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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a nursing home facility located at 1900 Mercy Drive, Orlando, Florida. It is licensed by Respondent and certified to participate in the Medicaid Program. Prior to the rating at issue in this case, Petitioner was rated a "superior" nursing home by Respondent. The "standard" rating at issue in this case was for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. The most recent rating for Petitioner, for the period after February 28, 1986, is "superior." Petitioner was deprived of increased Medicaid reimbursement due to its "standard" rating during the period in question. Additionally, Petitioner was deprived of the ability to hold itself out to the public as a "superior" nursing home for the period in question. The parties stipulated that Petitioner was qualified for a "superior" rating for the period in question, except for the factors considered by Robert Maryanski, former Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification, when he made the decision to give Petitioner a "standard" rating, effective November 30, 1984 until February 28, 1986. The factors considered by Maryanski which formed the basis of his decision were: a rating sheet and results of a survey conducted of Petitioner's facility on November 5 through 7, 1984, as well as follow-up visits on January 15 and February 1, 1985: a report of a complaint or surveillance visit conducted on February 1, 1985; a memo dated March 14, 1985 from Robert W. Smith, Area Supervisor of the Office of Licensure and Certification: concerns of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council as expressed by letter dated November 15, 1984 and concerns of Paul Snead, Jr., Respondent's District Administrator as expressed by memo dated November 26, 1984. In conducting its annual survey of Petitioner's facility, Respondent's surveyors, George Farrar and June Monaghan, identified seven Class III deficiencies which were corrected by the time follow-up visits were conducted on January 15 and February l, 1985. However, in conjunction with the February 1, 1985 follow-up visit, Respondent's surveyors also conducted an unannounced complaint or surveillance visit which identified eight additional deficiencies. No exit interview was conducted following this complaint or surveillance visit, and Petitioner was not informed of these additional deficiencies, or the fact they could affect their annual rating, until approximately a week later. Neither Farrar nor Monaghan, the surveyors who conducted the February 1 complaint or surveillance visit and who are still employed by Respondent, testified at the hearing. The only witnesses testifying at the hearing who were present during all or a portion of the February 1 visit were Charlotte Uhrig, Administrator of Petitioner's facility, Kathleen Wingard, Director of Operations for Petitioner's management company, and Linda Anderson, a licensed practical nurse employed by Petitioner. Uhrig and Anderson offered credible testimony to explain the deficiencies found during the complaint or surveillance visit, and their unrebutted testimony precludes any finding that the deficiencies reported by Farrar and Monaghan actually existed. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented, it is specifically found that during this visit on February 1, 1985: Petitioner did not violate a patient's right to privacy in treatment since only the patient's heel and back of the leg were exposed at the request of the surveyor; Petitioner took prompt action in terminating a Director of Nursing who violated its policies by allowing aides to do and chart dressings and treatments; Anderson's actions in attempting to give a patient two pills were reasonable and in accordance with proper nursing practice. The fact that the patient did not swallow the pills and the surveyor found them in a glass of water does not indicate any failure on the part of Petitioner to adhere to required nursing home procedures; The lock on a treatment cart was only broken for a couple of hours and was repaired as soon as possible. During the time the lock was broken, the cart was in the nurse's station and observable by nurses on duty; Stains on the walls were fully explained as the result of roof leaks which had recently been repaired and Petitioner was simply waiting for a good rain to insure the leak was fixed before repainting; There was no dust or soap residue on chair lifts, but rather a small amount of powder used on patients was identified by the surveyors; In-service training was promptly given to all aides about washing their hands after treating each patient; An unidentified cart noticed in the new linen room was simply the cart used to carry new linen to the laundry for washing before use; An unidentified, undated bottle of liquid on the medication cart was apple juice given to patients to assist them in taking their medication; The door to the janitor's closet was not left open, but rather the door had been closed but the lock had not engaged; In service training was promptly given to aides concerning leaving unattended bottles of germicide and cups of liquid soap in patients' bathrooms. In his memo dated March 14, 1985, Robert W. Smith recommended that Petitioner be given a "superior" rating for the time in question. Smith supervised nursing home surveyors including Farrar and Monaghan. Robert Maryanski was Smith's superior and had the final authority on rating decisions. Yvonne Opfell, Vice Chairperson of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council, testified that one-fourth of all complaints in the Orlando area the Council received in 1984 involved Petitioner's facility. The Council investigates every complaint received and found most complaints against Petitioner to be "not substantiated." However, several were found to be "substantiated" including one which was substantiated by Adult Protective Services involving an incident in August, 1984 in which a patient was allegedly dropped and suffered a broken arm. Henry McLaulin investigated this incident for Adult Protective Services and testified that Petitioner was less than cooperative with him in this investigation. However, based on the evidence received, including the testimony of Uhrig and Karen Skadering, a physical therapist who worked with this patient in August, 1984, it has not been proven that aides dropped the patient causing a broken arm. The patient was very weak and dependent, with brittle bones, and according to David Parsons, M.D., a patient in this condition could break a bone simply by turning over in bed through no fault of Petitioner's staff. As District Administrator of Respondent, Paul Snead, Jr. expressed his concerns about Petitioner's rating in a memo dated November 26, 1984. Snead testified at the hearing about these concerns and his feeling that Petitioner-should not be given a "superior" rating. He also admitted he has never visited Petitioner's facility. In addition to the incident in August, 1984 involving a patient's broken bone discussed above in Finding of Fact 9, Snead reported complaints about scabies at Petitioner's facility during 1984. Based upon the testimony of Charlotte Uhrig, Petitioner's Administrator, Bob Duncan, a pharmacist, Ruth E. Laughlin, senior community health nurse, and David Parsons, M.D., it is found that scabies did exist on several occasions during 1984 at Petitioner's facility. However, scabies is frequently found in nursing homes, even those rated "superior". It is a highly communicable parasitic condition which can be introduced into a nursing home by patients, family and staff. When the condition was diagnosed, Petitioner took action to eradicate the problem, but due to the lengthy three to six week incubation period and highly contagious nature of this condition, it did take repeated efforts to remove it from the nursing home. Petitioner's efforts were successful, and there is no evidence that the condition continued to exist after November, 1984.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner a "superior" rating for the period November 30, 1984 to February 28, 1986. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Suite 500, Day Building 605 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Douglas Whitney, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 9, 10, 11. