cleaning. Surgical cleaning of the open area is appropriate for a friction blister as well as a pressure sore. Unlike Respondent's witness, both of the witnesses for Petitioner actually observed the resident. The Director of Nursing and the nurse that testified for Petitioner both concluded that the three open areas on the resident were not pressure sores. Their testimony was credible and persuasive. Petitioner listed the three open areas at issue on the Pressure Ulcer Report in the medical records because that is the only form available to document open wound and treatment areas. The medical records contain six references that describe the three open areas on the resident as ulcers or decubitis wounds. Hundreds of other references in the medical records describe each of the three open areas as a wound, blistered area, or red area. Notice Assuming arguendo that the three open areas on one resident were pressure sores, a second threshold issue is whether the 2567 Report provides adequate notice of the charges against Petitioner. The parties agree that the 2567 Report charged Petitioner with allowing a pressure sore to develop and with failing to ensure that the resident received the care and services needed to prevent pressure sores from developing. However, the parties dispute whether the 2567 Report charged that Petitioner failed to provide the services necessary to promote healing. Tag F314 in the charging document provides notice to Petitioner in the following manner. Tag F314 first states the "Requirement" for the quality of care of each resident, then states the basis for the conclusion that the "Requirement" was not met for the resident, and finally states the "Findings" that allegedly support the conclusion. In relevant part, Tag F314 states: F314 483(25(c) Requirement SS=G Quality of Care (emphasis supplied) Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable; and a resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. (emphasis supplied) This requirement is not met as evidenced by: The facility did not ensure that [the resident] received the care and services to prevent pressure sores from developing. (emphasis supplied) Findings: Resident #4 was admitted 1/27/98 with diagnoses of dementia, bronchitis, thrombosis and embolism. Her MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/18/99 indicated she had three (3) stage II pressure sores. These apparently healed because documentation in the nurses notes dated 9/10/99, noted "no open areas". Her care plan dated 9/20/99 noted open areas to the left hip, stage II, measuring 4 x 1.5 cm and right hip, unstageable, measuring 3 cm, and sacral area, stage II, measuring 2 cm. Documentation on 10/5/99 noted the coccyx was healed and on 10/12/99, left and right hips reddened stage I. On 9/16/99 at 10:55PM, documentation in the nurses notes indicated "3 x 3 red area left hip with 2 intact blisters below". The next note on 9/17/99 at 10:30 PM indicated "preventative skin care". The pressure ulcer reports noted that the pressure sore on left and right hips was first observed on 9/16/99 as stage I. On 9/20/99, four (4) days later, both pressure sores were noted as stage II, measuring 1 cm round with the left hip having serous drainage and the right hip having scant drainage. However, nurses notes documented on 9/20/99 that the pressure sore on right hip measured cm red with brown center, left hip measured cm red with 1.5 cm soft, open white/brown center, and sacral area 2 cm red open. By 9/24/99 documentation in the pressure ulcer report noted the left hip increased in size to 2.2 x 4 cm. Documentation noted right hip increased to 1.6 x 1.4 cm 10/21/99. Nurses notes dated 9/22/99 at 7:00 PM noted, "treatment orders received from doctor", six (6) days after the pressure sore was first observed and two days after the order was faxed to the physician. Interview with charge nurses on both units on 11/16/99, at 3:30 PM and 11/17/99 at 2:00 PM revealed they did not know why the resident had developed pressure sores. Observation of the pressure sore on 11/17/99 at 1:00 PM revealed the left hip measuring 1.5 x 2.5 cm with yellow slough and the right hip measuring 1.1 x 0.7 cm with a necrotic area on top. There was no way to determine what stage the pressure sore on the left hip was at this time since it was covered with slough. The charge nurse indicated that the pressure sores had become worse over the weekend. The resident was observed on 11/18/99 from 9:35 AM in bed, lying on her back and head of bed elevated 45 degrees, 10:20 AM, lying flat on her back in bed, 11:48 AM and 12:20 PM lying on her back flat in bed. The resident's position was changed at 1:30 PM when she was turned to her left side. During the course of the survey, the resident was never observed out of bed. Additionally, the resident had a 36 pound weight loss for one year and a 13 pound weight loss for six months. There was no documentation that the facility provided services necessary to ensure that this resident did not develop pressure sores and no documentation that the physician was notified promptly after the pressure sores were first observed. Documentation revealed that the facility notified the physician when the pressure sores on both hips were stage II and six days after they were first observed. (emphasis supplied) The express terms of Tag F314 do not charge that Petitioner failed to provide the resident with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing and prevent infection. Evidence of any alleged deficiency not contained in the express terms of the charging document are not relevant and material to the allegations in the charging document. Open Areas Were Unavoidable Assuming arguendo that one or more of the three open areas on the resident were pressure sores and that the 2567 support provided adequate notice of the charge that Petitioner's services failed to promote healing and prevent infection, two issues must be determined. One issue is whether the resident's clinical condition made the occurrence of the pressure sores unavoidable. The other issue is whether Petitioner failed to provide the treatment and services necessary to prevent the pressure sores. Respondent's witness did not evaluate whether the resident's open areas were avoidable. The witness did not offer an opinion on this issue. The resident was originally admitted to the facility in 1991. She has resided there since that time except for a number of brief trips to the hospital. She is a long-term resident of the facility whose needs are well known to facility staff. By 1999, the resident was a very sick woman. Her diagnoses included: Alzheimer's disease/dementia; low thyroid; psychosis; colostomy; artrial fibrillation; mitral valve prolapse; embolism; deep vein thrombosis; dysphagia; anorexia; bronchitis; urinary track infection; electrolyte and fluid imbalance; contractures; depression; intermittent edema; periodic diarrhea; chronic incontinence of bowel and bladder; and decreased tissue tolerance. The resident was routinely evaluated by Petitioner using a Minimum Data Set ("MDS") evaluation tool. The MDS assessment of April 14, 1999, identified the resident as being at risk for, among other things, the development of pressure sores and for weight loss. Petitioner developed a care plan to address these risks. The care plan for pressure sores included prompt cleaning and drying after each incidence of incontinence; regular monitoring of skin condition; a weekly skin assessment; encouraging the resident to maintain her nutrition and hydration; turning and repositioning the resident at least every two hours; and encouraging the resident to participate in movement oriented activities to relieve pressure points. When the resident's skin became compromised and reduced