The Issue Whether Respondent failed to protect one of the residents of its facility from sexual coercion. Whether Respondent failed to report the alleged violation immediately to the administrator.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida, under state and federal statutes. Respondent is a licensed nursing facility located in Orlando, Florida. Respondent is a small not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Resident 2 is a Hispanic male, 57 years of age, who speaks English and Spanish fluently. He was a self-admitted resident at Respondent's nursing home facility during the relevant time period. Respondent is a small, not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Respondent receives its funds to operate through various types of sources such as United Way, City of Orlando, Orange County, and many foundations. At all times material hereto, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida and the assignment of a licensure status. The statute charges Petitioner with evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." The evaluation, or survey, of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of record reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Agency surveyors use the "State Operations' Manual," a document prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Chapter 483. In March 2003, Petitioner conducted a survey to investigate a complaint that Respondent failed to protect a resident from sexual coercion. The allegation of the deficient practice was based upon an incident involving Resident 2. Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), a nursing facility must assure that a resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, and mental abuse. Failure to do so constitutes a deficiency under Florida Statutes. At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Jane Woodson, nursing program specialist, employed by Petitioner. Woodson testified that she does state and federal surveys in both state and federal licensure and federal institutions to identify or define any noncompliance. She visited Respondent's facility on or about March 26, 2003, and prepared a 2567 form based on her observations, interviews, and record review. It details the results of her investigation, including her interviews with the director of nursing, the administrator, the social worker, the compliance officer, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), and the assistant director of nursing. She also toured the total facility, observed its residents and also observed Resident 2. Woodson observed that Resident 2 was a well-dressed, alert male, and she spoke to him about the incident on March 15, 2003. Woodson did not have an interpreter present at any time when she interviewed Resident 2, nor did she consider it necessary to do so. At no time did she have any concern that Resident 2 was not mentally competent to understand her when she interviewed him. Woodson was not aware that Resident 2 signed his own financial responsibility forms, patient's rights statement, or that he voluntarily checked himself into the facility. She was not aware that Resident 2 made his own medical decisions in the facility. Following her investigation, Woodson conducted an exit interview with the administrator, the director of nursing, the assistant director of nursing, the social worker, and the compliance offer. Woodson included in her report a document filled out by Sharon Ebanks (Ebanks), registered nurse (RN), but she did not personally interview Ebanks. She also did not interview Marilyn Harrilal, LPN, nor did she interview the employee involved in the incident. She advised the administrator of her finding a Class II deficiency and provided a correction date of April 17, 2003. She also concluded that this was an isolated incident. Ebanks was the weekend charge nurse on March 15, 2003, and was in charge of the facility on that date. Ebanks was working on the north wing when she was called by Mr. Daniels, a LPN working on the south wing. Daniels told Ebanks about the alleged incident between Resident 2 and the staff person. Ebanks then called Resident 2; the employee, Marcia Dorsey (Dorsey); and the certified nursing assistants (CNAs), Ms. Polysaint and Ms. Mezier (first names not in the record), who had witnessed the incident, to the green room. She also asked Harrilal to act as a witness to her interviews with the individuals involved. Ebanks first spoke to Resident 2 and Dorsey, both of whom stated that nothing had happened. She then questioned the two CNAs about what they had witnessed. Ebanks concluded, after interviewing both the participants and the witnesses, that the incident was not abuse, but rather, was inappropriate behavior on the part of both Resident 2 and the employee. She based this conclusion on the fact that Dorsey is a trainable Dows Syndrome individual, who was supposed to be working when the incident occurred. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused or hurt in any manner and had participated voluntarily. Ebanks noted that Resident 2 makes his own medical decisions, is considered to be mentally competent, has never been adjudicated mentally incompetent and has not had a legal guardian appointed for him. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused. Ebanks testified that she completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, concerning the incident, after being asked to do so by Respondent's compliance officer. The resident abuse report was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. At the time of the initial investigation of the incident, Ebanks asked Harrilal to accompany her to the green room. While there, Harrilal listened as Ebanks first questioned Resident 2 and then Dorsey. Both stated that nothing happened. Harrilal then witnessed Ebanks question the CNAs, Polysaint and Mezier. Woodson did not interview Harrilal during her investigation. Ann Campbell, RN, a nurse for more than 38 years, was functioning in the role of assistant director of nursing on March 15, 2003. She was not in the facility on that day and was not made aware of the incident on the date of its occurrence, but became aware when she returned to work. Campbell is familiar with Resident 2. He was initially admitted with a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and dementia. She observed that he was a little confused and forgetful when first admitted, but has since became more alert and responsive. Michael Annichiarico, administrator of the facility and custodian of records, including medical records and personnel files, reviewed the personnel file of the employee, Dorsey. There were no disciplinary actions or counseling prior to the incident of March 15, 2003. Annichiarico is familiar with Resident 2 and has interacted with him. Annichiarico testified that, according to the resident's medical record, Resident 2 has never been declared mentally incompetent and that he makes his own medical and financial decisions. The Progress Note of Gideon Lewis, M.D., dated October 9, 2003, with transcription, was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2 and indicates that Resident 2 is mentally competent and is responsible for his actions as his cognitive functions are intact. Patricia Collins, RN, testified as an expert in the areas of nursing, long-term care, nursing home rules and regulations, and survey procedures. Collins is a RN, currently working in consulting work. She reviewed documents related to the incident. She went to the facility on two different occasions and interviewed the staff. She also reviewed the documents contained in the report of Woodson's survey. Collins interviewed the two CNAs, Ebanks, Resident 2, the medical records custodian, the director of nursing, the social worker, and Harrilal. She spent approximately four to five hours in the facility. After speaking with Resident 2, Collins concluded that he was cognitively intact and very alert. He appeared to be mentally competent. Before interviewing Resident 2, Collins reviewed his resident chart and the documents used to sign himself into the facility. She also reviewed physician's orders for medication, progress notes, nurses' notes, the MDS and the care plan. Collins testified that she reviewed the resident's financial responsibility statement and patient's rights statement, both of which were signed by the resident himself. The resident had no legal guardian. Collins concluded that during the incident of March 15, 2003, there was some inappropriate behavior that needed to be addressed and that this behavior was properly addressed by staff. The inappropriate behavior was the observation of hugging and kissing between Dorsey and Resident 2 in an empty resident's room while the employee was on duty. Collins was of the opinion that the behavior was mutual and not abuse. Collins found no reason to conclude that any harm had been done to Resident 2. Collins testified that a nursing home resident has the right to associate with whomever he desires. He also has the right to have voluntary and willing sexual contact with other people. The inappropriateness in this incident was due to the fact that Resident 2 had involvement with someone with mental deficits. The incident was inappropriate on the part of the employee as well, since she was participating in it during her working time. Collins disagrees with the findings of Petitioner's surveyor. Collins testified that the investigator should have determined the abuse allegation was unfounded. According to Collins' expert testimony, the facility staff acted appropriately. The CNA who initially observed the activity called another CNA as a witness. They then went to their supervisor, who then went to the ranking nurse at the facility at that point in time, which was Ebanks. Ebanks questioned the employee, Resident 2 and the witnesses. She had the presence of mind to have a witness there as well, which was Harrilal. Ebanks made the determination, based on her nursing judgment and in her authority as nurse in charge of the facility on that day, that there was inappropriate behavior on behalf of Resident 2 and the employee. She put a care plan in place as to Resident 2, separated the employee and Resident 2, and sent the CNAs back to work. Collins testified there was no need to report the incident to the Department of Children and Family Services because there was no evidence of abuse or harm to Resident 2. Collins' testimony is found to be credible. Based on all the evidence, it is found and determined that an incident occurred at Respondent's facility on Saturday, March 15, 2003, at approximately 11:00 a.m., involving Resident 2 and a staff employee of Respondent, Dorsey. Resident 2 and the employee were seen by staff employees sitting on a bed hugging and kissing each other in a resident's room that was not being used at the time. Two CNA employees witnessed and reported the incident to the charge nurse. Ebanks was the charge nurse on duty on March 15, 2003. Ebanks was advised of the incident shortly after it occurred and interviewed both Resident 2 and the employees involved, as well as the employees who witnessed the incident. The interviews were conducted in the presence of Harrilal. She completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, at the request of the risk manager within four business days of