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 9, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and also as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Petitioner's nursing home sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Glen Oaks, is a licensed nursing facility located in Clearwater Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On February 2 and 3, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Glen Oaks in a matter unrelated to the issue that is the subject of this proceeding. As a result of that investigation, the Agency determined that the allegations in the underlying complaint were unfounded. While the Agency surveyor was at Glen Oaks investigating the complaint, she also performed a focused review at the facility. The focused review involved a matter unrelated to the complaint and came to the Agency surveyor's attention while she was touring the facility. During a tour of the facility, Claire R. Hoagland, R.N., the Agency surveyor, accompanied by Marlice Nix, R.N., an employee of Glen Oaks, entered the room of Resident No. 8. Once they were in the room, the resident complained to her primary care charge nurse, Marlice Nix, of soreness in the buttocks area. The charge nurse and the Agency surveyor, with the permission of the residence, looked at and noted redness on the resident's buttocks. This redness appeared to be excoriation associated with incontinence, rather than with any stages of pressure sores. In addition to the redness on the resident's buttocks, the surveyor and Ms. Nix identified an 0.5 centimeter linear shaped open area, equivalent in size to a pinpoint, measuring 0.1 centimeter in width with a zero depth located in the Resident No. 8's gluteal fold. Surveyor Hoagland believed that the red pinpoint size area on Resident No. 8 was a Stage II pressure sore. Upon review of the clinical record of Resident No. 8, Ms. Hoagland found no documentation that the facility had assessed the skin integrity of Resident No. 8 since December 20, 1997. Ms. Hoagland then spoke to the facility's administrator and its Director of Nursing. According to the administrator and Director of Nursing, the facility performed skin assessments on Resident No. 8, but had not documented all of the assessments. However, at the time of the Agency's visit to Glen Oaks, Resident No. 8's most recent annual "Minimum Data Set" (MDS), dated June 1997, documented the absence of any pressure sores. An MDS is a comprehensive assessment tool. During the April 1998, complaint investigation, the Agency surveyor learned that there were times when Resident No. 8 refused to be changed. For example, occasionally, when Resident No. 8 was watching her favorite television show, she asked not to be disturbed. The surveyor viewed this as "non-compliance" by Resident No. 8 and cited the facility because the resident's care plan did not specifically provide that staff would turn, re-position, or change the resident when her favorite television program was not on. Following the complaint investigation, the Agency cited Glen Oaks with an alleged failure to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA) regulatory requirements set forth at 42 C.F.R., Section 483.25 (c)(1). This requirement is also referred to on the Form 2567 as Federal Tag F-314 (the deficiency). According to that OBRA provision, the facility must ensure: (1) that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless they were unavoidable; and (2) that a resident with pressure sores receives the necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new sores from developing. The Agency alleged that Glen Oaks failed to comply with the above-cited OBRA provision in that (1) the facility did not document and/or perform weekly skin assessments on Resident No. 8, and that (2) Resident No. 8's care plan did not address her non-compliant behavior. Based on the facility's alleged deficiencies, it was the Agency's position that Resident No. 8 had developed a pressure sore that was avoidable. During the exit interview, the Agency Surveyor informed Glen Oaks that the deficiency would be classified as a Class III deficiency and would not affect Glen Oaks' superior licensure status. However, the Agency notified Glen Oaks on February 13, 1998, through the telephone call of its employee, Pat Silar, that its deficiency classification would be changed from a Class III to a Class II, resulting in a conditional rating for its nursing home license. By letter dated February 16, 1998, the Agency issued a Form 2567 setting forth the alleged deficiency; the findings supporting the deficiency; assessing the scope and severity of the deficiency at G; and classifying the deficiency as a Class II deficiency. In making her determination, Surveyor Hoagland used the surveyors' guidelines contained in the State Operating Manual (SOM). Appendix P of the SOM, entitled "Guidance to Surveyors," is the federal interpretative guideline to state surveyors regarding the OBRA regulations. Moreover, Surveyor Hoagland relied on the interpretive guidelines of F-314, including the booklet, Pressure Ulcers in Adults: Prediction and Prevention. There are two components to determining whether the development of an open area constitutes non-compliance with the OBRA requirement. First, the open area must, in fact, be a pressure sore. Second, if a pressure sore exists, the Agency must next determine if the development of the pressure sore was unavoidable. The SOM guideline corresponding to the OBRA Requirement governing pressure sores defines a pressure sore as an "ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer." The SOM defines a Stage II pressure ulcer or sore as "a partial thickness loss of skin layers either dermis or epidermis that presents clinically as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater." Based on the definition in the SOM, a pressure sore is located over a bony prominence where the area would be subject to pressure. The pinpoint-size open area on Resident No. 8 was not located over a bony prominence, but rather in the gluteal fold. Also, the area was not the deep, dark, dusty red, with a purple center, that is associated with a Stage I or II pressure sore. Moreover, a Stage II pressure sore does not typically resolve in ten days as was the case with the area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold. Due to the factors noted in paragraph 16 above, it is found that the pinpoint-size open area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold was not a pressure sore. Even if it is assumed that the mark was a pressure sore, the Agency must next determine whether the pressure sore was unavoidable. In assessing whether a pressure sore was unavoidable, surveyors are to apply the "probes" set forth in the SOM. These probes are: Did the facility identify the resident as being at risk for pressure sores? Did the facility provide aggressive/appropriate preventative measures and care specific to addressing the resident's unique factors (e.g., if serum albumin is below 3.4 mg per dl, provide additional protein in daily snacks)? Was the preventative care plan implemented consistently? In the instant case, the answer to the first "probe" is yes. Resident No. 8 was admitted to Glen Oaks on March 4, 1994. At the time of admission, the resident had a Stage IV pressure sore which had healed by January, 1995, without surgical intervention. However, due to her medical history, Resident No. 8 was identified on the Resident Assessment Protocol as being at risk for the development of pressure sores. Because Resident No. 8 was identified as being at risk for developing pressure sores, the second "probe" requires that the Agency determine whether the facility provided aggressive appropriate preventative measures and care to the resident. Routine preventative care is defined by the SOM as turning and proper positioning; application of pressure reduction or relief devices; providing good skin care (i.e., keeping the skin clean, instituting measures to reduce excessive moisture); providing clean and dry bed linens; and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration if possible. Resident No. 8's care plans