The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period March 8 through May 30, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, in Palm Bay, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on March 8, 2001 (the "March survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the survey on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on April 17, 2001 (the "April survey"). The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "tags"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. There are five tags at issue in this proceeding. The March survey cites two Class II deficiencies and three Class III deficiencies. The April survey cites repeat violations of three Class III violations. In this case, Section 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000) establishes the deficiency classifications referred to as Classes II and III. All statutory references in this Recommended Order are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(b) defines Class II deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines have a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility resident. . . . Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The March survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F224, F282, F314, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies Tags F224 and F314 as class II deficiencies and Tags F282, F325, and F363 as class III deficiencies. Tag F224 in the March survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse to a resident by another resident. Tag F314 generally alleges that Respondent failed to provide necessary assessment, treatment, and documentation for pressure sores for one resident. Tag F282 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that one resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide menus that meet the nutritional needs of the residents by not following menus for pureed and dysphagia diets. The April survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F282, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies each alleged violation as a Class III deficiency. Tag F282 in the April survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to follow a resident’s plan of care by failing to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that menus designed to meet the nutritional needs of the residents were prepared in advance and followed. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288 establishes the requirement for nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal rules and regulations as found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, the state rule provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order). Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign to the deficiencies alleged in the 2567 a scope and severity rating required by federal regulations. In the March survey, Petitioner assigned a "G" rating to Tags F224 and F314, both of which are Class II deficiencies. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated, caused actual harm to one or more residents, but did not involve substandard quality of care. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey. A "D" rating means that there is no actual harm but there is potential for more than minimal harm without actual jeopardy. Petitioner relies on two grounds for changing Respondent's license rating from standard to conditional. When Petitioner alleges two Class II deficiencies in the 2567, as Petitioner did in the March survey, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of a facility's license. Applicable rules also authorize Petitioner to change a facility's license rating when the facility does not correct Class III deficiencies within the time prescribed by Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to correct three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey by the time Petitioner conducted the April survey. Effective March 8, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Effective May 31, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The allegations in Tag F224 in the March survey pertain to two residents in the dementia unit of the facility who are identified individually as Resident 1 and Resident 13. Tag F224 in the March survey alleges that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.13(c). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: The facility must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The facility must not use verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F224 does not allege that the facility failed to develop the written policies required by 42 CFR Section 483.13(c) and Rule 59A-4.1288. Rather, Tag F224 alleges that Respondent failed to implement its policy. Tag F224 alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services to Resident 13 to prevent the resident from sexually intimidating a female resident identified as Resident 1. Tag F224 further alleges that Resident 13 had a past history of abusive and aggressive behavior to other residents but was not reassessed, "care planned," and monitored. The allegations in Tag F224 are based on observations of one of Petitioner's surveyors who participated in the March survey. On March 5, 2001, the surveyor observed Resident 13 in the dementia unit standing over Resident 1. The surveyor did not observe any overt sexual misconduct by Resident 13. Rather, the surveyor concluded that sexual misconduct occurred because she determined that Resident 13 was "invading [the female resident's] space," Resident 1 appeared "very anxious," "nervous," and "uncomfortable", and screamed for 15 minutes for Resident 13 to leave. The surveyor also relied on the history of Resident 13 to conclude that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001. Resident 13 had, on two occasions, previously expressed a desire to have sex with female residents in the dementia unit and on other occasions had wandered into the rooms of female residents. Based on the inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13 prior to March 5, 2001, the surveyor alleged in Tag F224 that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct with Resident 1 on March 5, 2001. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, by standing in front of Resident 1. Resident 13 did not engage in any overt sexual act or gesture. Resident 13 did not utter any inappropriate sexual comments. Resident 13 suffered from dementia and was elderly. He was mentally incapable of forming the requisite intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and was physically incapable of carrying out any such intent. In the absence of any overt sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, the only evidence to support the allegation of sexual misconduct in F224 is the inference of the surveyor based on the gender difference between Residents 13 and 1 and the past history of inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13. The inference of the observer does not satisfy the requirement for a preponderance of the evidence. The resident’s physician was qualified as an expert witness without objection. The physician testified that he was aware of Resident 13’s aggressive behavior, including the two occasions on which the resident expressed a desire to have sex with female residents. However, such incidents are typical of demented residents, do not reflect that Resident 13 was going to attack other residents in the dementia unit, and do not require any alteration to the care plan that was already in place. The only evidence that Petitioner provided to the contrary was the non-expert opinion of its surveyor. The non- expert opinion of the surveyor was insufficient to refute the physician’s expert opinion. Resident 13 suffered from severe cognitive impairment and was not physically or mentally capable of premeditating a plan to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and then carry out that plan. Resident 1 was paranoid of men. Her response to the encounter with Resident 13 was precipitated by her paranoia rather than by Resident 13's intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1. Although Resident 13 voiced a desire to have sex with other residents on two occasions during his stay at the facility, he never acted on those statements and was physically and mentally incapable of acting on them. On those two occasions, Respondent monitored Resident 13 closely but the resident did nothing to indicate that he would act on his stated desires or that he even remembered voicing them. Petitioner did not allege that Resident 13 engaged in any behavior on March 5, 2001, other than sexual misconduct. Even if Tag F224 were to have alleged that Resident 13 engaged in abuse other than sexual abuse, the preponderance of the evidence failed to show that Resident 13 engaged in non-sexual abuse. As a threshold matter, the evidence that the incident lasted for 15 minutes is not credible. It is implausible that a surveyor would allow apparent sexual intimidation to continue after she perceived the incident to be sexual intimidation, much less allow Resident 1 to endure such intimidation for 15 minutes. The surveyor testified that she could not locate a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") on the dementia unit when the incident occurred on March 5, 2001. The dementia unit is a locked unit comprised of resident rooms that open at regular intervals along a 60-foot hallway, and an activities room. There were two CNAs on duty at the time. One of those CNAs was in the hallway at the time of the alleged incident. The surveyor did not inform any member of the staff or administration at the facility that the incident had occurred before Petitioner provided Respondent with the allegations in the 2567 at the conclusion of the March survey. Resident 13’s primary behavior problem did not involve physical aggression toward other residents. Rather, the primary behavior problem was Resident 13's tendency to become aggressive with staff when they attempted to provide personal care, especially that care required for the resident's incontinence. Petitioner incorrectly concluded that the inappropriate behavior by Resident 13 indicated that he was a risk to assault or intimidate other residents. Resident 13’s historical experience at the facility did not involve aggression toward other residents. Instead, Resident 13 directed his aggressive behavior to situations with staff who were attempting to provide personal care for him. Irrespective of the proper characterization of Resident 13's