the incident, and the administrator was advised of the incident on the first business day after the incident. Resident 2 was alert and oriented on the date of the incident. Although he had a low level of dementia, he was mentally competent at the time of the incident. He does not meet the definition of an "elderly person" or "vulnerable adult" under Chapter 415, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: George F. Indest, III, Esquire The Health Law Firm Center Pointe Two 220 East Central Parkway, Suite 2030 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent. ROYCE S. McCALL, was licensed by the State of Florida as a licensed practical nurse, the license initially issued on December 4, 1978 and renewed thereafter until the present. His license number is 0500981. On July 11, 1984, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse with the Walton County Convalescent Center (WCCC) in DeFuniak Springs, Florida. Late that evening, at approximately 4 or 5 a.m., Respondent, as charge nurse on one of the Center's units, along with Rachiel Infinger and Corene Fondren, was about to change a bladder catheter on one of the Center's residents, a Mrs. Rourke. Before doing so, however, he discovered that Mrs. Rourke had fouled herself and he refused to do the procedure then instructing Mrs. Rourke's aides to clean her up. He then went to the room occupied by Mrs. Harper, an elderly, completely bedridden patient between 80 and 90 years old, who rarely talks and can hardly move her arms and legs. Mrs. Harper also required a bladder catheter change and Respondent, along with another nurse, was attempting to do it. Since apparently Mrs. Harper was resisting somewhat, Respondent asked Ms. Infinger to help. During the course of the procedure, Mrs. Harper brought her hand down into the area where Respondent was working in an attempt to stop him. It was obvious that the procedure was somewhat painful to her and in the opinion of Ms. Infinger, Respondent was being less than gentle. When Mrs. Harper brought her hand down, Respondent grabbed it and moved it out of the way telling her at the time to, "Move your damned hand." This comment was heard by both Ms. Infinger and Ms. Fondren. When Respondent moved Mrs. Harper's hand, it collided with the bed rail which broke the skin causing it to bleed. Ms. Infinger noticed this and mentioned it to Respondent. He said he would take care of it and Ms. Infinger went some place else to do something. When she came back some 30 to 45 minutes later, she found that Respondent had still not dressed the skin break on Mrs. Harper's hand. Ms. Infinger thinks Respondent was too rough with Mrs. Harper. She believes it was not necessary for him to throw the elderly woman's hand off as he did. There were two aides present who could have, had they been asked, moved the hand and held it out of the way. There is some divergence in the testimony of Ms. Infinger and Ms. Fondren as to whether Respondent threw Mrs. Harper's hand or pushed it with the former contending it was a throw and the latter contending it was merely a push. Even Ms. Fondren, however, who believes this rough action was a reflex action by Respondent who had been in a bad mood all evening, agrees that since someone was there to help him, he should have asked for help rather than reacting on his own. If either witness is to be believed, however, Respondent acted unprofessionally. On the other hand, however, Ms. Stubbs, Ms. Blocker, and Ms. Fields, all of whom had worked with Respondent for several months, knew him from their repeated observations of him at work never to be abusive or rough with his patients. He is generally very kind to his patients, taking the time to explain what he is doing and exhibiting patience and understanding. His patience is somewhat less with the aides who in his opinion, do not do what they should on duty. Mrs. Harper has had several other skin tears both before and after the one in issue here. She is an old woman who bruises easily and whose skin can be broken easily. While not a difficult patient, she is somewhat confused and tends to try to interfere at times with the ministrations of those trying to help her and her hands often get in the way. Here, it is obvious that Respondent was in a bad mood late at night when he went to treat Mrs. Harper. He had just come from another patient who had not been properly cared for by the aides responsible for her and he was clearly annoyed. No doubt Mrs. Harper, not through spite or even consciously, attempted to stop him from doing what was no doubt a painful procedure and he reacted unprofessionally. This is not to say he consciously intended to harm her, but his reaction was less than it should have been in this situation. When Ms. Infinger came back and found that Respondent had not tended to Mrs. Harpers wound, she immediately reported this fact to Barbara Jean Miller, a licensed practical nurse working on another unit that evening who quickly treated and dressed the skin tear. When she left duty the next morning, she reported what she had seen and done and what Ms. Infinger had told her to the Assistant Director of Nursing who she saw outside in the parking lot. This lady reported it to the Director of Nursing, Mrs. Harwell, who conducted her own investigation. Mrs. Harwell interviewed Respondent who after first denying that the incident had taken place, admitted that he did yank Mrs. Harper's arm but stated he did not know it had hit the bed rail. He also initially denied knowing there was an injury but then admitted he had been told there was and that he had said he would fix it. He admitted that he was upset that evening. In the catheter procedure that Respondent was accomplishing, it is never appropriate to handle a patient so forcefully that it results in an injury even though it may be necessary to restrain or move the patient in some fashion. In Mrs. Harwell's opinion, Respondent's handling of Mrs. Harper in this instance was below minimum standards for the nursing profession. After talking with all the witnesses and securing pictures of the injury, based on her investigation and her discussions with Respondent, she terminated his employment with WCCC that day not only because in this instance his performance was below standards and unprofessional but also because this was the second incident of substandard performance on his record. She had previously chastised him for speaking improperly to or about another patient several weeks previously. Consequently, it is clear that Respondent moved Mrs. Harper's hand in such a manner that resulted in injury to her which is unprofessional conduct on his part compounded by his failure to return to treat the wound once he was made aware of it.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's license to practice as a licensed practical nurse (L.P.N.)?
Findings Of Fact Findings Established by Request for Admissions: Petitioner is the State of Florida department charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all time material to the complaint a L.P.N. in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 9246217. Respondent's address of record is Post Office Box 99, High Springs, Florida 32655-0099. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a L.P.N. by Suwannee Home Care and Medical Personnel, a staffing agency. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to work as a L.P.N. at Alachua Nursing and Rehabilitation in Gainesville, Florida (Alachua). At all times material to this case, Alachua in Gainesville, was a licensed rehabilitation facility as defined in Section 400.021(13), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Patient E.D. was admitted to Alachua (having been admitted) on June 20, 2003, with a diagnosis of status post CVA (stroke). On or about June 21, 2003, Respondent was assigned to care for E.D. on the 3 to 11 p.m. shift, and at the end of the shift, Respondent reported to the oncoming nurse that he assisted with the care of E.D. and that E.D. was okay and in no acute distress. Respondent's nurse's notes regarding the care he provided to patient E.D. do not mention whether he suctioned the tracheostomy care being provided; and do not contain any physical assessment of the patient. Respondent should have performed and documented tracheostomy care, including but not limited to frequency of suctioning, amount of color of sputum suctioned, cleaning of the tracheostomy device, oral hygiene, and method of communication with the patient. Respondent should have performed and documented a physical assessment of the patient that included respiratory rate and effort, color, pulse rate, and exertional level. Respondent should have monitored and followed up on patient E.D.'s vital signs. Additional Facts: Alice Bostick, is a Medical Malpractice Investigator for Petitioner. She was involved in the investigation leading to the drafting of the Administrative Complaint. As part of the process she attempted to notify Respondent of the allegations made against him. On July 15, 2003, she sent a letter of notification to Respondent at an address obtained from a printout of license information associated with Respondent. That address was 13134 North 22nd Street, Apartment 109, Tampa, Florida 33612. The information sent to Respondent was a Uniform Complaint Form and a Nursing Home Adverse Incident Report. The information sent to Respondent was returned as undeliverable and not subject to forwarding, absent a forwarding request made from Respondent to the U.S. Postal Service. Having failed to notify Respondent at the Tampa address, Ms. Bostick took advantage of access which the Petitioner has to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles records to locate Respondent's address maintained by the other state agency. The address provided by the other agency was Post Office Box 99, High Springs, Florida 32655-0099. This was the proper address. Utilizing the new address, the same information was dispatched a second time from Petitioner to Respondent. This time it was not returned as undelivered. Instead Respondent contacted Petitioner's office in person and by his remarks made it known that he received the communication from Petitioner concerning the investigation. At times relevant to this case Respondent worked for the Suwannee Valley Nursing Agency. That agency assigned him to work on a shift at Alachua, now the Manor of Gainesville. On June 21, 2003, Respondent worked the 3:00 p.m., to 11:00 p.m., shift at Alachua. One of the resident's in his care at that time was E.D. Resident E.D. was born on May 18, 1920. She had been released from the hospital on June 20, 2003, and transferred to Alachua. She was receiving oxygen. Physician's orders called for tracheostomy care (trach care) to be administered "Q 6 hours." She had a catheter which was last changed on the date of her release from the hospital. The order indicated that the catheter should be changed every Friday beyond that point. The resident was being fed by tube. As Respondent describes it, E.D. was among 30 patients in his care on the shift. Other residents included persons with G-tubes and insulin-dependent diabetics. Respondent was very busy during his shift helping the residents. Another staff member at the nursing home reminded the Respondent that he needed to suction E.D's trach. At some point in time Respondent and the other