dated June 1997, September 1997, and December 1997, were based on a comprehensive assessment of the resident; addressed the potential for alterations in skin integrity; and, provided for appropriate aggressive preventative measures and care. These preventative measures and care included turning and re-positioning at least every two hours; providing pressure relief mattress in both the Resident's bed and wheelchair; application of good skin care, including application of Vaseline care cream as a moisture barrier; and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration, including the addition of the protein supplement Promod, and daily supplemental protein snacks and vitamins. These preventative skin care measures were also consistently implemented and effected the expedient healing of Resident No. 8's Stage IV pressure sore, present upon her admission to Glen Oaks in 1994. Furthermore, the consistent implementation of the prescribed preventative skin care measures prevented the development of any pressure sores for the period between January 1995 and February 1998, inclusive. The third probe requires a determination of whether the preventative care plan was implemented consistently. Here, Glen Oaks consistently implemented the preventative care plan measures listed in Resident No. 8's care plan. Thus, the third probe is answered in the affirmative. In the instant case, each of the inquiries or probes listed in paragraph 18 above is answered in the affirmative. Glen Oaks identified Resident No. 8 as being at risk for pressure sores; provided aggressive/appropriate preventative measures and care specific to address the residents unique risk factors; and, implemented the preventative care plan consistently. Accordingly, the development of the pinpoint-size open area in Resident No. 8's gluteal fold was unavoidable. Neither the applicable OBRA regulations governing pressure sores nor the SOM interpretative guidelines require weekly skin assessments for residents at risk for developing pressure sores. Thus, the failure to document all skin assessments does not constitute non-compliance with the OBRA requirements. Notwithstanding the Agency's findings to the contrary, Glen Oaks consistently implemented the care plan developed for Resident No. 8. However, Resident No. 8's care plan did not require a weekly skin assessment. Rather, the care plan required only that the Resident's skin be assessed for changes and that any changes be reported to the charge nurse/physician. Skin assessments were performed on Resident No. 8 more frequently than weekly. They were performed on Resident No. 8 several times a day during brief changes and twice a week during whirlpool baths performed by Charge Nurse Nix. However, because Resident No. 8's care plan did not so require, the benign assessments were not routinely documented. Typically, only changes or abnormal findings in a Resident's skin condition were documented in the resident's clinical records. Although the benign findings relative to skin assessments were not routinely recorded, the January 1998 Monthly Nursing Assessment for Resident No. 8 documented that the skin was intact; however, that report also noted the red area on the buttocks referred to in paragraph 4 above. On the other hand, two health care providers, charged with caring for Resident No. 8, observed no abnormal findings with regard to the resident's skin on January 30 and February 1, 1998. In the latter instances, the nursing staff did not record their findings that Resident No. 8's skin was intact. The Agency acknowledged that if skin assessments were performed on Resident No. 8 every day, there was no problem with the care provided. A care plan should address compliance only when a resident's non-compliance is frequent and becomes a habitual problem. Resident No. 8's non-compliance was not a habitual problem, and did not occur on a daily basis. Rather, Resident No. 8 was only "occasionally" non-compliant with regard to brief changes, turning and repositioning. In most cases, Resident No. 8's non-compliance required only that the charge nurse or Director of Nursing speak with the patient before the resident would comply. Occasionally, when Resident No. 8 was watching television, she refused to comply with the turning and re-positioning schedule and requested that the nursing staff come back when the television program was over. In these situations, the nurse complied with the resident's request, but would return soon thereafter to turn and re-position the resident. Resident No. 8's conduct cannot be deemed to be non- compliant and, therefore, there was no need to have the issue of non-compliance addressed in Resident 8's care plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rescinding the conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 14th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Rebekah N. Plowman, Esquire Long, Aldridge and Norman, LLP 303 Peachtree Street, Suite 5300 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of skilled nursing facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. At all times material hereto, Avante was licensed by Petitioner as a skilled nursing facility. Avante operates a 116-bed nursing home located in Leesburg, Florida. On or about March 28, 2002, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. On or about May 13, 2002, AHCA conducted a survey at Avante. Based on AHCA's findings during the May 13, 2002, survey, federal tag F281(D) was cited against Avante. Resident E.S. was admitted to Avante on March 11, 2002, with diagnoses including e. coli sepsis, anemia, and schizophrenia with an order for serum albumin levels to be performed "now and yearly." Resident E.S.'s resident chart failed to reflect that a serum albumin test had been performed for Resident E.S. at any time from the date of his admission on March 11, 2002, until March 28, 2002. Avante failed to follow the orders of Resident E.S.'s physician due to its failure to perform a serum albumin test on Resident E.S. at any time between March 11, 2002, and March 28, 2002. Resident R.L. was admitted to Respondent's facility on May 6, 2002 with diagnoses including gastrointestinal hemorrhage, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, A-fib, pneumonia, diverticulitis, gout, fracture of right arm, and cancer of the prostate. Resident R.L.'s resident chart reflects that Resident R.L. was neither offered or administered Tylenol by Avante's staff at any time between May 9, 2002, and May 13, 2002. Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record The correction date given to Respondent for the deficiency cited, Tag F281(D), as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation was April 28, 2002. Respondent does not dispute the deficiency cited by AHCA as a result of the March 28, 2002, complaint investigation. Thus, facts and circumstances surrounding the May 13, 2002, survey visit to Avante is the source of this dispute. The purpose of the May 13, 2002 survey visit to Avante by AHCA was for annual certification or licensure. In an annual license survey, a group of surveyors goes to a facility to determine if the facility is in compliance with state and federal requirements and regulations. Part of the process is to tour the facility, meet residents, record reviews, and talk to families and friends of the residents. During the licensure visit on May 13, 2002, the records of 21 residents were reviewed. Stephen Burgin is a registered nurse and is employed by AHCA as a registered nurse specialist. He has been employed by AHCA for three years and has been licensed as a nurse for six years. He also has experience working in a hospital ER staging unit and in a hospital cardiology unit. Nurse Burgin has never worked in a nursing home. Nurse Burgin conducted the complaint investigation on March 28, 2002, and was team leader for the licensure survey visit on May 13, 2002, at Avante. He was accompanied on the May 13, 2002, visit by Selena Beckett, who is employed by AHCA as a social worker. Both Nurse Burgin and Ms. Beckett are Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT) certified. During the course of the May 13, 2002, licensure survey visit, Ms. Beckett interviewed Resident R.L. As a result of this interview, Ms. Beckett