behavior on March 5, 2001, the behavior did not occur because of any failure by the facility to assess Resident 13 or to develop and implement appropriate care plans to address the Resident 13's inappropriate behavior. Respondent acknowledged that Resident 13 wandered the hall, wandered into residents’ rooms, occasionally urinated in inappropriate places, and occasionally made inappropriate sexual remarks. However, those behaviors are typical of residents who suffer from dementia, and the inappropriate behavior cannot be eliminated through a care plan. Facility staff knew to monitor Resident 13 and to re- direct him if he engaged in inappropriate behavior that affected other residents. The chart for Resident 13 is replete with instances of staff consistently implementing those interventions. The care plan for Resident 13 directed staff to approach him calmly, let the resident choose the timing of his care, assess him for pain as a potential cause of agitation, and leave the resident alone and approach him later if the resident became upset during care. All of these interventions were appropriate for the identified behavior problem, and the record is replete with instances of the successful implementation of appropriate interventions. A physician saw Resident 13 and evaluated the resident almost weekly. The physician was aware of and assisted in the evaluation of the resident’s behavior. The physician considered several alternative interventions including the use of anti- anxiety medications to address the resident’s aggressiveness. The physician called in a psychiatric nurse practitioner to evaluate the resident and to recommend medications that might be effective in controlling aggressive episodes. At various times during the course of Resident 13’s stay at the facility, the physician prescribed Seraquil, Risperdal, BuSpar and Ativan for the resident. When aggressive incidents occurred, staff administered these medications with positive effects. Petitioner offered no specific evidence that any intervention used by the facility was not appropriate or that there was another intervention that the facility failed to identify and implement that would have changed any of the inappropriate behavior. Rather, the surveyor concluded that whatever the facility did was inappropriate because Resident 13’s behavioral problems did not subside or disappear while he was at the facility. The surveyor's conclusion fails to adequately understand dementia. The inappropriate behavior displayed by Resident 13 is typical of residents in a dementia unit and cannot be eliminated. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to adequately reassess Resident 13. The resident’s medical record is replete with examples of efforts by the staff to continually re-evaluate the resident and to modify care plan approaches. The facility conducted quarterly re-assessments of the resident. The facility required staff to chart all incidents of inappropriate behavior in the resident’s medical record in an effort to identify any triggering events. The facility provided staff with in-service training for Resident 13 by the resident’s physician. The scope of the training encompassed the care of residents with dementia but focused in particular on the care that was required for Resident 13. The physician wanted to assure that Resident 13 would not become over-medicated and implemented frequent assessments and readjustments of the dosages of the resident's medications. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent failed to assess the resident in a timely manner or that any assessment performed by the facility was inappropriate. Petitioner did not allege in the March survey that the incident between Residents 13 and 1 was a result of Respondent's failure to consistently implement Respondent's policy regarding investigations of abuse. Therefore, any evidence relevant to such an allegation at the hearing is irrelevant to the allegations for which Petitioner provided adequate notice in the March survey. A contrary ruling would violate fundamental due process requirements for notice of the charges that substantially affect Respondent's license to operate the facility. Assuming arguendo that Petitioner can prove charges at the hearing that were not included in the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner's surveyor testified at the hearing that the incident she observed on March 5, 2001, occurred because the facility did not implement its policy and procedure regarding investigations of abuse of residents. As evidence of Respondent's failure to implement its policy, the surveyor contended that the facility did not properly investigate another incident described in nursing notes on January 31, 2001, before the March survey. In the January incident, the nursing notes indicated that Resident 13 made sexual advances to other residents. The implication is that the facility would have done something different with the resident had it properly investigated the January incident and would have, in turn, been able to prevent the occurrence of the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001. Respondent maintains an adequate anti-abuse policy. Respondent’s anti-abuse policy requires its designated staff members to investigate and report to abuse agencies, if necessary, any suspected incidence of abuse of its residents. However, the facility did not fail to implement this policy with regard to Resident 13. Abuse is defined in Respondent's policy as the "willful infraction [sic] of injury . . . resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish." Due to Resident 13's dementia, he was not capable of willfully inflicting harm on anyone. No facility investigator could reasonably conclude that an incident involving Resident 13 constituted abuse within the meaning of the written policy of the facility. Even if the incident described in the January 31, 2001, nursing notes were relevant to the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner failed to show that the incident which the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was the product of any failure by Respondent to implement its policy on January 31, 2001. The facility’s director of nursing adequately investigated the incident described in the nursing notes on January 31, 2001, and determined that Resident 13 made no sexual advances to anyone and did not direct any inappropriate sexual comments to other residents. Rather, the investigation found that Resident 13 made inappropriate sexual comments to a CNA. Staff appropriately monitored Resident 13 after he made that statement to the CNA, and Resident 13 did nothing to act on the statement. The director of nursing notified Resident 13’s physician, and the physician determined there was no need to alter the resident’s care plan. Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F224 was a Class II deficiency. Petitioner presented no evidence that the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was anything other than an isolated incident or presented a threat of harm to other residents. Tag F314 alleges that Respondent violated 42 CFR Section 483.25(c). The federal regulation requires, in relevant part: Pressure Sores. Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that— A resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual’s clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable; and A resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. The March survey alleges in Tag F314 that the facility failed to provide required treatment and services to Resident 2. The surveyor determined the facility was out of compliance after she determined that Resident 2 had pressure sores. The surveyor based her findings on her observation of Resident 2 and a review of the records. In the nursing notes of February 22, 2001, the facility noted small open areas to the left thigh, back of scrotum, and buttocks. On March 5, 2001, the resident’s medical record indicated that the resident had two reddened areas on his buttocks. On March 6, 2001, the surveyor observed that the resident had two open areas on his right buttock and two on his scrotum. Petitioner charged in F314 in the March survey that these areas were pressure sores, and that the areas identified on March 6th were those which had been initially identified on February 22, 2001. Petitioner further charged that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services because staff failed to notify the resident’s physician and obtain a treatment order to the areas in accordance with the facility's policy relating to pressure sore care. A threshold issue is whether the reddened areas on Resident 2 were pressure sores or were reddened areas that did not satisfy Petitioner's definition of a pressure sore. If the areas were not pressure sores, Petitioner acknowledges that there would be no deficiency and no violation of the facility's pressure sore policy. The guidelines promulgated by Petitioner to guide its surveyors in the interpretation of the standard applicable under Tag F314 define a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. The areas identified on February 22, 2001, were located on Resident 2’s buttocks, scrotum, and thigh. None of those areas were located over any bony prominence within the meaning of Petitioner's promulgated definition of a pressure sore. Additionally, the areas identified on February 22nd were healed the next day. Pressure sores do not typically heal overnight. A nurse practitioner examined the areas identified on March 5th and 6th during the survey. The nurse practitioner diagnosed those reddened areas as a rash. Petitioner relies on records that identify the reddened areas on forms that the facility uses for both pressure sores and reddened areas that are not located over a bony prominence. For convenience, the facility uses a single form to identify both reddened areas and pressure sores. Petitioner seeks to rely on the facility forms, including elements of the plan of care on such forms, as though they were admissions by the facility that define pressure sores and then attempt to require the facility to prove the areas are not pressure sores. Petitioner is bound by its own definition of a pressure sore, cannot deviate from that definition, and cannot rely on a different definition as a basis for disciplinary action against the licensee. Petitioner limits the definition of a pressure sore to those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that overlie a bony prominence. Those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that