staff member suctioned the trach. When this function was performed during the shift is not established in the nursing home record pertaining to resident E.D., as that record was presented at the hearing. Therefore it was not shown an entry was made in the resident's record for care confirming the suctioning of the trach. The only reference to patient E.D. made in writing by Respondent presented at hearing, was from nursing notes related to resident E.D. In the nurse's note Respondent made an entry at the end of his shift as to vital signs for the resident, pulse rate 92, respiration rate 24 and a notation that Respondent "Assisted e-care no acute distress noted." Contrary to the nurse's note made by Respondent, resident E.D. was in distress as discovered by Gloria Brown, L.P.N., who came on shift to work from 11:00 p.m. June 21, 2003, until 7:00 a.m. June 22, 2003. Ms. Brown was familiar with the need to suction a trach and to make appropriate entry in the nursing notes in caring for a trach patient. Notes are also made in relation to oxygen saturation for that resident if a doctor's order calls for that entry. Ms. Brown properly expected the prior shift nurse to notify her concerning the resident's condition as to the number of liters of O2 provided the resident and if the resident had a fever. If the resident had a Foley catheter placed reference would be made to that circumstance. Generally if the resident was experiencing a problem, Ms. Brown would expect the outgoing nurse to mention that fact. On June 21, 2003, at 11:45 p.m., as Ms. Brown described in the nursing notes, "On first rounds observed resident E.D. with shallow breathing, skin color grayish, O2 on a 2 liter per trach mask. Attempt to suction, felt resistance. Sat. 24. O2 increased to three liters. Able to palpate pulse. 911 was called. Transported to Shands at UF via 911. Respiratory distress." Resident E.D. was transported to Shands Hospital at 12:00 midnight. When resident E.D. was transported to the hospital she was experiencing respiratory distress. She had a baseline level of consciousness in the alert range. Petitioner presented an expert to comment on Respondent's care rendered resident E.D. in the context of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. That expert was Meiko D. Mills, R.N., M.N.S., A.R.N.P. Ms. Mills is licensed to practice nursing in Florida. She has a business that involves the preparation for graduates of L.P.N. schools and R.N. schools to take the National Licensing Examination for those fields. Ms. Mills is familiar with trach care. She has had occasion to write nursing notes pertaining to trach care. She is generally familiar with the requirements for nursing notes in the patient record concerning any form of patient care rendered by the nurse practitioner. She was recognized in this case as an expert in the field of nursing related to patient care and L.P.N.s. In providing trach care, Ms. Mills refers to the need for a sterile environment and the part of the trach device that she refers to as a tube, requires a lot of cleaning because of secretions from the patient. She describes the fact that the trach device will form a crust. As a result the center portion of the device sometimes has to be taken out and soaked in sterile water to clean it. The suctioning process associated with trach care involves the use of a suctioning machine in which all the encrustations and saliva are removed. It is possible for a hard mucus plug to form if suctioning is not done appropriately, according to Ms. Mills. Ms. Mills expressed her opinion concerning Respondent's care provided resident E.D., as to a reasonable degree of certainty and whether Respondent met the minimal standards for acceptable and prevailing care and treatment of E.D. She described that care as lacking. Ms. Mills comments that the nursing note that was made by Respondent at the end of his shift was inadequate in describing the kind of care provided to the resident. In particular she describes the lack of reference to the trach issue and the oxygen saturation issue. She perceives that E.D. required considerable attention and that attention is not reflected in the nursing note. As a person responsible for providing care to E.D., who had a trach, Ms. Mills refers to the need for the Respondent to establish a baseline at the beginning of the shift. That baseline is constituted of vital signs and oxygen saturation, as well as a basic assessment of the resident. There was the need to compare the vital signs assessment to the shift before Respondent came on duty to gain an impression of any trends. The observations by Respondent should have been documented in nursing notes beginning with the baseline as to vital signs, oxygen saturation, reference to the condition of the trach, respiratory effort and so forth, and there was the need to go back and reassess over time. As Ms. Mills explains the resident's condition was reaching an abnormal state on the shift before. Without entries concerning the resident's condition, the assumption is made by Ms. Mills, that the patient care and in particular trach care was not performed by Respondent. Ms. Mills refers to a normal pulse rate as 80 to 100, but Ms. Mills cautions her students that a pulse rate close to 100 bears watching. A respiration rate approaching the highest normal demands attention. Anything above that creates concern. Higher readings tend to manifest themselves with shallower breathing by patient at more frequent intervals, given the body's attempt to compensate for a lack of oxygen. To address this condition a baseline oxygen saturation should be established at the beginning of a shift to help set a plan of care. A resident such as E.D. with a pulse rate of 97 and respiration rate of 24 is a person who needs to be closely monitored. There was no record by Respondent reflecting the establishment of monitoring to address these circumstances. The resident's progress should have been noted as to pulse rate and respiration rate several times during Respondent's shift, as Ms. Mills perceives it. Respondent should have also notified the oncoming nurse for the following shift that the patient was not doing well. This was not done. Overall, Ms. Mills feels that Respondent was deficient in his documentation concerning resident E.D. through the nursing notes. The general comment by Respondent that he assisted with care is not sufficient to establish that trach care was performed in Ms. Mills opinion. According to Ms. Mills, some of the vital signs reflected in the resident's record would create the possibility that they were in relation to a mucus plug in the trach. When the Resident E.D. was transported from the nursing home on June 21, 2003, at 11:30 the oxygen saturation at that time was 78 percent and her pulse was 159. In Ms. Mills opinion those values represented the fact that the resident was in distress. Ms. Mills believes that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by acts of omission. Ms. Mills compared the nursing notes made by Respondent to those made by nurses on the prior two shifts at the nursing home. The prior notes were described as good notes talking about the care, while Ms. Mills did not get the same feeling about the notes made by Respondent. Ms. Mills compared the circumstances when Respondent came on shift when resident E.D. had a pulse of 100 and respiration rate of 20 and the change from the respiration of 20 to the respiration rate of 24 at the end of the shift, as indicating that the resident had shallow compensatory respiration because of a lack of oxygen. This leads Ms. Mills to the conclusion that the vital signs look worse and the person was significantly compromised over the day. Whether this circumstance was brought about by the formation of a plug due to a lack of trach care, Ms. Mills is not certain, but the vital signs indicate that the resident was sufficiently compromised to alert a health professional to that possibility. Earlier in the day the resident had a respiration rate of 28 and a pulse of 110. The change in those values over time up through the Respondent's shift did not indicate improvement in resident's condition in Ms. Mills' opinion. Ms. Mills' opinions that have been described are accepted. Based upon the facts found and Ms. Mills' expert opinion, Respondent failed to meet minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice in the care provided resident E.D.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of those provisions of law set forth in Counts One through Three, calling for a written reprimand for those violations, imposing an administrative fine of $500.00, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith A. Law, Esquire J. Blake Hunter, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Harvey J. Price Post Office Box 99 High Springs, Florida 32655 Dan Coble, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact On 22 June 1982 DHRS, Office of Licensure and Certification, conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility known as Regency Oaks at Gainesville, Florida. During this inspection the nurses' schedule was not produced and the inspector, with the assistance of Respondent's staff, attempted to reconstruct the nurses' schedule for the month of June, 1982, up to the date of the inspection. From the data received it was determined that on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift on June 5, 1982, Respondent was staffed with one registered nurse (RN) and three licensed practical nurses (LPN) on June 6 there were two RN's and two LPNs; on June 12 there were three RNs and one LPN; and on June 19 there were three RNs and one LPN. Staffing requirements for nursing homes are determined by the shift and census of the nursing home. All of the shortages here involved the day shift. On each of the days of 5, 6, 12, and 19 June the regulations required two RNs and three LPNs on the day shift. The regulations also permit the substitution of an RN for an LPN. Accordingly, from the evidence gathered bv Petitioner's evaluation at the June 22 inspection, Respondent was short one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6, 12, and 19. Respondent presented time cards for the periods here involved. These time cards, which were accepted in evidence as business records of Respondent, show that on June 12 Respondent had two RNs and three LPNs on duty on the day shift. Respondent's one witness admitted the nursing home was understaffed one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6 and 19.