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
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this 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 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 February, 2003.
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases are: as to Case Number 00-3497, whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should impose an administrative fine against the Respondent's license to operate Beverly Savana Cay Manor, a nursing home in Lakeland; and, as to Case Number 00-2465, whether the Agency should issue a conditional license to the Respondent's facility effective April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of nursing homes and the regulation of the nursing home industry in this state. It is also the agency responsible for conducting surveys to monitor the compliance of nursing homes with the conditions of Medicare and Medicaid participation. Respondents, Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Healthcare Lakeland, and Beverly Enterprises - Lakeland, are licensed by the Agency to operate a skilled nursing home at 1010 Carpenter's Way in Lakeland. On August 31, 1999, the Agency conducted an investigation into a complaint that Savana Cay had failed to provide sufficient nursing service and related services to allow residents to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required by Federal rules governing Medicare and Medicaid. The Agency surveyor, Patricia Mills, observed several residents who did not have their call buttons within reach so that they could summon help if needed. Ms. Mills also talked with residents and family members and from these interviews determined that even when the resident could reach the call button and summon help, the response time was excessively long or, in some instances, the call went unheeded. This sometimes resulted in resident's suffering from the results of their incontinence because the staff did not timely respond to the help calls. Ms. Mills concluded, based on her extensive experience in surveying nursing homes, that the number of staff on duty was not sufficient to meet the residents' needs. It did not allow for the best possible well-being of the residents. Though the information related by Ms. Mills came from her interviews with residents and their families and was clearly hearsay testimony, it was admissible and considered as corroborative of her direct observation. The parties stipulated that a follow-up survey of the facility was conducted on October 13, 1999, at which time the deficiency described was deemed to have been timely corrected. The Respondent, by stipulation, does not concede the validity of this discrepancy on the August 19, 1999, survey, and the Agency does not rely on it to support the administrative fine sought to be imposed herein. Another survey of the facility was conducted by the Agency on April 26-28, 2000. On this occasion, surveyor Patricia Gold interviewed residents regarding the everyday life of the facility and reviewed resident council reports to follow up on any resident or family concerns which did not appear to have been addressed by the facility staff. During the resident interviews, Ms. Gold was advised that call lights were not answered in a timely fashion. In that connection, early on the morning of April 28, 2000, Ms. Gold observed a resident request a nurse to bring something to drink. The nurse was overheard to tell the resident the request would have to wait until she finished her report. Ms. Gold also noted on April 28, 2000, that dirty dishes were left uncollected over night in the facility common corridor and that one resident had two dirty trays left in the room. The dishes in the corridor were also seen by surveyors Donna Edwards and Marie Maisel. Based on their observations, the interviews, and the review of the council reports, the surveyors concluded that the staff on duty were insufficient in number. Another surveyor, Joanne Stewart, reviewed the resident files and medical reports of several of the residents and determined that in several cases the facility had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent falls and inconsistently applied the interventions that were put in place. For example, Ms. Stewart observed Resident 12 on the floor at 2:40 p.m. on April 27, 2000. This resident, a cognitively impaired individual, had been placed in the facility from the hospital after he had sustained a fracture to his right hip and, at the time of the fall, still had staples in his hip. Ms. Stewart's review of the kardexes maintained by the certified nursing assistant (CNA) revealed there were no entries thereon indicating a need for special care to prevent this resident from falling. Although he was supposed to wear a tab alarm at all times, the facility staff knew the resident would periodically remove it, and when Ms. Stewart saw him prior to the fall, he was not wearing it. No other interventions, such as quick-release seat belts or Velcro belts, had been implemented to prevent his falls. It was just the kind of fall that he had which caused his placement in the facility and which gave rise to the need for supervision adequate to prevent further injury. He did not get the needed supervision. In fact, though the resident sustained a skin tear and bleeding of the arm as a result of the fall, the nurse who came to the scene of the fall went back to her desk and did some paperwork for between twenty and twenty-five minutes before the resident was provided any treatment for his injury. Ms. Stewart concluded the facility did not provide adequate supervision and assistance to Resident 12, and it is so found. Due to a cognitive impairment and an inability to ambulate due to an intracerebral hemorrhage, diabetes, and a cardio-vascular accident, Resident 9 was assessed at high risk for falls, and a determination was