The Issue Whether or not Respondent's nursing home administrator's license may be disciplined by reprimand, fine, restriction, suspension; or revocation for acts alleged in the administrative: complaint, specifically the alleged violations of Sections 400.022(1)(d), 400.162(1)and (2), 468.1755(1)(e), 468.1755(1)(g), 468.1755(I)(k), and 468.1755(1)(m) Florida Statutes (1983), and Rules 10D-29.104 and 10D-29.118(1) Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent held Florida nursing home administrator's license number 0001557. She is also a registered nurse. She has worked in a variety of positions at various institutions in Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey since 1963, including head nurse, assistant director of nurses, director of nurses, research nurse supervisor, assistant supervisor medical review team, assistant administrator of a nursing home, and administrator of a nursing home. The date she acquired Florida licensure as a nursing home administrator was not established, but it is clear her license has never before been the subject of disciplinary action. Her reputation as a nursing home administrator is outstanding, and in this capacity, she had been the recipient of numerous awards and commendations both prior to and since the incidents giving rise to the administrative complaint herein. Petitioner's argument that the documents in support of Respondent's character and ability which were written in late 1984 and in 1985 are not credible because the writers did not know of the incidents giving rise to the administrative complaint is not persuasive, as it is apparent from the evidence as a whole that the events giving rise to the administrative complaint were a topic of conversation in the community at least by October, 1984. From January 1979 until October 1984, Respondent, who is 46, held the position of nursing home administrator at Heritage Health Care Center, Inc. (HHCC) in Naples, Florida. HHCC is a skilled nursing facility providing services to medicare, medicaid, and private pay patients. Clarence Berylyoung was a 78 year old private pay patient admitted to HHCC on July 21, 1983. His medical records reveal he was hospitalized briefly in October 1983 with a diagnosis of a stroke of unknown severity and organic brain syndrome. Respondent helped transport him to the hospital and back to the nursing home. It is not clear whether Respondent's accompaniment of Berylyoung at that time was part of Respondent's duties as HHCC nursing home administrator or as a result of a close personal relationship which had grown up between Respondent and Berylyoung. According to Ann Heusser, HHCC's current Director of Nursing Services and formerly its Day Supervisor, Berylyoung became more forgetful and harder to deal with after his hospitalization than he had been before and was confused and forgetful immediately afterwards. However, the medical records indicate Berylyoung was alert and had a stronger gait at the time of discharge on January 23, 1984. During his stay at HHCC, Berylyoung and Respondent did develop a close personal relationship; her part in which she described as "that of a good neighbor" or as providing companionship. She checked on his clothes daily. She talked to him when she saw him. At his request, she purchased beer and other items for him outside the facility. Because he had no family close by, she took him outside the facility occasionally at mealtimes and otherwise provided transportation for him to places he might wish to go. It is not clear at what precise dates but apparently while Berylyoung was still a patient at HHCC, and therefore prior to January 23, 1984; Respondent transported Berylyoung to a local attorney's office. While there, but without Respondent's prior knowledge, Berylyoung named Respondent as a beneficiary in his will. At this visit, or perhaps earlier, Berylyoung signed a "power of attorney" permitting Respondent to handle his affairs. Neither the will nor the power of attorney was offered in evidence and no timeframe was established by which the execution of these documents can be related to Berylyoung's October 1983 stroke or his subsequent discharge. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that Respondent entered the attorney's office, let alone that she influenced Berylyoung then or at any time to make these decisions. While Berylyoung was still a resident of the nursing home; Respondent used this power of attorney to transfer, at Berylyoung's request, approximately $25,000 to $30,000 of his funds from an Ohio bank to a Naples, Florida bank. She also used it to help him sell a trailer and a motor vehicle. There is no evidence that Respondent misused or mismanaged the funds or the sale or performed any act Berylyoung had not instructed her to do. No evidence established any timeframe by which these transactions can be accurately related to Berylyoung's stroke. As a private pay patient at HHCC, Berylyoung received no state or federal funds toward his care. His bill was approximately $1800 to $2,000 per month during his stay. He became dissatisfied with HHCC and wished to move out. After several months, he persuaded Respondent that without her help he would have no chance of ever leaving HHCC. She agreed that he could temporarily move into her home with herself, her husband, her two children, and her mother-in-law. Berylyoung was discharged on January 23, 1984. There is no evidence that the move was other than at Berylyoung's request or that Respondent persuaded, encouraged, or coerced Berylyoung to move from HHCC. Berylyoung stayed at Respondent's home until approximately February 24 or 25, 1984; when she placed him temporarily in a motel. He stayed at the motel for approximately five days, where Respondent checked on him 3-4 times a day and others did likewise. Respondent then helped him find an apartment and get settled and thereafter did occasional grocery shopping and housekeeping for him and generally maintained the friendly relationship they had established until August 26, 1985. Despite speculation by HHCC's Director of Dietary Services, Susan Gentry, as to why the move to the motel may have been desired by Respondent, there is no direct credible evidence that Berylyoung's move to his own apartment was other than at Berylyoung's own request or by mutual agreement. Respondent signed Berylyoung's name to a form indicating receipt of his medications (P-1A). This was done at the time of Berylyoung's discharge on January 23, 1984, at his request, and while Respondent still possessed the power of attorney to act for him. At the time it was signed, Berylyoung, with his medications, was moving into Respondent's home on a temporary basis. This falls short of establishing that Respondent had Berylyoung released into her custody. HHCC also uses a document titled "Standard Admission Record and Agreement" (P-1, page 1). It is divided into two parts. The top portion of a single page is filled out when a patient is admitted to HHCC. At the bottom of the page is a portion designed to elicit discharge information. In this bottom portion, under the date of discharge of 1-23-84, Respondent wrote, "Living by himself--no address." However, Respondent testified that she made this entry not on the date of discharge when she knew Berylyoung would be living with her for awhile but later in 1984 while Berylyoung was temporarily living in a motel with no permanent address, that her purpose in filling in this information at that time was to update the records; and that the statement was true when she wrote it. Neither Mrs. Heusser nor any other witness could state that this information was false when written by the Respondent or even when it was written by the Respondent. Respondent also admits filling in the "agency referral" line at the bottom of a document titled, "Discharge Summary" and dated "1-23-84" at its top. (P-1; page 3). Respondent admits that on the agency referral line she wrote in, "Living by himself at his request. Will follow up as needed. Ann Martin." Respondent claims that despite the 1-23-84 date at the top of the page, this line was added by her as a follow-up after Mr. Berylyoung left her home. Respondent asserts, and Mrs. Heusser confirms, that standard operating procedure at HHCC is that these discharge summaries usually are signed after a patient has been discharged and after a patient has actually left the facility. Mrs. Heusser specifically did not know whether this information added by Respondent was accurate when Respondent wrote it but she did not find it odd or unusual that Respondent would add more to this page as much as 2 to 3 weeks after actual discharge of any patient. Based on the testimony and evidence as a whole, Respondent's explanation that her notations on both the "Standard Admission Record and Agreement" and the "Discharge Summary" would normally be made, and in fact were actually made, by her after the patient's discharge and not on the date of discharge is entirely credible. Moreover, her adding her signature to the agency referral line of the Discharge Summary does not, under these circumstances, indicate an attempt to mislead; falsify, or defraud, so much as it suggests an attempt to indicate who had made this note and that she, Respondent, and not Berylyoung, had filled in this portion of the "Discharge Summary." On May 7, 1984, Berylyoung's outstanding bill of $1,386.90 was written off by HHCC. Attached to the write-off slip was a form collection letter dated February 29, 1984, (5 days after he had left Respondent's home), signed by Respondent on behalf of HHCC, and addressed to Berylyoung at Respondent's home address, 3101 Buena Vista Lane, Naples, Florida 33942. This form collection letter was attached as support for the write-off. (Composite P-2). Typed on the write-off slip itself was the notation, "Funds depleted. Does not qualify for state aid due mobile trailer. Present address unknown. (Discharged due to lack of funds.)" The slip was prepared by someone other than Respondent and how the information concerning lack of funds appeared is not explained. However; it may be reasonably concluded that the notation concerning Berylyoung's unknown address resulted indirectly from the previous notations made by Respondent on the "Standard Admission Record and Agreement"; on the "Discharge Summary," and on her signature on the February 29 letter. Unlike the admission and discharge documents which either require a physician's signature or are otherwise part of a patient's medical chart and so may be classified as "medical records," the debt write-off slip is not a part of a patient's medical records as that term is normally understood. The write off slip is merely a financial or business record of HHCC. This finding is consistent with Rules lOD-29.104 and lOD-29.118(1) Florida Administrative Code. Respondent signed and approved the write-off slip in her capacity as HHCC's nursing home administrator; and Respondent in fact knew where Berylyoung was living (in his own apartment) at the time she signed his financial write-off slip. Approval of these write-off slips is a routine duty and the Berylyoung slip was one of 18-20 such slips Respondent signed on the same day. Upon the foregoing scenario and Respondent's acknowledgement that she is responsible for financial documents she signs in her professional capacity, it is found that Respondent knew the address of Berylyoung when she signed the financial write-off slip but still approved the write-off of his account at least partially on the ground that his present address was unknown. While this falls short of fraud or falsification, it does constitute negligence and incompetence. Respondent did not know until approximately May; 1984 that the Department of Professional Regulation viewed the holding of a power of attorney by an employee of a nursing home to be the type of conduct subject to license discipline. By that time, she had already turned over all of Berylyoung's money to him and torn up the power of attorney. There was no evidence adduced at formal hearing that Respondent's actions resulted in HHCC being charged by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services with violations of Sections 400.022(1)(d) and 400.162(1) and (2) Florida Statutes and Rules lOD-29.104 and lOD-29.118(1) Florida Administrative Code as alleged in paragraph 6 of the administrative complaint. Without such proof, these allegations remain unproven and no harm to HHCC has been established except that it may be "out" $1,386.90. Even that loss, if it occurred, was not established by clear and convincing evidence because it was never clearly established that Berylyoung, if located prior to May 7, 1984, could have paid the $1,386.90. His $25;000-30 000 in the bank plus the proceeds of the sale of his car and trailer, would seem to suggest that at some earlier point in time Berylyoung's finances would have permitted payment to HHCC but no accurate timeframe for these events was established at formal hearing. There is no evidence of record that Berylyoung's health or safety were threatened or impaired by Respondent's influence or actions. Neither Mrs. Heusser, a nurse, nor Miss Gentry, a dietician, who were in the best position to have personally observed Berylyoung's condition, described a patient in danger. Ann Heusser described an elderly man who was alert most of the time, sometimes forgetful as to when he had had his last beer, sometimes belligerent, and who frequently threatened to leave HHCC because he was dissatisfied. All the nursing services did with respect to him is pass out his medication and keep a tight rein on his liquor. They reminded him to wear clean clothes and to feed himself but he could feed himself. He was on a regular diet according to Miss Gentry. His records indicate an intermediate level of care with the need to sometimes clean up loose stools. While he was in her home, Respondent prepared his meals and bathed the man, as did her mother-in-law and friend when Respondent was not there. Her activities with regard to Berylyoung's care at the motel and in his apartment are related supra. Respondent's testimony that Berylyoung was never harmed physically by his discharge is the only factual evidence of his condition after discharge. No other witness observed him after discharge. Mr. John Patrick; Jr.; the current nursing home administrator of HHCC was qualified as an expert witness in nursing home administration and stated that for a nursing home administrator to deliberately falsify medical records of a patient is considered misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration: that falsification of a patient's billing information by the nursing home administrator is considered misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration; and that it is, in Mr. Patrick's personal opinion, misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration for the administrator to falsify information on a patient's write-off slip. He also testified that he knew of no negligence or incompetence of Respondent. This type of "expert" opinion testimony is of negligible value because it invades the province of the trier of fact, because it requires conclusions of law; and because it assumes that "falsification" has been established; which it has not. The undersigned specifically finds no falsification has been established by the evidence adduced at formal hearing. (See findings of fact paragraphs 10-14 and legal determinations in the following conclusions of law concerning falsification versus negligence.) Moreover, with regard to Mr. Patrick's testimony as a whole, his misunderstanding of certain key elements of the allegations against Respondent and of much of the evidence adduced at formal hearing, his unfamiliarity with the statutes, rules, and standards of nursing home administration and what constitutes a medical record, his reluctance to specify "misconduct", his effort to substitute the word "inappropriate" for "misconduct", his desire to distinguish between his personal and professional opinions until after the Methot proffer, and his present close ties with HHCC greatly diminish the weight, credibility, and probative value of his testimony for establishing either existing standards of the profession of nursing home administration or any deviation by Respondent from such standards. Respondent is presently the director of nursing at Bentley Retirement Village, Inc. It is apparent from the testimony of Ray Smith, Executive Director and Vice-President of Bentley Village and one who works with Respondent on a daily basis; that despite any cloud which may have attached to Respondent as a result of the events giving rise to the instant proceedings, Respondent's reputation in the community for being an efficient and responsible nursing home administrator and for personal veracity has not been impaired. Mr. Smith is not qualified as an expert in the standards of nursing home administration since he has no education, training, experience, or license in that profession. Indeed, he was not tendered as an expert on such standards, however, the undersigned has carefully observed the candor and demeanor of all witnesses in this cause and finds Mr. Smith's testimony as to reputation and character to be entirely credible. His admitted desire to appoint Respondent, due to her qualifications and abilities, to the post of nursing home administrator for Bentley's newly authorized addition does not diminish the value of his testimony for reputation, character, and mitigation purposes since he is fully aware of all the charges and their basis. Professional reputation and character testimony is admissible in mitigation. Indeed, as to reputation; Mr. Smith's opinion is entirely corroborated by Petitioner's expert witness, John Patrick, who recommended Respondent for a job as a new nursing home administrator in Cape Coral during the course of the events which led up to these proceedings and by letters of commendation received by Respondent after these events. Respondent has never-acted as a trustee, conservator; or guardian for Clarence Berylyoung.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing Home Administration enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of simple negligence and incompetence within Section 468.1755(1)(g) in signing the write-off slip, reprimanding her therefor, and dismissing all other charges. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1986.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact 1-2. Rejected as a statement of the issues and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Facts 8 and 9. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 9. Accepted. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 6 - 9. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 17. Irrelevant. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 13-14. Irrelevant. Cumulative. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Irrelevant. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 22. