Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1981.
The Issue (1) Whether Respondent, Rockledge NH, L.L.C., d/b/a Rockledge Health and Rehabilitation Center, should be given a "Conditional" or "Standard" license effective February 12, 2002, or March 7, 2002; (2) Whether Respondent is subject to an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a skilled nursing home located at 587 Barton Boulevard, Rockledge, Brevard County, Florida. Petitioner is the State of Florida agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing home facilities in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material to this matter, licensed by Petitioner and required to comply with applicable rules, regulations, and statutes, including Sections 415.1034 and 400.022, Florida Statutes. On or about March 7, 2002, Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of Respondent. Petitioner's surveys and pleadings assign numbers to residents in order to maintain the residents' privacy and confidentiality. The resident who was the subject of the Class II deficiency from the March 7, 2002, complaint survey has been identified as Resident number 1, with the initials "H.C." Resident number 1 is 82 years old and was admitted to Respondent's facility on January 19, 2002, with diagnoses of dementia, back pain from multiple falls, hypertension, osteoarthritis, recurrent bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. At all times material to this matter, Resident number 1 was a "vulnerable adult" as defined in Subsection 415.102(26), Florida Statutes. On February 5, 2002, at approximately 9:50 p.m., a certified nursing assistant employed by Respondent went into Resident number 1's room to see why Resident number 1 was yelling. Upon entering the room, the certified nursing assistant found Resident number 1's bed positioned in such a way that his head was down and his feet were up. A blanket had been tied across the "up" end of the bed securing Resident number 1's feet allowing him to be held in a "head down" position. The certified nursing assistant who investigated the yelling "pulled on the blanket to verify that it was tied down." There were no prescriptions or written orders justifying the restraint of Resident number 1. The certified nursing assistant who found Resident number 1 in the above-described position identified a different certified nursing assistant, one provided to Respondent by a staffing agency, as the caregiver for the shift in question. The alleged abusive act was perpetrated by the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency. The certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency placed Resident number 1 in a position that was contraindicated for a person with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respondent's certified nursing assistant waited approximately two days before reporting the alleged abusive act to the abuse hotline, Respondent's abuse coordinator or the Director of Nursing. A medical record review indicated that Resident number 1 was sent to the hospital on February 22, 2002, for shortness of breath and again on February 26, 2002, for difficulty in breathing and lung congestion. The History and Physical from the hospital, dated February 23, 2002, revealed that Resident number 1 was sent to the hospital because of progressive shortness of breath. Resident number 1's lower extremities were documented to have been severely edematous with "skin changes subsequent to chronic stasis and edema with excoriation, loss of circulation, blisters, etc." The certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency had a full resident assignment and cared for several residents the day of the alleged abusive act. After the discovery of the alleged abuse, the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency continued to care for Resident number 1 and other residents assigned to her for approximately one hour or until the end of her shift. Documentation, dated March 8, 2002, from the staffing agency, confirmed that the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency did have education in the current rules and regulations related to the abuse and neglect of the elderly. Petitioner's surveyor believed that the failure to immediately report the alleged abuse constituted a Class II deficiency because the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency was allowed to continue to care for Resident number 1 and other residents until the shift ended and could have further abused Resident number 1 or other residents in her care.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints in this matter be dismissed and Respondent's licensure status be returned to Standard for the period it was Conditional and that no administrative fine be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanna Daniels, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alex Finch, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Logan T. Lanham, R.N., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is the agency in Florida responsible for regulating the practice of nurses pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 464, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Mr. Lanham is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3221312. Mr. Lanham, at the times pertinent, was employed in his capacity as a registered nurse by Palm Gardens of Vero Beach (hereinafter referred to as "Palm Gardens"). Mr. Lanham was employed by Palm Gardens from approximately October 1998 until January 3, 2002. Palm Gardens. Palm Gardens was, at the times pertinent, a Florida licensed residential nursing home facility as defined in Section 400.021(13), Florida Statutes. Palm Gardens' facility included a wing, "A-Wing," which was devoted to the care of residents suffering from various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. While employed at Palm Gardens, Mr. Lanham was assigned to A-Wing. Due to the tendency of some patients on A-Wing to "wander," A-Wing doors leading to the outside were equipped with alarms which sounded whenever a patient attempted to open them. Whenever an alarm was triggered, employees, including nurses, had to check to ensure that a resident was not leaving the unit. Part of A-Wing consisted of a room which was used as a dining room and day room (hereinafter referred to as the "Day Room"). There were four, floor-to-ceiling, windows at one corner of the Day Room located near an open area of A-Wing, which included a nurses' station. There was a single, heavy, self-closing door providing access to the Day Room. This door was normally propped open. During the pertinent period of time involved in this case, the door to the Day Room was slightly larger at the one corner than the door jam, which caused the door to stick if closed. Although the door could be opened, it took some strength to do so. The condition of the door was known to employees of A-Wing, including