do not overlie a bony prominence are not pressure sores within the meaning of the definition adopted by the state agency. The use by the facility of pressure sore treatment forms and the use of the term pressure sore in the medical records does not create a bony prominence where none exists. The preponderance of evidence shows that the reddened areas at issue were not located over a bony prominence. Clearly, there is no bony prominence in the scrotum, thigh, or buttocks where the reddened areas were located on Resident 2. Assuming arguendo that the areas were pressure sores, Respondent provided all treatment and services to the areas necessary to promote their healing. The facility treated the areas identified on February 22, 2001, by cleansing and application of Lantiseptic, a skin protector. The effectiveness of the treatment is reflected by the complete healing of the areas on the next day. Facility staff properly notified the treating physician and treated the areas identified on March 5th with Lantiseptic. A physician’s assistant examined the areas identified in the March survey and confirmed the use of Lantiseptic on the areas. The surveyor found no record of any plan of care for the pressure sores alleged in the March survey. The facility subsequently produced a note by a nurse practitioner dated March 6, 2001, stating that Lantiseptic was applied to a rash on the buttocks and scrotum, a doctor’s order for treatment, and a care plan for pressure sores after the physician’s note of February 23, 2001. The surveyor testified that the additional documents did not alter her testimony that the areas were pressure sores and that the facility failed to provide an adequate plan of care. The testimony of the surveyor does not refute the preponderance of evidence at the hearing. The areas at issue did not overlay a bony prominence. In any event, Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F314 in the March survey was a Class II deficiency. Even if the areas were pressure sores and it were determined that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, the evidence does not demonstrate that the problem suffered by Resident 2 was systemic or likely to occur with other residents in the facility. At most, the evidence demonstrates a limited failure to provide care to one resident. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove that the identified deficiency presented an immediate threat to other residents in the facility. At the conclusion of Petitioner's case in chief, Respondent moved to dismiss the allegations in Tag F282 on the grounds that Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleged different deficiencies and therefore were not relevant or material to a change in license that is based on uncorrected deficiencies. After hearing arguments from both parties, the ALJ granted the motion to dismiss with leave for Petitioner to revisit the issue in its PRO if Petitioner could provide legal authority to support its position. Petitioner argues in its PRO that the ALJ erred in granting the motion to dismiss. However, Petitioner does not cite any legal authority to support its argument. Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents in violation of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written plan of care. The federal standard is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. In the March survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent provided services to residents by unqualified staff. Instead, Tag F282 charged that Respondent's staff incorrectly fastened a clip belt in the back of Resident 21 while she was in her wheel chair and failed to toilet her once in accordance with a physician’s order. In addition, Tag F282 alleged that staff did not weigh Resident 3 weekly as required by his care plan. However, a preponderance of the evidence showed that the facility did not miss any required weights after January 13, 2001. In the April survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies alleged in the March survey regarding Residents 21 and 3. Nor did Tag F282 allege that Respondent failed to comply with the plan of corrections submitted by Respondent after the March survey. Rather, Tag F282 in the April survey alleged that Respondent failed to provide a plate guard and weighted spoon for Resident 7 in violation of a physician's order. Petitioner argues that the alleged deficiencies in Tag F282 in the March and April surveys, pertaining to Residents 21 and 7, respectively, involved the failure to comply with a physician's order and, therefore, represent uncorrected deficiencies. Even if Petitioner's definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" were accepted, it would not be dispositive of the issue. The evidence showed that the physician who ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 terminated the order at the conclusion of the April survey. Even if Respondent failed to follow a physician's order for Residents 21 and 3 in the March survey, Respondent did not fail to follow a physician's order for Resident 7 during the April survey. Moreover, the termination of the physician's order evidences a medical determination that the failure to comply with the order did not cause any harm to Resident 7. In any event, the definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" asserted by Petitioner is not persuasive. Notwithstanding the request of the ALJ, Petitioner did not submit any legal authority to support its asserted definition of the phrase "uncorrected deficiency." In the absence of a technical definition established by statute, rule, or judicial precedent, the phrase "uncorrected deficiency" is properly construed in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. The allegations in Tag F282 in the March survey are rooted in a physician’s order that called for a clip belt to be placed around Resident 21 while she was in her wheelchair. The purpose of the order was to guard the safety of Resident 21. The order further directed staff to check the belt every thirty minutes and release it every two hours to toilet the resident. During the March survey, a surveyor observed that staff had placed the clip belt on Resident 21 improperly on one day, and further determined that the resident had not been taken to the toilet. Based upon that information, the surveyor charged that the facility failed to follow the doctor’s order for checking and releasing the belt. The surveyor’s observations established, at most, a single isolated instance of failure to follow the care plan for Resident 21. The surveyor's observations failed to establish a consistent failure to implement the care plan. The alleged deficiency presented no potential for harm to Resident 21. Resident 21 was cognitively alert and could notify staff if she needed to be toileted or needed her belt removed. At the time that the surveyor observed Resident 21, the resident was in a supervised setting with staff readily available to her in the event she needed attention. She was not shown to have experienced any incontinent episode or to have even requested that she be toileted or otherwise released from the belt. Petitioner acknowledges that any failure by staff to remove the resident’s belt during this time presented nothing more than a minimal risk of harm to the resident. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on January 13, 2001, and had a care plan that called for the resident to be weighed weekly. Between the resident’s admission to the facility and the March survey, the facility weighed the resident in accordance with the care plan except for one omission in late February. This one instance of failing to do a weekly weight did not demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no evidence that this single instance of failing to weigh the resident caused the resident harm or presented even the potential for harm to the resident. After the March survey, Respondent submitted a plan of correction to address the alleged deficiencies relating to Tag F282. Applicable law precludes Respondent from arguing the validity of the alleged deficiencies in its plan of correction. In the plan of correction, Respondent indicated that it would focus on restraints and weekly weights to insure that the alleged deficiencies would not re-occur. Petitioner accepted the plan of correction and, in April, did not find that staff at the facility failed to properly apply restraints to residents, failed to do weekly weights for residents, or otherwise failed to implement the plan of correction. Petitioner charged that Respondent violated Tag F282 in April because the facility failed to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard to Resident 7 as required by a physician’s order. It is uncontroverted that the plan of correction adopted to address the March F282 deficiency pertaining to Residents 21 and 3 did not address the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey with respect to Resident 7; and would not have prevented the deficiency alleged in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7. Accordingly, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7, even if true, did not represent an "uncorrected" deficiency. Instead, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey represented a new deficiency. In any event, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged failure of the facility to comply with any of the orders at issue denied residents any necessary care and treatment, or presented even the possibility that the residents would be harmed. The physician ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 due to the loss of dexterity in the resident's hand needed to assist him in the consumption of his meals. Even though the plate guard and spoon were not provided to the resident after they were ordered for him, the resident had no trouble with meal consumption. His medical records reflected that he consistently consumed his meals and that he gained almost 20 pounds during the time period that the spoon and plate guard were ordered. The weight gain and food consumption are significant because the facility initially admitted the resident as a hospice resident. The absence of any medical necessity for the physician's order requiring the spoon and plate was confirmed when the facility contacted the doctor during the survey, and the doctor issued an order discontinuing the use of the plate guard and spoon. Tag F325 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to comply with the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.25(i)(1). The federal regulation provides, in pertinent part: Nutrition. Based on a resident’s comprehensive assessment, the facility must ensure that a resident-- Maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the resident’s clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible. . . . The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F325 alleges in the March survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 4. Respondent does not dispute this charge. Tag F325 alleges in the April survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 9. Resident 9 lost approximately 20 pounds between August of 2000 and April 8, 2001. However, Petitioner provided no evidence that the weight the resident lost was "unacceptable" or caused by inadequate nutritional care. Petitioner neither contended nor demonstrated that a 20-pound weight loss over seven or eight months violates any accepted dietary or health standard. Even if such a rate of weight loss were an "unacceptable nutritional parameter," Petitioner provided no evidence that Respondent failed to properly monitor Resident 9's weight, assess his dietary needs, provide the resident with an appropriate diet, or otherwise caused the weight loss. Rather, the resident’s medical records demonstrate on-going assessments of the resident by the dietary staff and numerous interventions to address the resident's weight. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to comply with several directives for supporting care for Resident 9. Facility staff had been directed to cue Resident 9 to use a "chin tuck" to address his risk of aspiration due to swallowing difficulties. Staff were directed to cue the resident to cough and tuck his chin anytime the staff determined that the resident's voice sounded wet. During the survey, the surveyor observed three meals in which the staff provided no cues to Resident 9. However, no cues were required of staff if the resident did not have a wet sounding voice, and the surveyor acknowledged that she did not hear the resident cough during any of her meal observations. Even if cues were required to be given to Resident 9 during the meals observed by the surveyor, the surveyor did not demonstrate that the failure to cue the resident had any negative impact either on the resident's ability to eat or on the resident's weight. Rather, the evidence shows that Resident 9 weighed 151.6 pounds on April 8, 2001, and weighed 160.2 pounds on April 20, 2001, the day after Petitioner completed the April survey. Thus, the failure of the staff to cue the resident during the observed meals did not violate a nutritional parameter. The surveyor testified that the facility failed to provide fortified foods to Resident 9 during the April survey in violation of the resident's dietary care plan. The allegations in Tag F325 in the April survey do not include the allegation of inadequate care to which the surveyor testified during the hearing. In the absence of adequate notice in the written allegations, the testimony of the surveyor cannot be used as a basis for any finding of deficiency. Even if the testimony were considered as a basis for a finding of fact, the failure to provide fortified foods did not violate any nutritional requirements. Resident 9's wife provided the resident with "home-cooked" meals to satisfy his food preferences. Petitioner acknowledges that the meals the wife supplied effectively precluded the resident from eating fortified foods provided by the facility. Moreover, Resident 9 gained weight between April 8 and 17, 2001. Tag F363 alleges in the March and April surveys that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.35(c)(1)-(3). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: (C) menus and nutritional adequacy. Menus must-- Meet the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with the recommended dietary allowances of the Food and Nutrition Board of the national Research Council, National Academy of Sciences; Be prepared in advance; and Be followed. The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F363 alleges that the facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, included cranberry sauce and that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in the rehabilitation dining room. The surveyor who made this charge did not evaluate the meal actually provided to the residents for its nutritional adequacy. Rather, the surveyor cited the facility because the facility failed to comply with the literal terms of the printed menu. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in its rehabilitation dining room on the day in question. The facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, consisted of roast turkey, poultry gravy, cornbread dressing, peas and carrots, mandarin oranges, bread, and cranberry sauce. The menu called for one-half tablespoon of cranberry sauce. The omission was not significant. The dietician did not include the cranberry sauce in calculating the nutritional content of the meal. The cranberry sauce was only a garnish to the plate. The remainder of the food items offered in the meal met all of the requirements for residents’ nutritional needs. Any failure by Respondent to provide the cranberry garnish presented no risk of harm to any resident. Tag F363 alleges in the April survey that Respondent provided a saltine cracker during one meal to a resident who required a pureed diet. Tag F363 also alleges that Respondent gave a bologna sandwich to a resident whose food preferences did not include bologna sandwiches. Petitioner provided no evidence that either of these residents received nutritionally inadequate meals. Petitioner’s apparent concern with the resident who was served the cracker was that she might attempt to eat it and choke on it because she required pureed foods and the cracker was not pureed. The surveyor who observed the resident acknowledged that the resident did not eat the cracker. She also acknowledged that there is a regulatory standard which requires a facility to provide a therapeutic diet to residents who require such a diet, and that a pureed diet is a therapeutic diet. Accordingly, this observation is, at most, a violation of that standard, not Tag F363, and presented nothing more than a minimal chance of harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show that the resident who did not get the bologna sandwich was deprived of any required nutrition, or that placing a bologna sandwich in front of the resident created any risk of harm to the resident. The surveyor acknowledged that the sandwich did not remain in front of the resident for long and that the facility immediately corrected the situation by providing the resident with an acceptable substitute. Tag F363 also alleges that the facility posted for resident observation the same menu on Monday, April 17, 2001, that the facility posted on Sunday, April 16, 2001. The regulation at issue does not address how or even if menus must be posted in a nursing home. Petitioner failed to explain why posting the same menu on consecutive days would violate any regulation, rule, or statute. Respondent acknowledged that the Sunday menu was not removed on Monday, but demonstrated that different, nutritionally adequate meals were planned and served to residents on each of those days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a factual basis existed upon which Petitioner should have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on March 8, 2001, and revising the March 8 and April 16, 2001, 2567 reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F224, F314, F282, F363 and F325 (April only); and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating that was in effect from March 8, 2001, until May 31, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Qualified Representative Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the deficiencies found at Petitioner's nursing home by the Agency for Health Care Administration were sufficient to support issuance of a conditional license.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with conducting licensure surveys of nursing home facilities in Florida to ensure that nursing homes are in compliance with state regulations. AHCA also surveys nursing homes to insure that they are in compliance with federal Medicare and Medicaid requirements. AHCA issues survey reports listing the deficiencies found at facilities that it has surveyed. Each deficiency is identified by a tag number corresponding to the regulation AHCA claims to have been violated. A federal "scope and severity" letter rating is assigned to each deficiency. These letter ratings run from A to L. At the end each deficiency, the survey report lists the State licensure regulation claimed to have been violated and the State's classification of the deficiency. The State's classification of deficiencies are Class I, Class II, and Class III. Changes in a facility's licensure rating are based upon the violations of applicable State regulations. The Petitioner, Mt. Dora, is a nursing home in Mt. Dora, Florida, licensed by AHCA pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. AHCA conducted a relicensure survey of Mt. Dora in May of 1996, and a follow-up survey in August of 1996. See AHCA Exhibits 1 and 2. Richard Fuller and Kathy Johnson are Registered Nurses employed by AHCA. Fuller and Johnson inspected Mt. Dora on May 20, 1996, and August 6, 1996. As part of their inspections, Fuller and Johnson observed a "medication pass" in which Mt. Dora's staff administered medications to its residence. Fuller and Johnson compared the medications administered with the physicians' orders for the home's residents. The inspectors considered as a medication error any medication administered, but not ordered; or ordered, but not administered. Each medication ordered to be administered or administered to a patient presented an opportunity for error upon which the home's performance was rated. 