examined Resident R.L.'s medication administration record (MAR) to determine whether he was receiving pain medication for his injured left elbow. As a result of reviewing Resident R.L.'s record, Ms. Beckett became aware of a fax cover sheet which related to Resident R.L. The fax cover sheet was dated May 8, 2002, from Nancy Starke, who is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse, to Dr. Sarmiento, Resident R.L.'s attending physician. The box labeled "Please comment" was checked and the following was hand written in the section entitled "comments": "Pt refused Augmentin 500 mg BID today states it causes him to have hallucinations would like tyl for pain L elbow." According to Nurse Starke, the fax to Dr. Sarmiento addressed two concerns: Resident R.L.'s refusal to take Augmentin and a request for Tylenol for pain for Resident R.L.'s left elbow. She faxed the cover sheet to Dr. Sarmiento during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on May 8, 2002. Despite her fax to Dr. Sarmiento, which mentioned pain in R.L.'s left elbow, her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002, reflect that Resident R.L. was alert, easygoing, and happy. He was verbal on that day meaning that he was able to make his needs known to her. Her daily nurse notes for May 8, 2002 contain the notation: "Pt refused augmentin today. Dr. Sarmiento faxed." According to Nurse Starke, she personally observed Resident R.L. and did not observe any expression of pain on May 8, 2002, nor did Resident R.L. request pain medication after she sent the fax to Dr. Sarmiento. The fax cover sheet also contained the hand written notation: "Document refused by PT. OK 5/9/02" with initials which was recognized by nurses at Avante as that of Dr. Sarmiento. The fax sheet has a transmission line which indicates that it was faxed back to Avante the evening of May 9, 2002. Nurse Starke also provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11, 2002. According to Nurse Starke, Resident R.L. did not complain of pain on May 11, 2002. Theresa Miller is a registered nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Miller provided care to Resident R.L. on May 9 and 10, 2002, during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Nurse Miller's nurses notes for May 9 and 10, 2002, reflect that she observed Resident R.L. to be alert, easygoing, and happy. Her notes also reflect that Resident R.L. was verbal on those dates, meaning that he was able to tell her if he needed anything. She did not observe Resident R.L. to have any expression of pain on those dates, nor did Resident R.L. express to her that he was in any pain. Vicki Cannon is a licensed practical nurse employed by Avante as a staff nurse. Nurse Cannon has been a licensed practical nurse and has worked in nursing homes since 1998. Nurse Cannon provided care to Resident R.L. on May 11 and 12, 2002, on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Her nurse's notes for May 11, 2002 reflect that Resident R.L. was sullen but alert and verbal. Resident R.L. had blood in his urine and some discomfort. Nurse Cannon contacted Dr. Sarmiento by telephone on May 11, 2002, to inform him of Resident R.L.'s symptoms that day. Nurse Cannon noted on Resident R.L.'s physician order sheet that she received a telephone order from Dr. Sarmiento to give Resident R.L. Ultram PRN and Levaquin, discontinue Augmentin, order BMP and CBC blood work, and a urology consult. Ultram is an anti-inflammatory and a pain medication. Ultram is stronger than Tylenol. The notation "PRN" means as requested by the patient for pain. Levaquin is an antibiotic. Nurse Cannon faxed the order to the pharmacy at Leesburg Regional Medical Center. By the time Nurse Cannon left Avante for the day on May 11, 2002, the Ultram had not arrived from the pharmacy. On May 12, 2002, Resident R.L. had edema of the legs and blood in his urine. Nurse Cannon notified Dr. Sarmiento of Resident R.L.'s symptoms. Resident R.L. was sent to the emergency room for evaluation based on Dr. Sarmiento's orders. Additionally, Nurse Cannon called the pharmacy on May 12, 2002, to inquire about the Ultram as it had not yet arrived at the facility. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002. Alice Markham is a registered nurse and is the Director of Nursing at Avante. She has been a nurse for more than 20 years and has been employed at Avante for a little over two years. She also has worked in acute care at a hospital. Nurse Markham is familiar with Resident R.L. She described Resident R.L. as alert until the period of time before he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. She was not aware of any expressions of pain by Resident R.L. between May 9, 2002 until he went to the hospital on May 12, 2002. Nurse Markham meets frequently with her nursing staff regarding the facility's residents. During the licensure survey, Nurse Markham became aware of Ms. Beckett's concerns regarding Resident R.L. and whether he had received Tylenol. She called Dr. Sarmiento to request an order for Tylenol for R.L. The physician order sheet for R.L. contains a notation for a telephone order for Tylenol "PRN" on May 14, 2002, for joint pain and the notation, "try Tylenol before Ultram." The medical administration record for R.L. indicates that Resident R.L. received Ultram on May 13 and and began receiving Tylenol on May 15, 2002. AHCA 's charge of failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement physician orders is based on the "OK" notation by Dr. Sarmiento on the above-described fax and what AHCA perceives to be Avante's failure to follow and implement that "order" for Tylenol for Resident R.L. AHCA nurse and surveyor Burgin acknowledged that the "OK" on the fax cover sheet was not an order as it did not specify dosage or frequency. He also acknowledged that the nursing home could not administer Tylenol based on Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" on the fax cover sheet, that it would not be appropriate to forward the "OK" to the pharmacy, that it should not have been placed on the resident's medication administration record, and that it should not have been administered to the resident. However, Nurse Burgin is of the opinion that the standard practice of nursing is to clarify such an "order" and once clarified, administer the medication as ordered. He was of the opinion that Avante should have clarified Dr. Sarmiento's "OK" for Tylenol on May 9, 2002, rather than on May 14, 2002. Nurse Burgin also was of the opinion that it should have been reflected on the resident's medication administration record and treatment record or TAR. In Nurse Markham's opinion, "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet does not constitute a physician's order for medication as it does not contain dosage or frequency of administration. Nurse Markham is also of the opinion that it should not have been forwarded to the pharmacy, transcribed to the medication administration record, or transcribed on the treatment administration record. According to Nurse Markham, doctor's orders are not recorded on the treatment administration record of a resident. Nurse Markham is of the opinion that the nursing staff at Avante did not deviate from the community standard for nursing in their care of Resident R.L. from May 8, 2002 to May 14, 2002. Nurse Cannon also is of the opinion that the "OK" by Dr. Sarmiento does not constitute a physician's order for medication. The Administrative Complaints cited Avante for failure to meet professional standards of quality by failing to properly follow and implement a physician's order. Having considered the opinions of Nurses Burgin, Markham, and Cannon, it is clear that the "OK" notation of Dr. Sarmiento on the fax cover sheet did not constitute a physician's order. Without Dr. Sarmiento's testimony, it is not entirely clear from a review of the fax cover sheet that the "OK" relates to the reference to Tylenol or the reference to Resident R.L.'s refusal of Augmentin. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to follow a physician's order in May 2002. As to AHCA's assertion that Avante failed to meet professional standards by not clarifying the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento, this constitutes a different reason or ground than stated in the Administrative Complaints. Failure to clarify an order is not the equivalent of failure to follow an order. There is insufficient nexus between the deficiency cited on March 28, 2002 and the deficiency cited on May 13, 2002. Accordingly, Avante did not fail to correct a Class III deficiency within the time established by the agency or commit a repeat Class III violation. Moreover, the evidence shows that the nursing staff responded to the needs of Resident R.L. Resident R.L. expressed pain in his left elbow to Nurse Starke on May 8, 2002. Resident R.L. was alert and could make his needs known. He did not express pain or a need for pain medication to Nurse Miller on May 9 or 10, 2002 or to Nurse Cannon on May 11 or 12, 2002. Rather, Nurse Cannon noted a change in his condition, notified Dr. Sarmiento which resulted in Resident R.L. being sent to the emergency room. Resident R.L. returned to Avante the evening of May 12, 2002, and received Ultram for pain on May 13, 2002, when the medication reached Avante from the pharmacy. The evidence presented does not establish that Avante deviated from the community standard for nursing in its actions surrounding the "OK" from Dr. Sarmiento. In weighing the respective opinions of Nurses Burgin and Markham in relation to whether the community standard for nursing was met by the actions of Respondent, Nurse Markham's opinion is more persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaints issued against Respondent, Avante at Leesburg. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 13th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jodi C. Page, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis 2180 Park Avenue North, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valinda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue As stated in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the "issue to be litigated is whether Petitioner is entitled to a Superior or Standard rating on its license for the period September 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987"?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, The Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, is a 210-bed nursing home located in a four-story building in Pensacola, Florida. It is licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Howard Bennett and his wife have been the owners of the Petitioner since it was built in 1978. On April 28-30, 1986, and May 1-2, 1986, the Department conducted an annual Licensure and Certification survey (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Survey") of the Petitioner's nursing home as required by Section 400.23, Florida Statutes. Based upon the Annual Survey conducted by the Department, the Department determined that the Petitioner's facility failed to meet nursing home licensure requirement numbers (NH) 100 and 102, as identified on the Department's Nursing Home Licensure Survey Report, DHRS exhibit 2. The deficiencies found by the Department and which in fact existed during the Annual Survey relating to NH 100 and 102 were as follows: The charge nurse for each shift on each of the four floors of the facility is responsible, under direction from Director of Nursing, for the total nursing activities in the facility during each tour of duty. The charge nurses are thus responsible for ensuring that nursing personnel carry out the direct nursing care needs of specific patients and assist in carrying out these nursing care needs. This responsibility is not always met in that: On the day of the survey, there were urine odors noted on the halls, rooms of fourth and third floors, indicating lack of attention by nursing. Other instances of lack of personal attention by nursing on the above mentioned floor in that: One patient required oral hygiene. Fourteen residents required fingernail care, one resident's fingernails were long, thick, and black indicating a need for attention. Two residents had redden buttocks, three residents were wet, three residents needed shaving, three residents needed hair cuts. One resident needed colostomy bag changed. One resident had a small amount of feces on backside, and was not properly cleaned around the rectum and scrotum. Several residents had on clothing that was too tight, zippers open, buttons not fasten, soil wrinkled and threads hanging around the bottom. It is also noted, that there are 116 total care, and 17 self care residents in the facility indicating a need for constant intensive nursing care to the residents. Ref. 10D-29.108(3)(d)(1) Based upon the totality of these deficiencies, it was concluded that the Petitioner failed to comply with the standard of care to be provided by the charge nurse. The deficiencies cited by the Department during the Annual Survey were classified as Class III deficiencies. The Annual Survey was conducted by Christine Denson. Ms. Denson had conducted nine to ten annual surveys of the Petitioner prior to the survey which is the subject of this proceeding. During Ms. Denson's inspection of the Petitioner's nursing home, Ms. Denson pointed out the deficiencies which are noted above to the director of nursing who accompanied Ms. Denson during her inspection. Ms. Denson normally records in some manner the identity of a resident to whom a deficiency relates; by noting the room number or bed number. Ms. Denson did not follow this procedure during the Annual Survey. Ms. Denson met with Howard Bennett, the owner of the Petitioner, at the conclusion of the Annual Survey. After Ms. Denson had explained the deficiencies she had found during her inspection, Judge Bennett stated to Ms. Denson: "I know the place is going down hill. We are letting it slide. Judge Bennett did not ask Ms. Denson for any information concerning the identity of the residents to which deficiencies related. The Petitioner had policies in effect at the time of the Annual Survey which addressed each of the deficiencies cited by the Department. Those policies were not, however, followed. Ms. Denson did not know when the residents to which the deficiencies she found related had been admitted to the Petitioner, their medical condition, how long the fingernail problems had existed or how long the residents had resided at the Petitioner. Ms. Denson did not speak to the residents about the problems she noted, review their medical or dental records or talk to any residents' physician. Finally, Ms. Denson did not remember whether any of the residents were continent or incontinent. On August 13, 1986, a letter was issued by the Department informing the Petitioner that its license rating was being converted from a superior rating to a standard rating. The August 13, 1986, letter from the Department also indicated that the deficiencies noted in the Annual Survey had been corrected based upon a July 31, 1986, follow-up inspection conducted by the Department. The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed rating of its license by letter dated September 24, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assigning a standard rating on the Petitioner's license for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4182 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Accentance or Reason for Rejection 1-3, 6-7, 81 These are matters included in the Prehearing Stipulation. They are hereby accepted. 4-5 Statement of the issue in this case 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Denson testified at pages 48-49 of the transcript that whether a nursing home was considered to be out of compliance depended on the totality of the deficiencies and that she considered all of the deficiencies she found at the Petitioner's facility. 9 12. 10-11 10. 12-13 7. 14 Irrelevant. 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29-31 10. 17 Hearsay. 18, 28, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 41-43, 45 Hereby accepted. 