the turning surfaces, Petitioner brought in an air bed. In an effort to provide the resident with the best care possible, Petitioner upgraded the air bed several times without reimbursement. The parties agree that the resident's medical condition was highly compromised and that her condition deteriorated during 1999. She had numerous clinical comorbidities and became bedfast due to the development of contractures. The major problems that required constant monitoring and adjustment to the resident care plan included chronic incontinence of the bladder that resulted in excoriation and breakdown of the resident skin. Petitioner routinely used a Foley catheter for the resident to allow her skin to heal. Once the skin healed, the catheter was removed. Once the catheter was removed, the resident would suffer from renewed excoriation and breakdown of her skin. This cycle repeated itself throughout 1999. The resident also suffered from edema throughout 1999. This resulted in her being hospitalized on June 9, 1999. Whenever the resident experienced worsening of her edema, she would be put on Lasix. When her edema abated, Petitioner discontinued its Lasix. The resident experienced weight loss as her medical condition deteriorated. She weighed 162 pounds on January 15, 1999, and 121 pounds by August 15, 1999. Her weight stabilized in August, however, and never dropped below her ideal body weight. Petitioner tried numerous interventions to stabilize and increase the resident's weight. One intervention included dietary supplements. However, dietary supplements had to be discontinued because they caused diarrhea. The resident suffered from dysphagia that created difficulty in eating and swallowing. In an attempt to overcome this condition, Petitioner gave the resident speech therapy and put her on a pureed diet. Throughout 1999, Petitioner continued to evaluate the resident's condition and to provide her with the best possible care. Petitioner gave the resident MDS evaluations seven times between March and September, 1999. All of the resident's body functions, including skin integrity, were constantly on the verge of becoming dysfunctional. On September 12 and 13, 1999, the East Coast of Florida was threatened by Hurricane Floyd. Hurricane Floyd appeared to be heading straight for Titusville. The facility administrator monitored the national disaster center, the hurricane center, and the local weather information. The facility administrator decided that Petitioner should evacuate the facility to provide for the safety of the residents. The evacuation of a nursing home is a demanding task. All residents must be fed and have liquids during the transfer. The facility has to make sure that the residents' medications and medical devices and clothes will travel with the residents. Although Petitioner doesn't usually use adult diapers on its residents, it was necessary during transport from and back to the facility because there is no ability to change resident clothing during the trip. These tasks were made all the harder because Petitioner did not have its full complement of staff due to the hurricane. All in all, it took over five hours to load the residents onto the busses for evacuation. Petitioner evacuated the residents to three central Florida nursing homes that were also short-handed due to the hurricane. Petitioner sent the resident to Plantation Bay in Kissimmee, Florida. While she was there, it was impossible to implement every element of her care plan. Care focused primarily on feeding residents, seeing that they received their medications, and keeping them clean and dry. Petitioner transported the resident's air mattress to Plantation Bay. By September 15, 1999, Hurricane Floyd had passed, and the residents returned to the facility. This again necessitated packing the residents up, placing them in adult diapers, and transporting them back to the facility. When the staff and residents returned to the facility, they found that the electric power was out temporarily. The residents' clothes could not be washed immediately and the residents had to wear adult diapers until the power was restored. On September 16, 1999, the resident underwent a complete evaluation. At that time, it was noted that she had a 3 cm. X 3 cm. red area on her left hip with two small intact blisters below the reddened area. She did not have any open areas at that time. This area was examined again the next day. At that time, the facility was providing preventive skin care and was putting barrier cream on the left hip area. On September 19, 1999, the treating physician examined the resident, and did not note anything concerning her skin integrity. On September 20, 1999, the resident had open areas on her skin for the first time. The nurse's notes on that day describe three open areas as follows: On the right hip there is a 3 cm. open area with peeled skin and a 2 cm. brown center; on the left hip there is a 4 cm. red area with a 1.5 cm. open area with a white/brown center; and on the sacral area there is a 2 cm. open area. Facility staff notified the treating physician of this development and recommended that Allevyn bandages be prescribed for all three open areas. On September 22, 1999, the treating physician notified staff that he concurred with their recommendation. Within two weeks, the area of the coccyx/sacral area had healed completely. The right hip area was completely healed within two months. The left area still had not completely healed at the time of the Final Hearing and continues to be an area of concern and a focus of treatment. On November 15, 1999, before the state survey inspection started, Petitioner had a culture done on the resident's left hip to determine if that area was infected. The results of that laboratory test showed that the area was not infected. On November 23, 1999, Petitioner debrided, or surgically cleaned, the open area on the resident's left hip in an effort to promote healing. On December 23, 1999, Petitioner had a bone scan done to the area of the resident's left hip. The scan noted that there was a possible loosening of the resident's prosthesis and that the "skin wound shows no associated bone activity". Petitioner did everything reasonably possible to prevent the resident from developing pressure sores and to treat the open areas. Petitioner performed seven MDS assessments between March and September, 1999, four Braden assessments during that period, and a weekly head-to-toe skin assessment. Petitioner inspected for skin integrity during the resident's twice-weekly showers. Petitioner turned the resident and repositioned her at least every two hours. In addition, Petitioner turned and repositioned the resident every time she was treated for incontinence and after each meal. Petitioner made every effort to keep the resident dry and clean, even though she had chronic incontinence. Petitioner routinely placed the resident on a catheter to allow her skin to heal. Once her skin was intact, the catheter was removed. However, incontinence led to further skin breakdown that, in turn, led to the catheter being put back in place. Petitioner used a barrier cream in an effort to keep the resident skin dry and clean. When indicated, Petitioner put heel-protecting booties on the resident. When the resident turning surfaces became weakened, Petitioner obtained a pressure- relieving air mattress without reimbursement and upgraded the mattress several times. Proper Care Respondent contends that Petitioner failed to provide the resident with the necessary treatment and services to promote the healing of her pressure sores and that the result of this failure was the development of infections. The particular treatment and services that Respondent alleges Petitioner did not provide are