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fannie Taylor Nursing Home is a facility that is authorized to provide nursing home care to patients under the Medicare/Medicaid Program administered by Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In April 1982, Anne Wishart was a Medicaid patient at Respondent's facility receiving care at the level of Intermediate I. A review was made of her status by North Florida Medical Review, Inc., a contractor for Petitioner, and it was determined that her level of care be changed to Skilled. Such a change in classification required that the patient be transferred to another facility because Respondent nursing home was only authorized to provide intermediate care. The notice of change in level of care indicated that it would be effective April 23, 1982. (Testimony of Stringer, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) Ira Mackie, Administrator of Respondent nursing home, became aware of the determination as to change in level of care on April 23, 1982 from the reviewing personnel, but received official notification of the change on April 28, 1982. He immediately contacted three nursing homes in the vicinity but was unable to find space for the patient. There are approximately nineteen nursing homes in the area which take Medicaid patients, but occupancy rates are high at the present time, and it is difficult to place such individuals because the homes give preference to Medicare and private patients. Mr. Mackie believes that he has a moral responsibility to locate an alternate facility in such cases, and seldom finds it necessary to seek assistance from Petitioner for such purposes. (Testimony of Mackie, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3) The patient's son was advised by HRS officials on May 5, 1982 that his mother could no longer remain at Respondent's nursing home, and the son attempted to find an alternate facility, but was unable to do so. Petitioner's officials were advised by Mr. Mackie on June 3 that a bed had not been located, but that the patient was on the waiting list of three local nursing homes and asked for assistance from the Department. The Adult Services Unit of HRS was also unable to find a bed after having contacted twelve nursing homes in the locality. On June 11, 1982, one of the nursing homes had an opening and the patient was transferred on that date. (Testimony of Stringer, Mackie, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1) Although Petitioner's officials testified at the hearing that departmental policy is to assist relocation of patients when others, such as the patient's relatives or nursing home administrators have failed to find an available bed, such assistance is only provided after a request is made by someone for such services. However, written agency policy, as contained in HRS Manual 230-17, Paragraph 5-8k provides as follows: k. When it is determined that alternate care is needed, the Adult Services Counselor must implement plans for relocation. If the individual has not been relocated within 30 days, Medicaid payment to the facility must be terminated effective the day following the end of the 30 day period. The manual also provides in Paragraph 5-8j that when a recipient's level of care is changed to a level with a higher payment rate, it is not considered an adverse action, and the date of the decision is considered to be the effective date of the level of care change. (Testimony of Stringer, Campaneria, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) The patient Anne Wishart was transferred to another facility on June 11, 1982, nineteen days after the 30-day period had expired. The amount of $204.30 represents the cost of the patient at an Intermediate I level during the nineteen day period that she remained in Respondent's facility. If the patient had been moved earlier, the cost under the level of Skilled care would have been greater under the Medicaid program. (Testimony of Stringer, Mackie, Petitioner'S Composite Exhibit 1) Petitioner's Manual 140-2, Paragraph 2-5 provides for a case management process under the Adult Services program whereby individuals and families seek help with their problems and the agency identifies members of the community whom it can help. The first step in the Petitioner's intake program is stated to commence when the counselor or intake worker receives the request for service directly from the applicant or by indirect referral from others. Petitioner's officials maintain that its responsibility for placement therefore does not commence until assistance has been requested by the applicant or his or her representatives. However, this policy is in conflict with the policy contained in the agency's manual 230-17 Paragraph 5-8k which requires the Adult Services Counselors to implement plans for relocation when it is determined that alternate care is needed. (Testimony of Stringer, Mackie, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Stipulation)
Recommendation That Petitioner permit the retention by Respondent Fannie Taylor Nursing Home of the sum of $204.30, and that this case be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire District IV Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Ira H. Mackie, Administrator Fannie E. Taylor Home for the Aged, Inc. 3937 Spring Park Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207 David H. Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Stacey Health Care Centers, Inc., is licensed to operate Riverside Care Center, located at 899 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Florida, as a nursing home in compliance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. On July 9, 1986, James A. Bavetta, assistant area supervisor, Office of Licensure and Certification, made a visit of Riverside's facility and determined that Ralph Stacey, Jr., the administrator of record, was acting in the capacity of administrator for two facilities, the subject facility and another facility in Kentucky, without having a qualified assistant administrator to act in his absence. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ralph L. Stacey Jr., is a licensed nursing home administrator in the States of Ohio, Kentucky and Florida. He has been licensed in Kentucky and Florida since 1974. At the time of Mr. Bavetta's visit and inspection during July, 1986, Ralph Stacey, Jr., was in Cincinnati, Ohio preparing the payroll for Stacey Health Care Centers. During this time period, Ralph Stacey, Jr., served as the administrator for the subject facility, Riverside Care Center, and another facility in Kentucky and did not have a qualified assistant administrator employed to act in his absence. However, once Mr. Bavetta issued his recommendation for sanctions, Petitioner, as part of its plan of correction, has employed a licensed administrator who is presently on staff and serves as Riverside's assistant administrator during the administrator's absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lawn it is RECOMMENDED: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) upon Stacey Health Care Centers- Inc., d/b/a Riverside Care Center, which amount shall be payable to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of Respondent's Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, KY 40202-3410 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard -Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Procedural. 1. Meridian, National, HBA and ten other applicants filed certificate of need applications with the Department in the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle of the Department for Subdistrict 4 of District This area includes Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed a letter of intent with the Department and the District 4 Local Health Council within the time required for the filing of letters of intent for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed their certificate of need applications within the time required for the filing of certificate of need applications for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. The applications were deemed complete by the Department. The Department comparatively reviewed the applications of the applicants involved in these cases and those of ten other applicants. Based upon this review the Department issued a State Agency Action Report for the October, 1987, nursing home bed review cycle (hereinafter referred to as the "SAAR") on February 18, 1988. The SAAR was published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 4, 1988. In the SAAR the Department proposed to approve the certificate of need application filed by HBA and to deny all other applications. Ten of the applicants whose certificate of need applications were denied by the Department filed Petitions pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Department's proposed action. All of the Petitioners except the two Petitioners in these cases and HCR withdrew their Petitions prior to the formal hearing of these cases. HCR participated in the formal hearing of these cases but withdrew its Petition prior to the issuance of this Recommended Order. The Parties. The Department. The Department is the agency responsible for reviewing certificate of need applications for nursing home beds to be located in Flagler and Volusia Counties. Meridian. Meridian, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Towson, Maryland. The stock of Meridian, Inc., is owned by five individuals. Volusia Meridian Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "Partnership") is a Maryland limited partnership authorized to conduct business in Florida. Meridian, Inc., is the Partnership's general partner. The Partnership owns a nursing home in Ormond Beach, Florida. The Ormond Beach nursing home is leased to Meridian Nursing Centers, Inc. For the past twenty years, Meridian has owned, operated, developed and managed long-term health care facilities, retirement communities and other health care services for the elderly. Meridian owns and operates thirty-three facilities, in five States. These facilities have approximately 4,800 beds. In Florida, Meridian owns nursing homes in Lakeland, Plantation and Ormond Beach. As of the date of the formal hearing, Meridian had two other facilities under construction in Florida: one located in Longwood, Florida; and the other located in Melbourne, Florida. National. National is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership, authorized to conduct business in Florida. National's principal offices are located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. National was created in 1971 with the purchase of fourteen existing nursing homes located in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia. National now operates seventy nursing homes and health care centers in ten different States. Twenty-two of these homes and health care centers are managed, but not owned, by National. National also operates four retirement complexes, eighteen home health agencies and seven to ten specialized Alzheimer's units. In Florida, National owns two health care centers and manages eighteen centers owned by other companies. None of these facilities are located in Flagler or Volusia Counties. HBA. HBA is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of developing, constructing and operating nursing homes. The principals of HBA have owned and operated nursing homes for approximately twenty years and in Florida for approximately fifteen years. HBA's corporate headquarters are located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. HBA owns or operates twenty-four nursing homes located in Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. In Florida, HBA owns or operates six nursing homes. They are located in New Smyrna Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Plantation, Tamarac and Miami. The New Smyrna Beach nursing home, Ocean View Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as "Ocean View"), is located in southern Volusia County. The Proposals. Meridian's Proposal. Meridian's Ormond Beach nursing home is located in northeast Volusia County. This facility consist of 60 nursing home beds. It began operation in