11 On May 20, 1996, Johnson observed the administration of medications by the home's staff. A staff nurse administered two doses of Ventolin from an inhaler to a resident, G.L., without waiting at least one minute between doses. The physician's order for G.L. provided that two doses were to be given, but did not indicate a waiting period between the administration of the doses. Johnson wrote this up as a violation because the nurse did not wait one minute between the administration of the two doses as recommended in the manufacturer's instructions. Fuller observed the administration of Mylanta, an over- the-counter antacid, to a resident, M.R., pursuant to a doctor's order for a 30 cc dose of said medication. Fuller observed that the level of liquid in the medicine cup did not reach the 30 cc line; however, he did observe that it was above the 25 cc line. Fuller could not state exactly how much was administered. There were no index marks between the 25 cc and 30 cc lines. Fuller checked the records of a resident, H.T., for whom a physician had prescribed Megace prior to meals. Fuller observed that Megace was offered with the patient's breakfast rather than prior to the meal. The patient's medication administration record revealed that the patient was offered Megace two times, but refused the medication. Fuller observed that a staff nurse administered one drop of Artificial Tears, an over-the-counter medication for the relief of dry eyes, in each eye of R.P., a resident of the home. Fuller checked the physician's order sheet for R.P. and found that the orders did not indicate a number of drops to be given. The physician's order dated May 8, 1996, prescribed one drop to each eye to the patient R.P.1 Further, the manufacturer's recommended dosage for Artificial Tears is one drop in each eye. By administering one drop to each eye of the patient, R.P., the staff nurse was following the manufacturer's instructions. On August 6, 1996, Fuller and Johnson inspected the facility. Fuller observed a staff nurse administer a multivitamin to a resident, J.P.; however, Fuller did not find this vitamin listed on the physician's order sheet. A subsequent review of the physician's records by the facility's consulting pharmacist revealed an ongoing order dated October 8, 1993, for the administration of a multivitamin to this resident. The resident had been at the facility since 1989 and was 112 years old at the time of the inspection. Fuller also observed the staff nurse had failed to give Klonopin to a resident, J.H., during the morning medication pass. When Fuller brought this to the attention of the nurse, the nurse administered the medication. The medication was given within the time frame required by the doctor's orders. During the same period, it was observed that a staff nurse did not administer insulin to a resident, H.Y., until after breakfast when the doctor's order provided that the insulin was to be administered one-half an hour prior to breakfast. The blood sugar test for the patient revealed that the patient was not endangered by the delay in administering the insulin. On the morning of August 6, 1996, the staff nurse responsible for administering morning medications to J.H. and H.Y. suffered a medical emergency which required other staff nurses to intervene and render assistance to the stricken nurse. After the nurse was removed by ambulance to the hospital, a nurse from another wing of the facility finished administering medication on the stricken nurse's wing. On May 21, 1996, the inspectors reported four errors in 41 opportunities to administer medication. This would constitute a 9.75 percent medication error rate for that date. On August 6, the inspectors reported three errors in 42 opportunities to administer medication. This would constitute a 7.1 percent error rate. During both the May 21, 1996, and August 6, 1996, surveys, the inspectors found insulin bottles which were still in use more than three months after having been opened. In addition, the inspectors found some bottles of insulin which had not been dated when opened. This deficiency was assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "B." Mt. Dora had a policy to date bottles when opened, and to discard bottles of insulin three months after opening period. Each insulin bottle bore the date upon which it was dispensed from the pharmacy and the manufacturer's expiration date. Mt. Dora's policy to discard bottles of insulin after three months was put into place to satisfy the comments made in an earlier AHCA survey period. The policy at other nursing homes, according to the home's consulting pharmacist, is to discard insulin bottles within six months after opening. The consulting pharmacist inspects the home's medicines monthly and discards all bottles which are more than three months beyond the date they were dispensed. The record does not support the finding that any of the bottles were used beyond the manufacturer's expiration date.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency take no action regarding the rating of Mt. Dora Nursing Home and that its rating continued to be standard. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1997.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent should be issued a Conditional License rating for the period effective April 9, 1999 through October 31, 1999, because of deficiencies alleged as a result of an Agency survey conducted on April 9, 1999.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Agency was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of health care facilities, including long-term care nursing homes in Florida. Respondent, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, operated a licensed long-term care nursing home under the name Emerald Oaks, located at 1507 South Tuttle Avenue in Sarasota, Florida. On April 9, 1999, as a result of a complaint of lack of supervision resulting in injury to residents, Mary Patricia O'Connell, a surveyor for the Agency, visited Respondent's facility to inquire into the injury to two residents that took place in early April 1999. Ms. O'Connell is a registered nurse with in excess of 25 years' experience in nursing homes, including ten years as a director of nursing. She has been a surveyor for the Agency for the past six years. During the course of her survey of the facility, Ms. O'Connell examined the records pertaining to Residents 1 and 2, the individuals regarding whose injuries the complaint was filed. Ms. O'Connell's review indicated that the incidents in question constituted failures to meet the standards set up under Tags F224 and F324, as identified on the Form 2567-L of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Health Care Financing Administration. Tag F224, reflecting the requirements of Section 483.13(c)(1)(I), Florida Statutes, requires a facility to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents. Tag F-324, reflecting the requirements of Section 483.25(h)(2), Florida Statutes, requires a facility to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Petitioner limited its evidence to the facts and circumstances surrounding Tag F324, contending that the evidence regarding this tag applies to Tag F224 as well. Ms. O'Connell, the only witness for the Petitioner, was asked her opinion only regarding the facility's compliance with the requirements of Tag F324. The nursing notes and medical records upon which she relied in part were not written by her, and were, in some cases, not the personal knowledge of the author. As such they are clearly hearsay evidence. Resident 2 was, at the time of the incident, an 85-year- old female suffering from hypertension and dementia. On February 10, 1999, the facility completed a Minimum Data Set (MDS) on the resident which described her as requiring extensive assistance with one person to physically assist for transferring and dressing, using full bed rails on all open sides of her bed. Her medical records reflected that she had fallen on March 12, April 13, April 25, May 9, May 14, July 24, August 16 and 23, November 19, and December 11, 1998, and on March 12, 1998, her physician ordered two bed rails as an enabler while the resident was in bed. The doctor subsequently also directed the use of a wedge cushion for wheelchair positioning on April 12, 1998, and a TABS unit an alarm system in bed and in the wheelchair, in the event the resident tried to get out of the chair or bed unassisted. During the course of her investigation, Ms. O'Connell spoke with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assigned to care for Resident 2 on April 3, 1999, who related that she had removed the TABS unit and placed Resident 2 on the side of the bed with the bed rails down and turned away from the resident to call out to another CNA for help in moving Resident 2 to her chair. When the assigned CNA turned back to the resident, she found the resident on the floor. The resident did not complain at the time, and the only injury found at that time was a light abrasion to both knees. She was placed into her wheel chair. The resident's records reflect that although she was observed several times in the interim, as late as 2:00 a.m., on April 6, 1999, without complaint or evidence of any problem, at 9:30 a.m., on April 6, 1999, a swelling in the area of the resident's knees was noticed. X-rays of both legs were taken which reflected fractures of both femurs. The resident was taken to the hospital where surgery was done to reduce the fractures. In Ms. O'Connell's opinion, and based on the information the facility had on the resident to the effect she had a low safety awareness and needed total supervision, the facility, through its employee, was negligent in placing the resident on the side of the bed with the rails down and thereafter turning away from her. Amy Weyant, the facility’s assistant director of nursing, also reviewed the facility’s records regarding the residents in issue here. These records, as to Resident 2, reflect that on February 12, 1999, when she first came to the facility, she was evaluated for risk of falls and found to be at risk. A care plan was developed for this resident which provided that whenever the resident was to be moved, two individuals were required to do so. The evaluation also considered the resident’s stability while in a sitting position and it was noted that the resident maintained her balance for sitting without any difficulty, but had poor standing balance and was unable to walk. Resident 3 was also, at the time of the incident, an 85-year-old female diagnosed with osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease. A quarterly MDS was completed for this resident on January 29, 1999, which described her as requiring extensive assistance with one person to physically assist with transferring and ambulation. The care plan developed for this resident on November 13, 1998, noted the resident had a history of falls and was a risk for further falls due to her poor safety awareness and chronic pain in her back and knees. After the resident sustained a fall on August 24, 1998, an approach calling for her to be supervised when out of bed was