made that the resident should wear a tab alarm while in bed and in the wheelchair. During the course of her survey, Ms. Stewart observed this resident on several occasions without the tab alarm when she should have been wearing it. The resident had previously sustained falls, one of which occurred while the resident was on leave, on March 31 and April 1, 2000, but the only caveat on the CNA kardex for the resident was the caution not to leave her on the toilet alone. Ms. Stewart did not consider the supervision and assistance rendered Resident 9 to be adequate. It is so found. Ms. Edwards focused her review on the records of Resident 22 who was not at the facility at the time of the survey. The records indicated the resident had been assessed at a high risk for falls at the time of her admission and a tab alarm was used. However, according to the nurse's notes, on April 10, 2000, the alarm went off causing the resident to lose her balance and fall while in the merry walker. She lacerated her scalp and sustained a large swelling in the occipital area. The only fall assessment of this resident was done when she was admitted to the facility. The evidence does not indicate when this was, but presumably, it was not done timely. There is a requirement that fall assessments be done quarterly, but it cannot be determined when it was done here. Even when, on April 11, 2000, the day after the fall, the physical therapy staff re-screened this resident for a merry walker, no change in care notation was noted in her record or implemented. Resident 22 sustained another fall on April 16, 2000. On this occasion, the resident was found on the floor of the day room, out of the merry walker. There was no indication she was being supervised or monitored at the time of her fall. This time she sustained another head injury just above the old one. After this fall, the facility staff ordered a new merry walker even though there was no indication a different one would provide additional protection. The resident sustained a third fall on April 18, 2000, sustaining another injury to the head which resulted in substantial blood loss. As a result of this fall, she was taken to the hospital. Because of this, she was not present when the survey was done, but based on her review of the resident records, Ms. Edwards concluded that the facility did not provide sufficient supervision or assistive devices to this resident. During the period of the survey, Ms. Gold observed Resident 3 on five separate occasions. On none of them was the resident wearing a Tabs alarm even though the facility's care plan called for one to be used. A falls assessment had been started on the resident but not completed. The record also revealed that the resident fell on March 29, 2000, resulting in a skin tear to the right arm. Based on the above, Ms. Gold concluded that the resident was not provided with adequate care and assistive devices. Resident 10 was a resident with a history of falls both before and after admission to the facility. The resident's care plan called for chair alarms, a merry walker, a safety seat belt, a low bed, and a bike horn. Though Ms. Maisel, the surveyor, observed that the resident had a chair alarm, she did not see that any of the other interventions called for in the plan were provided. She did not ever see the resident with a merry walker, and on at least two occasions, she saw the resident when the chair alarm was not in use. In her opinion, the use of one intervention does not make the use of other interventions unnecessary, and she considers the facility's supervision and assistive device provision to be inadequate. Resident 4 was an individual who had sustained a hip fracture, was senile, and was taking pain medications. The resident required help in getting out of bed or a chair. The care plan for the resident called for the use of a Tabs alarm, but on none of the occasions that Ms. Stewart observed this resident was the tabs alarm in use. She considered the supervision and assistive devices provided by the facility to this resident to be inadequate. Respondent does not contest that the incidents cited by the Agency took place. Rather, it contends that the interventions implemented by it were sufficient. It also disputes the effectiveness of some interventions called for, specifically the Tabs alarms, suggesting that the alarm does not prevent falls and often contributes to them by startling the wearer. There is some evidence to support that claim. Respondent further contends that the safety provided by the use of an intervention device, such as the Tabs alarm, straps, bed rails, or the merry walker, restrictive as they are, must be weighed and evaluated against the loss of dignity of the resident caused by their use. It is also urged by the facility that the use of certain interventions such as Tabs alarms is made unnecessary when the resident is immobile and safety is provided by the use of other interventions such as bed rails, which are more pertinent to the condition of the resident. In the case of Resident 9, the failure to provide for the use of a Tabs alarm when the resident was on leave with her husband was off-set by the one-on-one supervision she received during that period. Respondent contends that falls will occur among residents of the type in issue here regardless of the planning to identify the risks of fall, the efforts made to prevent them, and the implementation and use of interventions designed to avoid them. While this may be so, the facility nonetheless has a duty to provide necessary and adequate supervision and assistive devices to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the risk of injury as the result of falls. In some cases, this was not done here. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of Theresa Vogelspohl, a nursing home consultant and an agreed expert on falls, issues of the elderly, issues of care of the elderly, and nursing practices and standards in nursing homes. Ms. Vogelspohl indicated that as a general practice when patients are admitted to a nursing home they are considered at risk for falls until the facility staff gets to know them. Each facility sets its own standard as to the length of the observation period, during which the residents are studied for their gait and safety awareness. In addition, the residents are evaluated for safety awareness by the staff of the physical and occupational therapy departments. Ordinarily, the assessment includes only the minimum data set (MDS) criteria, but increasingly during the last few years, a separate falls assessment has become common. In addition to the initial assessment, the attending nurses do an independent admissions assessment, and Ms. Vogelspohl found that such an assessment process was followed as to each of the residents in issue here. Ms. Vogelspohl found that an incomplete falls assessment had been done on Resident 3. Based upon her own review of the resident's records, however, had the full assessment been completed, other than the fact that she was a new resident, the resident would have been classified as a low risk for falls. She opines that the failure to complete the falls assessment did not deny the resident any care or a care plan for falls. Ms. Vogelspohl determined that the facility had opted, instead, for a more cautious approach to this resident in the care plan which, in her opinion, was appropriate for a new admission. A care plan is a map for the staff to be made aware of the care being provided and the specific interventions pertinent to the resident. If the resident is at increased risk for falls, the care plan would list the interventions designed to decrease the risk of falls. One of the most significant risk factors for falls is increase in age. Others are disease conditions, medications, cognitive functioning levels, eyesight, and other impairments. The interventions available to a facility to address the issue of risk of falls depend upon the condition of the resident. The first consideration should be the need to maintain a safe physical environment for the resident. Appropriate footwear is important as is the availability of assistive devices such as a cane or walker. If the resident has a history of falls, consideration should be given to changing those factors which were related to the prior falls. Included in that is consideration of different seating or a more frequent toileting schedule. According to Ms. Vogelspohl, the last thing one would want to do is to apply physical restraint, but, if all else has failed, the least restrictive physical or chemical restraint may be necessary to decrease the likelihood of falls. Ms. Vogelspohl emphasizes that only the likelihood of falls can be reduced. It is not possible to prevent all falls. Room cleanliness is not something which should appear in a care plan. It is a given, and nurses know to place furniture in such a way and to reduce clutter to the extent that the resident can safely navigate the room either with a walker or a wheelchair. Obviously, in this case the survey staff concluded the placement of the dirty trays in the hallway and in the resident's room constituted a hazard. In Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, supervision and monitoring of residents in a nursing home is a basic. That is generally the reason for the resident's being admitted in the first place. While they should be done on a routine basis, supervision and monitoring are still sometimes placed in a care plan, but the failure to have the requirements in black and white is not a discrepancy so long as the appropriate supervision and monitoring are accomplished. The residents most at risk for falls, and those who are the most difficult to manage, are those who have full physical functioning yet who have almost nonexistent cognitive functioning. Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that for these residents, the best intervention is the merry walker. This is better than a regular walker because the resident cannot leave it behind. If the resident is one who falls from bed, then a low bed, with rails if appropriate, is the primary option. A low bed was called for for Resident 10 but was not provided. Ms. Vogelspohl does not have a high opinion of the Tabs alarm because it can cause as many falls as it prevents. It has a place with the cognitively aware resident who will sit back down if she or he hears the alarm sound. More often than not, however, the routine resident will automatically react by trying to get away from the noise, and, thus, be more likely to engage in rapid, impulsive behavior that can lead to a fall. Ms. Vogelspohl considers the use of the Tabs alarm as only one factor in assessing the degree of supervision provided. She looks at the care plan to see if the Tabs alarm even meets the needs of the resident. If the resident is cognitively alert and at no risk of falls, a Tabs alarm is not appropriate. There are other interventions which can be used such as quick release, velcro seat belts which better prevent falls because they provide a resistance when the resident attempts to stand up. To determine whether a care plan has been developed and implemented, Ms. Vogelspohl reviews the record. She looks at the nurse's notes and those of the social services personnel. She evaluates the records of the physical, occupational, and recreational therapy staff. Finally, she reads the resident's chart to see what staff is actually doing to implement the interventions called for in the care plan. However, on the issue of supervision, she does not expect the notes or the record to affirmatively reflect every incident of supervision. There is no standard of nursing practice that she is aware of that calls for that degree of