November, 1987. In this proceeding, Meridian is seeking approval of the addition to its Ormond Beach nursing home of an additional 60 nursing home beds. Meridian is proposing the construction of a 14,531 square foot (329 square feet per bed) addition to its existing Ormond Beach nursing home. The total size of the Ormond Beach facility will be 39,000 gross square feet if Meridian's proposal is approved. The total proposed cost of Meridian's project is $1,247,800.00. The total project cost of the resulting 120-bed Ormond Beach facility will be $4,262,361.00. National's Proposal. In this proceeding, National is seeking approval of a certificate of need authorizing the construction and operation of an 80-bed nursing home to be located in the Palm Coast area of Flagler County, Florida. The exact location of the facility has not been identified by National. National is proposing the construction of a facility consisting of approximately 44,183 gross square feet (552 square feet per bed). The total proposed cost of National's project is $3,786,846.00. HBA'S Proposal. HBA currently owns and operates Ocean View. Ocean View is located in southeast Volusia County. Ocean View currently is licensed to operate 179 nursing home beds. In this proceeding, HBA is seeking approval of the addition to Ocean View of 60 nursing home beds. HBA is proposing the construction of an 18,000 gross square foot (263 square feet per bed) addition to Ocean View. The total size of Ocean View will be 63,000 gross square feet if HBA's proposal is approved. The total proposed cost of HBA's project is Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need. Numeric need for additional nursing home beds is determined pursuant to the need methodology provided in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Need Methodology"). The Department determines the need for additional nursing home beds by applying the Need Methodology for "planning horizons" three years into the future from the certificate of need batching cycles. For the batching cycle involved in these cases, the Department published pursuant to Rule 10-5.008(2), Florida Administrative Code, the net number of additional nursing home beds, the "fixed need pool," in the Florida Administrative Weekly, for the first time. In these cases, the Need Methodology must be applied to determine the fixed need pool for the July, 1990, planning horizon for Flagler and Volusia Counties. These Counties make up Subdistrict 4 of the Department's District 4. Initially the Department determined that the fixed need pool involved in these cases was zero. Pursuant to Department policy, the Department published a corrected fixed need pool during the grace period of Rule 10- 5.008(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, on September 18, 1987. Based upon the corrected fixed need pool, the Department determined that there was a need for 80 additional nursing home beds for Subdistrict 4 of District 4. No point of entry was provided by the Department for challenging this fixed need pool. The Department's calculation of a fixed need pool of 80 nursing home beds was based upon a misapplication of the Need Methodology by the Department. Based upon a proper application of the Need Methodology there is a need for 68 additional nursing home beds for the planning horizon at issue in these cases. The applicants involved in these cases filed their applications in reliance upon the Department's published fixed-need pool of 80 additional nursing home beds. The proper components of the Need Methodology for determining the gross number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, are as follows: The projected population age 65-74 in District 4 for July, 1990, is 125,990 (POPA); The projected population age 75 and older in District 4 for July, 1990, is 91,109 (POPB); The population age 65-74 in District 4 in July, 1987, was 113,083 (POPC); The population age 75 and older in District 4 in July, 1987, was 77,867 (POPD); The number of licensed beds in District 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 6,005 (LB); The estimated bed rate for the population aged 65-74 of District 4 is 0.01034836 (BA); The estimated bed rate for the population aged 75 and older of District 4 is 0.06209018 (BB); and The total number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, is 6,961 beds (A). The proper components of the Need Methodology for allocating the gross number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, to Subdistrict 4 are as follows: The number of licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 2,290 beds (LBD); The number of licensed beds in District 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 6,005 beds (LB); The occupancy rate of Subdistrict 4 was 85.83% (OR); and The gross number of nursing home beds allocated to Subdistrict 4 is 2,532 beds (SA). Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.g., Florida Administrative Code, provides the following with regard to determining the number of licensed nursing home beds to be taken into account in calculating gross bed need for the batching cycle involved in these cases: [B]ed rates established prior to the second batching cycle letter of intent deadline shall be calculated on the number of licensed community nursing ads and the population projections as of July 1... Once the gross number of nursing home beds needed in Subdistrict 4 for July, 1990, is determined, the net number of beds needed is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed beds and 90 percent of approved beds in the Subdistrict from the gross number of beds needed. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.i., Florida Administrative Code, provides the manner in which net bed need is to be determined. In particular, this Rule provides the following: The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987; ... The number of licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of August 1, 1987, was 2,410 beds. The number of approved licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of August 1, 1987, was 60 beds. The increase in licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 from 2,290 beds as of July 1, 1987, to 2,410 beds as of August 1, 1987, was caused by the licensing of the approved 120-bed Indigo Manor nursing home owned by Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America on July 21, 1987. It is not inconsistent for the Department to use the number of licensed nursing home beds as of July 1 for purposes of determining gross bed need and August 1 for calculating net bed need. The use of these dates by the Department is consistent with good health planning and the requirements of the Need Methodology. The State Health Plan. The Florida State Health Plan contains the general goals of fostering cost containment and developing an adequate supply of accessible and appropriately utilized long-term care health services. Each of the applicants will increase the accessibility of nursing home beds and are proposing appropriate utilization of health services. HBA's proposal will enhance the accessibility of nursing home beds in southeast Volusia County. The District Health Plan. The 1987 update to the 1986 district health plan for Subdistrict 4 of the Department's District 4, contains recommendations to be considered in determining community nursing home care bed need. These recommendations, and their application, are as follows: If the state determines that Subdistrict 4 is eligible for additional beds, these beds should be awarded to the Flagler Beach/Palm Coast area of Flagler County if the occupancy rate of Meadowbrook Manor meets or exceeds 85 percent occupancy at the time of CON decision and if it could be shown that the level of occupancy is likely to continue. The average occupancy rate for Meadowbrook Manor for the period of January 1, 1987, through June 30, 1987, was 58 percent. Meadowbrook has never achieved an 85 percent occupancy rate as of the date of the formal hearing of these cases. At the time of the "CON decision" in these cases, Meadowbrook had not achieved an 85 percent occupancy. This recommendation, therefore, does not apply. If a high rate of occupancy at Meadowbrook Manor in Flagler County does not materialize and if the occupancy rate at Ocean View Nursing Home in southeast Volusia County continues at 85 percent or higher and it could be verified that it will remain at a high rate, then 60 nursing home beds should be awarded in the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area of southeast Volusia County. The CON applicant must be willing to accept 50 percent Medicaid patients. The remaining portion should be awarded in West Volusia County. The average monthly occupancy of Ocean View for the period of January 1, 1987, through June 30, 1987, was 86 percent. Since September, 1987, the occupancy rate at Ocean View has been 94 percent or higher. This high rate of occupancy should continue. HBA proposes to accept 50 percent Medicaid patients and proposes to add its sought after nursing home beds to the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area of southeast Volusia County. HBA is the only applicant that meets this recommendation. If the conditions in Nos. 1[a] and 2[b] are not met, the state should award all beds to West Volusia. The conditions of 2[b] have been met. Therefore, this recommendation does not apply. No nursing home beds should be awarded to East Volusia County out of the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area. Refer to recommendation 2[b] above. The Meridian proposal seeks to add beds to its facility located in East Volusia County outside of the New Smyrna/Edgewater area. Meridian's proposal is, therefore, inconsistent with this recommendation. HBA's proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the updated 1986 district health plan. Meridian's and National's proposals are not consistent with these recommendations. The 1988 district health plan does not contain the specific recommendations concerning the allocation of nursing home beds within Subdistrict 4 of District 4, quoted above. The specific recommendations concerning where beds should be located within Subdistrict 4 of District 4 were eliminated in response to a suggestion by the Department that the recommendations were too specific and did not allow more flexibility. Need for Services. All of the applicants propose to provide a full range of services to their residents, including sub-acute care. The evidence did not prove that any of the applicants are proposing services not being provided in Subdistrict 4 of District 4. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence in this case failed to prove that like and existing health care services in Subdistrict 4 (consisting of Flagler and Volusia Counties) of District 4 are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care, except to the extent that existing services cannot meet the need for additional nursing home beds in the subdistrict. The accessibility of nursing home beds in southeast Volusia County has been restricted since September, 1987. Ocean View's occupancy during this period of time has been at or above 95 percent. Nursing home beds in eastern Volusia County have been at 75 percent occupancy. Meadowbrook Manor, located in Bunnell, Flagler County, has not achieved an occupancy rate of 75 percent since it opened in November, 1985. Meadowbrook Manor is a 100-bed nursing home. It has been experiencing one of the lowest, if not the lowest, occupancy rates of all nursing homes in Subdistrict 4. Although the evidence proved that Meadowbrook Manor has experienced difficulties in attracting residents, the evidence failed to prove that Meadowbrook Manor is not an appropriate, available and accessible nursing home or that the difficulties experienced by Meadowbrook Manor will continue in the future. Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Meridian. Meridian's licensed nursing home facility in Plantation, Florida, is currently rated superior. Meridian has been informed by the Department that its nursing home facility in Ormond Beach will be rated superior. Meridian's facility in Lakeland has not been in operation long enough to be eligible for a superior rating. Therefore, the Lakeland nursing home has been rated standard. Meridian will provide extensive training for its staff at its Ormond Beach nursing home. Meridian will provide staff for the Ormond Beach facility in excess of the staffing levels required by the Department. Meridian has an extensive quality assurance program, including its Quality of Life Program. Meridian's findings of fact numbers 5-12 and 14-22 are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Meridian proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Meridian should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its facility. National. Four of National's fourteen existing nursing home facilities in Florida have been rated superior. The other ten facilities have be rated standard. National has a policy of seeking accreditation by the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. National will provide staff for its proposed facility in excess of the staffing levels required by the Department. National has an extensive quality assurance program. National's finding of fact number 24a-g and k is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. National proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. National should be able to provide adequate-quality of care in its proposed nursing home facility. HBA. Four of HBA's seven nursing home facilities in Florida have been rated superior. The other three facilities have been rated standard. Ocean View has been rated a superior facility by the Department for the past five years. HBA will provide extensive training and development for its staff at Ocean View. HBA proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. HBA should be able to provide adequate quality of care at Ocean View. Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes. All three of the applicants in these cases operate a number of nursing homes and other health care facilities in Florida and other areas. Each will enjoy the benefits, including joint purchasing power, which inure to multi- facility organizations. None of the applicants, however, proved that they will provide joint, cooperative or shared health care resources more effectively than the other applicants. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants' proposals will be accessible to all of the residents of Flagler and Volusia Counties. Meridian has proposed to provide 53% and 51% of its patient days during its first year and its second year of operation, respectively, to the care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has proposed to provide 4% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. National has proposed to provide 57% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicaid patients. National has proposed to provide 10% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. National has not determined, however, how many nursing home beds it will dedicate to the care of Medicare patients. National has indicated that it will dedicate fourteen to twenty-four beds as a Medicare certified distinct-part unit. Nationally, 8% of National's total patient days for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, were Medicare patient days. HBA has proposed to provide 60% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicaid patients. HBA has proposed to provide 5% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate Financial Feasibility. The parties have stipulated to the following with regard to immediate financial feasibility of the proposals in these cases: All applicants are ready, willing and capable of raising all the required capital and obtaining all financing at the rates, conditions and amortizations shown in the applicants' certificate of need applications submitted in this cause. Long-term Financial Feasibility. (1). Meridian. Meridian has projected a profit of $67,976.00 on revenue of $2,536,518.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed 120-bed Ormond- Beach facility and a profit of $136,712.00 on revenue of $2,881,804.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed 120-bed Ormond Beach facility. Meridian has also projected a profit from the operation of its proposed 60-bed addition for the first two years of operation. Meridian has projected a payor mix of 49% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 44% private pay and 3% other during the first year of operation and 46% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 46% private pay and 4% other during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable. Meridian's Ormond Beach facility opened in November, 1987. Although it was projected to fill up in twelve months, it only took five months. The facility had a waiting list of twenty people when it opened. Meridian's projected fill up rate for the additional 60 beds is reasonable. Meridian's projected patient charges are reasonable. Meridian's proposed Medicare charges are the lowest of the three applicants. Meridian's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. Meridian's project is financially feasible in the long term. (2). National. National has projected a loss of $96,990.00 on revenue of $986,598.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed facility and a profit of $269,603.00 on revenue of $1,847,865.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed facility. National has projected a payor mix of 52% Medicaid, 12% Medicare, 31% private pay and 4% other during the first year of operation and 48% Medicaid, 13% Medicare, 33% private pay and 5% other during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable. National's projected fill up rate is reasonable. National's projected patient charges are reasonable. National's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. National's project would be financially feasible in the long term if there was a need for 80 nursing home beds. (3). HBA. HBA has projected a profit of $127,542.00 on revenue of $5,658,984.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed 239-bed facility and a profit of $188,614.00 on revenue of $6,213,164.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed 239-bed facility. HBA has projected a payor mix of 53% Medicaid, 6% Medicare, 34% private pay and 7% other during the first two years of operation. These projections are reasonable. HBA's projected fill up rate for the additional 60 beds is reasonable. HBA's projected patient charges are reasonable. HBA's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. HBA's project is financially feasible in the long term. Section 381.705(1)(k), Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that this criterion applies in this proceeding. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes. Generally, all of the applicants will improve competition if their projects are approved. Based upon projected Medicaid and Medicare rates, Meridian will have the least adverse impact on patient charges. HBA will have the least adverse impact on private-pay patient charges. Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes. The cost of constructing Meridian's proposed addition is $932,100.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $64.14. Meridian's existing Ormond Beach nursing home is located on a 5.5 acre wooded site. The existing building was constructed with sufficient ancillaries for a 120-bed nursing home. Site plans, road work, sewer, utility connections and zoning have been designed and approved for a 120-bed facility. The cost per bed for Meridian's proposed 60-bed addition is $20,797.00, based upon the total projected project cost. The cost per bed for the existing 60-bed facility was $51,242.00. The cost per bed for the proposed 120-bed facility will be $35,519.00. Meridian's projected costs of construction are reasonable. Meridian's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The cost of constructing National's proposed facility is $2,789,346.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $63.13. The cost per bed for National's proposed 80-bed nursing home is $47,355.00. National's projected costs of construction are reasonable. National's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The cost of constructing HBA's proposed addition is $1,145,000.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $63.61. The cost per bed for HBA's proposed facility is $25,000.00, based upon the total projected project cost. HBA's projected costs of construction are reasonable. HBA has proposed construction of its 60-bed addition as a second floor addition to an existing first floor 60-bed wing at Ocean View. The second floor will be constructed by a method of construction which uses twin T concrete planks. These planks support the second floor. When the planks are placed over the existing wing patients in the existing wing will have to be displaced for a portion of one day. The existing dining room will not be used for approximately 4 to 6 weeks. The construction of HBA's addition will not endanger patients at Ocean View. HBA has successfully constructed second floor additions over existing facilities in the past. Although there will be some inconvenience, quality of care should still be provided during construction. The other applicants have raised a number of questions concerning the appropriateness of HBA's proposed addition. Those questions do not, however, prove that HBA will not provide an adequately designed and constructed addition or cannot provide quality of care. HBA's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The evidence failed to prove that there are alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction to the construction methods proposed by Meridian, National or HBA available. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants presented evidence concerning past or proposed care of the medically indigent, other than their care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has committed to provide 55% of its patient days in its Ormond Beach nursing home for the care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has not yet reached this level of care of Medicaid patients, however. At the time of the formal hearing Meridian was providing 46% Medicaid care. Meridian has not declined to serve Medicaid patients if a bed was available. During its fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, National provided 20.6% of its company-wide patient days to skilled Medicaid patients and 38.5% to intermediate Medicaid patients. HBA has been providing approximately 65% of its patient days at Ocean View to the care of Medicaid patients. All of the applicants propose to provide adequate care to Medicaid patients. The projected percentages of Medicaid patient days and revenue have been listed in previous findings of fact. Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes. To the extent applicable, all of the applicants comply with the requirements of Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting HBA's application for a certificate of need authorizing the addition of 60 nursing home beds to Ocean View and denying Meridian's and National's applications for certificates of need. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NUMBERS 88-1836 88-1839 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. All of the parties have filed proposed findings of fact which pertain to HCR. HCR also filed a proposed recommended order. In light of the fact that HCR has voluntarily dismissed its case, those proposed findings of fact have not been considered in this Appendix. Meridian's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 9, 11-12 and 46. 2 19-20. 3 90. The last two sentences are hereby accepted. 4 70. 5-12 See 49. 13 The parties stipulated that the criterion to which this proposed finding of fact relates has been met by all the parties. 14-22 See 49. 23 67-73. 24-27 These proposed findings of fact fail to take into account the fact that some of the costs attributable to the additional 60 nursing home beds sought by Meridian in this proceeding have been included in the cost of the existing facility. 28 107. 29 The proposed construction cost per square foot is $64.14. See finding of fact 89. 30-33 90. Hereby accepted. 34-41 Proposed findings of fact pertaining to HCR. 42 16-17. 43 23-25. 44 101 and hereby accepted. 45-49 See 103. Although there was evidence that supported these proposed findings of fact generally, the proposed findings of fact overlook the fact that HBA's drawings are preliminary and will be revised as needed to comply with the Department's requirements. The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that HBA's proposed methods of construction and costs are reasonable despite the necessary corrections in its preliminary plans. The proposed finding of fact concerning parking spaces is not relevant to this proceeding because the weight of the evidence failed to prove that any costs associated with additional parking spaces which may be needed have been left out of HBA's projected costs. The availability of parking spaces is not a consideration under the criteria of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, except to the extent that costs associated with parking spaces should be taken into account. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are not relevant to these proceedings. The rest of this proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-53 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The evidence did prove that, as of the date of the hearing of these cases, HBA should have filed a different pro forma which takes into account changes in its projected Medicaid revenue and its salary projections if this proceeding was a completely de novo proceeding. The Department has, however, taken the position that applicants cannot "amend" their applications between the date that an application is reviewed and a formal administrative hearing concerning the application. Therefore, HBA did not change its pro forma to reflect the most current information concerning Medicaid and salaries. HBA's financial expert was aware of the changes in Medicaid and salary expenses. Despite this knowledge, he testified that HBA's proposed facility is financial feasible. This testimony was accepted. 54 14-15. 55 21-22 and 95. Not relevant to this proceeding. 64. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 58 51. 59 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. National presented evidence that it would designate a portion of its proposed facility as a dedicated Medicare unit. 60 18, 21, 24 and 27. 61 26-29. 29. The last sentence is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 64-65 Contrary to the stipulation of the parties. 66 Contrary to the stipulation of the parties and not relevant. National's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2 and 21. 2 1 and 3. 3-4 Hereby accepted. 5 4-6. 6 13-14. 15 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 21 and 64 and hereby accepted. 10 21-22. 11 26. 12 27. See 28. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31-32 and hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and erroneous conclusion of law. See 34-35. 17 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and erroneous conclusion of law. The first sentence is accepted in finding of fact 34. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence or is an erroneous conclusion of law. 20 28. See 37-38 and 45. National's proposal is not consistent with the 1987 district health plan. Subparagraph A. is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Subparagraph B. is not relevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence of subparagraph C. is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. The last sentence of subparagraph D. and subparagraphs e-h are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although subparagraph I. is generally correct, it is not sufficient to justify locating the nursing home beds to be awarded in this case in Flagler County. Subparagraph j. is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are hereby accepted. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. 49 and 51-55. Subparagraph h. is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 59. Stipulated by the parties as true of all of the applicants. 27 60 and 63. 28 67 and see 75-79. 29 86. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes, is to be applied to all of Subdistrict 4 of District 4 and not just Flagler County. 22, 94, 97 and hereby accepted. 32 64 and 108. 33 See 111. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. HBA's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 2 2-3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9-12. 9 14-15. National does not have a corporate headquarters since it is not a corporation. 10, 14, 21, 25, 32 and 35 Proposed findings of fact pertaining to HCR. 11 16-17. The evidence proved that HBA owns 6, not 7, nursing homes in Florida. 12 18-20. 13 21-22. 15 23-24. 28, 30 and 34-35. Subparagraph b) is a statement of arguments advanced by Meridian and National. 27, 38 and hereby accepted. Subparagraph's c)1)-4) and 7) pertain to HCR. 18 See 42-45. 19 See 46-47 and 50. Subparagraph b) is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 20, 51 and 54. 22 56-58 and hereby accepted. 23 59. 24 60. 26 Stipulated. 27 67. 28 85. See, however, 79. 29-30 Hereby accepted. 31 See 89. 33 18-20, 89 and 93. 34 22 and 96-97. 36 24-25, 101-104 and hereby accepted. 37 111. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 28. 3 30. 4 2-3 and 7. 4 and 6. Not relevant to this proceeding. 7 26 and 28. 8-15 Although there is evidence to support these proposed findings, they are not relevant to this proceeding. As a matter of law, the Department cannot through agency policy circumvent the requirements of the Need Methodology of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, by publishing a "fixed need pool" for which no point of entry to challenge has been provided. Not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Hereby accepted. Not relevant because the parties have stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, applies to these cases. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 32 and 36. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 32. 23 34. 24 33. 25 36. 26 29. 27 28. 28 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Charles D. Hood, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Lee Elzie, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretarey Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In October 1978 Bonnie Ray Solomon Crawford, LPN was employed at the West Pasco Hospital, New Port Richey, Florida as a licensed practical nurse provided by Upjohn Company's rent-a-nurse program. On 7 October 1978 Respondent signed out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and on 8 October 1973 at 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Demerol 75 mg for patient Kleinschmidt (Exhibit 2). Doctor's orders contained in Exhibit 4 shows that Demerol 50 mg was ordered by the doctor to be administered to patient Kleinschmidt as needed. Nurses Notes in Exhibit 4 for October 7, 1978 contains no entry of administration of Demerol at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m. shows administration of 50 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. Exhibit 3, Narcotic Record for Demerol 50 mg contains two entries at 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 1978 and one entry at 12:30 p.m. where Respondent signed out for Demerol 50 mg. for patients King, Zobrist and King in chronological order. Nurses Notes for King, Exhibit 6, and Zobrist, Exhibit 5, contain no entry that Demerol was administered to patient Zobrist at 8:15 a.m. or to patient King at 12:30 p.m. on 7 October 1978. In fact, the record for Zobrist shows that Zobrist was discharged from the hospital on October 5, 1978. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics constitutes a gross error in patient care and is not acceptable nursing practice. Similarly it is not acceptable nursing practice to withdraw narcotics not contained in doctors orders or administer medication not in doctors orders. When confronted by the Nursing Administrator at West Pasco Hospital with these discrepancies in the handling of Demerol, Respondent stated that she failed to check the identity of the patient before administering medication and that she didn't feel she should be giving medications any more. Following this confrontation with the hospital authorities, Respondent was fired for incompetency. No evidence was submitted regarding Respondent's 1975 disciplinary proceedings.