turning and repositioning the resident; notifying the resident doctor in a timely manner after the development of the open areas; and failure to address weight loss. Turning and repositioning a resident who is at risk for the development of pressure sores, or who has developed pressure sores, is a standard intervention. It keeps a resident from having prolonged pressure over any one bony prominence. The standard protocol in the industry calls for a resident to be turned and repositioned at least every two hours. Respondent asserts two grounds for finding that the resident was not turned and repositioned every two hours. First, the nurse's notes do not always state that the resident was turned and repositioned. Of 720 possible opportunities to note turning and repositioning between March 24 and November 19, 1999, the nurses' notes contain 105 entries that refer to turning and repositioning. According to Respondent's expert witness, if turning and repositioning isn't in the chart, it didn't occur. The resident was extremely compromised and was at great risk for the development of pressure sores. If the resident had been turned and repositioned only 105 times of 720 opportunities, she would have developed serious pressure ulcers on all of her weight-bearing surfaces including her heels, knees, and ankles. She would have developed Stage IV ulcers on her heels and sacrum had she not been regularly turned and repositioned. The absence of pressure sores on the resident is persuasive evidence that Petitioner regularly turned and repositioned the resident. There is no requirement or nursing standard that routine care such as turning and repositioning must be charted. Routine care is sometimes charted by nurses out of habit, but charting turnings and repositionings is not mandatory. The resident's records show that charting of certain routine items was irregular. For example, the air mattress for the resident remained in place once it was put in place. The resident's chart notes the presence of an air mattress on June 6, 8, 11, and 17. There is no mention of the air mattress in the nurses' notes of June 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, or 20. There are multiple nurses' notes on June 12, 21, 24, 26 and 30, wherein one of the notes mentions the air bed and others do not. Similarly, the charts note that the resident had open areas to her skin for September 16, 20, 30, and October 4 and 5, 1999. The nurses' notes for September 17, 22, 24, 29, and October 7 and 8, 1999, do not mention the resident's skin condition. The surveyor noted in relevant part: The resident was observed on 11/18/99, from 9:30 AM in bed, lying on her back and the head of bed elevated 45 degrees, 10:20 AM, lying on her back flat in bed, 11:48 AM and 12:20 PM lying on her back flat in bed. The resident's position was changed at 1:30 PM when she was turned to her left side. From this recitation, Respondent infers that the resident was not turned and repositioned for a four-hour period on November 18, 1999, and was not, therefore, regularly turned and repositioned. The resident had severe contractures that resulted in her left leg being pulled way up and across her body. Due to this condition, the resident could appear to be lying flat on her back when she was either on her back or when she was actually on her right side. The surveyor did not enter the resident's room when the surveyor made the observations contained in the survey report. The surveyor merely observed the resident briefly from the hallway. The surveyor mistakenly believed the resident was on her back when she was actually on her right side. The Director of Nursing was aware that the resident was a focus of the survey. The Director directed her CNA's, her wing managers, and her Assistant Director of Nursing to be sure that the resident was regularly turned and repositioned. The Director personally checked to confirm that the resident was regularly repositioned. She knew of her own knowledge that the resident was turned and repositioned at least every two hours and identified the person who physically did the turning. Respondent asserts that Petitioner was deficient because it did not notify the resident's doctor of her skin condition for a period of six days. Respondent bases this allegation on the fact that the first red area on the resident was observed on September 16, 1999, and the doctor's concurrence of staff's recommended treatment was not received until September 22, 1999. The resident's treating physician visited her at the facility on September 19, 1999. He did not determine that additional treatment orders were needed at that time. Facility staff first noted open areas on the resident on September 20, 1999, and notified the treating physician on that day. In the notification, staff requested that the physician approve a treatment plan that called for "cleanse w/ N/S then apply Requesting Allevyn Islands for all three. Change every three days & prn." The physician was out of town, but approved the recommendation when he returned on September 22, 1999. The resident's physician visited her after the red area was observed on her left hip, but before it became open. Petitioner notified the physician immediately upon noting the open areas. The two-day delay in getting confirmation of the recommended treatment was caused by the physician's absence and not by Petitioner. Respondent's witness testified that the resident's weight loss "was a factor that influenced the clinical outcome of the pressure ulcer," that it "was a tangible manifestation of some type of physiological symptom failure," and that the weight loss indicated that the resident was at risk for developing pressure sores. However, Petitioner knew that the resident was at risk for developing pressure sores. Petitioner prepared and implemented numerous care plans to deal with this risk. Respondent did not allege that the nutritional services provided to the resident were inadequate. The resident never dropped below her ideal body weight. The resident stabilized in August 1999, approximately 123 pounds. Petitioner provided the resident with speech therapy for dysphagia and difficulty with swallowing and digestion. Petitioner provided the resident with dietary supplements to increase her caloric intake. The supplements were discontinued because they caused diarrhea. Petitioner placed the resident on a pureed diet in an effort to make her food easier to eat. A dietitian evaluated the resident 23 times between May 27 and December 8, 1999. Respondent did not identify any dietary or nutritional intervention that Petitioner should have taken, or any ill- advised nutritional treatment that Petitioner did provide. Petitioner was aware of the resident's weight loss, constantly evaluated and reevaluated her nutritional needs and strategies for meeting them, and successfully halted her weight loss while she was still within her ideal body weight and before she suffered any breakdown of her skin. No nutritional deficiency was shown. Respondent infers that the resident's wound to her left hip became infected because it was noted at one time in the nurse's notes to have a foul odor and pus. As a part of the treatment of the resident's left hip, Petitioner applied Hydrogel directly on the wound and Polyskin over that. The dressing remained in place for three days. The dressing created a foul odor as it disintegrated over the three days it was in place. As the serous drainage of the wound mixes with the medication, it creates the appearance of pus. Petitioner had a culture done to test for infection. The culture test was ordered before the survey inspection. The test demonstrated that the resident did not have an infection. In addition, the resident's physician never prescribed an antibiotic