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 14. Irrelevant. Incorporated in Finding of Facts 4 and 5. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman 2700 Blairstone Rd. Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire 307 W. Tharpe Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Beason, Esquire Suite 100 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the applications for a CON to construct either a 60 or 120-bed nursing home in Brevard County, Florida, submitted by Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., be denied. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 84-1976; 85-1310; 85-1506 The following constitutes my specific findings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered granting Kensington Manor Inc. CON No. 6430 to construct a 120 bed nursing home and to rehabilitate the existing 147 bed nursing home to an 87 bed nursing home in Sarasota County. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3665 Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except #5. Sentence stating "There are no laundry facilities in the nursing home." is rejected as inconsistent with proposed finding #7. Respondent's proposed findings are also accepted. Most of the defects in the application which Respondent finds to be not in compliance with the statutory requirements were corrected by the testimony at this hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Richard Patterson, Esquire 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue [Case No. 79-2407] Whether the Department is entitled to reimbursement of certain Medicaid funds previously paid to a nursing home owner in the amount of $118,061.00, based upon a recommendation by the Department and subsequent determination by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, under Section 1122, Social Security Act, that Federal reimbursement of expenses attributable to the purchase of the nursing home should be withheld due to the Owner's lack of timely notice of intent to acquire the nursing home; [Case No. 80-467] Whether, based on the Section 1122 determination, the Department wrongfully disallowed and withheld payment to the nursing home owner, certain medicaid reimbursement funds in the amount of $101,348.00. Conclusions and Recommendation: Conclusions: Here, each party has the burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence in support of its affirmative claim. Each claim rests on the propriety or impropriety of imposition of Section 1122 penalties against the nursing home. Since the Department failed to present sufficient evidence justifying the imposition of Section 1122 penalties and the nursing home failed to establish the Section 1122 penalties were erroneously imposed, neither party sustained its burden of establishing entitlement to the relief requested. Recommendation: That the Department's Medicaid overpayment claim against the nursing home owner, in the amount of $118,061.00 be DENIED, and the nursing home owner's claim against the Department for $101.348.00 in Medicaid underpayments be DENIED. Background: On April 26, 1979, and May 2, 1979, Petitioner/Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("Department") notified Respondent/Petitioners, Lakeview Nursing Home, Robert Becht and R. B. Care, Inc., d/b/a Lakeview Manor and d/b/a Intercoastal Nursing Manor ("Owner") that a desk review of the annual cost report for the Lakeview Nursing Home (a/k/a Lakeview Manor) indicated that the nursing home had been overpaid $18,900.00 by the Department's Medicaid Program during the eight months, ending June 30, 1978, and that such overpayment should be returned to the Department. On October 8, 1979, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that, pursuant to a "Notice of Determination Under Section 1122" issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW") the Department had recalculated the nursing home's historic per diem rates and determined that the Owner had been overpaid $61,155.00 in Medicaid funds during the period ending June 30, 1978. On November 19, 1979, the nursing home Owner requested a formal hearing, under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the validity of the Department's overpayment claim. On November 30, 1979, the Department forwarded the Owner's request for a hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. [DOAH Case No. 79-2407] On January 10, 1980, the Department notified the nursing home Owner that an additional $56,906.00 should be repaid to the State of Florida--based upon alleged overpayment to the nursing home during the period ending June 30, 1979. On February 14, 1980, the nursing home Owner filed a Petition with the Department alleging numerous wrongful and negligent Department actions resulting in the withholding and underpayment of Medicaid funds to which the nursing home was entitled, demanding full payment, and requesting a formal Section 120.57 hearing. On March 12, 1980, the Department forwarded the nursing home Owner's Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. [DOAH Case No. 80-467] By Notice of Hearing, dated April 11, 1980, Case No. 80-467 was set for final hearing on May 29, 1980. By agreement of the parties, the two cases were subsequently consolidated for final hearing. At final hearing, the Department called John T. Donaldson, and offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9, into evidence, each of which was received. The nursing home Owner called as its witnesses, William McCaulley, Leonard Cordes, and Linda Zarecki, and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 5, (Composite) and 6, each of which was received. At the request of the nursing home, and without objection by the Department, official recognition was taken of Rule 10C-7.48(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The nursing home further stipulated that the only allegations which it would pursue in the administrative hearing concerned whether the Department wrongfully withheld from the nursing home certain Medicaid funds to which its was entitled. Neither party submitted post-hearing proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an agreement with HEW, the Department administers the Medicaid Program within Florida which includes allocation and payment of Medicaid funds to nursing homes which provide health care to patients qualifying for Medicaid benefits. (Testimony of Donaldson, Petitioners Exhibit 5; Respondent's Exhibit 9) On November 1, 1977, Robert Becht, on behalf of R. B. Care, Inc. ("Owner") purchased a nursing care facility located at 208 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Intercoastal Nursing Manor. No evidence was presented to establish the purchase price paid for the facility. Subsequent to its purchase, the name of the nursing home was changed to Lakeview Manor, although Department correspondence frequently refers to it as Lakeview Nursing Home. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 9 [Composite]) On January 9, 1978, a representative of the Regional Health Care Planning Agency--Health Planning Council, Inc.--advised the Department's Bureau of Community Medical Facilities of an apparent change in ownership of the Intercoastal Nursing Home, noted that the new owner had not "sought, applied for, or received the necessary Certificate of Need for this change of ownership transaction," and asked for Department assistance in determining the present status of the nursing facility. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibit 1) In response to the Health Planning Council's letter, the Department's Office of Medical Facilities sent a letter to the Nursing Home Owner, dated January 26, 1978. That letter enclosed Department rules which provided that, when certain expenditures have been incurred by a health care facility without prior notice of such expenditure being given to the designated planning agency (Office of Medical Facilities), that agency should notify the health care facility that such obligation was subject to review, that timely notice of the proposed expenditure was not given, and that the Agency proposed to recommend to the Secretary of HEW that the expenditure be disapproved. The nursing home was given 30 days to reply, or file the necessary application for approval of the expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home). The letter closed with the following: "You should understand that we must report the purchase of Intercoastal Nursing Manor to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on a no timely notice and that it may affect depreciation, interest, and fair returns on the project and reimbursement on the project." (Respondent's Exhibit 2) By letter dated March 22, 1978 (with copy to the nursing home Owner), the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities subsequently informed the regional office of HEW that notice had been given the nursing home Owner concerning the need to file an application for review of the November 1, 1977, acquisition of and change in ownership of the nursing home, but that it had failed to respond. The recommendation of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was attached to the transmittal letter; however, that recommendation was not offered into evidence by the Department. The letter of transmittal concluded that, because no application for approval was submitted by the nursing home Owner, there was "no indication on the HRA-45 of the amount of capital expended for the acquisition." (Respondent's Exhibit 3) During April, 1978, the Regional Health Administrator of HEW issued a "Notice of Determination under Section 1122--Reimbursement to be Excluded." The Notice was addressed to the nursing home Owner and concluded that reimbursement for expenses related to the capital expenditure (acquisition of the nursing home facility) would be excluded from payment for services provided under the Social Security Act based upon the finding that (1) the expenditure was subject to Section 1122, and (2) Notice of Intent to make the expenditure had not timely been given. By way of explanation, the regional administrator added that reimbursement would be "withheld for an indefinite period" because the State had been unable to make a finding that the expenditure conformed to applicable plans, standards, and criteria due to the failure to submit an application. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) By separate agreements entered into by the Department and the nursing home Owner on November 2, 1977, October 30, 1978, and September 5, 1979 (which enabled the nursing home to participate in Florida's Medicaid Program) the nursing home Owner expressly agreed to comply with state and federal laws and rules applicable to the Medicaid Program. The Owner also agreed that Medicaid cost reporting would be governed by the procedures and methods contained in the Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual (HIM-15). The agreements relieve the nursing home from responsibility in "those instances of overpayment due to Agency [Department] errors in eligibility investigation and determination. . ." (Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) Section 2422 of HIM-15 describes the requirements concerning approval of capital expenditures imposed by Section 1122 of the Social Security Act. The Manual cautions providers desiring to make or having made expenditures subject to Section 1122 to familiarize themselves with the regulations and direct questions concerning its implementation to the designated planning agency. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) Notwithstanding having been sent repeated notices by the Department and HEW concerning the requirements of Section 1122, the nursing home Owner has not filed an application for approval of the capital expenditure associated with acquisition of the nursing home; neither has it contended that such capital expenditure does not fall within the ambit of Section 1122 and implementing HEW and Department rules. (Testimony of McCaulley, Donaldson) Despite the Department's withholding and disallowal of payment to the nursing home of expenses relating to the acquisition of the facility (due to the federal Section 1122 determination), the nursing home continued to qualify for and participate in the Medicaid Program. The nursing home provided efficient and satisfactory medical care to Medicaid patients during 1978, and 1979, and the Department does not assert otherwise. The three Medicaid participation agreements entered into during 1977, 1978, and 1979, do not directly address or purport to relieve health care facilities from compliance with Department rules and Section 1122. (Testimony of Donaldson, McCaulley, Respondent's Exhibit 9 [Composite]) It is probable that the nursing home received actual notice of the requirement that certain capital expenditures by health care facilities must receive Section 1122 approval. Although the nursing home Owner's secretary since June, 1978, does not recall receiving the HEW Section 1122 Notice, she was not employed by the nursing home during the time the notice was issued, and she admitted that she could not testify that the owner had not received the HEW Notice. Moreover, her testimony did not address the earlier Department correspondence to the Owner concerning the need to obtain State and Federal Section 1122 approval, including the Department's Section 1122 recommendation to HEW. (Testimony of Zarecki, Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Between 1977 and 1979, the Department overpaid the nursing home $118,061.00 (which includes the $18,900.00 claimed by the Department in its May 2, 1979, letter) in per diem patient reimbursements which the nursing home was not entitled to under the Section 1122 Notice and Penalty. This overpayment was caused by the Department's failure to exclude that portion of per diem patient reimbursements attributable to the Owner's acquisition of the nursing home property. (Testimony of Donaldson, Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 7) If the Section 1122 penalty was incorrectly recommended by the Department, and imposed by the HEW, the Department has withheld between November 1, 1977, and December 31, 1979, $101,348.00 which is now due and owing to the nursing home Owner. (Testimony of McCaulley, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Since January 2, 1979, the Owner has no longer owned or operated the nursing home in question. (Testimony of McCaulley, Cordes)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Nursing should discipline the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on charges contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, DPR Case No. 0111292.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed practical nurse who was working as a nurse at Seminole Nursing Pavilion in Seminole, Florida, in January, 1989. She holds Florida license number PN13417. The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on the evenings of January 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 18, 19, 22, 25 and 26, 1989. On the evenings of January 3, 4 and 28, 1989, another nurse dispensed Mellaril to the patient. On the other 15 evenings in January, 1989, the Respondent was not on duty, and Mellaril was not dispensed to the patient. The doctor's orders for the patient, L. W., were: "Mellaril concentrate 25 mg. give two (2) times daily as needed for agitation." The evidence proved that the Respondent dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., on at least one occasion--on January 5, 1989--when the patient was not agitated and showed no sign of becoming agitated. The patient was "calm to the point of being almost placid." The Respondent went in and roused the patient to give her the medication. The Respondent explained to other witnesses that she dispensed Mellaril to the patient, L. W., without symptoms of agitation because the patient ate better and with less agitation at meal time after administration of Mellaril, and also because the patient's family favored this course. The evidence proved that it was below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing for the Respondent to administer Mellaril to this particular patient, L. W., for the stated purpose. It is possible for a patient regularly to become agitated at about meal time. This is not uncommon with some nursing home patients; it is commonly referred to as "sundowner syndrome." In the case of "sundowner syndrome," administration of the medication just before meal time to prevent agitation, so that the patient would eat better and with less agitation, could be in compliance with the doctor's orders, as written, and not below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing practice of nursing. But, in this case, the evidence proved that the patient did not have "sundowner syndrome." On only three of the 16 evenings in January, 1989, when the Respondent was not on duty did the on-duty nurse administer Mellaril for agitation. The Respondent has a history of recurring episodes of major depression. She was fired from her job at the Seminole Nursing Pavilion on or about January 27, 1989. She became angry and then deeply depressed. On or about February 28, 1989, the depression became so severe that the Respondent attempted to end her life, or at least made a suicidal gesture, by an overdose of valium and wine. Fortunately, she recovered and received treatment in various clinical settings through approximately April 24, 1989. She continued to receive therapy, particularly to deal with the stress of this proceeding. But by the time of the hearing, she was fairly stable, and her recurrent depression was in remission. She now is able to work and, in fact, has been working as a nurse without any apparent incapacity. The opinion testimony of the Department expert witness that the Respondent is now incapable, by reason of mental illness, to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients was not persuasive. The testimony was based solely on a review of the records in evidence as part of the Department's case in chief. The witness did not examine the Respondent and had no knowledge of the Respondent's employment history before about 1982 or after her employment at Seminole Pavilion ended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order placing the Respondent, Joyce Knowlton, on probation for one year, during which time the Respondent's current mental condition can be evaluated and her practice closely monitored to insure that she is rehabilated enough to be able to continue to practice nursing safely. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4. Rejected as not proven that agitation necessarily results in harm to the patient or others. Agitation could result only in what is called resistance to care. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 5.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The Respondent believed that the patient ate better and with less agitation after being given Mellaril, not that the Mellaril "made the patient eat better" in the sense that it increased her appetite. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. The evidence suggested that the family approved of the use of Mellaril to counteract anticipated agitation; it did not prove that the family asked the Respondent to keep the patient sedated, as implied by this proposed finding. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 21. Accepted and incorporated. 22.-25. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected. See 22-25, above. 29.-33. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. See 22-25, above. Accepted and incorporated. First clause, accepted. However, the same records indicate that the Respondent's major depression is in remission. The Respondent's history is that her major depression alternately recurs and goes into remission depending on what is happening in her life and what kind of treatment she gets. Therefore, to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Findings, the rest is rejected as not proven. 38.-41. Generally accepted but unnecessary. These are vague generalities; no specifics were proven. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 42.-43. Rejected as not proven. 44.-46. The Respondent was not charged with untruthfulness. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 47.-50. The Respondent was not charged with breach of a contractual agreement. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. Proposed finding 50 is based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 51.-52. Rejected as based strictly on inadmissible hearsay. 53.-57. Subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 58.-60. The Respondent was charged with only one med pass error--dispensing Mellaril to the patient, L.W. The only relevance of these facts in this case would be to prove the Respondent's mental condition and the effects on her ability to practice nursing. But the evidence did not relate any of these facts to the Respondent's mental condition or to its effect on her ability to practice nursing. 61. Rejected as not proven. 62.-72. Rejected as not proven. Without testimony to explain the records on which these proposed findings are based, it is difficult to decipher what they say, and no findings are based solely on them except as may be found in the Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Nursing has some unique stresses. It has more stress than some jobs and less stress than other. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. As found, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent is now unable, by reason of her mental condition, to practice nursing safely. However, the Respondent's evidence on this point consisted only of medical records and progress notes created by the Respondent's therapist. Without any testimony to explain these records, the evidence did not prove that the Respondent was more than "fairly stable" at the time of the hearing. On the other hand, the evidence did prove that the Respondent has a history of recurrent major depression, a legitimate concern to the Board of Nursing after the February 28, 1989, suicide attempt. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christina M. Ippolito, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 6 South Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether there was negligence involved in treating Lewis Dougal, a patient in the Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home. Whether the Respondent kept records in compliance with the statutes and the requirements of Chapter 10D-29 of the Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Miracle Hill Nursing and Convalescent Home had Lewis Dougal, an adult mentally retarded male, as a patient in January of 1976. On Thursday, January 29, 1976, Mr. Dougal was taken to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital for a neurological brain scan. His exact whereabouts have not been established during the period of time from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. on that day, but he was in the emergency room area or in the radiology area of the hospital. At approximately 3:00 p.m. he was returned to the Respondent nursing home. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on January 30, a nurses aide discovered that Lewis Dougal had a reddened and swollen penis, a swollen scrotum and red marks on the buttocks. She called the charge nurse, an L.P.N., who did not call the doctor, but noted on the "nurse's log" that the patient should see a doctor the following day. No notation was made on the patient's individual medical record at that time. Mr. Dougal was transferred to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital late in the morning of January 31, 1976, whereupon he received a 50 mm injection of demerol for pain upon his admission to the hospital. He was released February 25, 1976. An investigative team from the Office of Health Facilities of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which consisted of a Hospital Nursing Home Consultant and a Registered Nurse, investigated the circumstances surrounding the incident on February the 25th and 27th, 1976. The injuries sustained by Mr. Dougal and his hospital records from the date of his admission, January 31, 1976, to the hospital, to the date of his release, February 25, 1976, were reviewed. The investigative team thereupon visited the Miracle Hill Convalescent and Nursing Home on February 27, 1976 and requested all medical records of the patient, Lewis Dougal. No medical records had been kept and the only reference to the incident was made on the "nurse's log" January 30 and 31, 1976. These entries were made subsequent to the dates thereof. Other information was placed on the records long after the incident occurred. On March 26, 1976, Petitioner State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, issued an order charging Respondent with two violations: The first being in violation of Section 400.102(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29.11(7), Florida Administrative Code, to-wit: "1. That the facility failed to protect a patient from neglect and abuse, in that a mentally retarded patient, incontinent of bowel and bladder, was allowed to acquire burns of the scrotal area, genitalia and buttocks, of sufficient severity to require hospitilization, such burns being caused by inadequate and improper nursing care on the part of the nursing service staff of the facility. As a result of the subject burns, the patient was hospitalized for treatment and care during the period January 31, 1976, and February 25, 1976, at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. The admission diagnosis for this patient at the hospital in part was, "burns of the genitalia and buttocks." The admitting physician further noted that the admission examination revealed an obvious burn in the skin from the scrotum which had already desquamated indicating the burn had occurred some time previously, maybe as much as a couple of days. Further, a circular burn involving the buttocks was observed with the notation that it appeared the patient had been sitting in some very hot solution. The second charge was alleged to be in violation of Chapter 10D- 29.11(10) and (13) 1.(c), of the Florida Administrative Code in the following language: "(2) In that the required medical record documentation concerning how or when the above injuries occurred to this particular patient was lacking, and the investigating team was unable to determine just how or when the burns occurred or the specific person responsible for this."
Recommendation Section 400.121(1) (8), Florida Statutes, Denial, suspension, revocation of license; procedure.- (1) "The [department] may deny, revoke, or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine for a violation of any provision of s. 400.102 only after written notice to the applicant or licensee setting forth the particular grounds for the proposed action and a hearing, if demanded by the applicant or licensee." (8) The [department], as a part of any final order issued by it under the provisions of this chapter, may impose such fine as it deems proper, except that such fine shall not exceed $500 for each violation. Each day a violation of this chapter occurs shall constitute a separate violation and shall be subject to separate fine. An action for recovery of the fine may be maintained in the circuit court of the county in which the facility is located, and appeal from any judgment rendered shall be in the manner and within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules for reviewing judgments rendered by circuit courts in action at law." Record keeping is such an important and necessary adjunct to nursing home care the Respondent should suffer a fine of at least $200 for violation of the foregoing statutes and rules. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Health Program Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John K. Folsom, Esquire 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a nursing home administrator in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (Board), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the nursing home administrator profession in this state and the licensing of nursing home administrators. Respondent, Judith Ortiz, was a licensed nursing home administrator holding license number NH 0002926. Respondent has an undergraduate degree in science and art, and a master’s degree in Business Administration and Health Care Administration. Subsequent to the award of her graduate degree, she taught in long-term care facilities in Dade County, Florida, during which time she developed an interest in care of the elderly. Ms. Ortiz took and passed the examination for licensure as a nursing home administrator in 1990 and began work as an assistant nursing home administrator for Unicare, a care provider, in 1991. In December 1992, she came to Unicare’s facility in New Port Richey, Richey Manor, as the administrator, and remained there until she was terminated in May 1994. At the time of her termination, she was being paid a salary of $37,500. Shortly after Respondent assumed the position of administrator at Richey Manor, an inspection of the facility by the Agency for Health Care Administration revealed no significant problem with resident pressure sores. Respondent’s own chronology of events reveals a subsequent series of unfortunate personnel problems which befell the facility. Only two months after the Respondent was hired, the director of nursing at the facility resigned. It was at that point that Respondent’s problems amplified. A survey of the facility in October 1993 resulted in a citation for insufficient staffing, but the company’s nurse consultant, who visited the facility in November 1993, concluded the staffing was sufficient. Respondent continued to seek various forms of assistance from her corporation, but in each case, her request was denied. The director of nursing, whom Respondent hired to replace the head nurse who had resigned at the beginning of the year, did not perform well, but Respondent nonetheless retained her on staff. Ms. Patti K. Silar, a surveyor of nursing homes for the Department of Health Care Administration, has surveyed Richey Manor between six and eight times in the same number of years. In February 1994, as the result of an anonymous complaint filed with the Department, she conducted a survey there during which she found several deficiencies. Specifically, she found that while the number of personnel on duty met minimum license requirements, other factors indicated that staffing was inadequate to meet residents’ needs. This manifested itself in extended delays in responding to patient calls which resulted in resident incontinence and resident falls; failure to maintain resident cleanliness; failure to ensure residents were fed on time; and failure to properly turn bed-ridden patients. All these deficiencies, which continued over a period of months, resulted in adverse health impacts to the residents. A follow-up inspection of the facility was done on April 28, 1994. The follow-up was to a survey done on July 23, 1993, and to an investigation done on October 21, 1993, and February 22, 1994. On this follow-up, the facility’s handling of pressure sores was again found to be inadequate; nursing staffing was determined to be inadequate to meet residents’ needs, resulting in inadequate resident care in several respects; and charge nurses were found not to be fulfilling their responsibilities for the total nursing care of residents in several respects. The facility’s annual survey was conducted on April 29, 1994. Several additional deficiency areas were addressed in this survey, including the failure of the facility’s transfer paperwork to provide for appeal rights; inappropriate utilization of restraints; failure to meet sufficient quality of life standards; failure to maintain acceptable levels of assessments and personal grooming of residents; and failure to maintain acceptable comprehensive care plans for all residents to avoid deficiencies in such areas as dehydration, restraints, and the like. This latter survey revealed, as related to pressure sores, not only that those deficiencies previously noted were not improved, but also that residents who came into the facility without pressure sores developed them while in the facility. There was no plan in place to prevent the development of pressure sores, or to prevent the development of skin breakdown. Simple corrective action, such as the purchase of appropriate mattresses or the frequent turning and repositioning of the resident was not being taken. Ms. Silar concluded that the percentage of residents with pressure sores at Richey Manor was much higher than in other similar facilities, standing at approximately 25% of the residents afflicted, as compared with 7 to 8% in other facilities surveyed. In addition to the level A areas found to be deficient, there were multiple level B areas, somewhat less serious than level A areas, found to be deficient as well. These included such matters as fluids being added to a resident’s intake without a physician’s orders, or, in the alternative, residents not being provided what a physician ordered. Further, Ms. Silar experienced an inability to reconcile records on seven residents of seven attempted. This is very unusual and showed a repeated failure to carry out doctors’ orders. The responsibility of insuring that all of this is done rests with the administrator who may delegate responsibility, but is not relieved of accountability. Ms. Silar did not conduct the survey for the purpose of determining the competence of the facility administrator, but she observed significant areas in the operation which were out of compliance, and residents were at risk as a result thereof. The care she observed being provided by the staff under the supervision of the Respondent was less than acceptable in those areas identified in the survey reports as being deficient. Overall, the facility was not in compliance. Whereas the February 1994 survey was abbreviated, the April 1994 survey was a full review for re-certification and re-licensure. As such, it was more comprehensive than the complaint survey. This April 1994 survey was done within one year of the prior general survey; earlier than normal because of the Department’s serious concerns arising out of the February 1994 complaint and inspection results. According to Ms. Silar, Richey Manor, when compared with more than 100 other facilities she has surveyed since 1989, was in the lowest 2 percent. A specific problem she observed there during the February 1994 investigation was the facility’s treatment of bed sores. During the April 1994 survey, Ms. Silar found not only no improvement, but, in fact, a worsening of the conditions. As a result of these surveys, a moratorium was placed on admissions to Richey Manor, and, in fact, disciplinary action was subsequently taken against the facility. Federal standards enacted in 1987 charge facilities such as Richey Manor with the responsibility of assisting residents to achieve their highest potential over-all. They also encourage facilities to change their emphasis to achieving practical results rather than concentrating on paper compliance. Ms. Silar found that Richey Manor was placing only minimal emphasis on solving the bed sore problem when she surveyed the facility in February 1994. At that time it was clear that the residents were not being assessed, nor were care plans being developed. When the more comprehensive survey was done in April 1994, 35 of 36 residents still did not have either appropriate assessments or care plans prepared for them. The facility did not have a comprehensive plan of care, and without that it was impossible to develop individual care plans. The federal standards as to staffing relate only to “sufficient” staff to meet the needs of residents. Under state requirements, specific minimum ratios are required. A facility may have the minimum number of personnel, but not have enough to meet the needs of the residents. This may also relate to quality of staff or to inappropriate utilization of existing staff. In the instant case, though schedules were prepared to reposition residents, there were not enough staff members to follow the schedule. The staff shortage resulted in staff not responding to resident calls in a timely manner, and physician orders not being followed. It also was determined that Richey Manor was taking a large number of residents who required more attention and for whom proper care could not be given. Of the more than 111 residents in the facility at the time of the survey, 62 required assistance with daily living and toileting, and approximately 40 required assistance with dressing. The above observations were concurred in by Carole G. Hembree, a health facility evaluator with the Agency. Ms. Hembree concluded she would not put a loved one in Richey Manor at the time in issue because she did not believe the quality of care given there was adequate. The survey reports referred to herein were reviewed for the Agency by Anthony J. Pileggi, a nursing home administrator since 1978 and an expert in nursing home administration. Mr. Pileggi supervises a 120-bed facility and is lead administrator for three other facilities in a care group. He is also licensed as a preceptor for trainees in the field of nursing home administration. After his review of the survey reports, Mr. Pileggi concluded that during the time in question there was a lack of nursing supervision, a large turnover in nursing staff, poor quality in the nurses on staff, and a lack of preventive measures addressing pressure sores. In his opinion, the administrator did not maintain an awareness of the level of care being provided in the facility through frequent review of indicators such as pressure sores, screening, and treatment. It was his observation that at Richey