The Issue The issue is whether disciplinary action is appropriate with regard to Respondent's license as a Certified Nursing Assistant.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. Mrs. Thompson, during times pertinent, held a certificate as a Certified Nursing Assistant (C.N.A.) and was assigned license number CNA24755 by the Department. She was originally licensed October 6, 2003. At the time of the hearing she was a resident of Fountain, Florida. Lesly Buchikos (Ms. Buchikos) is a C.N.A. licensed in the State of Florida. She is also licensed in the State of New Hampshire, and has been licensed in that state since 1976. Ms. Buchikos currently lives in New Hampshire and works as a C.N.A. in a New Hampshire medical facility. She has 31 years of experience as a C.N.A. Ms. Buchikos has worked continuously as a C.N.A. since 1976. She has received specialty training in geriatrics and caring for patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders. She has trained medical personnel on providing aid to elderly persons and on the rights of persons residing in nursing homes. Professionally, Ms. Buchikos has substantially more experience than Mrs. Thompson, and has undergone more training. On February 15, 2005, Mrs. Thompson and Ms. Buchikos were working together at the Community Health and Rehabilitation Center in Panama City, Florida (Community). This facility houses elderly persons. Some of the residents are mentally and physically challenged. On that day, Mrs. Thompson and Ms. Buchikos were assigned to change the soiled undergarments worn by Resident R.L. Resident R.L. was more than 70 years of age and was suffering from dementia. He was nonverbal and resisted care. He was a very difficult patient. Ms. Buchikos believes that when tending to residents, like Resident R.L., it is best to carefully explain what you wish to accomplish, before undertaking care, and to allow the resident time to respond. She believes that when the two approached Resident R.L., in the morning hours of February 15, 2005, Mrs. Thompson failed to explain their intentions toward him and that failure caused him to become agitated. According to Ms. Buchikos' testimony, Resident R.L. resisted the efforts of Mrs. Thompson. She testified that Mrs. Thompson became rough and angry with Resident R.L., cursed him, and slapped him on the left buttock. Ms. Buchikos testified that the sound emanating from the slap was so loud that it echoed through the building. Ms. Buchikos is certain that the slap was intentional and that it jolted him. She said that Mrs. Thompson used her left hand to strike him. She said this behavior upset her and that she cried. She reported this to the charge nurse, Amy Rosin, and prepared a written statement relating her allegations. Resident R.L. was unable to make a statement and has since died. Registered Nurse Jodie Mills was the nurse supervisor who was in charge of the entire facility during the hours from 11:00 p.m. February 14, 2005, to 7:00 a.m. on February 15, 2005. Early in the morning of February 15, 2005, Ms. Rosin, informed Nurse Mills of Ms. Buchikos' allegation. Based on that report he sent Mrs. Thompson home. Nurse Mills had no personal knowledge of the incident, nor, insofar as the evidence reveals, did Ms. Rosin. He noted in a statement signed by him and dated February 15, 2005, "I could not find any sign of marks on Resident R. L.'s bottom." He now works with Mrs. Thompson at Sea Breeze. He has never seen Mrs. Thompson strike anyone at Community or Sea Breeze. Registered Nurse Stan Dunn, on February 15, 2005, was a supervisor and risk manager at Community. He has 11 years of experience in the nursing field. Nurse Dunn's chain of command ran to the assistant director of nursing, who reported to the director of nursing. He was informed of the incident by Nurse Mills. Nurse Dunn investigated the incident. When he questioned Mrs. Thompson about the incident, she denied the events occurred as related by Ms. Buchikos. Nurse Dunn was intimately familiar with Resident R.L. He had personally cared for him and described him as incoherent, bigger than average, strong, and sometimes aggressive. He stated that usually two staff members were required to control him. On February 16, 2005, Nurse Dunn prepared an Initial Adverse Incident Report-Day 1 that was submitted to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). This report parroted the information supplied by Ms. Buchikos. He later sent AHCA a Complete Adverse Incident Report-15 Day, which added the information that Mrs. Thompson had been formally suspended. On February 21, 2005, Nurse Dunn signed a memorandum entitled "Employee Counseling." He informed Mrs. Thompson of the results of the internal investigation into the events of February 15, 2005, and informed her that she would be terminated. She responded with threats to, "call the board" and report them. A subsequent Personnel Action Request dated February 21, 2005, effected Mrs. Thompson's termination. Nurse Dunn stated that Mrs. Thompson was terminated because the facility was not able to totally preclude that the incident did not occur and because the facility had to err on the side of caution. Mrs. Thompson stated that on the morning of February 15, 2005, it was necessary for Ms. Buchikos and her to clean Resident R.L. She said that she was holding Resident R.L. with her left arm and washing him with her right. Resident R.L. was being difficult and while holding him she had to draw back and when she did, her glove snapped and made a sound that she believes Ms. Buchikos mistook for a slap. Mrs. Thompson said that she had been in an automobile accident on December 28, 2004, and that she suffered severe injuries to her left arm and required skin grafts on it as a result. Indeed, at the hearing it was obvious that her arm was the recipient of skin grafts at some time in her life. She said that her arm was in a sling at the time of the reported incident. She stated that these injuries made it impossible for her to slap anyone with her left hand. Mrs. Thompson stated that she did not curse or otherwise speak or yell inappropriately to Resident R.L. Donna Sirk, Kevin McVay, and Joseph Mowers are licensed practical nurses with many years of experience, and they currently work with Mrs. Thompson at Sea Breeze. They have worked with her for about two years. They stated that they had never seen her curse or otherwise misbehave and stated that she was a good caregiver upon whom they could depend.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, dismiss the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brenda A. Thompson 21734 Clarks Road Fountain, Florida 32438 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Rick Garcia, MS, RN, CCM, Executive Director Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Patricia Dittman, PhD(C), RN, CDE, Board Chair Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the amended administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Susan Helen Tavares Benson, was a licensed practical nurse having been issued license number PN 0537171 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). Respondent has been licensed as a practical nurse since December 3, 1979. She currently resides in Naples, Florida. On February 12 and 13, 1989, respondent was employed as an independent contractor by Morning Star Nursing Home Service, a Naples firm that provided private in-home nursing care in the Naples area. On those particular dates, respondent was assigned to work the 4 p.m. - midnight shift at the home of C. S., an elderly female patient who was bedridden. Respondent relieved another nurse, Miriam Sheriff, who had worked the 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. shift. When respondent reported for duty on February 13, Sheriff observed respondent wearing street clothes, to be "hyper" and having what she perceived to be a very prominent smell of alcohol on her breath. Sheriff also recalled that when she left the premises there were no drinking glasses on the table in the area where the nurse normally sat. Although Sheriff was concerned with respondent's appearance and demeanor, she did not say anything when leaving the premises. Living in the patient's home at that time were the patient's husband and daughter. A few minutes after respondent reported for duty, the husband and daughter advised respondent they were leaving the home to run an errand and would return shortly. Although the husband spoke briefly with respondent before leaving and after returning, he did not detect any alcohol on respondent's breath. When the husband and daughter returned home about two hours later, the husband found the patient (wife) to be "quiet" and resting. However, the daughter spoke with her mother, and based on that conversation, approached respondent, smelled her breath, detected what she perceived to be alcohol, and asked respondent whether she had been drinking. Respondent denied drinking alcoholic beverages and contended it was Listerine mouth wash that the daughter smelled. At that point, the daughter told respondent to leave the premises. The daughter declined to accept respondent's suggestion that she call respondent's supervisor, have the supervisor come to the house, and confirm or dispel the claim that respondent was drinking. After respondent departed, the father and daughter found a glass partially filled with gin on an end table next to the couch where the nurse normally sat. It may be reasonably inferred that the drink had been prepared by respondent. After leaving the premises, respondent immediately telephoned her employer and reported the incident. A few hours later, respondent's supervisor telephoned respondent and advised her to take a breathalyzer test at a local law enforcement agency or obtain a blood alcohol test at a local hospital in order to prove she was not drinking on duty. Although respondent attempted to take a breathalyzer at the local sheriff's office, she was unable to do so since the law enforcement agency would not administer the test unless respondent had first been arrested. Respondent was also unable to obtain a blood alcohol test at a local hospital without a doctor's order and payment of a $250 fee. She reported this to her supervisor around 11:30 p.m. that evening. Respondent denied drinking any alcohol and contended the glass was on the end table when she reported for duty. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. There is no evidence that respondent's judgment or coordination were impaired by such consumption or that her conduct in any way threatened the health and welfare of the patient. According to the Board's expert, a nurse reporting to duty while under the influence of alcohol would be guilty of unprofessional conduct and such conduct would constitute a departure from the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. However, there was no evidence that respondent was under the influence of alcohol, i. e., her judgment was impaired, when she reported to duty on February 13. The expert further opined that if a nurse reported to duty after consuming any amount of alcohol, no matter how small a quantity and without regard to when the alcohol was consumed, and even if it did not impair her judgment or skills, the nurse's conduct would nonetheless be "unprofessional" because it would give the impression that the nurse's judgment was clouded. However, this opinion is not accepted as being logical, rationale or persuasive. Although not specifically addressed by the expert, it may be inferred that by having an alcoholic beverage in her possession while on duty, a nurse would not conform with the minimum standard of conduct. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been subject to disciplinary action at any other time during her eleven year tenure as a licensed practical nurse.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1989), and that she be given a reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2516 Petitioner: 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 2-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 6. Rejected as being unnecessary. 7-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 10. Rejected as being hearsay. 11-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 17. Rejected as being hearsay. 18-20. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 21-25. COPIES Partially adopted FURNISHED: in finding of fact 8. Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Susan H. T. Benson P. O. Box 143 Naples, FL 33939 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