for infection. At the time of the inspection, the resident census at the facility was 113. Of those, at least 50 percent were identified as being at risk for the development of pressure sores. Based on the national average of a 7-9 percent incidence of pressure sores on nursing home residents, one would expect that the facility would have 8 to 10 residents at any one time with pressure sores. The resident was the only resident Respondent alleged to have pressure sores. Class II Rating Assuming arguendo that the resident did actually develop three pressure sores, the greater weight of the evidence suggests that she was turned and repositioned on a regular basis at least every two hours; that her physician was properly kept abreast of changes in her condition; that her nutritional status was regularly evaluated and every effort was made to maintain her weight; and that her wounds did not become infected and were superficial and relatively mild. As such, it was not proven that the alleged deficiencies had more than an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the resident. The alleged deficiencies should have therefore been classified as no more than Class III deficiencies, and Petitioner should not have been issued a Conditional license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged deficiency and reinstating Respondent's license rating to standard for the period between November 19 and December 23, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2000, 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 27th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Thomas, Esquire Michael Hope, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-0543 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Jay Adams, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Jayla Camille Moore (Jayla) suffered a birth- related neurological injury as defined by section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes; whether obstetrical services were delivered by a participating physician in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital; whether the notice requirements in section 766.316 were satisfied; and if Petitioner’s claim is found to be compensable, how much compensation, if any, is awardable pursuant to section 766.31.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation, the following facts are stipulated and undisputed: Petitioner, Collette Wright was given timely and adequate notice on behalf of the NICA participating physicians and on behalf of UF Health Shands Hospital, in compliance with section 766.316, Florida Statutes. Jayla Moore has suffered a neurological injury to her brain and/or spinal cord rendering her permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. The obstetrical care rendered to Petitioner, Collette Wright, during the course of her labor, the delivery of her daughter, Jayla, and the resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period, was provided at UF Health Shands Hospital by a participating NICA physician at the said hospital. Jayla was born on January 8, 2016, at Shands. She was a single gestation, weighing over 2,500 grams at birth. Respondent retained Donald Willis, M.D., who is board- certified in obstetrics, gynecology, and maternal-fetal medicine, to review the medical records of Jayla and her mother, Collette Wright, and opine as to whether there was an injury to Jayla’s brain or spinal cord that occurred in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period due to oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury. In his supplemental report, dated September 14, 2018, Dr. Wills set forth the following, in pertinent part: The mother was a 25 year[s] old G2 P1001. Her first prenatal visit was at 15 weeks gestational age. Prenatal care was uncomplicated. The mother presented to the hospital at 41 weeks gestational age for induction of labor. Her cervix was 1 cm dilated and not effaced. FHR monitor showed uterine contractions about every 3 minutes. The FHR tracing was non-reassuring on admission with markedly reduced variability and spontaneous decelerations. The patient was taken to the OR for a stat Cesarean Section due to the abnormal FHR tracing. Placental abruption was diagnosed at delivery. About 500 cc’s of blood and clots were noted in the uterus. Birth weight was 4,301 grams. The baby was depressed at birth. Apgar scores were 1/6. Cord blood gas had a pH of 7.06 with a base of – 10.4. * * * The baby had respiratory failure at birth and bradycardia with a heart rate in the 40’s. Heart rate slowly increased after intubation. Respiratory status improved and baby was extubated. The baby went to the NICU on CPAP, but was noted to be pale and with apnea in the NICU, requiring re- intubation and intravenous fluid bolus. The initial blood gas was a venous sample at about 2 hours after birth. The pH was 7.09 with a base excess of – 13. Respiratory failure was felt to be related to birth hypoxia. The baby did not meet criteria for cooling protocol immediately after birth, but modified cooling was initiated shortly after birth due to onset of seizure activity. Antibiotics were started. Blood cultures and spinal tap were done. Both cultures and HSV testing were negative or no growth. Head ultrasound on the day of birth was normal. MRI on DOL 4 was consistent with severe global hypoxic ischemic [sic] with diffuse destruction of both cerebral hemispheres. The newborn hospital course was complicated by multi-system organ failures, including respiratory distress, seizures, acute renal insufficiency, elevated liver functions and feeding difficulty requiring Nissen Fundoplication. In summary, labor was complicated by a placental abruption and abnormal FHR tracing during labor. The baby was depressed at birth with Apgar scores of 1/6 and a cord blood gas pH of 7.06. The newborn hospital course was complicated by multi-system organ failures, consistent with birth related oxygen deprivation. MRI findings were consistent with severe HIE. There was an apparent obstetrical event that resulted in oxygen deprivation to the baby during labor, delivery and continuing into the immediate post-delivery period. The oxygen deprivation resulted in brain injury. Dr. Willis was deposed on March 28, 2019. At his deposition, Dr. Willis affirmed the findings and opinions in the above noted report. Dr. Willis testified that in his opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the oxygen deprivation that resulted in injury to Jayla’s brain occurred in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post delivery period. A review of the file reveals that no contrary evidence was presented to dispute the findings and opinions of Dr. Wills and the same are credited.