Manor, during the time in question, there was emphasis on treatment and little effort given to prevention. Respondent’s actions in management were less than competent for a qualified administrator. Mr. Pileggi saw what he considered to be an emphasis on admissions based on payor type rather than acuity level at a time when insufficient care was being given to existing residents to prevent the development of pressure sores. When staff is short, it is inappropriate to take more residents who need a high measure of care. To do so compounds the problem. Mr. Pileggi does not believe Respondent did all she could do to solve the problem. Her reliance on budget problems as an excuse for her actions is not, he believes, well placed. In his opinion, budget is not all-controlling. The administrator must strive to provide adequate care within the budget, and must oversee the director of nursing to insure that staff nurses are performing properly. The appearance of pressure sores is an indicator of other problems. These could include a failure to properly use restraints, improper hydration, and inadequate nutrition. Though Respondent lays blame for the facility’s problems on the nursing staff, as administrator she had the responsibility to ensure there is a proper screening and evaluation of new residents to determine the likelihood of those residents developing pressure sores and to ensure the residents’ skin care is adequate. The administrator must ensure the staff is properly trained and that schedules are developed to provide adequate care. In Pileggi’s opinion, the administrator should perform a weekly review to ensure the facility is working properly, and if not, make appropriate changes to ensure the residents get proper treatment, A nursing home administrator is required to provide supervision of resident care - not provide the care herself. Resident care requires more attention than other administrator duties. Administrators should have a general knowledge of how to review a care plan to provide appropriate care for residents and to meet the residents’ needs. It is the responsibility of the nursing home administrator to ensure proper care plans are developed by qualified persons. The failure to have proper care plans has a direct negative impact on the quality of care. Based on Mr. Pileggi’s review of the survey reports, he found that Richey Manor’s care plans were not sufficient. Respondent points out that in April 1993, she noted a negative trend in patient skin care. Mr. Pileggi does not believe Respondent did enough at that point or thereafter to ensure an appropriate care plan was developed and implemented to combat this trend. Respondent had sufficient authority to act. She could have changed the approach of the various committees towards admissions so as to lower acuity level, but it appeared to Pileggi that she emphasized a payor source admissions policy to conform to budgetary considerations. Acuity level of the resident is related to what staff is needed to provide the appropriate support. The greater the acuity level, the more staff is required. A nursing home administrator can manage the resident census by acuity level to ensure that existing staff can provide the level of care needed. Pileggi contends that if the Respondent recognized she did not have adequate staff to provide the appropriate level of care to the residents, she could have stopped admissions or screened prospective admissions for more independent residents who would require less care. Respondent complained of a lack of corporate support in the areas of staffing and funding; however, Pileggi believes there was much by way of monitoring and supervision of staff she could have done to improve the care provided without more staff or more money. He does not believe Respondent did enough in this regard. To the contrary, if staffing were already inadequate to meet residents’ needs, as Respondent claims, it would negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the residents to take in more residents of a high acuity level. Mr. Pileggi concluded that Respondent showed a strong concern for budgetary considerations of the company. One of her highest priorities appeared to be the effect of any action on operating income. Pileggi contends that a nursing home administrator should use the budget as a tool to provide guidelines for patient care. At those times when line items are not satisfactory, the administrator must look to other budget areas for funds to provide appropriate care. In this case, Pileggi is of the opinion that Respondent’s primary concern should have been for the residents. This means answering calls, keeping the residents comfortable, and other like activities. Respondent claims she devoted 20% of her time to marketing. This time could have been better spent, according to Pileggi, dealing with problems. In short, Respondent should have spent more time in supervising preventive care, rather than seeking additional residents. Evidence presented at hearing indicates that the Director of Nursing at Richey Manor at the time of Respondent’s incumbency was performing poorly, and Respondent advertised for a replacement. Proof of the director’s incompetence, in Pileggi’s opinion, was the deterioration of resident skin condition. Pileggi is satisfied that Respondent’s awareness of this situation was demonstrated by her seeking to replace the director. However, in his opinion, merely seeking to replace the incompetent employee was not enough. Respondent should have worked around her to correct a situation which was obviously of long standing. The development of pressure sores does not come about over-night. Mr. Pileggi would not state that Respondent repeatedly acted contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Richey Manor, but because of the existence of the pressure sore problem, a condition which takes a significant time to develop, Respondent’s decision to admit more high acuity level residents indicates that she intentionally failed to act in the best interests of the residents. In summary, Mr. Pileggi concluded that Respondent’s actions constituted neglect or incompetence in that she did not ensure the facility had adequate staff, and she did not take adequate measures to treat and prevent pressure sores on the residents. The magnitude of the pressure sore problem was, for Mr. Pileggi, proof positive of the failure of Respondent to perform properly. His opinion would not change even if it were shown that Respondent authorized and was trying to hire more staff when, at the same time she was actively seeking to admit more patients who required a high level of care. Ms. Ortiz is adamant in her denial of the allegations that she acted in an incompetent or negligent manner while serving as administrator at Richey Manor. When she went to the facility as its administrator, she was confronted with a director of nursing who had been there for more than a year and who had a management style which conflicted radically with the more structured style of the Respondent. As a result, the director of nursing became disgruntled and resigned in February 1993. Respondent claims she immediately placed an advertisement in area papers for a replacement but got no response. She discussed this problem with her supervisor, Unicare’s regional director of operations, who gave her some recruiting suggestions. Respondent also requested monetary assistance to advertise out-of-state, but this request was denied. Nonetheless, in June 1993, Respondent was able to hire a director of nursing. In the interim, while the hiring search was going on, the assistant director of nursing filled in and Unicare’s regional office sent in a temporary director from another area. In June 1993, Respondent hired Ms. Paderoff, a woman over 60 years old, as director of nursing. However, though her performance at first was good, Ms. Paderoff began to fail to show up for work, and the assistant director would not support her. Her effectiveness was, therefore, diminished. Ms. Paderoff was an experienced nurse - knowledgeable and capable. While she worked at Richey Manor, she was given goals for the nursing department and immediately began implementing them. She was supportive and worked well until the end of 1993. At that time the facility’s personnel problems began to take their toll on her and she threatened to resign. Respondent attempted to support Ms. Paderoff, and Ms. Paderoff withdrew her resignation, but it shortly became apparent her performance had deteriorated badly. Respondent felt that additional supervision was necessary and met weekly with Ms. Paderoff and the other department heads to evaluate their expectations. Ultimately, Paderoff terminated employment. In mid-February 1994, Respondent was able to hire an assistant director and a month after Paderoff left, Respondent hired a very experienced director of nursing. At that point, finally, both the director and assistant director were qualified in their jobs. The problems faced by the facility continued, however, and in May 1994, Respondent was fired. In October 1995, the Agency sought to impose an administrative fine of $1,575 against Unicare for the deficiencies relating to insufficient staff and improper handling of pressure sores identified during the tenure of Respondent but still uncorrected by February 2, 1995. Respondent contends that at the very beginning of her employment at Richey Manor she recognized the staffing problems and sought to correct them. She contacted the local community college’s nursing department to attempt to recruit, as did the director of nursing, who also served as nurse consultant to the college. She sent recruitment letters to over 100 nurses without any response. She encouraged nursing students to perform their rotations at Richey Manor, and she tried to get a pay raise approved for certified nursing assistants (CNA). She also tried to retain and supplement the existing nursing staff by introducing CNA helpers, instituted perfect attendance bonuses, established a recruitment and retention committee to brainstorm ways to get and keep nursing staff, and had two licensed nurses mentor new nursing employees. She also had plans for offering continuing education units in the area, and looked into the possibility of developing an in-house CNA training program. Ms. Ortiz claims her time as administrator was spent evaluating the activities of eight departments in the facility. She spent a lot of time with hiring and replacing staff, including department heads. She started her work day at 7:00 a.m., and her day would end at around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. She would also periodically come in on weekends to show support for the staff and to see what was going on, and would attend the monthly family dinners hosted by the facility. During January and February 1993, as a result of the weekly reports of the nursing staff, Respondent sent reports of resident pressure sores to the company’s regional and national office. As she became more acquainted with the problem, she set goals to address it, starting in March or April 1993. She instructed the director of nursing, when she first came on board, to look into and assess the program in effect and to make recommendations to improve the system. Though Respondent claims this worked well, in fact, the problem continued. Respondent claims that in July 1993 she developed a skin-care program at Richey Manor to address the problem and it appeared the director of nursing was enthusiastically supporting it. In a letter to the company dated November 12, 1993, Respondent outlined the local actions taken regarding skin-care and observed that the facility had experienced a “marked decrease in in-house acquired decubes,” but this apparently was not so. In addition, Respondent contends that Unicare’s skin care policy and procedures were followed at Richey Manor. This policy includes a risk assessment program and continuing observations of factors bearing on the potential for developing decubetes - all the things Respondent claimed she had implemented in her referenced letter to the company. Notwithstanding those efforts, from November 1993 to February 1994, residents who already suffered from pressure sores continued to be admitted to the facility, and it was also during this time that the performance of the director of nursing deteriorated, as previously described. Nonetheless, from February 1994 onward, more emphasis was placed on staff to deal with the pressure sore problem, and the corporate office got more involved as well. The company stepped into the picture because at a meeting at the regional office which she attended in January 1994, she requested the approval of an incontinence care product, and the provision of nurse consultants to train the local staff. Both requests were denied by the company. At a similar meeting held in February or March 1994, the request for this product was again made and again denied. All during this time, Respondent believed she was being attentive to the needs of her residents. She was open to and sought suggestions from staff on the issues confronting the facility, and contacted corporate staff to discuss the problems with them. Apparently, the Agency was not satisfied with Respondent’s efforts and concluded the facility no longer merited a regular license. On May 12, 1994, the Agency changed the rating for Richey Manor to conditional, and, as was noted previously, Respondent was dismissed shortly thereafter. Mr. Pileggi characterized Respondent’s emphasis on recruiting high acuity level residents as being an example of mismanagement. As a for-profit institution, corporate policy sought achievement of a certain levels of resident census and income/profit. Corporate goals called for a resident census of between 95 and 97 percent of capacity. Consistent therewith, Respondent sought to obtain more private pay residents. While Respondent admits to seeking to obtain private pay/insurance pay residents, she categorically denies at any time seeking to admit more high acuity level residents, or of admitting a resident over the objection of the director of nursing. The decision of admission to Richey Manor was a collegial decision of a committee with Respondent having final authority. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any correlation between the source of payment and acuity level, and Ms. Schild, also a nursing home administrator and owner, categorically indicates there is none. Though Respondent may not have sought high acuity level residents, she also did not seek to reduce the case load by declining to admit residents who required a high level of care. The documents considered by Mr. Pileggi and the Board were also reviewed by Kelly Schild, a nursing home administrator and expert in nursing home administration. Based on her review of the documents and what she heard at hearing regarding the Respondent’s actions, she concluded that Respondent took all steps necessary to address the items listed in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent had a care plan in place and made repeated but unfulfilled requests to her corporate headquarters to redress her staffing problems. In her opinion, Respondent had a more than adequate plan for identifying residents at risk from pressure sores and did everything a prudent nursing home administrator could do to address the issues confronting her in light of the lack of financial and other support from her company. Ms. Schild does not believe Respondent repeatedly acted in a manner contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of her residents. To the contrary, Respondent repeatedly addressed the issue of insufficient staff and the pressure sore problem. Respondent was hampered in the performance of her duties by her corporate hierarchy which prevented her from taking appropriate corrective action. Even in light of corporate resistance, Respondent did all a reasonable and prudent nursing home administrator could do. Nonetheless, Ms. Schild notes that if she had confronted the problems Respondent was having with pressure sores, she would not have admitted any new residents with the same problem. In fact, she would not admit any new residents if she had insufficient staff to support the existing resident census. It is in this area that Respondent’s actions fell most below acceptable standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing Home Administrators enter a Final Order in this matter imposing an administrative fine of $1,575 on Respondent, and placing her license as a nursing home administrator on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions relating to restriction of her practice to only supervised employment as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Williams and Holz, P.A. 355 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 1341 Timberlane Road Suite No. 101-A Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue DOAH Case No. 01-3072: Whether Respondent's licensure status should be reduced from standard to conditional. DOAH Case No. 01-3616: Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated August 23, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is the state Agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing homes operating in the State of Florida. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. Jacaranda Manor operates a 299-bed licensed nursing home at 4250 66th Street, North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The facility has a staff of approximately 225 persons, including 15 registered nurses ("RNs"), 25 licensed practical nurses ("LPNs"), and 100-125 certified nursing assistants ("CNAs"). Contract nurses also work at the facility on a daily basis. Jacaranda Manor accepts residents from throughout the United States. It is known as a facility that accepts residents with psychiatric or behavioral idiosyncrasies that other nursing homes might be unwilling to handle. Jacaranda Manor residents are admitted from state mental hospitals, the psychiatric units of general hospitals, assisted living facilities, group homes, and other nursing homes. Jacaranda Manor also accepts admissions from the Pinellas County Jail, mostly homeless persons whose mental condition makes them inappropriate for a jail setting. While all of Jacaranda Manor's residents have a primary diagnosis relating to a need for nursing home care, almost 90 percent of its residents have a specific mental illness as a secondary diagnosis. All of the residents cited in the AHCA survey deficiencies suffered from mental disorders. One hundred percent of Jacaranda Manor's residents receive services related to mental illness or retardation, compared to a statewide average of 2.6 percent. Jacaranda Manor's population includes residents with Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, dementia, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's chorea, spinal cord injuries and closed head injuries. Over 97 percent of Jacaranda Manor's residents are expected never to be discharged. More than 40 of Jacaranda Manor's residents have lived there for at least 25 years. Statewide, 59.2 percent of nursing home residents are never expected to be discharged. Two-thirds of Jacaranda Manor's residents are male, as opposed to a statewide average of 31.3 percent. Thirty- five percent of Jacaranda Manor's population is under age 50. Ninety-one percent of Jacaranda Manor's residents are Medicaid recipients, as opposed to a statewide average of 64 percent. Jacaranda Manor also operates the HCR Training Center, a licensed vocational school for CNAs, located across the street from the main nursing home. The center provides free training for prospective CNAs, and Jacaranda Manor employs the trainees and graduates. The course of study lasts six weeks, and each class usually has 20-25 students. The school day consists of four hours of classes followed by paid on-the-job training at Jacaranda Manor. Students generally work 30 hours per week at Jacaranda Manor. As part of its effort to create a home-like atmosphere for residents, Jacaranda Manor does not require staff to wear uniforms. The facility has no particular dress code for employees, aside from a requirement that they wear safe, protective shoes. Some of the administrative personnel wear name tags, but are otherwise indistinguishable from other employees. Thus, an outside observer could not be certain, without further inquiry, whether the "staff person" she sees in the facility is a nurse, a CNA, a CNA trainee, or a maintenance worker. The standard form used by AHCA to document survey findings, titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction," is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. The individual deficiencies are noted on the form by way of identifying numbers commonly called "Tags." A Tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated and provides a summary of the violation, specific factual allegations that the surveyors believe support the violation, and two ratings which indicate the severity of the deficiency. One of the ratings identified in a Tag is a "scope and severity" rating, which is a letter rating from A to L with A representing the least severe deficiency and L representing the most severe. The second rating is a "class" rating, which is a numerical rating of I, II, or III, with I representing the most severe deficiency and III representing the least severe deficiency. On April 3 through 6, 2001, AHCA conducted a licensure and certification survey of Jacaranda Manor, to evaluate the facility's compliance with state and federal regulations governing the operation of nursing homes. The survey noted one deficiency related to difficulty in opening two exit doors at the facility, but noted no deficiencies as to resident care. AHCA found Jacaranda Manor to be in substantial compliance with 42 C.F.R., Part 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities. Pursuant to the mandate of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration, or "HCFA"), AHCA maintains a "survey integrity and support branch," also known as the "validation team." To ensure the quality and consistency of its survey process, AHCA sends the validation team to re- survey facilities that have received deficiency-free initial surveys. Because its April 2001 survey revealed no deficiencies related to resident care, Jacaranda Manor was considered deficiency-free. On May 8 through 11, 2001, AHCA's validation team conducted a second survey at Jacaranda Manor. The validation team alleged a total of thirteen deficiencies during the May 2001 survey. At issue in these proceedings were deficiencies identified as Tag F241 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(a), relating to resident dignity); Tag F250 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(g), relating to social services); and Tag F272 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.20(b)(1), relating to resident assessment). All of the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey were classified as Class III under the Florida classification system for nursing homes. At the time of the survey, Class III deficiencies were defined as those having "an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than Class I or Class II deficiencies." Section 400.23(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2001). Jacaranda Manor disputed the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey and elected to go through the federally authorized Informal Dispute Resolution ("IDR") process. See 42 C.F.R. Section 488.331. The IDR process allows the facility to present information to an AHCA panel, which may recommend that the deficiencies alleged in the survey be deleted, sustained, or modified. Under AHCA's application of the process, the three-member AHCA panel considers the facility's information and then makes a recommendation to Susan Acker, the director of AHCA's health standards and quality unit, who makes the final decision. The IDR meeting was held via teleconference on June 11, 2001. The IDR resulted in AHCA's upholding all the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey. AHCA modified the state level classification of Tag F241 from Class III to Class II. At the time of the survey, Class II deficiencies were defined as "those which the Agency determines have a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I deficiencies." Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2000). This change in classification was recommended by the IDR panel and approved by Ms. Acker. The IDR meeting also resulted in AHCA's changing Tag F272 to Tag F309 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25, relating to quality of care) and to classify the alleged Tag F309 deficiency as Class II. This change was made by Ms. Acker alone. The IDR panel recommended upholding the original Class III, Tag F272 findings, but increasing the federal scope and severity rating from D (no actual harm but with potential for more than minimal harm) to G (actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy). Ms. Acker overruled that recommendation and imposed the change to Tag F309. Based on the increased severity of the alleged deficiencies in Tags F241 and F309, from Class III to Class II, AHCA imposed a conditional license on Jacaranda Manor, effective May 15, 2001. The license expiration date was February 28, 2002. On June 19 and 20, 2001, AHCA conducted a follow-up survey of Jacaranda Manor to determine whether the deficiencies alleged in the May 2001 survey had been corrected. The survey team determined that Tags F241 and F250 were uncorrected Class III deficiencies. This determination resulted in the filing of an Administrative Complaint seeking imposition of a $2,000 civil penalty. May 2001 Survey A. Tag F241 The May 2001 validation survey allegedly found violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(a), which states that a facility must "promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each resident's dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her individuality." In the parlance of the federal Health Care Financing Administration Form 2567 employed by AHCA to report its findings, this requirement is referenced as "Tag F241." Tag F241 is commonly referred to as the "quality of life" or "dignity" tag. For purposes of the Form 2567, the validation team gave the alleged deficiencies on the May 2001 survey a federal scope and severity rating of E for Tag F241. A rating of E indicates that there is a pattern of deficiencies causing no actual harm to the residents but with potential to cause more than minimal harm. After the IDR process, the federal scope and severity rating for Tag F241 was increased to H, meaning that there is a pattern of deficiencies causing actual harm that is less than immediate jeopardy to the health or safety of the residents. The increase of the federal scope and severity rating from E to H corresponded to the increase of the state level classification from Class III to Class II. The Form 2567 for the May 2001 survey listed nine separate incidents under Tag F241, the dignity tag. The first surveyor observation involved Resident 31, or "R-31": On 5/11/01 at 8:30 a.m., R-31 was observed in a 4 bed room, sitting on his/her bed eating breakfast. The resident had no clothes on, had a colostomy bag and foley catheter visible to anyone walking by in the hallway. A staff member went into the room to another resident but did not cover R-31. A second staff member came to the doorway of the room to talk to the first staff member and also did not attempt to cover the resident. Marsha Lisk was the AHCA team coordinator for the May 2001 survey and was the team member who recorded the observation of R-31. Ms. Lisk stated that this was a random observation, made without benefit of reviewing R-31's records. Ms. Lisk could not identify the two staff members who failed to cover R-31, aside from a recollection that one of them was a CNA. She was "astounded" that the staff persons did not intervene to cover the naked resident, especially because they could see that Ms. Lisk was standing in the doorway taking notes. Ms. Lisk would have thought nothing more of the incident had the staff members done anything to obscure the view of the resident from the hallway. Ms. Lisk admitted that R-31 appeared to be in no distress, and that no other resident complained about his nudity. Twenty minutes after this observation, Ms. Lisk saw R-31 fully clothed and being pushed in a wheelchair down the hall. Ms. Lisk noted this incident as a deficiency because she believed nudity cannot be considered to meet community standards under any circumstances. Even if the resident consciously preferred nudity, or was so mentally incapacitated as to be unaware he was nude, it was staff's responsibility to cover the resident, pull a curtain around him, or move his bed to a place where it could not be seen from the hall. At the hearing, it was established that R-31 was a 59-year-old male with multiple medical and psychiatric diagnoses, including schizophrenia and dementia due to organic brain syndrome. He preferred to sleep in the nude and to dress himself, though he required some assistance to do so properly. He was able to close his own privacy curtain. R-31 was very resistant when staff approached to dress him, to the point of physically lashing out. R-31 would refuse to eat if he was pushed to clothe himself near meal time. Carol Heintz, Jacaranda Manor's psychiatric nurse manager, stated that the main goal was to get R-31 to eat his breakfast, and that staff was concerned that any effort to dress him would disrupt his meal. Ms. Heintz offered no reason why the door could not be closed or the privacy curtain drawn while R-31 ate his breakfast in the nude. R-31 also preferred to keep his colostomy uncovered. Staff would cover it and encourage him to keep it covered, but he would refuse to do so. Ms. Lisk, the surveyor, admitted that she did not review R-31's record even after her observation. She made no attempt to interview R-31 and admitted that she was unaware of his habits and preferences. The second surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 21,1 or "R-21", and stated: During the tour on 5/08/01, at approximately 10 a.m., a staff member invited the surveyor into a room to meet [R-21]. He/she was in adult briefs uncovered lying on his/her bed. There was no attempt to cover the resident to insure privacy. At approximately 4:40 p.m. [R-21] was observed from the hallway lying in bed in his/her adult brief with no pants on and the privacy curtain not drawn. Kriste Mennella was the survey team member who recorded the observation of R-21, identified only as a male resident. She did not review the facility's records relating to R-21, and offered no testimonial details beyond the facts set forth in her observation. She did not interview the resident and did not know whether the resident was able to respond to questions. Jacaranda Manor offered no explanation as to why the door could not have been closed or the privacy curtain drawn to prevent passersby from seeing R-21 uncovered in his bed. The third surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 8, or "R-8," and stated: [R-8] was observed on 5/8/01 wheeling out of the dining area with several staff present. He had a black polo shirt on inside out and his Khaki pants, along with his adult brief, were down to his knee's [sic] exposing his right lower side and hip. There was no intervention by staff. He was unshaven and had dirty hand [sic] and his fingernails were ragged and dirty. His hair was unkempt. On 5/9/01 through out [sic] the day [R-8] was observed to have on two different shoes. One was a tennis shoe with his name written across the top and the other a brown loafer. Ms. Mennella recorded the observations of R-8. Ms. Mennella identified the unnamed staff persons as "management folks" who were following the surveyors around the facility, and the person in charge of the dining room. These staff persons told Ms. Mennella on May 8 that they did not intervene because R-8 was "resistive to care." Ms. Mennella subsequently discussed R-8 with a CNA, who told her that the resident may or may not be combative, depending on how he is approached. Ms. Mennella believed that some intervention should have occurred even with a combative resident, if only verbal prompting to tell the resident that his pants were down and he should pull them up. She observed R-8 throughout the three days of the survey, but did not see him with his pants down again after the May 8 observation. On May 9, when she saw R-8 wearing unmatched shoes, Ms. Mennella went to the resident's room and confirmed that he did have matching shoes. R-8 was a 46-year-old male with multiple medical and psychiatric diagnoses, among them paranoid schizophrenia. R-8 saw a variety of mental health professionals, including a psychiatrist, a psychiatric ARNP for medication management, a psychologist for individual therapy, and a licensed clinical social worker for group therapy. R-8 was classified as an elopement risk, paranoid and suspicious with a history of aggression. R-8 did not require a wheelchair to ambulate. R-8 habitually carried his "things" (e.g., a radio, or a box containing items sent him by a relative) with him as he moved about the facility. He liked to use a wheelchair to more easily carry his possessions. R-8 dressed himself, usually with some assistance in the morning. He changed clothes five or six times a day. Sometimes he would wear two different outfits in layers, or wear unmatched shoes. Jacaranda Manor staff uniformly noted that there was nothing unusual in R-8 having his shirt on inside-out or backwards, because he was constantly taking his clothes off and on. R-8 liked to wear his pants unbuttoned. He often moved about the facility holding his pants up with one hand, and his pants would often droop down to his knees. Jacaranda Manor staff constantly intervened in an effort to keep R-8 properly clothed. He was sometimes compliant, but other times would resist pulling up his pants. He would curse and run out of the room, or threaten to tell the President of the United States about his treatment. R-8 was indifferent to his appearance, displaying anxiety about his clothing only when staff attempted to change it. He would muss his hair as soon as it was brushed. His hands would get dirty because R-8 had a habit of rooting on the ground or through ashtrays for cigarette butts to smoke. Since the survey, Jacaranda Manor has addressed this problem by installing ashtrays that the residents cannot reach into. Ms. Mennella testified that she knew nothing about R-8's preferences or behaviors regarding clothing. She did not know he had a habit of tousling his own hair. She did not know he had a habit of rooting for cigarettes. She did not ask who wrote R-8's name on his shoe. Jacaranda Manor has a policy of not marking residents' clothing, for privacy reasons. However, R-8 would write his own name on his shoes and other items he received from his family because he was proud of them. The fourth surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned an unnamed resident: During an observation on 5/9/01, outside in the lifestyles patio area, at approximately 9:10 a.m., a staff person who was on break under the pavilion shouted across the courtyard to a resident in a loud voice, "MR. (name) PULL UP YOUR PANTS." There was [sic] several staff on break and at least 15 other residents out side [sic] in the patio area at the time. Ms. Mennella recorded this observation. She testified that the staff person who yelled was an aide. By the time she looked to see whom the staff person was calling to, Ms. Mennella could see no resident with his or her pants down. Not having seen the resident, Ms. Mennella was unable to say whether the staff person could have reached the resident before his or her pants came down. Her concern was the tone and manner in which the instruction was given, and the embarrassment it could have caused the resident. Despite not having seen the resident, Ms. Mennella was certain that the staff person was addressing a male. Rosa Redmond, the director of nursing at Jacaranda Manor, testified that she learned of the incident shortly after it happened. A CNA and a trainee from the HCR Training Center told her of the incident. It was the trainee who called out to the resident. The trainee told Ms. Redmond that a female resident's slacks were starting to fall. The trainee was concerned that the resident would fall, and could not reach the resident in time to pull up her slacks, so the trainee called out to the resident. The fifth surveyor observation on Tag F241 was a general statement: Residents were observed during numerous random observations out in the patio area during all three days of the survey to have on only socks, no shoes on their feet. As a result the socks were black on the bottom. These general observations were made by surveyors Mary Maloney and Kriste Mennella. Ms. Maloney testified that she has surveyed nursing homes from Pensacola to Key West, including homes that accept mental health residents and have secured units, but that she has never seen another facility in which residents are allowed to walk around barefoot or only in dirty socks. In her experience, staff would intervene and redirect the residents to put on shoes or change their socks. Ms. Maloney testified that she asked one resident why he was not wearing shoes. The resident told her that he did not want to wear shoes, and showed Ms. Maloney several pairs of shoes in his closet. Ms. Maloney did not cite this instance as a deficiency. However, she noted other shoeless residents who appeared confused or cognitively impaired, and did cite these instances as deficiencies because of staff's failure to intervene or to assess why the residents resisted wearing shoes. Ms. Maloney admitted that the survey team discussed the issue of