Mr. Lanham. Patients M.S. and G.K. Among the patients on A-Wing were M.S. and G.K., both female residents. Both were elderly, suffered from dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and were in relatively poor physical and mental health. M.S., whose date of birth was February 3, 1920, and G.K., whose date of birth was March 21, 1915, were both totally dependant on the facility and employees of Palm Gardens for their care. Both residents were ambulatory, but not capable of providing the daily necessities of life, such as cleaning themselves or dressing. Neither resident was oriented as to time or place, and both lacked the capacity to consent. Both residents, but especially M.S., had a habit of wandering the halls of A-Wing and touching doors equipped with alarms, which would cause the alarms to sound. The Events of December 13, 2001. On December 13, 2001, Mr. Lanham was working the "swing shift" (from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) on A-Wing. During Mr. Lanham's shift, both M.S. and G.K. were wandering the wing, sometimes setting off door alarms. G.K. was agitated and had been found by Mr. Lanham in another resident's room eating food that had been left in the room. Neither M.S. nor G.K. was harming any other residents or causing any harm to themselves. Out of frustration over having to respond every time that M.S. or G.K. set off an alarm, Mr. Lanham took both residents and directed them into the Day Room, closing the door as he left. By closing the door to the Day Room, Mr. Lanham effectively locked M.S. and G.K. into the room. Mr. Lanham left both residents in the Day Room without any supervision; no one was in the Day Room with them and no one was watching them through the windows between the room and the hall. M.S. and G.K., for most of the time they were in the Day Room, were unsupervised by any employee of Palm Gardens. M.S., crying, attempted unsuccessfully to open the door of the Day Room. M.S. and G.K., however, were too weak to open the door. M.S. began to hit on the door when she couldn't open it. M.S. and G.K. were involuntarily confined to the Day Room. At some point after M.S. and G.K. had been placed in the Day Room, Sharon Sullivan, L.P.N., told Mr. Lanham that M.S. and G.K. had to be let out. He was reminded that the door was too difficult for them to open when fully closed, which he already knew. Mr. Lanham, after admitting that he had placed M.S. and G.K. in the Day Room and why, indicated that it was okay to leave them in there as long as he could see them. When Ms. Sullivan told Mr. Lanham that she disagreed, he left the unit. Mr. Lanham left A-Wing to go see Carrie Duprey, L.P.N., the House Supervisor. Mr. Lanham indicated to Ms. Duprey that he had a "hypothetical" question. He then asked Ms. Duprey whether it would be considered abuse if, in order to keep a resident occupied, he placed the resident in the Day Room, with the door closed but not locked, as long as a C.N.A. stayed with the resident.2 Ms. Duprey indicated she did not think that his hypothetical action would constitute abuse.3 Ms. Duprey's answer to Mr. Lanham's hypothetical question did not constitute, in any way, permission for him to either place M.S. and G.K. in the Day Room or to leave them there. Ms. Duprey was unaware that Mr. Lanham had already placed the residents in the Day Room or that he had placed them there unattended and unable to leave on their own. After speaking with Ms. Duprey, Mr. Lanham returned to A-Wing where he spoke to Ms. Sullivan again. Mr. Lanham again told Ms. Sullivan that placing M.S. and G.K. in the Day Room was okay. Ms. Sullivan continued to disagree. When Ms. Sullivan persisted, Mr. Lanham opened the door to the Day Room and allowed the residents to leave. M.S. and G.K. had been left in the Day Room with the door closed, unable to leave on their own and with no one else present in the room for somewhere between more than 20 minutes and less than an hour.4 While they were not actually injured, M.S. and G.K. could have been because they were unsupervised. Unprofessional Conduct. Mr. Lanham's conduct fell below the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. By placing M.S. and G.K. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, Mr. Lanham failed to protect the welfare and safety of those residents. Mr. Lanham's conduct constituted unprofessional conduct for a nurse. Involuntary Seclusion. Placing M.S. and G.K. in the Day Room, unsupervised and unable to leave without assistance, constituted involuntary seclusion. Based upon the length of time that Mr. Lanham left M.S. and G.K. in the Day Room constituted an "extended" involuntary seclusion. Mr. Lanham's Explanation. Mr. Lanham testified at hearing that he had directed a C.N.A. to stay with M.S. and G.K. when he left them in the Day Room. This testimony is not been credited. Mr. Lanham's version of events is inconsistent with other, more credible witnesses. Additionally, when first asked to give a written statement, Mr. Lanham failed to indicate that he had left anyone in the Day Room with the residents. It was not until he added an addendum to his statement a few days later that he first suggested that others were in the Day Room. Mr. Lanham's testimony at hearing as to whether he placed M.S. and/or G.K. in the Day Room, while not clear, is not credited to the extent that he stated that the did not place them in the Day Room. This testimony conflicts with his admission to Ms. Sullivan and his written statement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department: Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Logan T. Lanham, R.N., violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing discipline as suggested in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether petitioner has two years' practical experience in nursing home administration within the meaning of Section 468.1695(2)(c)3., Florida Statutes (1987) and Rule 21Z-11.008, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Westminster Oaks, a "retirement village" or "continuing care facility" in Tallahassee, has a clinic, a 60-bed nursing home, an adult congregate living facility and 150 "independent living" units for older people, who are guaranteed nursing home beds, if needed, as their independence ebbs. Before Donald Long began as Westminster Oaks' administrator on December 1, 1986, the position had gone unfilled for two years. By the time he arrived, petitioner Sandra Kelly, formerly director of nursing at Westminster Oaks, had become director of health care services, for the express purpose of gaining the experience necessary to sit for the nursing home administrator licensure examination. She was following in the footsteps of Sue Reeder and five other trainees, of whom three -- all who have finished the program -- have been permitted to sit for the exam from which respondent proposes to bar her. On August 1, 1986, Ms. Kelly assumed