record keeping. What she would expect to see is a record of any kind of unsafe behavior that was observed. By the same token, Ms. Vogelspohl would not expect a facility to document every time it placed an alarm unit on a resident. The units are applied and removed several times a day for bathing, clothing changes, incontinence care, and the like, and it would be unreasonable, she opines, to expect each change to be documented. Further, she considers it inappropriate and insulting to the resident to require him or her to wear an alarm when cognizant and not displaying any unsafe behavior. If a resident who is not cognitively impaired declines intervention, it would, in her opinion, be a violation of that resident's rights to put one on. In that regard, generally, interventions are noted in the resident records when initiated. Usually, however, they are not removed until the quarterly assessment, even though the intervention may be discontinued shortly after implementation. Ms. Vogelspohl took exception to Ms. Edwards' finding fault with the facility for the three falls experienced by Resident 22. The resident was under observation when the first fall occurred, but the staff member was not able to get to the resident quickly enough to catch her when she stood up and immediately toppled over in her merry walker. The resident had been properly assessed and proper interventions had been called for in the care plan. Ms. Vogelspohl attributes the fall to the resident's being frightened by the Tabs alarm going off when she stood up and believes she probably would not have fallen had she not had the tab unit on. The second fall took place while the resident got out of her marry walker in the day room. Though the day room was visible to anyone out in the hallway, the fall was not witnessed, but Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that it is not reasonably possible to keep every resident under constant visual supervision unless an aide can be assigned on a one-on-one basis to every resident. On the third fall, which occurred at about 10 p.m., the staff had put the resident to bed and had put a Tabs unit on her at that time, but the resident had detached the unit and gotten out of bed. There was nothing the staff could do to prevent that. The resident was able to remove the unit no matter how it was affixed to her. Taken together, the actions taken by the facility with regard to this resident were, to Ms. Vogelspohl, appropriate. Some things could have been done differently, such as perhaps using a heavier merry walker, but she did not consider these matters as defects in the care plan, in assessment, in design, or in application. Further, she concluded that the actions taken by the facility subsequent to the first fall on April 10, 2000, wherein the resident's medications were adjusted to compensate for their effect on the resident, constituted a recognition of a change in the resident's condition which was properly addressed. Too much supervision becomes a dignity issue. There is no formula for determining how much supervision is adequate. It is a question of nursing discretion based on the individual resident. An unofficial standard in place within the industry calls for a resident to be checked on every two hours, but rarely will this be documented. Staff, mostly nurses and CNAs, are in and out of the residents' rooms on a regular basis, administering medications and giving treatments. Those visits are documented, but not every visit to a resident's room is. Resident 12, a relatively young man of 62 with several severe medical problems, sustained a fall which resulted in a fractured hip just two weeks after admission to the facility and two weeks before the survey. He was far more mobile than expected. According to the records, he was mostly cognitive intact and had been assessed for falls. As a result of this assessment, the facility developed a care plan to address his risk for falls. Implementation of the plan was difficult, however, because he was aware and could make up his own mind as to what interventions he would accept. As to the resident's April 27, 2000 fall, the only evidence in the file shows that he was found on the floor of his room in front of a straight chair, having sustained a small skin tear in addition to the fracture. From Ms. Vogelspohl's review of the record she could find no indication that the facility had failed to do something that it should have done to prevent the fall. The staff had put a Tabs alarm on the resident, and he removed it. They tried to keep his wheel chair as close to him as possible. They tried to restrict his water intake by giving him thickened liquids to reduce his trips to the rest room. He would pour out the thickened fluids and replace them with water. Because of this resident's mobility, Ms. Vogelspohl does not accept the surveyor's conclusion that the facility did not use Tabs alarms. He was able to get out of them by himself and frequently did. She is also of the opinion, in light of the way the resident behaved, that the blank kardex observed by the surveyor in no way contributed to the resident's fall. The CNA's were aware that the Tabs units were supposed to be used, and Ms. Vogelspohl has concluded that there were no more aggressive interventions that could have been used with this resident. To attempt the use of restraints, either belt or vest, would have been futile because he could have gotten out of them easily. The only other thing Ms. Vogelspohl feels could have been done was to put him in a geriatric psychiatric unit, and this was ultimately done, but not in the Respondent facility. Ms. Vogelpohl also addressed the surveyors' write- ups as they related to Residents 9, 4, 3, and 10. Resident 4 was bed-ridden as a result of Parkinson's Disease and did not need a Tabs alarm, the deficiency cited, while in bed. When seated in a wheel