residents not having proper footwear, and determined that it caused no actual harm to the residents. Jacaranda Manor did not contest the fact that residents often go barefoot or wear only socks. Through various sources, the facility maintains an ample supply of shoes and socks for the residents, and attempts to keep the residents properly shod. However, the facility also tolerates residents' preferences in clothing and footwear, and does not consider the question of footwear a pressing issue. Some residents simply do not want to wear shoes. Some residents feel steadier when they can feel the floor against their bare feet. Carol Heintz, Jacaranda Manor's psychiatric nurse manager, testified that neither therapists nor family members have ever expressed concerns over the issue. No evidence was presented that going barefoot or wearing socks posed a safety risk to the residents. The alleged harm was simply that some of the residents had dirty feet, or dirty socks on their feet. The sixth surveyor observation on Tag F241 offered more specific information on the question of resident footwear: The facility did not assist residents to wear appropriate footwear, in that some of the residents who resided on 1 West, the secure unit, were observed wearing socks without shoes or were barefoot throughout the survey. During the initial tour on 5/08/0 [sic], it was observed that several residents were pacing and walking throughout 1 West, with only socks on. Some of these residents walked outside on a sidewalk. The soles of these resident's [sic] white socks were soiled dark gray. On 05/08/01, at 6:50 p.m., there were three male residents observed to walk around the unit with white socks on. One of these residents had holes in the socks. On 05/09/01 at 10:15 a.m., there was one male resident walking outside in the enclosed courtyard wearing white socks, as well as a female resident who was pacing back and forth on the side walk wearing socks only. On the morning of 05/10/01 at 7:45 a.m., there was a male resident sitting in a chair outside who was barefoot. On 05/11/01, at 9:30 a.m., during the resident's [sic] arranged smoking time on the enclosed courtyard on 1 West, there were several residents walking around wearing only socks on their feet. One male resident was wearing black shoes, but they were different style shoes. This was shown to the direct care staff who were not aware. They were not sure if these shoes belonged to this resident. The staff also stated that some of the resident's [sic] shoes were missing or the residents chose not to wear their shoes. Resident #16 was observed walking around in loose-fitting cloth slippers with rubber soles on 05/09/01, on 05/10/01. The resident showed that she/he had one black dress shoe, because the other shoe was missing. On 05/11/01, the resident was wearing open- toed bedroom slippers. This resident was identified as a fall risk due to akinesia (involuntary movement of the body). The resident's current care plan included an approach "to wear proper fitting shoes with non-skid soles." The resident was observed with a shuffling gait. Resident 16, or "R-16," was a 39-year-old male with HIV, cerebral atrophy, and a history of AIDS-related dementia with delusions. He suffered from depression, anxiety, psychosis, paranoia, and bipolar disorder. He was childlike and possessed poor judgment, forming unrealistic plans to get a job and live on his own outside a clinical setting. R-16 was an elopement risk, which caused a community-based HIV program to reject him for participation. Jacaranda Manor tried placing R-16 in its open unit, but he tried to leave without telling anyone, which necessitated placing him in the facility's secure unit. R-16 abused alcohol, liked to smoke and drink coffee constantly, and was prone to giving away his clothes. R-16 had pronounced preferences as to footwear. While he would occasionally wear regular shoes, he most often wore a pair of fuzzy, open-toed slippers. He would have a temper tantrum if not allowed to wear his slippers. R-16 was at risk of slipping and falling due to akinesia, and staff explained to him the potential safety problems in wearing slippers. R-16 had a peculiar gait, described by Jacaranda Manor personnel as "shuffling" or as a "sashay." His slippers had rubber soles to help prevent slipping. The seventh surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 32, or "R-32", and an unnamed resident: On 05/08/01, at 6:50 p.m., during the evening meal, [R-32] was observed from the hallway, sitting in a chair in his room wearing only a t-shirt and an incontinent brief. Several staff were observed to walk past this resident's room and did not attempt to intervene. On 05/09/01, at 10:15 a.m., during a random observation, there was a confused male resident walking outside in the enclosed courtyard, who was removed his pants [sic] and exposed his incontinent brief. There was a female resident pacing back and forth nearby. A direct care staff person who was escorting another resident, walked past this resident without intervening. The surveyor went inside to inform the medication nurse of the situation. Mary Maloney was the surveyor who recorded the observation of R-32 and the unnamed resident. R-32 was a male resident who preferred not to wear trousers. Jacaranda Manor staff tried to convince R-32 to wear trousers. Staff tried different kinds of pants, such as pull-ups, zippered pants, and shorts. R-32 would occasionally accede to wearing the shorts, but while in his room always dressed in his brief and a t-shirt. Jacaranda Manor did not dispute Ms. Maloney's observation of R-32. Jacaranda Manor was unable to address Ms. Maloney's subsequent observation, as she was unable to name the "confused male resident," the pacing female resident, or the staff person who allegedly failed to intervene. Ms. Maloney's observation implies that the unnamed staff person should have intervened, but offers no information as to whether the staff person could have safely abandoned the other resident he or she was escorting at the time. The eighth surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 4, or "R-4," and stated: During the breakfast meal observation on 05/09/01 and 05/10/01 at about 9:30 a.m., [R-4] was observed to be fed her/his breakfast at the nurse's station. The staff person was observed to be standing and feeding the resident who was seated in a reclining chair. The resident's meal tray was placed on the counter of the nurse's station, where the resident could not see her/his food. There was a high level of staff activity and residents walking around the area. Ms. Maloney was the surveyor who recorded this observation. Both Alma Hirsch, Jacaranda Manor's chief administrator, and Carol Heintz, the psychiatric nurse manager, testified that R-4 is fed entirely by means of a gastrointestinal tube and thus could not have been eating breakfast at the nurses' station. At the hearing, Ms. Maloney conceded that she might have misidentified the resident on the Form 2567, but was certain that she saw a particular male resident being fed breakfast at the nurses' station on May 9 and 10. Jacaranda Manor did not contest the fact that residents are often fed at the nurses' station. AHCA cited this incident as a deficiency because feeding the resident at a busy nurses' station does not promote his dignity. Ms. Maloney inquired and learned that the resident could not be fed in his room because it was being painted. She acknowledged that the resident in question was difficult to feed, and so prone to violent outbursts that Jacaranda Manor had removed all the furniture from his room for his safety. Ms. Maloney nonetheless thought that Jacaranda Manor staff should have chosen a quieter, less stimulative environment in which to feed the resident. The ninth surveyor observation on Tag F241 concerned Resident 16, or "R-16," and stated: On 05/10/01, at about 3:30 p.m., [R-16] approached the nurse's station and asked the medication nurse for some coffee. (The resident had his/her own personal jar of instant coffee.) The nurse denied the resident the coffee. The nurse stated that the resident's coffee was being rationed to several times per day. According to the nurse, the resident's coffee consumption was restricted because the resident prefers the coffee extra strong, and the resident exhibits effects from the excessive caffeine, described as "bouncing off the walls." From review of the clinical record, there was no physician's order for a caffeine restriction. According to facility policy, the coffee served to the residents is decaffeinated, the nurse reported. Ms. Maloney recorded this observation. R-16 is the same resident cited in the sixth surveyor observation for wearing open-toed slippers. Jacaranda Manor serves only decaffeinated coffee to all residents. R-16 had a personal, "special" jar of instant decaffeinated coffee that was in fact provided by Ms. Hirsch, at her own expense. R-16 was allowed to believe that his "special" coffee was caffeinated. R-16 was incapable of making his own coffee. His jar of coffee was kept in the medicine room near the nurses' station, and R-16 had to ask a nurse to prepare his coffee. The nurse would go to the kitchen for hot water, then prepare the coffee. R-16 drank coffee all day, every day. There were no medical restrictions on how much coffee he could drink. He carried a large mug, and would ask the nurses to prepare his coffee as many as thirty times a day. R-16 would ask insistently until his coffee was made. If the nurses were not busy, they would make the coffee immediately. If they were in the middle of a procedure, they would ask R-16 to wait until they were finished. Elaine Teller was the nurse referenced in the ninth observation. She was the charge nurse at the time of the incident. Ms. Teller was passing medications and speaking to Ms. Maloney when R-16 approached and demanded his coffee. Ms. Teller told R-16 that she was busy and would get his coffee in a few minutes. Ms. Maloney testified that Ms. Teller's response was "inappropriate," in that it had the potential to embarrass R- 16 in front of the people at the nurses' station. Ms. Maloney believed it would have been more appropriate to take R-16 aside and speak with him. Ms. Teller denied treating R-16 rudely or disrespectfully. She was "firm" with R-16 "because that's what [he] needs." Ms. Teller was close to R-16, such that he referred to her as his "second mom." At the time, Ms. Maloney voiced no concern over Ms. Teller's treatment of R-16. Ms. Teller testified that she had delayed but never "denied" coffee to R-16. She had on occasion lectured R-16 that he drank too much coffee, but never stated that R-16's coffee intake was restricted. Surveyors employ a "Guidance to Surveyors" document for long-term care facilities contained in the "State Operations Manual" promulgated by the federal CMS. The guidelines for Tag F241 state: "Dignity" means that in their interactions with residents, staff carries out activities that assist the resident to maintain and enhance his/her self-esteem and self-worth. For example: Grooming residents as they wish to be groomed (e.g., hair combed and styled, beards shaved/trimmed, nails clean and clipped); Assisting residents to dress in their own clothes appropriate to the time of day and individual preferences; Assisting residents to attend activities of their own choosing; Labeling each resident's clothing in a way that respects his or her dignity; Promoting resident independence and dignity in dining (such as avoidance of day-to-day use of plastic cutlery and paper/plastic dishware, bibs instead of napkins, dining room conducive to pleasant dining, aides not yelling); Respecting resident's private space and property (e.g., not changing radio or television station without resident's permission, knocking on doors and requesting permission to enter, closing doors as requested by the resident, not moving or inspecting resident's personal possessions without permission); Respecting resident's social status, speaking respectfully, listening carefully, treating residents with respect (e.g., addressing the resident with a name of the resident's choice, not excluding residents from conversations or discussing residents in community setting); and Focusing on residents as individuals when they talk to them and addressing residents as individuals when providing care and services. The same document sets forth survey procedures, and emphasizes examining the context of staff's actions: . . . As part of the team's information gathering and decision-making, look at the actions and omissions of staff and the uniqueness of the individual sampled resident and on the needs and preferences of the resident, not on the actions and omissions themselves. The issue of patient dignity was the subject of extensive testimony at the hearing. Ann Sarantos, survey integrity and support manager for AHCA and an expert in long- term care nursing practice, testified that the surveyors understood that residents will remove their shoes and clothing, particularly in a facility with the resident population of Jacaranda Manor. The survey team acknowledged that Jacaranda Manor's population was unique in terms of the number of mentally ill residents. Ms. Sarantos stated that AHCA's central concern was staff's lack of sensitivity. The surveyors repeatedly saw staff making no effort to cover the residents or get them into shoes, even when the surveyors pointed out the problems. Ms. Sarantos stated that AHCA does not set a different dignity standard for patients with psychiatric or organic conditions. She noted that a high percentage of residents in any nursing home will have some form of dementia or behavioral problem, and that the facility must plan its care to manage these problems. She stated that AHCA employs the same survey procedures for all facilities, regardless of the patient population. Patricia Reid Caufman, an expert in social work, opined that the residents are nursing home patients regardless of their diagnoses. When the facility accepts these patients, it does so on the basis that it can meet their needs, including their dignity needs. Susan Acker is the nursing services director of AHCA's health standards and quality unit. She is an expert in long-term care and was the person who made the final decision as to the classification of Jacaranda Manor's deficiencies. Ms. Acker stated that the provision of adequate clothing and footwear is a "fundamental level of compliance." The individuals listed under the Tag F241 deficiencies had portions of their bodies exposed in a way that does not conform to the community standard of a nursing home. The "community standard" for a nursing home includes an expectation that a resident will be dressed in his or her own clothes and assisted in dressing and making appropriate selections, or, if the resident's judgment is impaired, will be provided with selections allowing them to appear in a dignified manner. Ms. Mennella offered the common sense view that, in applying a "community standard," the surveyor should ask herself whether a mentally impaired resident would be embarrassed under normal circumstances. The exposure of these residents demonstrated noncompliance with the requirement that the facility maintain or enhance the self-esteem and dignity of the residents. Ms. Acker acknowledged the right of the residents to select their own clothing or to be undressed within the confines of their rooms. However, the facility must continually provide these residents with encouragement or assistance in dressing. Staff must act if the residents lack the ability to make their own judgments. The issue was not that the facility should deny choice to the residents, but that a therapeutic environment should be established that maintained and enhanced resident dignity. Ms. Acker found that the "key point" in the deficiencies was the proximity of staff to the cited residents. In each instance involving nudity or improper dress in a resident's room, staff was available to pull the privacy curtain or to assist the resident in redressing. The staff person may not have minded the resident's dress, but should have acted to protect the resident's dignity when a stranger walked into or past the room. Staff could have re- established the community standard by clothing the resident or providing the privacy that would protect the resident's dignity, but failed to do so. Ms. Acker characterized these incidents as staff's failure to provide services to the community standard for residents who were unable to exercise their own judgment to maintain their own dignity. Ms. Acker testified that, to change the scope and severity of Tag F241 from E to H, the IDR panel members would have to believe that the situation resulted in a negative outcome that compromised the ability of the resident to maintain or reach the highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being, as defined in the Resident Assessment Protocol ("RAP"). She concurred with upgrading Tag F241 to a Class II deficiency because there was a direct impact on the residents observed and on those residents who witnessed the failure to deliver adequate care. Carol Heintz, the psychiatric nurse manager and an expert in psychiatric nursing care, opined that Jacaranda Manor is not below community standards in terms of patient dignity. She agreed that "it would be nice" if more than 200 residents with physical and mental health issues wanted to wear appropriate clothing, shoes and socks every day, but for these people "things like that may not be the priority that it is to you or [me]." Clothing issues can be difficult with some residents, because they do not perceive their unorthodox dress or even nudity as an issue. If a resident resists wearing proper clothing or using a privacy curtain, the staff just keeps trying to reinforce proper dress and modesty. Ms. Heintz acknowledged the facility's responsibility to respect the rights of others not to be subjected to the improper dress of residents. However, she also stated that residents' modes of dress have had no adverse impact on them, and that no therapist or any resident's family has ever complained about the facility's methods of dealing with clothing and footwear issues. In light of all the factual and expert testimony, it is found that the IDR panel's decision to upgrade Tag F241 from Class III, with a scope and severity rating of E, to Class II, with a scope and severity rating of H, was supported by the evidence presented, though not as to all nine observations made under Tag F241. The first observation, for R-31, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. R-31 was sitting on his bed eating breakfast in the nude and was plainly observable from the hallway. Staff persons were present but did nothing to remedy the situation. Granting that it may have been counterproductive to attempt to dress R-31 while he was eating, no evidence was presented to show that pulling the privacy curtain or closing the