supervisory responsibility for the Health Center, which included the nursing home. As director of health care services, she was responsible not only for the nursing home, but also for the clinic and the adult congregate living facility with its 34 places. (All but six were filled at the time of hearing.) The clinic at Westminster Oaks monitors independent residents' blood pressures, and administers B-12 injections, but does not provide home health services. After Sue Reeder left in January of 1988, she was also called upon as needed to manage the resident services department, along with operations of the business office, and the dietary and housekeeping department that related to residents of the independent living units. Even her work in marketing related to the nursing home. Even when called upon to help in other areas, she was not relieved of responsibility for the nursing home, which she had effective charge of at least 95 percent and perhaps 100 per cent of the time. (Testimony of Long) Besides having overall charge, she rotated through each department in the nursing home, managing it; or, as in the case of the housekeeping department which served not only the nursing home but also other facilities in the complex, managing operations as they related to the nursing home. In addition to her nursing home duties, she spent 15 to 20 minutes a day at the adult congregate living facility, more on days when new residents were admitted. She made rounds at the adult congregate living facility quarterly, and accompanied inspectors from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services when they inspected. She also met with the clinic nurse three times weekly for fifteen minutes a visit. As director of health care services, she has devoted the overwhelming majority of her time to the nursing home. She has had complete and uninterrupted charge of the nursing home's social services and activities departments, and personally hired the activities director. She also hired a medical records consultant, and oversaw putting the medical records in order for inspection by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Although she did not hire or fire otherwise, leaving that to department heads, she had the right to do so. At the time of the hearing, she had spent more than 27 months as director of health care services. Although she also devoted some of her time to the adult congregate living facility, and to the clinic, she spent more than two "working years" on nursing home administration, aside from time devoted to the adult congregate living facility and the clinic. As de facto administrator of Westminster Oaks' nursing home, under Mr. Long's supervision, she planned for and helped organize, direct and control all nursing home departments, including social services, and, insofar as they pertained to the nursing home, the nursing, dietary, housekeeping, administration and maintenance departments.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's nursing home licensure status should be changed from standard to conditional.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency responsible for enforcing federal and state regulations of nursing homes. In order to effectuate its responsibility, Respondent investigates complaints, conducts surveys of nursing homes, and reviews resident records to ensure compliance with various established care regulations. "F" tags are the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) [formally Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)] data tags assigned to each of the federal regulatory requirements for long-term care facilities contained in 42 C.F.R. Section 483. Interpretive guidelines of the federal regulatory care requirements are contained in the State Operations Manual (SOM) required of the states in conducting surveys for Medicare and Medicaid certification. In conducting a survey, Respondent's surveyors rely on these guidelines in determining whether a facility has violated 42 C.F.R. Section 483. Resident No. 1 was a 24-year-old male. On September 9, 2001, Resident No. 1 was struck by an automobile. The accident resulted in the hospitalization of Resident No. 1 with a severe closed head injury. The resident's prognosis was poor and his condition was most likely irreversible with early death a likely outcome. Prolonged raised temperature and temperature fluctuations were common symptoms for Resident No. 1. On October 31, 2001, Resident No. 1 was discharged from the hospital to Petitioner's facility. On November 2, 2001, at 6:45 a.m., Resident No. 1 had a temperature of 105.7 degrees. Resident No. 1 had already been placed on a course of antibiotics. Nurse Wanda Moore administered Tylenol to Resident No. 1 and contacted Dr. Sampson, the resident's attending physician. Dr. Sampson ordered Nurse Moore to administer Tylenol, as needed, Rocephin, an additional antibiotic, and to continue to monitor the resident. Dr. Sampson also instructed Nurse Moore to contact him if the resident's condition worsened. Tylenol was ordered to address the temperature. Rocephin was ordered in addition to an antibiotic already being taken by the resident to expand the antibiotic spectrum to attack any infection that was not being addressed by the other antibiotic. However, the administration of Rocephin would not have an immediate effect on the resident's temperature. Because of Resident No. 1's temperature history, a temperature of 105 degrees was not an indication that the resident was medically unstable or undergoing a significant change in condition. Nurse Moore administered Rocephin as ordered. She did not administer Tylenol because it had been given prior to the phone call to the doctor and did not need to be given again. Since she was going off-duty at approximately 7:15 a.m., she informed the oncoming nurse, Pam McFarland, of the orders of Dr. Sampson. Throughout the day, Resident No. 1 was monitored by the staff of the nursing home. Monitoring included routine checks of Resident No. 1's vital signs. The resident's temperature on November 2, 2001, was 105.1 degrees at 10:28 a.m., 105.2 degrees at 12:30 p.m., and 105.1 degrees at 3:00 p.m. At 11:40 a.m., Resident No. 1 was again given Tylenol. At 11:55 a.m., the nurse paged Dr. Sampson in order to report Resident No. 1's condition. Dr. Sampson did not return the page. Resident No. 1 did not have labored breathing or an unusual heart rate. He was sweating and did not appear to be in distress. Dr. Sampson testified he would not have transferred the resident to the hospital if contacted at approximately noon on November 2, 2001, even if the temperature had only decreased to 105.1 degrees or 105.2 degrees since the resident was still sweating and did not appear to be in distress. Dr. Sampson also testified that Petitioner contacted him an appropriate number of times regarding Resident No. 1 because he did not necessarily expect the resident's temperature to