chair, his postural deficits were compensated for by lateral supports and a padded cushion, and she was of the opinion that a Tabs alarm was not required. She opines its absence would not have addressed his risk for falls. His January 2000 fall apparently did not relate to the failure to use a Tabs unit. Resident 3, also the subject of a write-up for failure to use a Tabs alarm, was not, in Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, at risk for falls because she did not move around a lot due to her physical condition. Nonetheless, she experienced a fall in late March 2000 and shortly thereafter, the facility placed a Tabs alarm on her and made the appropriate entry in her care plan. Resident 9 was ambulatory only with assistance and had a special seating device to keep her in her wheel chair. After the resident sustained two falls close together, a Tabs alarm was placed on her, and from that time until the time of the survey she had no further falls. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that it was an appropriate nursing decision not to place a Tabs unit on her. The rationale for this position is not at all clear. The care plan for Resident 10, also one of the residents observed without a Tabs alarm in place, was described as "somewhat cluttered." It showed multiple interventions initiated as early as April 1999. The initial care plan was crossed through and a new one substituted in September 1999 with the family's concurrence. Nonetheless, Ms. Vogelspohl did not find it too cluttered to be understood. The evidence shows that the resident's chair was outfitted with a soft seat belt and a pressure-sensitive alarm, both of which are considered to be more effective than the Tabs alarm. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that the facility did not ignore the requirement to assess the residents for falls or the requirement to address that issue in care planning. She admits that in some cases, the plan addressing falls prevention was covered in another assessment than the one wherein it might most likely be expected, but it is her contention that if the subject is properly and thoroughly addressed somewhere in the resident's care record, that is sufficient. She considers placing it in several areas to be a redundancy and though it is frequently done so, it is done to meet a paper compliance without having any impact on the quality of care provided.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order sustaining the Conditional license for the Respondent effective April 28, 2000, and, based only on the conditions observed at the facility on that date, imposing an administrative fine of $700.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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 from June 13, 2001, through July 11, 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 710 North Sun Drive, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted a complaint investigation on June 13, 2001 (the "June survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the complaint investigation on the 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 "tags"). Each tag of 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. Tag F314 is the only allegation at issue in this proceeding. Tag F314 generally provides that a facility must ensure that a resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless they were unavoidable; and the resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. Tag F314, in relevant part, alleges that the facility: . . . did not insure the prevention of pressure sore development or provide that necessary treatment for pressure sores which had developed in the case of one of four residents. Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign a rating to the deficiency alleged in the 2567. The rating required by federal law is for scope and severity. Petitioner assigned a G rating to Tag F314. A G rating means that the alleged deficiency was "isolated." State law requires Petitioner to assign a class rating. Petitioner assigned a Class II rating to the deficiency alleged in Tag 314. A Class II rating is authorized in Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), for any deficiency that 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." The Class II rating is the only rating at issue in this proceeding. (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.) When Petitioner alleges a Class II deficiency in the 2567, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of the facility's license. Effective June 12, 2001, Petitioner changed to rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey on July 11, 2001 (the "July survey"). Petitioner determined that Respondent had corrected the deficiency alleged in Tag F 314 in June. Effective July 11, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The Class II rating from Petitioner rests on the allegations in Tag 314. The first allegation is that Respondent did not prevent the development of a pressure sore on the right buttock of Resident 1. The second allegation is that the facility failed to provide the treatment necessary to treat the pressure sore. The facility admitted Resident 1 on October 19, 2000. Between the date of admission and June 4, 2001, Resident 1 did not develop any pressure sores. However, on June 4, 2001, a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") noticed an open area on the resident’s right buttock while showering the resident. The CNA notified the attending nurse. A threshold issue is whether the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore or a blister caused by incontinence and chafing from the resident's diaper. The nursing staff described the identified area on a document in the resident’s medical chart called a "pressure ulcer report." Petitioner contends that the use of a "pressure ulcer report" by Respondent