door would have disturbed R- 31's meal. Even if, as Jacaranda Manor implied, these staff persons may not have been direct care employees, they should have alerted the nursing staff to the situation. The dignity of R-31 and of any other resident who happened to pass his room were directly affected by this incident. The second observation, for R-21, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. R-21 was seen twice lying in bed wearing uncovered adult briefs. Jacaranda Manor offered no reason why the resident could not be covered or why the view from the hallway could not be obscured. The dignity of R-21 and of any other resident who happened to pass his room were directly affected by this incident. The third observation, for R-8, does not support the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. The initial rating of this as a Class III deficiency was supported by the evidence. While the bare facts set forth in the observation were concededly accurate, the surveyor focused entirely "on the actions and omissions themselves," and made no effort to assess the "uniqueness of the individual sampled resident" or "the needs and preferences of the resident." The facts established that R-8 was subject to unbuttoning his pants and allowing them to droop. In three days of constant observation, Ms. Mennella witnessed one such brief incident. R-8 was also subject to digging for cigarette butts and tousling his own hair, making it very likely that at some point over a three-day period he could be observed with dirty hands and unkempt hair. R-8 wrote his own name on his shoes, because he was proud of them. Testimony established that staff of Jacaranda Manor conscientiously cared for R-8, but that it was impossible to maintain appropriate appearance for this resident all day, every day. There was no evidence of any impact on this resident's dignity or self-esteem. The fourth observation was of the staff member shouting to a resident to pull up her pants. This observation does not support the Agency's finding a Class II or a Class III deficiency. Had the surveyor made inquiry into the circumstances of the incident, she would have learned that it involved a sudden reaction to a potentially critical situation. The trainee called out to the resident because she couldn't reach the resident in time to keep her pants from falling, which in turn could have caused the resident to fall. Concern for the resident's possible embarrassment cannot be held more important than the resident's physical safety when an emergency arises. The fifth and sixth observations involved residents walking around barefoot, in only socks, or, in the case of R- 16, in slippers. The deficiencies noted for these observations do not support the Agency's finding a Class II or a Class III deficiency. The only harm alleged by the Agency was that the residents' dignity is impaired by their having dirty feet. It is found that Jacaranda Manor was acceding to the wishes of its residents regarding footwear, and that dirty feet or socks are a necessary and essentially harmless incident of choosing not to wear shoes. The seventh observation, of R-32 and an unnamed resident, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. As to the unnamed resident observed in the courtyard with his brief exposed, the surveyor could not provide enough information to allow Jacaranda Manor to defend itself. The surveyor could not name the resident, the female resident allegedly in the vicinity, or the staff person who allegedly walked past. This portion of the deficiency was unproven. However, the surveyor adequately stated her observation of R- 32, who was seen from the hallway sitting in a chair in his room, wearing only a t-shirt and adult brief. Several staff members walked past the room and did not intervene. Jacaranda Manor offered no reason why the resident could not be covered or why the view from the hallway could not be obscured. The dignity of R-32 and of any other resident who happened to pass his room were directly affected by this incident. The eighth observation, of a resident initially identified as R-4, supports the Agency's finding a Class II deficiency. The surveyor guidelines expressly describe promoting "dignity in dining." While the underlying facts explained why Jacaranda Manor could not feed the resident in his room, they did not explain why the resident was being fed at the busy, noisy nurses' station rather than in the dining room or some other, quieter location. The resident was difficult to feed and subject to violent outbursts, but these facts do not explain the choice of feeding the resident at the nurses' station, leading to the inference that this choice was likely made for the convenience of the nurses. The dignity of this resident was directly affected by this incident. The ninth observation, of R-16, does not support the Agency's finding a Class II or a Class III deficiency. The facts established that Ms. Teller, the nurse in question, had a close relationship with R-16 and could speak somewhat sternly to him without affecting his dignity or self-esteem. Ms. Teller's version of the incident is credited. Requiring R-16 to wait a few minutes for his coffee while Ms. Teller finished passing medications caused the resident no harm whatever. In summary, of the nine observations listed under Tag F241, four supported the Agency's finding of a Class II deficiency; one supported the initial finding of a Class III deficiency; and four supported a finding of neither a Class II or a Class III deficiency. Thus, the Agency's overall finding of a Class II deficiency for Tag F241 is supported by the record evidence. Tag F250 The May 2001 validation survey allegedly found a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.15(g), which states that a facility must "provide medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident," and sets forth the standards for resident social services. This requirement is referenced on Form 2567 as "Tag F250," or the "social services tag." For purposes of the Form 2567, the validation team gave the alleged deficiency on the May 2001 survey a federal scope and severity rating of D for Tag F250. A rating of D indicates that there is an isolated deficiency causing no actual harm to the resident but with potential to cause more than minimal harm. This alleged deficiency was rated Class III, and was not part of the basis for imposing a conditional license on Jacaranda Manor. Its significance is that it was determined to be an uncorrected deficiency in the June 2001 return survey, and thus formed part of the basis for the civil penalty imposed after the return survey. The May 2001 survey found one instance in which Jacaranda Manor allegedly failed to provide medically related social services. The surveyor's observation on Form 2567 concerned R-16, the same resident discussed above in the sixth and ninth observations under Tag F241: [R-16] was admitted to the facility on 09/29/00, and the resident's comprehensive assessment of [10/05/00]2 indicated that the resident had dental caries. The care plan stated that the resident's "teeth will be clean and oral mucosa will be free of signs and symptoms of infection at all times." One of the approaches on the care plan was for the "resident to see the Dentist as needed." The resident revealed that she/he had not seen a dentist since admission and desired dental services. Observation of the resident's teeth and gums, indicated that there was evidence of abnormal oral mucosa. There was no documentation in the resident's clinical record to indicate that the resident had seen the dentist since admission. The nursing management staff person was asked on 05/11/01, if there was any information to show that the resident had seen the dentist. Later that day, the nursing management staff indicated that the resident now has a dental appointment scheduled on 05/23/01. The lack of dental services can lead to dental problems, oral infection, changes in food consistency, and decrease resident's self-esteem. Ms. Maloney observed R-16 and noted that the edge of his gums was black, perhaps indicating periodontal disease. R-16 showed no evidence of pain and was eating normally. Ms. Maloney interviewed R-16, who told her he wanted to see a dentist. On May 11, 2001, Ms. Maloney told the director of nursing that she could find no indication in the record that R-16 had ever seen a dentist, and asked for any information not apparent in the record. Later that day, the director of nursing told Ms. Maloney that R-16 now had a dental appointment scheduled for May 23. Ms. Maloney was left with the understanding that nothing had been done for R-16 up to that time, and that his appointment was made only in response to her inquiry. The evidence established that R-16's dental appointment for May 23 had actually been scheduled by the facility on May 7, prior to the survey. The appointment was scheduled because R-16 had expressed to Ms. Hirsch a desire to have his teeth cleaned and whitened. The only complaint R-16 voiced about his teeth was that they were discolored. The key to Ms. Maloney's finding a deficiency was her impression that the facility did not respond to R-16's request to see a dentist until Ms. Maloney herself inquired and pressed the issue. In fact, the appointment had been made before the AHCA survey team arrived at Jacaranda Manor. The nurse manager to whom Ms. Maloney spoke was apparently unaware the appointment had been made. The evidence does not support the finding of a deficiency under Tag F250. Tag F309 As noted above, the deficiencies alleged under Tag F309 were originally placed under Tag F272. Tag F272 is the Form 2567 reference to violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.20(b), which states that a facility "must conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized, reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity," and sets forth at length the standards that must be observed in performing these comprehensive assessments. Tag F309 references 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25, which states that each resident "must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care," and sets forth at length the standards by which a facility's quality of care is measured. The significance of the change from Tag F272 to Tag F309 is that Tag F272 merely alleges a failure to conduct or update the assessment of the resident. Tag F309 alleges a deficiency in the quality of care provided to the resident, inherently a more serious violation. For purposes of the Form 2567, the validation team gave the alleged deficiencies on the May 2001 survey a federal scope and severity rating of D for Tag F272. A rating of D indicates that there are isolated deficiencies causing no actual harm to the residents but with potential to cause more than minimal harm. The IDR panel recommended upholding the deficiencies as cited by the survey team. However, Ms. Acker believed that the presence of a negative outcome for Resident 7, discussed below, merited changing the tag from F272 to F309 and making it a Class II deficiency with a federal scope and severity rating of G, meaning that there are isolated deficiencies causing actual harm that is less than immediate jeopardy to the health or safety of the residents. The May 2001 survey, as modified by the IDR process, set forth two alleged deficiencies under Tag F309. The first alleged deficiency concerned Resident 7, or "R-7:" [R-7] triggered on the Resident Assessment Protocol (RAP) Summary for behavior. On the 06/02/00 Minimum Data Set (MDS) this resident was coded as having moderate daily pain. Subsequently on the 02/22/01 MDS this resident was coded as having daily pain which was sometimes severe. During the initial tour at 9:30 a.m. on 05/08/01, the resident was described as refusing to get out of bed and refusing showers due to pain. Clinical record review and staff interview revealed there was no documentation of an ongoing evaluation of this resident's pain since 1999. The behavior assessment identified pain and chronic illness but did not reflect the increase in pain or an evaluation of the resident refusing care. R-7 was admitted to Jacaranda Manor on March 23, 1999. She received a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation upon admission. R-7 was a 41-year-old female, bipolar with a history of psychosis, dementia, and manic episodes. She was a hermaphrodite. Her physical illnesses included pickwickian syndrome, a condition characterized by obesity, decreased pulmonary function and somnolence. R-7 also suffered from psoriatic arthritis, a condition that caused her chronic pain and limited her movement. She complained of pain when being moved. When she was in bed and not moving, she did not complain of pain. Jacaranda Manor prepared a formal pain assessment of R-7 upon her admission. She was seen weekly by her attending physician, psychiatrists, and therapists, and was seen several times a day by the nursing staff. All of the medical professionals who saw her entered written notes into her medical record. AHCA's observation accurately notes that R-7's medical record lacks a document formally titled "evaluation" or "assessment" of R-7's pain, but testimony and documentary evidence at the hearing established that R-7's condition, including her pain, was consistently monitored and noted by Jacaranda Manor staff. Franklin May, a senior pharmacist, was the AHCA surveyor who made the observation of R-7. Mr. May interviewed R-7 and the treating nursing staff, and he reviewed the available medical records. Mr. May testified that he had "no problems with the way they were treating this lady." Mr. May's concern was that R-7's pain had apparently increased, and her condition deteriorated, but the facility could provide him with no documentation of a formal assessment or evaluation of her pain subsequent to her admission in 1999. Jacaranda Manor did not dispute Mr. May's contention as to documentation of formal assessments, but contended that medical staff "assessed" R-7 on a daily basis and that their chart notes constituted documentation of those assessments. This contention is credited to the extent that Jacaranda Manor established that nothing was lacking in the actual care provided to R-7, and that staff of Jacaranda Manor possessed a nuanced understanding of R-7's condition and of her somewhat mercurial personality as it affected her complaints of pain. It is not credited to the extent that Jacaranda Manor contends that ongoing, formal assessments of R-7's pain were superfluous. Mr. May's impression was that R-7's refusal to get out of bed and to take showers was a recent phenomenon indicating an increase in pain. In fact, R-7 was mostly bed- bound throughout her stay at Jacaranda Manor, and even before her admission. Her reported pain fluctuated from time to time, as did her amenability to taking her prescribed pain medications. The totality of the evidence established that R- 7's condition was at least stable, if not markedly improved, throughout her stay at Jacaranda Manor. In conclusion, the evidence supported Mr. May's contention that Jacaranda Manor's documentation of the care provided to R-7 was insufficient to permit a surveyor to obtain an accurate picture of her condition and treatment, and therefore supported the initial classification of Tag F272 in that R-7's formal assessment instruments were insufficiently updated. However, the evidence did not support changing the classification to Tag F309, because no actual deficiencies in R-7's care were proven or even alleged prior to Ms. Acker's review of the IDR process. The second alleged deficiency under Tag F309 concerned Resident 25, or "R-25:" [R-25] was admitted on 04/10/01 directly to the secure unit upon admission to the facility. The Resident had a primary diagnosis of Cancer of the lung and paranoid schizophrenia. The Resident was receiving Hospice in another skilled nursing facility in Tampa before he/she was sent to the hospital for violent outburst of behavior. Transfer social services document from the hospital indicate [sic] that resident is to be admitted to Jacaranda Manor with Hospice services. Monthly orders for this resident for April and May, 2001 reflected orders for Hospice. Interview of facility social services' staff, state [sic] that Resident was discontinued from Hospice due to "residents [sic] condition being stable" according to hospice. Contact was conducted with Life Path [the Tampa hospice] who confirm that this resident did meet Hospice criteria and that they do not service the St. Petersburg area and that was the only reason they had to discharge the resident. Hospice staff said that Jacaranda admissions person was told that they were responsible to secure the services of the Hospice covering the St. Petersburg area and they would then share their records with that Hospice. This resident was documented to be ambulatory throughout the secure unit and sociable with staff. Resident had episodes of shortness of breath and occasional use of oxygen. On 05/10/01 the resident developed cardiac arrest and was sent to the hospital by EMS where he/she was pronounced dead. The facility did not meet the needs of this resident for his/her terminal care needs. R-25 was a large, heavy-set 67-year-old male who had been diagnosed with lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), paranoid schizophrenia, and seizure disorder. R-25 had been a resident of a Tampa nursing home until a behavioral outburst caused his admission to the psychiatric unit of Tampa General Hospital for an adjustment of his medications. While in the Tampa nursing home, R-25 had received services from Life Path Hospice, which served patients in Hillsborough County, due to his lung cancer diagnosis. The decision had been made not to treat the cancer, and R-25 had been receiving hospice services for over one year. R-25 was an elopement risk and subject to violent outbursts, such that the Tampa nursing home declined to re- admit him after his hospital admission. Staff of Life Path Hospice knew of Jacaranda Manor's reputation for accepting this kind of difficult resident. Grizier Cruz, a mental health counselor at Life Path, contacted Sharon Laird, Jacaranda Manor's admissions director. Ms. Laird agreed to evaluate R-25 for admission, and Jacaranda Manor admitted R-25 on April 10, 2001. Ms. Laird testified that she initially asked Ms. Cruz whether Life Path would continue to provide services to R-25 at Jacaranda Manor, or whether Life Path would transfer the case to the hospice serving Pinellas County. Ms. Laird testified that Ms. Cruz told her that R-25 was stable and no longer in need of hospice services. Ms. Cruz denied telling anyone at Jacaranda Manor that R-25 was stable and not in need of hospice services. Ms. Cruz stated that she informed Jacaranda Manor that Life Path would be withdrawing services from R-25 because he was leaving Hillsborough County, Life Path's area of coverage. She testified that Jacaranda Manor