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 48, 54-66, 71, 73-77 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They all involve, however, possible explanations for the deficiencies found at the Petitioner's facility. In order for these proposed findings of fact to be relevant it would have to be concluded that the Department had the burden of dispelling any and all possible explanations for the deficiencies. Such a conclusion would not be reasonable in this case. The Department presented testimony that the deficiencies cited existed and that, taken as a whole, they supported a conclusion that the Petitioner was not providing minimum nursing care. This evidence was credible and sufficient to meet the Department's burden of proof and to shift the burden to the Petitioner to provide proof of any explanations for the deficiencies. 35 9. 38, 40, 49-51, 53, 82-83, 86-87 Irrelevant and/or argument. 43-44 1. 46-47, 51, 56, 66-67, 71-71 These proposed findings of fact are true. They are not relevant to this proceeding, however, because they involve situations at the Petitioner's facility which may explain the deficiencies. The Petitioner failed to prove that they actually were the cause of any of the deficiencies. 70, 78-80, 84-85 Conclusions of law. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-3. 2 11-12. 3 4 and 6. 4 4. 5-7 Irrelevant, summary of testimony, conclusion of law. 8 9. 9 8. 10 Irrelevant. 11 8. 12 Summary of testimony and facts relating to the weight of Ms. Mayo's testimony. 13-14 Hereby accepted. 15 Argument. 16-17 Conclusions of law. 18 4. 19-20 Conclusions of law, argument and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael O. Mathis Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her license to practice nursing in the state of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of facts are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, holding license number PN0876551. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Arch Creek Nursing Home (Arch Creek) where she worked as a practical nurse on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Her direct supervisor, Ms. McDonald, R.N., worked the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift. The Arch Creek Director of Nursing, Jeanette Jaffe, R.N., also worked the day shift. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was assigned to provide nursing care to patient E. R., a seventy-seven (77) year old female. After suffering a stroke, E. R. was admitted to North Shore Medical Center (NSMC) on November 16, 1990. She was transferred from NSMC to Arch Creek on December 7, 1990. At that time, E. R. suffered hypertension and was partially paralyzed and aphasic. Because she was incontinent of bowel and bladder, a foley catheter was used for urine drainage. A gastrostomy tube was required for nutritional feeding. At the time of admission to Arch Creek, E. R. also had a stage II sacral decubitus ulcer on her buttocks which was one and one half (1 1/2) inches by one half (1/2) inches. The decubitus ulcer was not infected at that time. On December 7, 1990, Dr. Cottler, E. R.'s physician at Arch Creek, ordered that the decubitus ulcer be treated with a DuoDerm dressing, an occlusive "sealed" treatment, which was to be changed every three (3) days. He also ordered that E. R. be turned every two (2) hours to alleviate pressure in the sacral area. On December 9, 1990, a 3:00 p.m. nurse's note reflects that E. R. had two (2) open sores with a small necrotic area on her buttocks. Dr. Cottler examined E. R. on December 11, 1990. He did not describe the ulcer in his notes or change the orders for treatment. At that time, the wound was approximately 4" by 6" inches. On December 17, 1990, a 2:45 p.m. nurse's note reflects that E. R.'s decubitus ulcer was getting worse and needed to be evaluated. Nurses' notes are inherently reliable. The presence of these notes in E. R.'s chart should have alerted Respondent to the changes in E. R.'s condition. Respondent had the opportunity to observe whether the DuoDerm dressing was intact and clean when she performed her rounds on the night shift. This was especially important after a bowel movement to ensure that fecal matter did not contaminate the wound. On December 20 and 21 at 6:00 a.m., Respondent noted on E. R.'s chart that a treatment was done to the buttocks. On neither occasion did Respondent chart information relating to the size, color, odor, or drainage of the decubitus ulcer. All of these factors needed to be documented so that a record could be developed as to any changes in the patient's condition and to facilitate an ongoing assessment of the treatment. Respondent did not contact Dr. Cottler during the night shift of December 20-21. There is no persuasive record evidence that Respondent verbally reported E. R.'s condition to the registered nurse in charge on the mornings of December 20 and December 21. On December 21 at 4:00 p.m., a nurse noted in the chart that the skin around E. R.'s sacral area was black with a fowl odor and appeared not to be responding to treatment. This same nurse noted that Dr. Cottler's new orders required E. R.'s wound to be treated with twenty-five percent (25 percent) acetic acid and wet to dry dressings every eight (8) hours. A decubitus ulcer does not change to a fowl smelling necrotic ulcer in ten (10) hours. Therefore, it is likely that the signs of decay were present when the Respondent treated E. R.'s buttocks on the night shifts of December 19- 20 and 20-21. Around noon on December 23, E. R.'s temperature was 100.8 degrees. Respondent again provided nursing care to E. R. on the night shift of December 23-24. At 3:00 a.m., she observed that E. R. was slower to respond and short of breath. However, this assessment of E. R.'s condition was incomplete. Respondent did not record the patient's vital signs or note the condition of the decubitus ulcer. She also failed to alert Dr. Cottler of the change in E. R.'s condition. Evidence that Respondent made a verbal report regarding E. R.'s condition to the registered nurse at 7:00 a.m. on the morning of December 24 is not persuasive. Because E. R. was slower to respond and short of breath at 3:00 a.m. on December 24, Respondent should have recorded the patient's vital signs and documented other relevant information, including the condition of the decubitus ulcer. Armed with all the information for a total assessment, Respondent should have immediately alerted the doctor about E. R.'s condition. At 2:00 p.m. on December 24, a nurse's note reflects that E. R. was unresponsive and short of breath. The nurse informed Dr. Cottler, who ordered a chest x-ray and oxygen for E. R. Dr. Cottler subsequently authorized transfer of E. R. to NSMC. At the time of transfer, Dr. Cottler was under the impression that E. R. had aspirated. On admission to NSMC's emergency room, E. R. was unresponsive and acutely short of breath. Her vital signs were extremely beyond her normal range: temperature, 102.8; pulse, 130; respirations, 40; and blood pressure, Additionally, E. R.'s white blood cell count of 31,000 indicated the presence of infection. Dr. Kann took care of E. R. upon her admission to NSMC on December 24. Within twenty-four (24) hours, he observed that E. R.'s wound was roughly nine (9) inches by six (6) inches by three (3) inches deep; it had greatly increased in size and had deteriorated in condition during the seventeen (17) days that E. R. had been a resident at Arch Creek. On January 8, 1991, fifteen (15) days after E. R. was discharged from Arch Creek, Respondent charted a late entry on E. R.'s Weekly Decubitus or Treatment Sheet. This entry was dated December 13, 1990, and states: I, Catherine Evanoff, L.P.N., reviewed this patient on 12/13/90. Superficial decubitus area extends 6"-7" across both left & right buttocks (Coccycx area, necrotic tissue, is deeper in depth and surrounded by red soft, tender tissue. All decubitus area is soft, mushy w/strong foul odor & drainage present.) Respondent made this late entry at the request of Jeanette Jaffe, R.N., the Director of Nursing at Arch Creek. Ms. Jaffe asked Respondent to make the record because Ms. McDonald, the registered nurse in charge of the day shift and Respondent direct supervisor, no longer worked at Arch Creek. Respondent should not have made the late entry fifteen days after the care was provided. A late entry should be made only where such information continues to be relevant and pertinent to the care being provided to a patient. After emergency room treatment, E. R. was admitted to NSMC's intensive care unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 464.018(h), Florida