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be issued a Conditional rating from March 15, 2001, to June 11, 2001, based on surveys completed on March 15, 2001, and April 19, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Plantation Bay is a nursing home located in St. Cloud, Florida. Every fifteen months AHCA conducts a survey to determine if the facility is in compliance with applicable regulatory standards. During a survey, surveyors will observe and interview residents, observe care that is administered to residents, review medical records, and interview staff and family members. Based on the results of the surveys AHCA conducts, it determines whether the facility should receive a Standard or Conditional licensure rating. After AHCA completes the survey of a nursing home, it issues a report of its findings, commonly called a "2567," which describes any deficiencies found by the surveyors. The deficiencies are organized by "Tags." A Tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated and provides a summary of the violation, specific factual allegations that the surveyors believe support the violation, and two ratings which indicate the severity of the deficiency. One of the ratings identified in a Tag is a "scope and severity" rating, which is a letter rating from A to L with A representing the least severe deficiency and L representing most severe. The second rating is a "class" rating, which is a numerical rating of I, II, or III, with I representing the most severe deficiency and III representing the least severe deficiency. AHCA conducted a survey of Plantation Bay, on March 15, 2001, and alleged that there were three deficiencies, which it described under Tags F224, F309, and F332 of a survey report. AHCA assigned a state class rating of II and a federal scope and severity rating of G to both the F224 and F309 deficiencies. A scope and severity rating of "G" is one which AHCA determines is an isolated deficiency that caused actual harm (that is not immediate jeopardy) to a resident. AHCA assigned a state class rating of III and a federal scope and severity rating of E to the F332 deficiency. Based on its determination that there were two Class II deficiencies at Plantation Bay, AHCA changed Plantation Bay's licensing rating from Standard to Conditional, effective March 15, 2001. AHCA conducted a follow-up survey of Plantation Bay on April 19, 2001, to determine if the deficiencies cited on March 15, 2001, had been corrected. AHCA determined that the facility had corrected the F224 and F309 deficiencies but, based on new factual allegations, re-cited Plantation Bay for a deficiency under Tag F332. The F332 deficiency was assigned a Class III rating and a scope and severity rating of E. Because AHCA believed this deficiency had not been corrected, AHCA continued the Conditional rating at Plantation Bay. AHCA changed Plantation Bay's Conditional licensure rating to Standard, effective June 11, 2001. In the March 15, 2001, survey AHCA alleged under Tag F224 that Plantation Bay violated the standard contained in 42 CFR Section 483.13(c) and under Tag F309 that Plantation Bay violated the standard contained in 42 CFR Section 483.25. AHCA contends that Plantation Bay failed to provide appropriate monitoring and care to Resident 10 in relation to Tag F224 and failed to reduce the risk of potential decline and to maintain the highest practicable physical well being for Resident 10 in relation to Tag F309. Plantation Bay has procedures which the nursing staff are to follow when a resident has an elevated blood pressure level. The nurse is to continue to monitor the resident's blood pressure, notify the next shift of the resident's blood pressure, and contact the resident's physician if the resident's blood pressure continues to be elevated. Resident 10 was diagnosed with cardiovascular disease, cerebral vascular accident, hypertension, and cardiac dysrhythmia. She was prescribed 20 milligrams of Monopril every 12 hours. On March 2, 2001, a nurse measured Resident 10's blood pressure level at 210/90, which was a high reading for Resident 10. Standard nursing procedure called for the attending nurse to continue monitoring Resident 10's blood pressure and to notify the oncoming nursing staff and Resident 10's physician. The nurse failed to do any of these things. On March 4, 2001, Resident 10's family complained to Plantation Bay about Resident 10's cough and congestion. A nurse took Resident 10's temperature, but did not take Resident 10's blood pressure level. On March 12, AHCA's surveyor, in reviewing Resident 10's Vital Sign Flow Record, noted that from May 20, 2000, to March 2, 2001, the highest blood pressure recorded in Resident 10's Vital Sign Flow Record had been 184/72. The surveyor further noted that no further monitoring had been done since March 2, 200l. When the AHCA surveyor interviewed the nurse who had taken Resident 10's blood pressure level on March 2, 2001, and asked why no further monitoring had been done, the nurse replied that another emergency had occurred during her shift on March 2, 200l, and she had done nothing about the high blood pressure reading because it had "slipped her mind." On March 13, 2001, when the AHCA surveyor noted the lack of monitoring Resident 10's blood pressure level since March 2, 2001, she asked the nurse on duty whether she was aware that Resident 10 had an elevated blood pressure on March 2, 2001. The nurse replied that she was not aware of the elevated blood pressure. The nurse checked Resident 10's blood pressure, which was 202/82. The nurse indicated that she was going to contact Resident 10's physician. The surveyor asked what Resident 10's temperature was, and the nurse replied that she had not checked the temperature. Thirty minutes later, the nurse checked Resident 10's temperature and blood pressure. The temperature was 99.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and the blood pressure was 210/100. This information was sent to Resident 10's doctor. An hour and a half later, Resident 10's blood pressure was 210/90. Ninety minutes later, the blood pressure was 210/100. The information had been sent to Resident 10's doctor, but the doctor had not responded. Two and a half hours later, Resident 10 was sent to the emergency room by order of her physician. Resident 10's medication was changed to 40 milligrams of Monopril every 12 hours. An elevated blood pressure could worsen cardiovascular disease, cerebral vascular accident, hypertension, and cardiac dysrhythmia, conditions with which Resident 10 had been diagnosed. Thus, the failure of Plantation Bay on March 2, 2001, to monitor the blood pressure, to report the elevated blood pressure level to the oncoming shift, and to notify Resident 10's physician had a direct relationship to the health of Resident 10 and imposed an immediate threat to the health of Resident 10. AHCA also alleged under Tag 309 from the March 15, 2001, survey that Plantation Bay violated the standard of care set forth in 42 CFR Section 483.25. Plantation Bay failed to provide the necessary care for Resident 16 by not reducing the risk of potential decline and not maintaining the highest practicable physical well-being of each resident when it failed to monitor Resident 10's blood pressure on March 2, 2001, failed to notify the oncoming shift of the elevated blood pressure level, and failed to contact Resident 10's doctor. Resident 16 was admitted to Plantation Bay on February 10, 2001, following hospitalization for hepatic encephalopathy, secondary to cirrhosis of the liver, seizures, and falls. As a result of hepatic encephalopathy, the liver is unable to remove all the ammonia that it produces, and there is a risk that some ammonia will be introduced into the heart and brain. Prior to his admission to the hospital, Resident 16's ammonia level was 96. When Resident 16 was admitted to Plantation Bay, the ammonia level was 33, which is within normal range. Production of stool is important to reduce the absorption of nitrogen into the intestinal tract. On February 11, 2001, Resident 16's physician ordered 30 milligrams of Lactulose to be administered three times daily to produce at least three stools daily and to prevent hepatic encephalopathy. Plantation Bay administered the Lactulose to Resident 16 as ordered by the resident's doctor. According to Resident 16's Documentation Charting Record, the order text on February 10, 2001, was to "Monitor BMs & chart daily with O-S-M-L." Plantation Bay did monitor Resident 16's bowel movements and prepared a daily chart on the number and size of the bowel movements. Plantation Bay was not required to call the doctor if Resident 16 did not have three bowel movements a day. On February 11, 2001, Resident 16 had two bowel movements and one bowel movement on