would have to establish a physician for R-25 at the facility. The physician would have to write an order for hospice, at which time Life Path would make the referral to the Pinellas County hospice that would then come to Jacaranda Manor to evaluate R-25 for its program. When R-25 was admitted, Jacaranda Manor followed its standard assessment and care planning procedures, noting his diagnosis of lung cancer and the need to contact hospice. Linnea Gleason, social services director at Jacaranda Manor, testified that she contacted Life Path twice during the care planning process, and was told both times that R-25 was stable and in no need of hospice. Ms. Gleason's contemporaneous notes in R-25's chart are consistent with her testimony. Dr. Gabriel Decandido was R-25's physician at Jacaranda Manor. His examination revealed that R-25's cancer was apparently slow growing, because he was relatively pain free and did not appear to be at the end stage of life. Dr. Decandido was not surprised to learn that R-25 had lasted over one year on hospice; he was surprised that R-25 had been receiving hospice services at all. Dr. Decandido did not believe that R-25 needed hospice services. R-25 was stable, comfortable, not in pain, happy and smiling. At times, he used oxygen due to his COPD and continued smoking. He kidded with the nurses and went outside to smoke throughout the day. Dr. Decandido noted that R-25's schizophrenia made him a poor patient with whom to discuss death because such discussions could increase his psychosis and paranoia. Given R-25's entire situation, Dr. Decandido thought it best to allow R-25 to live out his life at Jacaranda Manor, walking around, talking to people, eating, drinking, and smoking. Another factor influencing Dr. Decandido's opinion was that x-rays taken of R-25 at Jacaranda Manor did not indicate lung cancer. Dr. Decandido did not dispute the diagnosis of lung cancer, but did dispute that R-25 was a man about to die from lung cancer. His findings from the x-rays were that R-25 suffered from congestive heart failure and possibly pneumonia. Ms. Gleason testified that she and her social services staff visited R-25 three times a week to offer counseling, but that R-25 showed no anxiety about his lung cancer and declined services. Elaine Teller was the charge nurse at Jacaranda Manor during R-25's admission. She directly asked R-25 on several occasions whether he wanted hospice. She explained the advantages of hospice care in managing his medications. On each occasion, R-25 declined hospice. Ms. Teller failed to note these declinations in R-25's chart. However, given that there was no physician's order for hospice and that R-25's capacity to consent was questionable at best, Ms. Teller's notations would have been superfluous in any event. Life Path Hospice informed Jacaranda Manor that it would be necessary to obtain the consent of R-25's only known relative, a daughter in Jacksonville, to commence hospice services in the event they were ordered by a physician. Ms. Laird of Jacaranda Manor contacted the daughter by telephone and sent her an admissions package by certified mail. The daughter did not accept delivery of the package. Thus, Jacaranda Manor never received signed admission documents from R-25's family, which would have included advance directives such as hospice. AHCA's contention that "[m]onthly orders for this resident for April and May, 2001 reflected orders for Hospice" is simply a misreading of R-25's record. The notation "hospice" appears under the term "advance directives" on a record document with the title "physicians orders and administration record." Despite its title, this sheet was used by Jacaranda Manor as a medication sheet. A notation of an advance directive for hospice was not a physician's order for hospice. Jacaranda Manor staff was fully aware that a physician's order for hospice would have been indicated by a special sticker on the sheet and by accompanying paperwork. Ms. Gleason explained this procedure to AHCA surveyors, who nonetheless cited these "orders" as deficiencies. R-25 died on May 10, 2001, one month after his admission to Jacaranda Manor. His death was caused by cardiac arrest, unrelated to his lung cancer diagnosis. Jacaranda Manor's version of events involving R-25 is credited. Other residents at the facility receive hospice services, and there is no reason to conclude that the facility would fail to implement a physician's order for hospice services for R-25. The evidence does not support the deficiency cited by AHCA, either under F272 or F309. In summary, the evidence did not support the change of Tag F272 to Tag F309. The evidence did support a Class III deficiency under Tag F272 as to the documentation of Jacaranda Manor's treatment of R-7. II. June 2001 Survey A. Tag F241 The June 2001 survey allegedly found two Class III violations of Tag F241, the "dignity tag," both from observations made on June 19, 2001, at 3:05 p.m. by surveyor Patricia Reid Caufman. The first observation involved Resident 19, or "R-19": [R-19] was lying in bed (mattress) on the floor and receiving one to one supervision from the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The resident was sleeping with the door open and the privacy curtain was not pulled around the resident. The resident faced toward the window with his adult briefs exposed to the hallway. The CNA was sitting on a chair in the hallway observing the resident. The CNA did not attempt to cover the resident to maintain his/her dignity. R-19 was a 60-year-old male with a history of dementia and a propensity for violent outbursts. R-19 had no safety awareness, and had done such things as pull his room air conditioning unit out of the wall and attempt to walk it out into the hallway. He had a great deal of psychomotor agitation, and persistently pulled at things. He was prone to falling into chairs or his bed, pulling down curtains and curtain rods. If approached abruptly, he might strike out. Three or four people could be needed to give him a bath. The medical staff constantly adjusted his medications in an effort to manage his behavior without over-sedating him. R-19 was very resistant to dressing, and could undress himself very quickly. Staff of Jacaranda Manor tried various strategies to keep him dressed, including one-piece outfits, clothing that zipped in the back, and hospital gowns with pajama bottoms, but nothing was entirely successful. Jacaranda Manor had taken steps to ensure his safety. R-19 had been placed in a private room at the back of his hallway to minimize his interactions with other residents. All furnishings had been removed from the room, save for a mattress on the floor. Padding was placed around the mattress to minimize his thrashing. The windowsills were padded, and the air conditioner protected. At the time of the June 2001 survey, R-19 was receiving 24-hour one-on-one care, for his own safety and that of the other residents. When R-19 slept, the CNA assigned to him was instructed to sit in the doorway to his room. A Dutch door was installed to his room. Once R-19 fell asleep, the bottom part of the door could be closed to obscure the view of passersby but still allow the CNA to peek over the top to check on him. Jacaranda Manor conceded the accuracy of Ms. Caufman's observation, but contended there was no alternative plan of care for R-19. The door could not be closed completely, because the resident then could not be observed by the CNA. Placing the CNA on a chair inside the room would defeat the purpose of removing all the furnishings for safety, and would have placed the CNA in jeopardy. The privacy curtain would obscure the CNA's view of the resident. R-19 was easily disturbed. Ms. Redmond, the director of nursing, testified that R-19 "needs to sleep when he wants to, because otherwise he is just up and going all the time." Ms. Redmond believed that any attempt to cover R-19 with a sheet would have awakened him, "and then he would have been up and going again and wouldn't have gotten any rest." Based upon the unique characteristics of this resident, and the extensive steps taken by Jacaranda Manor to ensure R-19's safety with some level of privacy, it is found that the evidence failed to establish that the observation of R-19 constituted a deficiency under Tag F241. Ms. Caufman's second observation under Tag F241 involved Resident 20, or "R-20": [R-20] was observed from the hallway lying in bed with the door open and the privacy curtains not pulled around the resident. The resident was wearing adult briefs and the front half of the resident was exposed. Two staff members passed by the open door and failed to intervene so as to protect resident dignity. R-20 was a male resident suffering from dementia. He would take off his gown or shirt while lying in bed. He was capable of opening and closing his own privacy curtain. Ms. Caufman could not identify the two staff members who passed the open door. Ms. Caufman's handwritten notes state that she observed R-20 uncovered at 3:05 p.m., but that staff had covered him when she next went past the room at 3:09 p.m. She did not explain why her formal statement omitted the fact that the resident was covered no more than four minutes after her observation. Jacaranda Manor offered no explanation as to why the door could not have been closed or the privacy curtain drawn to prevent passersby from seeing R-20 uncovered in his bed. On the other hand, Ms. Caufman's brief description of the incident, her failure to identify the staff members who allegedly ignored R-20, and her omission of a relevant fact render the situation ambiguous. As noted above, staff at Jacaranda Manor do not wear uniforms. Only direct care staff are allowed to approach patients to dress or cover them. Other staff, such as maintenance or cafeteria workers, are directed to be alert to residents' dress and to go get a direct care staff person when they see a problem. Based on Ms. Caufman's narrative and on the fact that the resident was covered within four minutes of her observation, it is as likely as not that the two people she saw pass the room were not direct care staff, and that they alerted the direct care staff, who then covered the resident. It is found that the evidence failed to establish that the observation of R-19 constituted a deficiency under Tag F241. B. Tag F250 The June 2001 survey allegedly found one violation of Tag F250, the "social services tag," involving Resident 14, or "R-14": [R-14] was admitted to the facility on 7/2/98 with diagnoses that include organic brain syndrome, traumatic brain injury and dysphagia. The resident's minimum data set (MDS) of 7/3/00 indicated that the resident had broken, loose teeth and dental caries. The most recent MDS, dated 3/8/01, indicated that the resident had some or all natural teeth and needed daily cleaning. It did not document broken, loose teeth with dental caries. The resident assessment protocol (RAP) for Dental, dated 3/8/01, documented that the resident was missing several teeth, had no dentures and the remaining teeth were discolored, but no gross caries or other problems. The status was documented as no oral hygiene problem, no problem that would benefit from a dental evaluation, but the patient was determined to be at risk for developing an oral/dental problem. The staff was to assist the resident with oral care and monitor for problems. The care plan, dated 3/14/01, documented that the resident had dental caries (in conflict with the RAP assessment) along with missing teeth and the goal was to assist with oral care at least twice daily and obtain a dental consult as needed. A dental evaluation had been done on 8/18/98 (three years prior to the survey), and the evaluation (obtained from the thinned record) revealed that this was an initial oral examination and the resident had several missing teeth, heavy calculus and plaque noted. His teeth were documented as stable with no swelling or fractures noted and the resident was determined not to be a good candidate for routine dental care. During the initial tour with the 7-3 Supervisor, on 6/19/01, at about 9:30 a.m., the resident's teeth were observed. A front tooth was missing and a very large amount of plaque was noted, especially on the lower teeth. The supervisor commented that she observed dental caries. On 6/20/01, at 11:10 a.m., observations of the patient's teeth were made with the director of nursing (DON). The resident was seated in a recliner, sleeping with his mouth wide open. The left front tooth was broken and multiple dark areas in the back teeth were observed. There was a large amount of built up plaque on upper and lower teeth and on the upper and lower gum lines. An unpleasant mouth odor was detected at that time. Review of the social service notes from 7/15/98 through 5/16/01, revealed no documentation that the patient had dental needs. The current record did not contain a recent dental evaluation and the DON stated that she would review the thinned record. The initial dental evaluation, dated 8/18/98 mentioned above, was the only documented dental evaluation provided by the facility for review. Interview with the DON, on 6/20/01, at 1:50 p.m., revealed that the resident had refused dental work as documented on the care plan, dated 2/12/01. The nurses notes did not document that a dental appointment had been made and the resident refused examination. The facility was asked to provide any documentation that the resident had been sent to a dentist and refused care. No other documentation was provided. In addition, the resident was coded as severely cognitively impaired on the MDS of 7/3/00, 2/5/01 and 3/8/01. There was no evaluation of the resident's capacity to provide or deny consent for treatment in the record. The resident's wife was documented as the decision maker on the MDS, but according to the DON she was unable to be contacted for a "long time" and there was no documentation that she had been involved in any decision making. The resident had no other legal representative. On 6/20/01, at 1:50 p.m., the DON stated that a doctor's order had been obtained for a dental appointment and the appointment was made. Lack of appropriate dental care may result in infections and diminish the resident's health status. Patricia Procissi was the surveyor who recorded the observation of R-14. She found a conflict between the July 3, 2000, MDS, which documented broken, loose teeth with dental caries, and the March 8, 2001, MDS, which did not document the tooth problems. However, a RAP prepared on the same date did document dental problems for R-14. Ms. Procissi interpreted the March 8, 2001, RAP as indicating improvement in R-14's condition without any documented dental intervention. She believed that this RAP conflicted with a care plan dated March 14, 2001, that indicated dental caries. In fact, the March 8 RAP stated "no gross caries," which is not necessarily in conflict with a finding that R-14 had some dental caries. Ms. Procissi noted that the director of nursing, Ms. Redmond, had told her that R-14 refused dental care, but Ms. Procissi could find nothing in Jacaranda Manor's records documenting that R-14 had been sent to a dentist and refused care. Ms. Gleason, the social services director, testified that she asked R-14 if he would like to see a dentist, and he had refused dental care. Ms. Gleason testified that she documented this refusal in R-14's care plan, along with a notation that staff should continue to encourage him to accept dental services. Ms. Procissi saw Ms. Gleason's note reflecting R- 14's refusal to see a dentist. However, she believed that this documentation raised the question of why there was no doctor's order that R-14 should be seen by a dentist. She stated that in most cases, there is a doctor's order followed by a nurse's note documenting why the order could not be carried out. Here, there was nothing in the record explaining the circumstances of R-14's refusal. Ms. Procissi also found it "odd" that R-14's refusal was documented in the social services care plan rather than the medical notes. At the hearing, Ms. Gleason and Ms. Hirsch testified as to the general difficulty of obtaining dental services for Medicaid patients. Few dentists are willing to accept adult Medicaid patients. At the time of the survey, Jacaranda Manor had two dentists and an oral surgeon who would see its residents, but even these dentists limited the number of residents they would accept in a given month. If a Medicaid resident needs dental work, the doctor or a nurse will write a note to the social services office, which phones the dentist's office and provides the resident's Medicaid information and the nature of the dental needs. The dentist's office calls back to inform social services whether the resident is eligible under the "medically necessary" criteria for Medicaid reimbursement. If the resident is eligible, social services makes the appointment, arranges transportation for the resident, and accompanies the resident to the appointment, if necessary. Jacaranda Manor also schedules routine appointments several months in advance. R-14 was a 47-year-old cognitively impaired male. He was a Medicaid recipient. R-14 could be verbally and physically abusive when approached. At the time of his admission to Jacaranda Manor, and at all times subsequent, R- was fed exclusively via gastrointestinal tube, meaning that any dental problems would not affect his nutrition. Dr. Stuart Strikowsky, Jacaranda Manor's medical director, opined that R-14 was in no pain or discomfort, had loudly and adamantly stated that he wanted no dental work, and would require complete sedation to undergo a dental evaluation. Dr. Strikowsky believed that a dental examination was medically unnecessary for this resident. Kevin Mulligan, AHCA's Medicaid dental specialist, testified that Medicaid covers only medically necessary dental services, and that a dental examination for a nursing home patient must be requested by the attending physician and the nursing director. Dr. Strikowsky plainly believed that such a request was unnecessary for this resident. It is found that the evidence was at best ambiguous that the observation of R-14 constituted a deficiency under Tag F250. Jacaranda Manor conscientiously monitored and documented R-14's dental condition. R-14's physician believed that a dental examination was medically unnecessary, somewhat mooting Ms. Procissi's concerns regarding the lack of a doctor's order for dental services.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding a Class II deficiency for Tag F241, a Class III deficiency for Tag F272, and assigning conditional licensure status to Jacaranda Manor for the time period from May 15, 2001 to February 28, 2002. It is further recommended that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed and no civil penalty assessed against Jacaranda Manor. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 25th day of July, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