come down more rapidly. A sustained temperature of 105 degrees for 12 hours is not, and was not, for this resident a life-threatening situation or a significant change in his condition. Staff continued to monitor Resident No. 1, but did not attempt to re-page the doctor. At 5:10 p.m., Resident No. 1 received his medications. At 6:15 p.m., Resident No. 1 was suctioned by the nurse. He had no signs of distress and was still sweating. At 7:30 p.m. a nursing assistant went to take Resident No. 1's vital signs. She noticed that something was wrong with Resident No. 1. His fingers had a bluish tint. He had no pulse and no respiration. The nurse began cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, it was unsuccessful. At 7:55 p.m., Dr. Sampson returned the earlier 11:55 p.m. page and was informed of Resident No. 1's condition and death. Resident No. 1's death was rapid. At some time prior to November 19, 2001, Respondent received a complaint regarding the care of Resident No. 1. Pursuant to that complaint, Respondent conducted a survey of the skilled nursing home facility owned by Petitioner located at 1900 Country Club Drive, Madison, Florida, on November 19, 2001. The survey consisted of a review of four residents' records, including the record of Resident No. 1. There was no evidence that the number of records in the survey constituted a statistical representative sampling of the resident records at the nursing home. As a result of that survey, Respondent cited Petitioner for one deficiency under Tag F157 in relation to Resident No. 1's treatment for failing to further contact the doctor after it was apparent that the resident's temperature remained high for several hours. No other deficiencies were found in relation to the other records reviewed. The deficiency was rated as a Class II deficiency with a scope and severity of "G". A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that directly relates to the health, safety, or security of a resident and that is not the type of threat that is imminently dangerous to the resident or poses a substantial likelihood that death or serious physical or emotional harm to the resident will occur. A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that has an indirect or potential relation to the health, safety, or security of a resident. See Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes. Tag F157 pertains to 42 C.F.R. Section 483.10(b)(11)(i). Section 483.10(b)(11)(i), is titled Notification of Changes, failure to consult with a resident's physician following a significant change in the resident's status. The section states, in relevant part: A facility must immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and if known, notify the resident's legal representative or an interested family member when there is-- * * * A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (i.e., a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life- threatening conditions or clinical complications); A need to alter treatment significantly (i.e., a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment) . . . . However, the evidence did not demonstrate that after 6:45 a.m., on November 2, 2001, until his death Resident No. 1 experienced a significant change in his physical, mental, or psychosocial status that required Dr. Sampson be contacted or that Petitioner compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being or that the resident suffered actual harm while the resident was in Petitioner's facility.
Recommendation Base on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Tag F157 should be reversed and Petitioner should retain a standard license status. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Suite 310H St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Virginia A. Daire, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact During the months of June and July, 1987, Respondent Convalescent Services of Venice, Inc., operated Pinebrook Place Health Care Center in Venice, Florida. On or about June 19, 1987, Rev. Spittal, then the licensed Administrator of the facility, submitted his emergency resignation in order to assume administration of another facility to which he was obligated to give guidance. He immediately notified the Regional Director of the Respondent corporation, Mr. Rick Winkler, who was himself a licensed health care administrator in Florida. As Regional Director, with the responsibility for supervising five nursing homes and one retirement center, Mr. Winkler had his office in the Pinebrook Place facility. Mr. Winkler's license was physically located at Respondent corporation's other facility, Lakeside Nursing Home in Naples, Florida. Mr. Winkler had been the Administrator of that facility prior to becoming Regional Director, and because the incumbent administrator, Ms. Harnish, was newly licensed, and because an administrator in training, Ms. Cox, was undergoing training at that facility, he left his license at the Lakeside facility when he moved to Pinebrook to become Regional Director. Upon the departure of Rev. Spittal, Mr. Winkler immediately assumed administration of the Pinebrook facility, fulfilling all the functions of the administrator and advising the staff that he had done so. In addition, he immediately entered into a contract with Ms. Joyce A. Coleman, a licensed nursing home administrator, to assume the position of Administrator of Pinebrook Place effective July 13, 1987. Thereafter, between Rev. Spittal's departure on June 19 and Ms. Coleman's arrival on July 13, 1987, Mr. Winkler was the Administrator of Pinebrook Place Health Care Center. A licensed assistant administrator was not employed at Pinebrook during that period. On June 30, 1987, Mr. Dowless, an investigator for HRS Office of Licensure and Certification, pursuant to a report filed by a discharged former employee at Pinebrook, visited the facility to determine if the allegation made that Pinebrook was operating without a licensed administrator was true. That day in question, Mr. Winkler was absent from the facility attending the opening of the Respondent corporation's newest facility. When Mr. Dowless arrived he spoke with the acting Administrator In Charge, the chief nurse to whom Mr. Winkler supposedly gave a letter of authority in writing to assume supervision in his absence, and after an inspection of the facility, concluded that the Respondent corporation was in violation of the law. This was because Mr. Winkler, though a licensed nursing home administrator, had his license physically located at Lakeside and he failed to have an Assistant Administrator under his supervision at the Pinebrook facility. This information was telephonically reported to Mr. Winkler who called Mr. Dowless by telephone later that day. The discussion was somewhat heated. Because he was unable to convince Mr. Dowless of the fact that he was the administrator at that facility, Mr. Winkler placed a telephone call to Mr. Richard Reysen, a Deputy Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification. During this conversation, Mr. Winkler explained his licensure situation and was led to believe that the situation was acceptable so long as he would have his license physically removed from Lakeside to Pinebrook. He did this and took no further action. Considering the matter closed, he was somewhat surprised when a citation was subsequently issued by Petitioner levying a fine of $1300. The fine was $100 per day for each day of the alleged violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of laws it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this case against the Respondent, Convalescent Services of Venice, Inc. d/b/a Pinebrook Place Health Care Center be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 16th day of June, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 16th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 2. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Respondent is not cited for this alleged violation. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Irrelevant. 12 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and Incorporated herein. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a synopsis of testimony, not a finding of fact. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: ANTHONY DELUCCIA, ESQUIRE DISTRICT VIII LEGAL COUNSEL P. O. BOX 06085, SUITE 110 FT. MYERS, FLORIDA 33906 R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN, JR., ESQUIRE P. O. BOX 10651 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 GREGORY L. COLER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0700 R. S. POWER, AGENCY CLERK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0700
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases are: as to Case Number 00-3497, whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should impose an administrative fine against the Respondent's license to operate Beverly Savana Cay Manor, a nursing home in Lakeland; and, as to Case Number 00-2465, whether the Agency should issue a conditional license to the Respondent's facility effective April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of nursing homes and the regulation of the nursing home industry in this state. It is also the agency responsible for conducting surveys to monitor the compliance of nursing homes with the conditions of Medicare and Medicaid participation. Respondents, Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Healthcare Lakeland, and Beverly Enterprises - Lakeland, are licensed by the Agency to operate a skilled nursing home at 1010 Carpenter's Way in Lakeland. On August 31, 1999, the Agency conducted an investigation into a complaint that Savana Cay had failed to provide sufficient nursing service and related services to allow residents to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required by Federal rules governing Medicare and Medicaid. The Agency surveyor, Patricia Mills, observed several residents who did not have their call buttons within reach so that they could summon help if needed. Ms. Mills also talked with residents and family members and from these interviews determined that even when the resident could reach the call button and summon help, the response time was excessively long or, in some instances, the call went unheeded. This sometimes resulted in resident's suffering from the results of their incontinence because the staff did not timely respond to the help calls. Ms. Mills concluded, based on her extensive experience in surveying nursing homes, that the number of staff on duty was not sufficient to meet the residents' needs. It did not allow for the best possible well-being of the residents. Though the information related by Ms. Mills came from her interviews with residents and their families and was clearly hearsay testimony, it was admissible and considered as corroborative of her direct observation. The parties stipulated that a follow-up survey of the facility was conducted on October 13, 1999, at which time the deficiency described was deemed to have been timely corrected. The Respondent, by stipulation, does not concede the validity of this discrepancy on the August 19, 1999, survey, and the Agency does not rely on it to support the administrative fine sought to be imposed herein. Another survey of the facility was conducted by the Agency on April 26-28, 2000. On this occasion, surveyor Patricia Gold interviewed residents regarding the everyday life of the facility and reviewed resident council reports to follow up on any resident or family concerns which did not appear to have been addressed by the facility staff. During the resident interviews, Ms. Gold was advised that call lights were not answered in a timely fashion. In that connection, early on the morning of April 28, 2000, Ms. Gold observed a resident request a nurse to bring something to drink. The nurse was overheard to tell the resident the request would have to wait until she finished her report. Ms. Gold also noted on April 28, 2000, that dirty dishes were left uncollected over night in the facility common corridor and that one resident had two dirty trays left in the room. The dishes in the corridor were also seen by surveyors Donna Edwards and Marie Maisel. Based on their observations, the interviews, and the review of the council reports, the surveyors concluded that the staff on duty were insufficient in number. Another surveyor, Joanne Stewart, reviewed the resident files and medical reports of several of the residents and determined that in several cases the facility had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent falls and inconsistently applied the interventions that were put in place. For example, Ms. Stewart observed Resident 12 on the floor at 2:40 p.m. on April 27, 2000. This resident, a cognitively impaired individual, had been placed in the facility from the hospital after he had sustained a fracture to his right hip and, at the time of the fall, still had staples in his hip. Ms. Stewart's review of the kardexes maintained by the certified nursing assistant (CNA) revealed there were no entries thereon indicating a need for special care to prevent this resident from falling. Although he was supposed to wear a tab alarm at all times, the facility staff knew the resident would periodically remove it, and when Ms. Stewart saw him prior to the fall, he was not wearing it. No other interventions, such as quick-release seat belts or Velcro belts, had been implemented to prevent his falls. It was just the kind of fall that he had which caused his placement in the facility and which gave rise to the need for supervision adequate to prevent further injury. He did not get the needed supervision. In fact, though the resident sustained a skin tear and bleeding of the arm as a result of the fall, the nurse who came to the scene of the fall went