February 12, 2001. Blood tests on February 12, 2001, revealed that Resident 16 had an elevated ammonia level of 77, which is 17 points higher than normal. Plantation sent the test results to Resident 16's physician. The policy of Plantation Bay was to also place a copy of a laboratory report in the resident's chart. Resident 16's doctor went to the facility to see Resident 16 on February 13, 2001. The doctor did not change Resident 16's dosage of Lactulose nor did he make any notation about the number of Resident 16's bowel movements in the physician's notes. The charting records for Resident 16 show that from February 13 through March 15, there were 13 days when Resident 16 had no bowel movements, ten days in which Resident 16 had one bowel movement, five days in which Resident had two bowel movements, and one day in which there were three bowel movements. On April 5, 2001, Resident 16's physician stated in the Physician's Progress Notes for Resident 16 that Resident 16's ammonia levels had been fluctuating for four years, this was a chronic condition, and the fluctuation had nothing to do with the nursing care provided by Plantation Bay. He indicated that the ammonia levels were only a marker of the resident's condition. The nursing care provided by Plantation Bay did not cause the fluctuation in Resident 16's ammonia level and that the nursing staff followed the orders of the doctor in administering the Lactulose, monitoring the bowel movements, and charting the bowel movements daily. AHCA alleged under Tag F332 that Plantation Bay violated 42 CFR Section 483.25(m)(1), which requires that the facility is to be free of medication error rates of five percent or greater. AHCA contends that during the March 15, 2001, survey Plantation Bay had a medication error rate of 10.8 percent during observations of med passes on March 13, 2001. AHCA contends that during the April 19, 2001, survey that Plantation Bay had a medication error rate of 11.6 percent. In determining if a medication error has occurred, the surveyors observe a nurse as medications are administered to a resident, and then will look at the physician's orders to see if the medications are administered in accordance with the physician's orders. If a medication is administered but not ordered, it is counted as a medication error. If a medication is ordered but not administered, it is counted as a medication error. If a medication is not administered in accordance with the physician's order, it is also counted as a medication error. The errors are counted regardless of how significant they might be. The two AHCA surveyors who did the med pass observations for Tag F332 had extensive training in surveying and followed the procedures for surveying violations of Tag F332 as set forth by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) in the Guide to Surveyors and Task E of the survey protocols, which provides: Initially observe a minimum of 20-25 opportunities for errors (opportunities are both the drugs been administered and the doses ordered but not administered). Strive to observe as many individuals administering medications as possible. This provides a better overall picture of the accuracy of the facility's entire drug distribution system. Ideally, the medication observation could include residents representative of the care needs in the sample, or the actual sampled residents. This would provide additional information on these residents, and provide a more complete picture of the care they actually receive. For example, if blood sugars are a problem, insulin administration may be observed. If eye infections are a problem, antibiotic eye drops may be observed, if residents are in pain, as needed pain medications may be observed, etc. Observe different routes of administration (i.e., eye drops, injections, NG administration, inhalation). If you found no errors after reconciliation of the pass with the medical records, this task is complete. If you found 1 or more errors, observe another 20 to 25, opportunities. The error rate is calculated by taking the number of errors observed and dividing it by the opportunities for errors and multiplying by 100. During the March 15, 2001, survey, an AHCA surveyor observed two medication errors during medication pass out of 24 opportunities for administration of medicine. These errors were the administration of 220 milligrams of iron when 325 milligrams were ordered and the administration of 25 milligrams of Colace when 100 milligrams were ordered. Colace is a stool softener. During the March 15, 2001, survey, another AHCA surveyor observed three errors out of 22 opportunities for administration of medicine. These errors were the omission of 20 milligrams of Pepcid to be administered once daily, the administration of 500 milligrams of Vitamin C when there was no physician's order, and the administration of two drops of Tobra Dex Opthalmic eye drops when one drop was ordered by the physician. During the April 19, 2001, survey an AHCA surveyor observed five errors out of 43 opportunities. These errors were failure to give Maalox with ibuprofen as ordered, administration of one drop of Gentamycin sulphate when two drops were ordered, administration of a multivitamin without iron when one with iron was ordered, administration of 1.20 milligrams of Prozac when 1.25 milligrams were ordered, and giving Lactolose after breakfast at 9:20 a.m. when it was ordered to be given before breakfast at 7:00 a.m. Plantation Bay challenges the methodology used by AHCA to determine the medication error rate. Plantation Bay's expert witness opined that a larger sampling would have to be used in order to get a more statistically valid error rate. According to their expert, a sampling of over 3,000 opportunities would be necessary in order to reach an error rate which was 80 percent correct. No evidence was presented to show the number of opportunities for administration of medications that the facility had in a day. Thus, it is not known if the facility even had 3,000 opportunities a day. The evidence failed to support Plantation Bay's expert's opinion that over 3,000 opportunities would have to be observed in order to accurately determine the medication error rate for Plantation Bay is credible. Contrary to the assertion of AHCA that the purpose of the med pass observations is to get a snap shot of one moment in time for the opportunities actually observed and not to make a projection as to what the error rate is for all the medication administrations in the building, Task E of the survey protocols makes it clear that the purpose of the med pass observations is to get a better "overall picture of the accuracy of the facility's entire drug distribution system." However, that error rate is obviously limited to the time of the survey. Given the short time period in which a survey is conducted, the methodology that is used to determine the medication error rate of the facility at the time of the survey is not fatally flawed. If the surveyor finds that an error occurs in observing the first 20 to 25 opportunities, the surveyor is to observe further opportunities to ascertain if there are errors in that group of observations. For the March 15, 2001, survey, Plantation Bay had a medication error rate of 10.8 percent. For the April 19, 2001, survey, Plantation Bay had a medication error rate of 11.6 percent. The Conditional Rating was effective from March 15, 2001, to June 11, 2001. No evidence was presented to establish when Plantation Bay was re-evaluated and a determination made that medication error was less than five percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Plantation Bay receive a Conditional license from March 15, 2001, through June 11, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ Susan B. Kirkland Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 2nd day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional from June 13, 2001, through July 11, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 710 North Sun Drive, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted a complaint investigation on June 13, 2001 (the "June survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the complaint investigation on the Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "tags"). Each tag of the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F314 is the only allegation at issue in this proceeding. Tag F314 generally provides that a facility must ensure that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless they were unavoidable; and the resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. Tag F314, in relevant part, alleges that the facility: . . . did not insure the prevention of pressure sore development or provide that necessary treatment for pressure sores which had developed in the case of one of four residents. Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign a rating to the deficiency alleged in the 2567. The rating required by federal law is for scope and severity. Petitioner assigned a G rating to Tag F314. A G rating means that the alleged deficiency was "isolated." State law requires Petitioner to assign a class rating. Petitioner assigned a Class II rating to the deficiency alleged in Tag 314. A Class II rating is authorized in Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), for any deficiency that 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." The Class II rating is the only rating at issue in this proceeding. (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.) When Petitioner alleges a Class II deficiency in the 2567, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of the facility's license. Effective June 12, 2001, Petitioner changed to rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey on July 11, 2001 (the "July survey"). Petitioner determined that Respondent had corrected the deficiency alleged in Tag F 314 in June. Effective July 11, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The Class II rating from Petitioner rests on the allegations in Tag 314. The first allegation is that Respondent did not prevent the development of a pressure sore on the right buttock of Resident 1. The second allegation is that the facility failed to provide the treatment necessary to treat the pressure sore. The facility admitted Resident 1 on October 19, 2000. Between the date of admission and June 4, 2001, Resident 1 did not develop any pressure sores. However, on June 4, 2001, a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") noticed an open area on the resident’s right buttock while showering the resident. The CNA notified the attending nurse. A threshold issue is whether the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore or a blister caused by incontinence and chafing from the resident's diaper. The nursing staff described the identified area on a document in the resident’s medical chart called a "pressure ulcer report." Petitioner contends that the use of a "pressure ulcer report" by Respondent is an admission by Respondent and that Respondent has the burden to prove that the area was not a pressure sore. However, the burden of proof is on Petitioner to show that the area of concern is a pressure sore. Petitioner promulgates a written definition of a pressure sore in the guidelines that Petitioner requires its surveyors to use in interpreting the regulatory standard of Tag F314. Petitioner defines a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. Section 120.68(7)(e)3 prohibits Petitioner from deviating from its officially stated policy unless Petitioner explains the deviation. Petitioner failed to provide any evidence for deviating from its written definition of a pressure sore. Ischemic ulceration or necrosis of tissue that has been subjected to pressure, friction, or sheer is not a pressure sore, as defined by Petitioner, if the area does not overlie a bony prominence. The parties disagree as to the location of the area of concern on Resident 1. Petitioner's surveyor is an expert in nursing practices and procedures. She observed the area of concern on Resident 1 during the June survey. The surveyor testified at the hearing that the area of concern was located over the resident’s ischial tuberosity; i.e., the bone on which the resident placed her weight when she sat. The facility's director of nurses is also an expert in nursing practices and procedures. The director observed the area immediately after the survey and testified that it was located in the fleshy part of the resident’s buttocks and was not over any bony prominence. The preponderance of evidence did not show that the area of concern on Resident 1 was located over a bony prominence. The area of concern was located in the same location as the elastic band of the diaper that the resident wore for her incontinence. The area of concern was likely caused by the combination of the resident’s incontinence and chafing from the diaper. The pressure ulcer report prepared by the nursing staff contains the outline of a human body on which the nursing staff marked the location of the area of concern on Resident 1 when staff first identified the area. The report shows that the area of concern is located in the fleshy part of the resident’s right buttock. The report did not indicate that the area of concern was located in the area on which the resident would have placed her weight when she was seated or prone. Even if the area of concern were located at the ischial tuberosity other factors belie a diagnosis of pressure sore. Pressure sores typically involve deep tissue damage, have drainage and odor, and require a long time to heal. The pressure ulcer report indicated that the area identified on the resident was small in size, had scant odor and no drainage, and healed by July 3, 2001. All of the surrounding facts and circumstances indicate that the area of concern on Resident 1 was not a pressure sore but was a blister caused by chafing from the diaper the resident wore for her incontinence. The "pressure ulcer report" for Resident 1 classified the area of concern as a stage II. A stage II involves a partial thickness loss of skin layers either dermis or epidermis that presents clinically as an abrasion, blister or shallow crater. The area was further described in the report as being 0.7 by 0.7 centimeters in size with scant serous drainage, no odor, and pink in appearance. The director of nurses testified that the area presented as a "dry blister." Assuming arguendo that the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore, there are two additional issues to be determined. One issue is whether development of the alleged pressure sore was unavoidable due to the resident’s clinical conditions. The other issue is whether the facility failed to provide the treatment and services necessary to promote healing after the alleged pressure sore developed. Petitioner promulgates guidelines for Tag F324 for use by surveyors in determining whether a pressure sore is unavoidable. The guidelines state in relevant part: . . . a determination that development of a pressure sore was unavoidable may be made only if routine preventative and daily care was provided [by the nursing home]. The guidelines define routine preventative care as: . . . turning and proper positioning, application of pressure reduction or relief devices, providing good skin care, providing clean and dry bed linens, and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration as possible. The guidelines instruct surveyors to determine whether a