identified. The resident was to be placed in a wheel chair when out of bed so that she could be kept at or near the nurses’ station. Unfortunately, this procedure was not added to the prevention care plan. Review of the nurses’ notes regarding this resident reveals that she fell in the bathroom on March 5, 1999. Investigation into the incident indicated that the CNA responsible for this resident was in the resident’s room getting clothes for her from her closet at the time of the fall. As a result of this fall, the resident sustained a fractured hip, for which she was transported to the hospital. According to Ms. Weyant, this resident was also assessed for stability in a sitting position prior to the fall and was found to require physical support because she was unable to follow directions. The resident’s rest room was equipped with hand rails and a call bell. Since the incident in question, the resident has again been evaluated for stability in a sitting position and found to be able to sit without fear of falling. Ms. Weyant also noted that both the residents in issue sustained their falls from a sitting position. While their stability while sitting was questionable, at no time, prior to the falls in issue here had either fallen from a sitting position. Ms. Weyant reports that even notwithstanding the falls sustained, the families or doctor/caregivers of these residents considered the facility reliable enough for the residents to be returned there after release from the hospital. The facility was resurveyed on May 17, 1999, and was found to have cleared all deficiencies as of that date or even earlier. The facility earlier had made a "credible allegation" that it would be in compliance by May 9, 1999. On the May 17, 1999, follow-up, it was found to be in compliance with an effective date of compliance of May 9, 1999. It is a goal of nursing homes to provide necessary care in an environment that is "as normal as possible." The facility must balance the residents’ need for care with the residents’ desire for independence. One of the issues faced by nursing home personnel is to balance restraint against freedom. This requires the facility to develop a method of care designed to prevent falls and injury. Respondent contends that the Administrative Complaint is based on the fact that two falls occurred, and urges that falls are common in nursing homes. The mere fact that an fall occurred does not form the basis for an inspection write-up. The write-up, when done, is based on the qualified surveyor’s determination that there was a lack of necessary supervision. If a facility has done an appropriate assessment and developed a plan to provide necessary supervision, and if the facility has complied with all the provisions called for in the care plan, a subsequent injury to a resident would not result in a deficiency write-up. To ensure as best as is possible against injuries, most nursing homes assign a CNA to every resident. In both cases in issue here, a CNA was assigned to each resident. Sometimes a CNA remains assigned to a particular resident for an extended period. When that happens, a relationship often develops between them through which the CNA gets to know the needs and peculiarities of the resident. In these cases, Ms. O’Connell opines that the facility’s fault lay in its failure to use its own identified interventions: In the one case, the failure to use side rails as called for in the care plan; and in the other, the failure of the CNA to remain in the bathroom with the resident providing the constant supervision called for. In both cases, this translates to an inappropriate lack of supervision, and Ms. O’Connell classified both incidents as Class II deficiencies.
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 rescinding the issuance of the Class II deficiencies noted and the Conditional license issued, and determining that Emerald Oaks is entitled to the issuance of a standard rating for the period from April 9, 1999 to May 9, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2000, 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 26th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel L. Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 60127 Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6127 Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Main Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent’s nursing home license should be disciplined, and whether Respondent’s nursing home license should be changed from a Standard license to a Conditional license.
Findings Of Fact Bayside Manor is a licensed nursing home located in Pensacola, Florida. On June 14, 2003, Resident No. 4 climbed out of her bed without assistance to go to the bathroom. She fell to the floor and sustained a bruise to her forehead and lacerations to her cheek and chin. Her Foley catheter was pulled out with the bulb still inflated. The fall occurred shortly after Resident No. 4 had finished eating. No staff was in her room when she climbed out of her bed. She was found on her side on the floor by staff. According to the June 14 Bayside’s Nurses' notes, Resident No. 4 stated, "Oh, I was going to the bathroom." In the hour prior to her fall, Resident No. 4 was seen at least three times by nursing assistants, which was more than appropriate monitoring for Resident No. 4. On June 20, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey of Bayside Manor’s facility. In its survey, AHCA found one alleged deficiency relating to Resident No. 4. The surveyor believed that Resident No. 4 should have been reassessed for falls by the facility and, based upon that reassessment, offered additional assistive devices and/or increased supervision. The surveyor also believed that the certified nursing assistant had left Resident No. 4 alone with the side rails to her bed down. The deficiency was cited under Tag F-324. Tag F-324 requires a facility to ensure that “[e]ach resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents.” The deficiency was classified as a Class II deficiency. On October 9, 2001, and January 14, 2002, Bayside Manor assessed Resident No. 4 as having a high risk for falls, scoring 9 on a scale where scores of 10 or higher constitute a high risk. In addition to the June 14, 2002, fall noted above, Resident No. 4 had recent falls on November 30, 2001, April 19, 2002, and May 12, 2002. Resident No. 4's diagnoses included end-stage congestive heart failure and cognitive impairment. She had periods of confusion, refused to call for assistance, and had poor safety awareness. Resident No. 4 had been referred to hospice for palliative care. Because hospice care is given when a resident is close to death, care focuses on comfort of the resident rather than aggressive care. Additionally, the resident frequently asked to be toileted even though she had a catheter inserted. She frequently attempted to toilet herself without staff assistance, which in the past had led to her falls. Often her desire to urinate did not coincide with her actual need to urinate. She was capable of feeding herself and did not require assistance with feeding. Bayside Manor addressed Resident No. 4’s high risk of falls by providing medication which eliminated bladder spasms that might increase her desire to urinate and medication to alleviate her anxiety over her desire to urinate. She was placed on the facility’s falling stars program which alerts staff to her high risk for falls and requires that staff check on her every hour. The usual standard for supervision in a nursing home is to check on residents every two hours. The facility also provided Resident No. 4 with a variety of devices to reduce her risk of falling or any injuries sustained from a fall. These devices included a lap buddy, a criss-cross belt, a roll belt while in bed, a low bed, and a body alarm. Some of the devices were discontinued because they were inappropriate for Resident No. 4. In December 2001, the roll belt was discontinued after Resident No. 4, while attempting to get out of bed, became entangled in the roll belt and strangled herself with it. On May 6, 2002, the low bed and fall mat were discontinued for Resident No. 4. The doctor ordered Resident No. 4 be placed in a bed with full side rails. The doctor discontinued the low bed because it could not be raised to a position that would help alleviate fluid build-up in Resident No. 4’s lungs caused by Resident No. 4’s congestive heart failure. Discontinuance of the low bed was also requested by hospice staff and the resident’s daughter to afford the resident more comfort in a raised bed. The fact that placement in a regular raised bed potentially could result in an increase in the seriousness of injury from a fall from that bed was obvious to any reasonable person. The May 5, 2002, nurses’ notes indicate that there was a discussion with Resident No. 4’s daughter about returning the resident to a high bed for comfort. On balance, the placement of Resident No. 4 in a regular raised bed was medically warranted, as well as reasonable. The placement in a regular bed with side rails was not noted directly in the care plan but was contained in the doctor’s orders and was well known by all the facility’s staff. There was no evidence that directly mentioned the regular bed in the formal care plan was required or that the failure to do so had any consequence to Resident No. 4’s care. Even a lack of documentation clearly would not constitute a Class II deficiency. Moreover, the bed with side rails was not ordered to protect or prevent falls by Resident No. 4. The facility does not consider a bed with side rails of any sort to be a device which assists in the prevention of falls. Indeed rails often cause falls or increase the injury from a fall. In this case, the rails were ordered so that the resident could more easily position herself in the bed to maintain a comfortable position. Again, the decision to place Resident No. 4 in a regular raised bed with side rails was reasonable. The focus is on comfort as opposed to aggressive care for hospice residents. The evidence did not demonstrate that Bayside Manor failed to adequately supervise or provide assistive devices to Resident No. 4. There was no evidence that reassessment would have shown Resident No. 4 to be at any higher risk for falls, since she was already rated as a high risk for falls. Nor did the evidence show that reassessment would have changed any of the care given to Resident No. 4 or changed the type bed in which she was most comfortable.