Statutes (1989). Additionally, the Board of Nursing should: (1) reprimand Respondent's license; (2) place Respondent on probation for two (2) years with direct supervision; (3) require Respondent to take continuing education courses in decubitus care and charting in addition to her required continuing education credits; (4) require Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of November 1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed deficient practices as alleged in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b) and 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288; and if so, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 and issue a conditional license to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida under state and federal statutes. Petitioner is charged with evaluating nursing homes facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for concluding federally-mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." Respondent is a 98-bed nursing home located at 1024 Willow Springs Drive, Winter Springs, Florida, and is licensed as a skilled nursing facility. On May 30, 2003, Petitioner's staff conducted an inspection, also known as a survey, at Respondent's facility. Upon completion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document entitled, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS Form 2567L, also known as a "2567," which contains a statement of the alleged violations of regulatory requirements, also referred to as "deficiencies," titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The evaluation or survey of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of a record, reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on the 2567 Form, and 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. Petitioner's surveyors use the "State Operations Manual," a document prepared by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 C.F.R. Chapter 483. Count I In Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent's staff subjected three residents (Resident Nos. 6, 13, and 18) to verbal and mental abuse in violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), which provides that a nursing home resident has the right to be free from verbal and mental abuse. As to Resident No. 6, Petitioner contends that this resident stated to a surveyor that the resident had "overheard" a certified nursing assistant (CNA) loudly tell another staff member that the resident was "going to the bathroom 25 times a day." Petitioner believes the CNA's statement, which was allegedly "overheard," occurred sometime during the month of March 2003, based upon nurses' notes which indicate Resident No. 6 had an episode of diarrhea during this time. However, the nurses notes also reveal that during this time Resident No. 6 was subject to confusion and nonsensical outbursts. Petitioner's belief that Resident No. 6 was a reliable historian is based on Petitioner's mistaken belief that Resident No. 6 was admitted about March 30, 2003, and was alert and oriented and not confused upon admission. Petitioner's staff exhibited a lack of understanding of the timing and significance of the Multiple Data Set (MDS) forms describing Resident No. 6's mental condition upon which they relied. In fact, Resident No. 6 was admitted in mid-February 2003 and exhibited confused and eccentric behavior. The "overheard" comment was not reported to Respondent until the survey. Therefore, the evidence that this incident occurred as described by Petitioner is unreliable hearsay. Surveyors reviewed Respondent's records, which contained a complaint from a family member of Resident No. 6 that the same CNA had noticed that the resident had a physical anomaly. The CNA called other CNAs to view this anomaly, which was located in Resident No. 6's genital area. Respondent learned of the allegations relating to Resident No. 6's physical anomaly on April 21, 2003, from a family member of Resident No. 6. Respondent immediately began an investigation, including an interview with and physical examination of Resident No. 6 and an interview with the CNA. The resident only stated that she did not want this CNA taking care of her any longer. The CNA denied the allegations. The CNA was suspended pending investigation and later terminated based upon directions from Respondent's corporate office based on additional, unrelated information. The incident was reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Abuse Hot Line on April 22, 2003. Although Resident No. 6 and her family member had frequent contact and conversation with Respondent's director of nursing (DON), neither had ever complained about the CNA's conduct. Respondent's DON observed no mental distress on the part of Resident No. 6 after Respondent's DON learned of the allegations. Petitioner alleges that this CNA had observed the physical anomaly for the first time. If that is true, it would be expected that the CNA would consult other nursing staff to address potential nursing issues. As to Resident No. 13, Petitioner alleges verbal abuse based upon the allegation that Resident No. 13 reported to a surveyor that she found a male resident sitting on her bed in her room. When this was reported by Resident No. 13 to one of the Respondent's nurses, the resident alleged that the nurse "laughed at" the resident. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON shortly after it happened. Respondent's DON interviewed the resident and the two nurses who were on duty at the time. The nurses reported that they assured Resident No. 13 that everything was okay, escorted the male resident to his room, and Resident No. 13 went to bed with no complaint or distress. This incident was reported by Resident No. 13 to Respondent's DON in a joking manner, as an event and not as a complaint. Although Respondent's DON was concerned that the nurses should respond appropriately and was also concerned that the wandering resident be identified, Respondent's DON did not believe that the incident constituted any form of abuse. Respondent's DON did not observe this incident to have any adverse impact on Resident No. 13. During the survey, Petitioner's surveyor advised Respondent that the incident should have been investigated and reported to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON completed a written report and called the DCF Abuse Hot Line and related the incident. The incident did not meet the DCF guidelines for the reporting of abuse. On or about March 30, 2003, two surveyors observed Resident No. 18 in her wheelchair as she approached the nurse's station. One of Respondent's nursing staff spoke in a "curt, loud voice" to Resident No. 18. The resident had approached the nurses' station to ask for her medication, to which the nurse replied: "I told you I will give you your medicine." Resident No. 18 was hearing-impaired and was documented in her medical record as one to whom staff "must speak loudly." This resident did not wear any hearing assistance devices. Respondent's staff credibly described this resident as one to whom staff had to speak loudly and in clipped words for the resident to understand. Petitioner's surveyors did not speak to this resident after the alleged incident. There is no evidence that this incident had any effect on the resident or even that the resident heard the staff member. The incident does not rise to the level of verbal abuse of the resident. Count II Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), which provides that a nursing home must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse; and that the nursing home must not employ individuals who have been found guilty of abuse or neglect or are listed in the state nursing aide registry with a finding of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Count II is based on the allegation that Respondent failed to report to Petitioner (the appropriate "state agency") the incidents involving Resident No. 13 and 18 and other allegations of abuse or neglect, which the surveyor allegedly identified in Respondent's log of grievances. Respondent has in place written policies and procedures regarding abuse and neglect and its staff receive regular training regarding these policies and procedures. Petitioner has offered