facility complies with the foregoing standards "consistently" rather than one hundred per cent of the time. When the facility admitted Resident 1 in October, 2000, she was immobile and had several compromising diagnoses. They included atrial fibrillation; chronic ischemic heart disease and coronary atherosclerosis (diseases of the heart and arteries); abnormal loss of weight; angina pectoris; senile dementia; a kidney infection; and incontinence of both bowel and bladder. The clinical conditions placed Resident 1 at high risk for the development of pressure sores. The surveyor guidelines for Tag F314 state that a resident who is immobile, has continuous urinary incontinence, chronic bowel incontinence, and chronic heart disease is at high risk for the development of pressure sores. At the time of admission, the nursing staff at the facility assessed Resident 1 as being at risk for the development of pressure sores due to her incontinence and immobility. They designed a care plan to prevent the development of pressure sores. The care plan included frequent turning and repositioning of the resident, weekly skin assessments by a nurse, skin checks during care and bathing, and prompt incontinence care. The parties agree that the interventions in the care plan met the regulatory requirements for preventative care under Tag F314. With one exception, Petitioner does not allege that the facility failed to provide routine preventative care to the resident. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not perform weekly skin checks for three weeks in May preceding the identification of the area of concern on Resident 1. However, the failure to perform those skin checks did not cause Resident 1 to develop a pressure sore. A weekly skin check is a head-to-toe assessment of a resident’s skin by a nurse. Since a nurse can only observe a pressure sore after it has appeared on a resident, this assessment is not preventative in nature. Instead, it is designed to assure that appropriate and immediate treatment can be provided to the area after a reddened area develops. Even if weekly examinations of a resident’s skin were an integral part of a plan intended to prevent the development of pressure sores on Resident 1, the facility necessarily exceeded this standard with regard to the resident’s right buttock where the area of concern actually occurred. Facility staff observed the resident’s buttock more than once a day when the resident received incontinence care, bath, or showers. Consistently through May and June, the resident’s chart shows that the resident was incontinent at least three times a day and that she received a partial bath or full shower at least once a day. On June 4, 2001, facility staff in fact observed a reddened area during the resident's shower. Petitioner submitted no evidence that the facility could or should have been observing the resident’s buttock more frequently than its staff actually did or that the area could have been identified any earlier. The preponderance of evidence shows that the facility consistently implemented the component of its care plan that required monitoring of the resident’s buttock. The care plan for Resident 1 included two other primary components to prevent pressure sores. One component was prompt incontinence care. The other was turning and repositioning of the resident every two hours to relieve pressure over areas susceptible to breakdown. Petitioner alleges that the facility failed to comply with these components during the June survey. Proving that a facility consistently turns and repositions a resident and provides prompt incontinence care is problematic for a facility. Those interventions are routine care. There is no regulation or standard that requires nurses to chart routine care. Because these interventions are not typically charted, a nursing home will not typically have documentary evidence to demonstrate that the interventions were provided to a resident. The facility provided sufficient evidence to show that the interventions of repositioning and prompt incontinence care were provided to Resident 1 during the June survey. The facility provided incontinence care to the resident at least three times a day. With regard to turning and repositioning the resident, the director of nursing testified that she saw staff turning and repositioning the resident prior to the survey. Resident 1 was at high risk of developing pressure sores. If staff had not consistently turned and repositioned the resident and provided prompt incontinence care, it is more likely than not that the resident would have developed serious pressure ulcers on most or all of her weight bearing surfaces. The appearance of one small area on the resident and the absence of any other areas over any bony prominence is persuasive evidence that the facility consistently turned and repositioned the resident and consistently provided her with prompt incontinence care. The final issue is whether the facility provided the treatment to Resident 1 that is necessary for healing of the alleged pressure sore. Petitioner agrees that the facility developed an appropriate care plan for the identified area immediately upon its discovery. An order in the care plan developed after discovery of the alleged pressure sore called for application of a duoderm patch to the wound. Petitioner alleges that the facility did not follow the order because the surveyor observed no patch on the resident during the survey. It is more likely than not that the duoderm patch came off of Resident 1 during an episode of incontinence prior to the time that the surveyor observed the resident. Duoderm patches commonly come off when a resident has an incontinent episode. Regardless of why the patch was not on Resident 1 during the survey, the absence of the patch one time during the survey does not demonstrate that staff consistently failed to comply with the order calling for the patch. The instance observed by Petitioner's surveyor was the only instance identified by the surveyor as a failure to follow the resident's care plan. The resident’s medication administration records demonstrate that facility staff applied the duoderm patch in all other instances in compliance with the doctor’s order. Furthermore, the facility continued to provide the routine preventative care called for by the care plan. Petitioner did not show that the facility consistently failed to follow the care plan for Resident 1 as alleged in Tag F314. The area of concern on Resident 1 healed quickly and progressively after it was discovered. Petitioner offered no evidence that the alleged pressure sore did not heal or that the resident was otherwise harmed as a result of the failure to place a duoderm patch on the resident on June 13, 2001. The pressure ulcer report and nurse’s notes indicate that the wound healed by July 3, 2001. The records noted with each successive entry after June 4, 2001, that the area was smaller in size. The area demonstrated characteristics of healing, including the absence of any odor or drainage, and pink granulating tissue. Resident 1 was at high risk for pressure sores, and pressure sores do not typically heal quickly. The progressive pattern of healing indicates that the facility provided the necessary and effective treatment for the area of concern on Resident 1.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order finding that there was no basis upon which the agency could have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on June 13, 2001, deleting the deficiency described under Tag F314, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Eileen O'Hara Garcia Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North Sebring Building, Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