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 restoring the Respondent’s licensure status to Standard and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2003, 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 3rd day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanna Daniels, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Angell Care of Hialeah, Inc., d/b/a Hialeah Convalescent Home (Hialeah), is a nursing home licensed under the authority of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On April 26, 1985, Hialeah submitted its license renewal application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), to renew its nursing home license for license year August 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986. The Department issued Hialeah Standard License No. 2134; however, by letter of September 30, 1985, the Department cancelled Hialeah's standard license, and replaced it with Conditional Rating License No. C-985. The Department's action was premised on its assertion that the results of a survey concluded by its Office of Licensure and Certification on August 1, 1985, established a conditional rating. Hialeah filed a timely request for formal administrative review of the Department's action. Hialeah asserted that the Department's action downgrading its license from standard to conditional was unwarranted and that, as opposed to a standard rating, it was entitled to a superior rating. At hearing, the parties stipulated that if this de novo review of the Department's action, which was premised on the deficiencies found in the survey conducted by its Office of Licensure and Certification, resulted in a finding that Hialeah was qualified to receive a standard rating, as opposed to a conditional rating, then it should receive a superior rating. Accordingly, the issues in this case are resolved to the validity of the deficiencies noted by the Office of Licensure and Certification. Deficiencies noted by the Department: Pertinent to these proceedings, 1/ the survey conducted by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification classified the deficiencies noted at Hialeah into ten major categories, and listed the deficient nursing home licensure requirement number (NH) and applicable statutory or code provision violated, 2/ as follows: Administration and Management (1) NH 3 10D-29.104(1)(b), F.A.C. (2) NH 21 10D-29.104(5)(d)1g, F.A.C. (3) NH 25 10D-29.104(5)(d)4, F.A.C. (4) NH 26 10D-29.104(5)(d)5, F.A.C. Patient Care Policies NH 57 10D-29.106(2), F.A.C. Physician Services (1) NH 60 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Nursing Services (1) NH 77 10D-29.108(3)(c)16, F.A.C. (2) NH 80 10D-29.108(5)(b)6, 13, 15a & b, 16b & i, F.A.C. Dietary Services (1) NH 125 10D-29.110(3)(g)2; 10D-13.24(1)(4), F.A.C. Maintenance (1) NH 352 10D-29.122(1)(a), F.A.C. (2) NH 357 10D-29.122(1)(f), F.A.C. Infection Control (1) NH 365 10D-29.123(3)(a), F.A.C. Disaster Preparedness (1) NH 404 10D-29.126(5), F.A.C. Statutory Requirements (1) NH 405 Section 400.165, Fla. Stat. Life-Safety (1) NH 241 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (2) NH 250 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (3) NH 251 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (4) NH 269 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (5) NH 273 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (6) NH 277 10D-29.119, F.A.C. (7) NH 295 10D-29.121(10)(e), F.A.C. With the exception of the deficiencies listed for NH 3 (administration and management), NH 60 (physician services), and NH 250, NH 251, NH 269, NH 277, and NH 295 (life safety), Hialeah concedes that the deficiencies noted by the Department were appropriate. 3/ Accordingly, resolution of the question of which rating should be accorded Hialeah is dependent upon the propriety of seven disputed deficiencies. The Administration and Management Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 3 found: The provision for the resident's rights to privacy during treatment and care was not routinely adhered to. On the morning of July 24, 1985, staff members were observed attending to residents in rooms 7 and 8 of the Center Court while other residents were in the rooms and without the use of the portable privacy curtains. Chapter 400, Part 1, F.S. 10D-29.104(1)(6), F.A.C. Section 400.022(1)(h), Florida Statutes, accords a nursing home resident a right to privacy during treatment and care. Hialeah's failure to use available portable privacy curtains while patients were being bathed violated their right to privacy, and NH 3 was properly cited. The Physician Services Deficiency: The deficiency noted as NH 60 found: There was no documented evidence to verify that staff incident reports were reviewed by the Medical Director. 10D-29.107(2)C, F.A.C. Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: Responsibilities of the Medical Director . . . shall include, at a minimum, the following: * * * (c) Reviewing reports of all accidents or unusual incidents occurring on the premises and identifying to the facility Administrator hazards to health and safety . . . . The proof in this case established that the Medical Director did review all incident reports; Rule 10D-29.107(2), F.A.C., does not require documentation. Accordingly, deficiency NH 60 was not substantiated. The Life-safety Deficiencies: The life-safety surveyor noted the following disputed deficiencies: NH 250: One required-stairway from the second floor discharges internally at the first floor and is not enclosed or separated to provide exiting directly to the exterior. This is a repeat deficiency. Architectural plans must be submitted to Jacksonville Plans and Construction Section for approval, indicating physical changes required to this deficiency, prior to corrective action . . . . * * * NH 251: The southwest exit door to 27th Street was locked and exit lights were removed. This created a dead end area with only one means of exiting for the south portion of the center court. This is part of a repeat deficiency form (sic) 1984 survey. * * * NH 269: a storage closet in the activities office is not protected by the automatic sprinkler system. * * * NH 277: The following air conditioning deficiencies were found: 1. The heat sensor for the air conditioner unit located on the first floor at the dining room did not activate properly when tested. NH 295: Rooms where soiled linen is stored and soiled utility rooms are not exhausted to the exterior in accordance with Table II. 4/ Hialeah asserts that the Department has waived or deleted deficiency NH 250, or is estopped from counting it as a deficiency for rating purposes. Hialeah's assertion is unpersuasive. The record reveals that during the October 24, 1984 life-safety survey, Hialeah was cited for the same deficiency, NH 250/K32, that is subject matter of these proceedings. 5/ In response to Hialeah's request for a waiver of this deficiency, the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) advised Hialeah by letter of January 28, 1985: We have reviewed your request for a waiver of items K-32 . . . cited as deficiencies to you. Based on this review we concur with the State Agency's recommendation to deny this request. We expect you to submit an accept- able Plan of Correction to these deficiencies to the State Agency within 15 days of the date you receive this letter. We are notifying the State of this action. Notwithstanding the unequivocal denial of Hialeah's request for waiver, a life- safety follow-up inspection on April 17, 1985, revealed that the deficiency had not been addressed or corrected. As of April 26, 1985, the date Hialeah submitted its renewal application which is the subject matter of these proceedings, a plan of correction had still not been submitted nor had the deficiency been corrected. 6/ At this juncture, faced with an uncorrected deficiency from its last survey, Hialeah submitted its second request for waiver of NH 243/K 32. 7/ Hialeah's request for waiver, dated May 23, 1985, was forwarded by the Department's Miami office to the Director of its Office of Licensure and Certification on July 23, 1985, with a recommendation of denial predicated on HCFA's previous action. Before the Department acted, however, the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey were published and the same deficiency cited. On October 30, 1985, the Department responded to Hialeah's May 23, 1985 request for waiver, as well as the results of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 survey. That letter provided: A thorough review has been made of the citations found in OPLCM report of life safety deficiencies found during the survey conducted July 29 - August 1, 1985. As a result of that survey NH 250; NH 277 item #2, NH 282, and NH 219 will be deleted from the report . . . . Your letter of July 23, 1985 (sic) addressed to Alvin Delaney requesting waivers of items K 32 . . . cannot be granted and corrections must be made . . . . However, by letter of December 12, 1985, the Department advised Hialeah that: the indication . . . (in my letter of October 30) . . . that NH 250 citation related to a second floor stairway would be deleted as a deficiency was an error . . . and that deficiency must be corrected. Hialeah's assertion that NH 250 was waived or deleted by the Department is contrary to the evidence. Hialeah's assertion that the Department is estopped from raising that deficiency because of its delay in passing on Hialeah's "second" request for waiver is equally unpersuasive. Hialeah knew of the deficiency because of the October 24, 1984 survey, knew by letter of January 28, 1985, that the deficiency would not be waived, and took no action to correct the deficiency. The fact that the Department erroneously advised Hialeah that NH 250 was deleted did not prejudice Hialeah since such announcement was made after the current survey. Further, that letter affirmatively advised Hialeah that K 32 (the federal equivalent) could not be waived. In sum, NH 250 was properly cited as a deficiency. Hialeah asserts that NH 251 was improperly cited because it had complied with an "alternative plan of correction," approved by the Department, which allowed the 27th Street exit to remain locked so long as staff carried keys to the exit. The proof supports Hialeah's assertion. Since staff do carry keys, NH 251 was improperly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 269 was improperly cited because the closet in question measured less than 100 square feet is unfounded. The closet was created by erecting a partition in an existing room, and was used for the storage of activity supplies, including combustibles, for nursing home residents. The life-safety code required that the subject closet be sprinkled, and the Department had no policy which deviated from the code. Accordingly, NH 269 was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 277(1) was improperly cited because the heat sensor was not correctly tested is unfounded. At the time of inspection the heat sensor was properly tested and failed to function. Therefore, NH 277(1) was properly cited. Hialeah's assertion that NH 295 was improperly cited, because cited on a consultative visit, is not supported by the record. NH 295 was cited as a result of the July 29 - August 1, 1985 life-safety inspection, not a consultative visit, and its citation was proper. Conditional vs. Superior Rating: The parties have stipulated that if Hialeah meets the requirements for a standard rating that it is likewise entitled to a superior rating. To qualify for a standard rating Hialeah must have no more than 20 Class III deficiencies and no more than 5 Class III deficiencies in the specific areas delineated by Hialeah's Exhibit 20, Item 3. While each of the cited deficiencies are Class III, and the number of deficiencies correctly cited do not exceed 20, Hialeah amassed more than 5 deficiencies in the area designated by Rules 10D-29.119, 10D-29.121, 10D-29.123, and 10D-29.125. Accordingly, Hialeah does not qualify for a standard or superior rating but, rather a conditional rating.