back to her desk and did some paperwork for between twenty and twenty-five minutes before the resident was provided any treatment for his injury. Ms. Stewart concluded the facility did not provide adequate supervision and assistance to Resident 12, and it is so found. Due to a cognitive impairment and an inability to ambulate due to an intracerebral hemorrhage, diabetes, and a cardio-vascular accident, Resident 9 was assessed at high risk for falls, and a determination was made that the resident should wear a tab alarm while in bed and in the wheelchair. During the course of her survey, Ms. Stewart observed this resident on several occasions without the tab alarm when she should have been wearing it. The resident had previously sustained falls, one of which occurred while the resident was on leave, on March 31 and April 1, 2000, but the only caveat on the CNA kardex for the resident was the caution not to leave her on the toilet alone. Ms. Stewart did not consider the supervision and assistance rendered Resident 9 to be adequate. It is so found. Ms. Edwards focused her review on the records of Resident 22 who was not at the facility at the time of the survey. The records indicated the resident had been assessed at a high risk for falls at the time of her admission and a tab alarm was used. However, according to the nurse's notes, on April 10, 2000, the alarm went off causing the resident to lose her balance and fall while in the merry walker. She lacerated her scalp and sustained a large swelling in the occipital area. The only fall assessment of this resident was done when she was admitted to the facility. The evidence does not indicate when this was, but presumably, it was not done timely. There is a requirement that fall assessments be done quarterly, but it cannot be determined when it was done here. Even when, on April 11, 2000, the day after the fall, the physical therapy staff re-screened this resident for a merry walker, no change in care notation was noted in her record or implemented. Resident 22 sustained another fall on April 16, 2000. On this occasion, the resident was found on the floor of the day room, out of the merry walker. There was no indication she was being supervised or monitored at the time of her fall. This time she sustained another head injury just above the old one. After this fall, the facility staff ordered a new merry walker even though there was no indication a different one would provide additional protection. The resident sustained a third fall on April 18, 2000, sustaining another injury to the head which resulted in substantial blood loss. As a result of this fall, she was taken to the hospital. Because of this, she was not present when the survey was done, but based on her review of the resident records, Ms. Edwards concluded that the facility did not provide sufficient supervision or assistive devices to this resident. During the period of the survey, Ms. Gold observed Resident 3 on five separate occasions. On none of them was the resident wearing a Tabs alarm even though the facility's care plan called for one to be used. A falls assessment had been started on the resident but not completed. The record also revealed that the resident fell on March 29, 2000, resulting in a skin tear to the right arm. Based on the above, Ms. Gold concluded that the resident was not provided with adequate care and assistive devices. Resident 10 was a resident with a history of falls both before and after admission to the facility. The resident's care plan called for chair alarms, a merry walker, a safety seat belt, a low bed, and a bike horn. Though Ms. Maisel, the surveyor, observed that the resident had a chair alarm, she did not see that any of the other interventions called for in the plan were provided. She did not ever see the resident with a merry walker, and on at least two occasions, she saw the resident when the chair alarm was not in use. In her opinion, the use of one intervention does not make the use of other interventions unnecessary, and she considers the facility's supervision and assistive device provision to be inadequate. Resident 4 was an individual who had sustained a hip fracture, was senile, and was taking pain medications. The resident required help in getting out of bed or a chair. The care plan for the resident called for the use of a Tabs alarm, but on none of the occasions that Ms. Stewart observed this resident was the tabs alarm in use. She considered the supervision and assistive devices provided by the facility to this resident to be inadequate. Respondent does not contest that the incidents cited by the Agency took place. Rather, it contends that the interventions implemented by it were sufficient. It also disputes the effectiveness of some interventions called for, specifically the Tabs alarms, suggesting that the alarm does not prevent falls and often contributes to them by startling the wearer. There is some evidence to support that claim. Respondent further contends that the safety provided by the use of an intervention device, such as the Tabs alarm, straps, bed rails, or the merry walker, restrictive as they are, must be weighed and evaluated against the loss of dignity of the resident caused by their use. It is also urged by the facility that the use of certain interventions such as Tabs alarms is made unnecessary when the resident is immobile and safety is provided by the use of other interventions such as bed rails, which are more pertinent to the condition of the resident. In the case of Resident 9, the failure to provide for the use of a Tabs alarm when the resident was on leave with her husband was off-set by the one-on-one supervision she received during that period. Respondent contends that falls will occur among residents of the type in issue here regardless of the planning to identify the risks of fall, the efforts made to prevent them, and the implementation and use of interventions designed to avoid them. While this may be so, the facility nonetheless has a duty to provide necessary and adequate supervision and assistive devices to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the risk of injury as the result of falls. In some cases, this was not done here. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of Theresa Vogelspohl, a nursing home consultant and an agreed expert on falls, issues of the elderly, issues of care of the elderly, and nursing practices and standards in nursing homes. Ms. Vogelspohl indicated that as a general practice when patients are admitted to a nursing home they are considered at risk for falls until the facility staff gets to know them. Each facility sets its own standard as to the length of the observation period, during which the residents are studied for their gait and safety awareness. In addition, the residents are evaluated for safety awareness by the staff of the physical and occupational therapy departments. Ordinarily, the assessment includes only the minimum data set (MDS) criteria, but increasingly during the last few years, a separate falls assessment has become common. In addition to the initial assessment, the attending nurses do an independent admissions assessment, and Ms. Vogelspohl found that such an assessment process was followed as to each of the residents in issue here. Ms. Vogelspohl found that an incomplete falls assessment had been done on Resident 3. Based upon her own review of the resident's records, however, had the full assessment been completed, other than the fact that she was a new resident, the resident would have been classified as a low risk for falls. She opines that the failure to complete the falls assessment did not deny the resident any care or a care plan for falls. Ms. Vogelspohl determined that the facility had opted, instead, for a more cautious approach to this resident in the care plan which, in her opinion, was appropriate for a new admission. A care plan is a map for the staff to be made aware of the care being provided and the specific interventions pertinent to the resident. If the resident is at increased risk for falls, the care plan would list the interventions designed to decrease the risk of falls. One of the most significant risk factors for falls is increase in age. Others are disease conditions, medications, cognitive functioning levels, eyesight, and other impairments. The interventions available to a facility to address the issue of risk of falls depend upon the condition of the resident. The first consideration should be the need to maintain a safe physical environment for the resident. Appropriate footwear is important as is the availability of assistive devices such as a cane or walker. If the resident has a history of falls, consideration should be given to changing those factors which were related to the prior falls. Included in that is consideration of different seating or a more frequent toileting schedule. According to Ms. Vogelspohl, the last thing one would want to do is to apply physical restraint, but, if all else has failed, the least restrictive physical or chemical restraint may be necessary to decrease the likelihood of falls. Ms. Vogelspohl emphasizes that only the likelihood of falls can be reduced. It is not possible to prevent all falls. Room cleanliness is not something which should appear in a care plan. It is a given, and nurses know to place furniture in such a way and to reduce clutter to the extent that the resident can safely navigate the room either with a walker or a wheelchair. Obviously, in this case the survey staff concluded the placement of the dirty trays in the hallway and in the resident's room constituted a hazard. In Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, supervision and monitoring of residents in a nursing home is a basic. That is generally the reason for the resident's being admitted in the first place. While they should be done on a routine basis, supervision and monitoring are still sometimes placed in a care plan, but the failure to have the requirements in black and white is not a discrepancy so long as the appropriate supervision and monitoring are accomplished. The residents most at risk for falls, and those who are the most difficult to manage, are those who have full physical functioning yet who have almost nonexistent cognitive functioning. Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that for these residents, the best intervention is the merry walker. This is better than a regular walker because the resident cannot leave it behind. If the resident is one who falls from bed, then a low bed, with rails if appropriate, is the primary option. A low bed was called for for Resident 10 but was not provided. Ms. Vogelspohl does not have a high opinion of the Tabs alarm because it can cause as many falls as it prevents. It has a place with the cognitively aware resident who will sit back down if she or he hears the alarm sound. More often than not, however, the routine resident will automatically react by trying to get away from the noise, and, thus, be more likely to engage in rapid, impulsive behavior that can lead to a fall. Ms. Vogelspohl considers the use of the Tabs alarm as only one factor in assessing the degree of supervision provided. She looks at the care plan to see if the Tabs alarm even meets the needs of the resident. If the resident is cognitively alert and at no risk of falls, a Tabs alarm is not appropriate. There are other interventions which can be used such as quick release, velcro seat belts which better prevent falls because they provide a resistance when the resident attempts to stand up. To determine whether a care plan has been developed and implemented, Ms. Vogelspohl reviews the record. She looks at the nurse's notes and those of the social services personnel. She evaluates the records of the physical, occupational, and recreational therapy staff. Finally, she reads the resident's chart to see what staff is actually doing to implement the interventions called for in the care plan. However, on the issue of supervision, she does not expect the notes or the record to affirmatively reflect every incident of supervision. There is no standard of nursing practice that she is aware of that calls for that degree of record keeping. What she would expect to see is a record of any kind of unsafe behavior that was observed. By the same token, Ms. Vogelspohl would not expect a facility to document every time it placed an alarm unit on a resident. The units are applied and removed several times a day for bathing, clothing changes, incontinence care, and the like, and it would be unreasonable, she opines, to expect each change to be documented. Further, she considers it inappropriate and insulting to the resident to require him or her to wear an alarm when cognizant and not displaying any unsafe behavior. If a resident who is not cognitively impaired declines intervention, it would, in her opinion, be a violation of that resident's rights to put one on. In that regard, generally, interventions are noted in the resident records when initiated. Usually, however, they are not removed until the quarterly assessment, even though the intervention may be discontinued shortly after implementation. Ms. Vogelspohl took exception to Ms. Edwards' finding fault with the facility for the three falls experienced by Resident 22. The resident was under observation when the first fall occurred, but the staff member was not able to get to the resident quickly enough to catch her when she stood up and immediately toppled over in her merry walker. The resident had been properly assessed and proper interventions had been called for in the care plan. Ms. Vogelspohl attributes the fall to the resident's being frightened by the Tabs alarm going off when she stood up and believes she probably would not have fallen had she not had the tab unit on. The second fall took place while