no evidence that these written policies and procedures or the staff's knowledge of these policies and procedures is inadequate. With regard to Resident No. 13, when Respondent's DON learned of the incident from the resident, Respondent's DON made inquiries of nursing staff who were on duty at the time, in addition to interviewing the resident. Respondent's DON did not consider any aspect of the incident to constitute abuse or neglect. Later, after Petitioner alleged, during the survey, that the incident should have been reported to DCF, Respondent's DON prepared a written report of the incident and called and related the incident to the DCF Abuse Hot Line. Respondent's DON was advised by DCF that the incident did not meet DCF's requirements for reporting. Respondent is required to report all allegations of abuse and neglect to the DCF's Abuse Hot Line. Petitioner does not dispute this fact. Instead, Petitioner contends that Respondent is also required to report allegations of abuse and neglect to the "state agency" and that Respondent failed to do so. The "state agency" for the purpose of federal regulations is Petitioner. Petitioner's allegations are based upon its review of Respondent's grievance log, which Petitioner's surveyors say allegedly records 18 incidents of alleged abuse, none of which was reported to the state agency. At the time of the survey, Respondent was a part of the Mariner Corporation. It has since disassociated from that corporation and changed its name to Tuskawilla Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, effective October 1, 2003. At the time of the survey, all reporting of abuse allegations were done by the corporate regional risk management department, and it is not known if they reported any of the incidents cited by the surveyors to Petitioner. However, the document received in evidence, which has many more than 18 entries in summary style, is almost completely illegible. Petitioner's witness was unable to identify any entries on this document which could be identified as alleged abuse and which had not been properly reported. Understanding this document requires substantial explanation, which was never provided. Standing alone, this document is not probative of any fact. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent employed any individuals who had been found guilty of or who had been listed on the nurse aide registry of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating residents. Even if it is assumed that Respondent should have reported but did not report to Petitioner the 18 alleged incidents or the incident regarding Resident No. 13, Petitioner offered no evidence that reporting this information to DCF, but not to Petitioner, had any impact on any resident or prevented a resident from maintaining or achieving the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. Count III Since there is no proof of Class II deficiencies, there is no basis for imposing a conditional license status on Respondent for the period May 30, 2003, until July 8, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail 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 Respondent is a skilled nursing home facility located in Blountstown, Florida, and is licensed by HRS. During a routine survey (inspection) of Apalachicola Valley Nursing Center on January 7-8, 1980, a staffing analysis revealed that for the three weeks prior to the survey, Respondent was short one licensed nurse on the night shift (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) for this 21-day period. During the entire period here involved, the adjusted average census of the Respondent was over 60 patients. At the time of this survey, Petitioner's policy was not to cite staff shortages as deficiencies on HRS Form 553D unless they affected patient care or there was a deficiency in patient care to which a staff shortage could relate. At all times here relevant, Mrs. Margaret Z. Brock was Administrator and part-owner of the Respondent. Following the January 7-8, 1980 survey, the results were discussed with Mrs. Brock. The head of the survey team advised Mrs. Brock of HRS' policy on staff shortages which did not affect patient care. As a result of unfavorable publicity regarding HRS' laxness in enforcing regulations involving medical facilities, by memorandum dated January 10, 1980 (Exhibit 2), HRS changed the policy on staff shortages which did not affect patient care. This change directed all staff shortages to be noted on the inspection report (Form 553D), which would thereby require action by the facility to correct. It further provided that all such shortages be corrected within 72 hours and if not corrected within the time specified, administrative action against the facility would be taken. By letter dated January 15, 1980, Mrs. Brock was forwarded the survey report containing the deficiency relating to the shortage of one LPN on the night shift during the three-week period prior to the survey. A follow-up visit was made to the Respondent on February 21, 1980, at which time it was noted that the LPN shortage on the night shift remained uncorrected. By letter dated February 27, 1980 (Exhibit 3), Mrs. Brock was advised of this finding and the accompanying Form 553D stated that the deficiency was referred for administrative action. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1443. A second follow-up visit was made on March 25, 1980, at which time it was noted that the LPN shortage on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift was still uncorrected. By letter dated April 1, 1980 (Exhibit 4), Mrs. Brock was advised of this finding and the accompanying Form 553D indicates that the deficiency is again being referred for administrative action. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1444. There is a shortage of nurses, both registered and licensed practical, nationwide, as well as in the panhandle of Florida. This shortage is worse in smaller towns and rural areas than in more metropolitan areas. Respondent is located in a rural area. Respondent has encouraged and assisted potential employees to attend the LPN courses given in nearby technical schools. One of these enrollees is currently working for Respondent. Respondent has advertised in newspapers for additional nursing personnel and has offered bonuses to present employees if they can recruit a nurse to work for Respondent. Other hospitals and nursing homes in the panhandle experience difficulties in hiring the number of nurses they would like to have on their staff. All of those medical facilities, whose representatives testified in these proceedings, have difficulty employing as many nurses as they feel they need. The LPN shortage is worse than the RN shortage. None of these medical facilities, whose representatives testified to the nurse shortage, except Respondent, was unable to meet the minimum staffing requirements of HRS although they sometimes had to shift schedules to meet the prescribed staffing. Respondent has found it more difficult to keep nurses on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift than other shifts, particularly if these employees are married or have families. Because of this staffing shortage, on July 18, 1980, a moratorium was placed on Respondent's admitting additional patients. This moratorium was lifted presumably after Respondent met the prescribed staffing requirements by employing a second nurse for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Failure to meet minimum staffing requirements is considered by Petitioner to constitute a Class III deficiency.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1443 be dismissed. It is further recommended that for failure to comply with the minimum staffing requirements after February 21, 1980, Respondent be fined $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District 2 Legal Office Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Dempsey & Slaughter Suite 610, Eola Office Center 605 E. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board take no action against the license of Marie Novak, L.P.N. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 218 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert T. Westman, Esquire Post Office Box 1888 Cocoa, Florida 32922