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency care for a nursing home resident in respiratory distress in violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 483.25 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect as of the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the State of Florida. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 830 West 29th Street, Orlando, Florida (the facility). Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of the facility on September 14, 2001. The survey cited the facility for a deficiency described in F309, and rated the deficiency with a scope and severity of "G" and Class II, respectively. The deficiency classifications authorized in Subsection 400.23(8) range from Class I through Class IV. Class I deficiencies are not relevant to this case. The statute defines the remaining classifications as follows: A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. . . . A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines will result in no more than minimal physical, mental or psychosocial discomfort to the resident or has the potential to compromise the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined. . . . A Class IV deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident. . . . Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the state of Florida to adhere to federal regulations found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, Rule 59A-4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. The "G" rating adopted by Petitioner for the scope and severity rating of the deficiency alleged in F309 is a rating authorized in relevant federal regulations. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated. Applicable state law authorizes Petitioner to change a facility's licensure rating from standard to conditional whenever Petitioner alleges that a Class II deficiency exists. Petitioner alleged in the survey report that a Class II deficiency existed at the facility and assigned a conditional rating to the facility's license. The conditional rating was effective September 14, 2001, and continued until substantial compliance was achieved. When Petitioner proves that a Class II deficiency exists, applicable law authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil money penalty. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking to impose a fine of $2,500.00 and subsequently filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The allegations on which both the change in license status to a conditional license and the proposed fine are based are set forth in F309. The deficiency alleged in F309 is set forth on CMS Form 2567, entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" (the 2567). The 2567 that Petitioner used to charge Respondent with the deficiency described in F309 involved only one resident. In order to protect this resident's privacy, the 2567, F309, the Transcript, and all pleadings refer to the resident as Resident 1. F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25. In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Use F309 for quality of care deficiencies not covered by 483.25(a)-(m). F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 CFR Section 483.25 because: Based on interview and record review the facility neglected to provide appropriate emergency care for [Resident 1] in respiratory distress and failure. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the Manual). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The facility admitted Resident 1 to the pediatric long-term care unit on November 20, 2000. The admitting diagnosis was cerebral palsy, pneumonia and convulsions, a tracheostomy, and a gastrostomy. Resident 1 could breathe on her own and was being weaned from the trach. She could breathe through her nose at times. She was not on a ventilator but could breathe room air. At all times, Resident 1 was making respiratory effort. Resident 1 was on an apnea monitor. Resident 1 had three stomas. Stomas are the openings for the tracheostomy tube. Her throat structures were very frail. She had received numerous throat reconstructions. She had significant scar tissue and a granuloma at her stoma sites. A granuloma is a tumor-like growth. The granuloma was vascular, and the blood vessels were easily broken. Resident 1 was spastic as a result of her cerebral palsy. On September 7, 2001, at 2:50 a.m., Resident 1's apnea monitor alarm sounded. Staff immediately responded to find that Resident 1 had pulled out her tracheostomy tube and was bleeding profusely. Facility staff called 911 and notified the treating physician and the parents. An ambulance was dispatched to the facility at 2:51 a.m. on September 7, 2001. While awaiting the ambulance, the Registered Nurse on duty (RN) could not detect an apical or radial pulse. The RN did not administer CPR. Rather, the RN established an airway by successfully replacing the tracheostomy tube. Securing a patent airway was the first thing that the RN should have done for Resident 1 under the circumstances. No oxygen can be given without a patent airway. It was difficult for the RN to visualize the trach opening because of the profuse bleeding. The RN was able to tactilely reinsert the tube. Vital signs taken by the RN showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. CPR is not appropriate when vital signs are present. The ambulance and EMT personnel arrived shortly after the RN reinserted the trach tube. At 2:56 a.m., EMT personnel took over the care of Resident 1. EMT personnel worked on Resident 1 for 23 minutes before transporting her to the hospital. Resident 1 died at the hospital at 3:35 a.m., 38 minutes after the EMTs took responsibility for her care. EMT personnel generated EKG strips indicating that Resident 1's heart was beating at some point after they took over. Two sets of x-rays subsequently taken at the hospital substantiate that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel took over her care. EMT personnel removed the trach the nurse had inserted and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. Removing the trach eliminated the airway that the RN had established for Resident 1 before EMT personnel arrived. The endotracheal tube was 22 centimeters long and significantly longer and larger than the regular trach tube used for Resident 1. The physician's order for Resident 1 stated that nothing should go past 6 centimeters into Resident 1's trach. It took the EMTs three attempts to get the endotracheal tube placed. The EMTs should have hyperventilated Resident 1 before placing the endotracheal tube. They did not do so. The x-ray taken at 3:42 a.m. in the hospital, shows that the endotracheal tube was improperly positioned in Resident 1's lung. All steps taken by the RN were appropriate for Resident 1 under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between any act or omission by the facility and the harm to Resident 1. The care plan for Resident 1 called for suctioning of her tracheal tube. Care plans are to be followed under normal circumstances. Emergency procedures take precedence in critical situations. Suctioning for Resident 1 was appropriate under normal circumstances when she had a patent airway. If Resident 1 did not have an airway, the first priority is to establish an airway. The RN first established a patent airway for Resident 1. It would have been inappropriate for the RN to suction Resident 1 before establishing an airway because it would have sucked out the air remaining in Resident 1's lungs. Suctioning also could have caused a vasovagal response that could stop the heart and could have caused tissue damage. After the RN opened an airway for Resident 1, the next priority would have been for the RN to check for vital signs. The RN checked Resident 1's vital signs after opening an airway, and the vital signs showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. The presence of vital signs made it inappropriate for either the RN or EMT personnel to administer CPR. CPR is appropriate only in the absence of vital signs. When EMT personnel arrived, they continued the same procedure that the RN had followed. EMT first established an airway by removing the trach tube used by the RN and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. The resident had vital signs after placement of the trach and CPR was inappropriate. F282 relates to failure to implement a care plan. Respondent was not cited under F282. Petitioner stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation that both the conditional license and fine were based on F309 alone.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in F309 and the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint, and changing Respondent's conditional license to a standard license effective September 4, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, Room 3106 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. Post Office Box 2011 2180 Park Avenue, North Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 3rd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