the resident got out of her marry walker in the day room. Though the day room was visible to anyone out in the hallway, the fall was not witnessed, but Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that it is not reasonably possible to keep every resident under constant visual supervision unless an aide can be assigned on a one-on-one basis to every resident. On the third fall, which occurred at about 10 p.m., the staff had put the resident to bed and had put a Tabs unit on her at that time, but the resident had detached the unit and gotten out of bed. There was nothing the staff could do to prevent that. The resident was able to remove the unit no matter how it was affixed to her. Taken together, the actions taken by the facility with regard to this resident were, to Ms. Vogelspohl, appropriate. Some things could have been done differently, such as perhaps using a heavier merry walker, but she did not consider these matters as defects in the care plan, in assessment, in design, or in application. Further, she concluded that the actions taken by the facility subsequent to the first fall on April 10, 2000, wherein the resident's medications were adjusted to compensate for their effect on the resident, constituted a recognition of a change in the resident's condition which was properly addressed. Too much supervision becomes a dignity issue. There is no formula for determining how much supervision is adequate. It is a question of nursing discretion based on the individual resident. An unofficial standard in place within the industry calls for a resident to be checked on every two hours, but rarely will this be documented. Staff, mostly nurses and CNAs, are in and out of the residents' rooms on a regular basis, administering medications and giving treatments. Those visits are documented, but not every visit to a resident's room is. Resident 12, a relatively young man of 62 with several severe medical problems, sustained a fall which resulted in a fractured hip just two weeks after admission to the facility and two weeks before the survey. He was far more mobile than expected. According to the records, he was mostly cognitive intact and had been assessed for falls. As a result of this assessment, the facility developed a care plan to address his risk for falls. Implementation of the plan was difficult, however, because he was aware and could make up his own mind as to what interventions he would accept. As to the resident's April 27, 2000 fall, the only evidence in the file shows that he was found on the floor of his room in front of a straight chair, having sustained a small skin tear in addition to the fracture. From Ms. Vogelspohl's review of the record she could find no indication that the facility had failed to do something that it should have done to prevent the fall. The staff had put a Tabs alarm on the resident, and he removed it. They tried to keep his wheel chair as close to him as possible. They tried to restrict his water intake by giving him thickened liquids to reduce his trips to the rest room. He would pour out the thickened fluids and replace them with water. Because of this resident's mobility, Ms. Vogelspohl does not accept the surveyor's conclusion that the facility did not use Tabs alarms. He was able to get out of them by himself and frequently did. She is also of the opinion, in light of the way the resident behaved, that the blank kardex observed by the surveyor in no way contributed to the resident's fall. The CNA's were aware that the Tabs units were supposed to be used, and Ms. Vogelspohl has concluded that there were no more aggressive interventions that could have been used with this resident. To attempt the use of restraints, either belt or vest, would have been futile because he could have gotten out of them easily. The only other thing Ms. Vogelspohl feels could have been done was to put him in a geriatric psychiatric unit, and this was ultimately done, but not in the Respondent facility. Ms. Vogelpohl also addressed the surveyors' write- ups as they related to Residents 9, 4, 3, and 10. Resident 4 was bed-ridden as a result of Parkinson's Disease and did not need a Tabs alarm, the deficiency cited, while in bed. When seated in a wheel chair, his postural deficits were compensated for by lateral supports and a padded cushion, and she was of the opinion that a Tabs alarm was not required. She opines its absence would not have addressed his risk for falls. His January 2000 fall apparently did not relate to the failure to use a Tabs unit. Resident 3, also the subject of a write-up for failure to use a Tabs alarm, was not, in Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, at risk for falls because she did not move around a lot due to her physical condition. Nonetheless, she experienced a fall in late March 2000 and shortly thereafter, the facility placed a Tabs alarm on her and made the appropriate entry in her care plan. Resident 9 was ambulatory only with assistance and had a special seating device to keep her in her wheel chair. After the resident sustained two falls close together, a Tabs alarm was placed on her, and from that time until the time of the survey she had no further falls. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that it was an appropriate nursing decision not to place a Tabs unit on her. The rationale for this position is not at all clear. The care plan for Resident 10, also one of the residents observed without a Tabs alarm in place, was described as "somewhat cluttered." It showed multiple interventions initiated as early as April 1999. The initial care plan was crossed through and a new one substituted in September 1999 with the family's concurrence. Nonetheless, Ms. Vogelspohl did not find it too cluttered to be understood. The evidence shows that the resident's chair was outfitted with a soft seat belt and a pressure-sensitive alarm, both of which are considered to be more effective than the Tabs alarm. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that the facility did not ignore the requirement to assess the residents for falls or the requirement to address that issue in care planning. She admits that in some cases, the plan addressing falls prevention was covered in another assessment than the one wherein it might most likely be expected, but it is her contention that if the subject is properly and thoroughly addressed somewhere in the resident's care record, that is sufficient. She considers placing it in several areas to be a redundancy and though it is frequently done so, it is done to meet a paper compliance without having any impact on the quality of care provided.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order sustaining the Conditional license for the Respondent effective April 28, 2000, and, based only on the conditions observed at the facility on that date, imposing an administrative fine of $700.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