is an admission by Respondent and that Respondent has the burden to prove that the area was not a pressure sore. However, the burden of proof is on Petitioner to show that the area of concern is a pressure sore. Petitioner promulgates a written definition of a pressure sore in the guidelines that Petitioner requires its surveyors to use in interpreting the regulatory standard of Tag F314. Petitioner defines a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. Section 120.68(7)(e)3 prohibits Petitioner from deviating from its officially stated policy unless Petitioner explains the deviation. Petitioner failed to provide any evidence for deviating from its written definition of a pressure sore. Ischemic ulceration or necrosis of tissue that has been subjected to pressure, friction, or sheer is not a pressure sore, as defined by Petitioner, if the area does not overlie a bony prominence. The parties disagree as to the location of the area of concern on Resident 1. Petitioner's surveyor is an expert in nursing practices and procedures. She observed the area of concern on Resident 1 during the June survey. The surveyor testified at the hearing that the area of concern was located over the resident’s ischial tuberosity; i.e., the bone on which the resident placed her weight when she sat. The facility's director of nurses is also an expert in nursing practices and procedures. The director observed the area immediately after the survey and testified that it was located in the fleshy part of the resident’s buttocks and was not over any bony prominence. The preponderance of evidence did not show that the area of concern on Resident 1 was located over a bony prominence. The area of concern was located in the same location as the elastic band of the diaper that the resident wore for her incontinence. The area of concern was likely caused by the combination of the resident’s incontinence and chafing from the diaper. The pressure ulcer report prepared by the nursing staff contains the outline of a human body on which the nursing staff marked the location of the area of concern on Resident 1 when staff first identified the area. The report shows that the area of concern is located in the fleshy part of the resident’s right buttock. The report did not indicate that the area of concern was located in the area on which the resident would have placed her weight when she was seated or prone. Even if the area of concern were located at the ischial tuberosity other factors belie a diagnosis of pressure sore. Pressure sores typically involve deep tissue damage, have drainage and odor, and require a long time to heal. The pressure ulcer report indicated that the area identified on the resident was small in size, had scant odor and no drainage, and healed by July 3, 2001. All of the surrounding facts and circumstances indicate that the area of concern on Resident 1 was not a pressure sore but was a blister caused by chafing from the diaper the resident wore for her incontinence. The "pressure ulcer report" for Resident 1 classified the area of concern as a stage II. A stage II involves a partial thickness loss of skin layers either dermis or epidermis that presents clinically as an abrasion, blister or shallow crater. The area was further described in the report as being 0.7 by 0.7 centimeters in size with scant serous drainage, no odor, and pink in appearance. The director of nurses testified that the area presented as a "dry blister." Assuming arguendo that the area of concern on Resident 1 was a pressure sore, there are two additional issues to be determined. One issue is whether development of the alleged pressure sore was unavoidable due to the resident’s clinical conditions. The other issue is whether the facility failed to provide the treatment and services necessary to promote healing after the alleged pressure sore developed. Petitioner promulgates guidelines for Tag F324 for use by surveyors in determining whether a pressure sore is unavoidable. The guidelines state in relevant part: . . . a determination that development of a pressure sore was unavoidable may be made only if routine preventative and daily care was provided [by the nursing home]. The guidelines define routine preventative care as: . . . turning and proper positioning, application of pressure reduction or relief devices, providing good skin care, providing clean and dry bed linens, and maintaining adequate nutrition and hydration as possible. The guidelines instruct surveyors to determine whether a facility complies with the foregoing standards "consistently" rather than one hundred per cent of the time. When the facility admitted Resident 1 in October, 2000, she was immobile and had several compromising diagnoses. They included atrial fibrillation; chronic ischemic heart disease and coronary atherosclerosis (diseases of the heart and arteries); abnormal loss of weight; angina pectoris; senile dementia; a kidney infection; and incontinence of both bowel and bladder. The clinical conditions placed Resident 1 at high risk for the development of pressure sores. The surveyor guidelines for Tag F314 state that a resident who is immobile, has continuous urinary incontinence, chronic bowel incontinence, and chronic heart disease is at high risk for the development of pressure sores. At the time of admission, the nursing staff at the facility assessed Resident 1 as being at risk for the development of pressure sores due to her incontinence and immobility. They designed a care plan to prevent the development of pressure sores. The care plan included frequent turning and repositioning of the resident, weekly skin assessments by a nurse, skin checks during care and bathing, and prompt incontinence care. The parties agree that the interventions in the care plan met the regulatory requirements for preventative care under Tag F314. With one exception, Petitioner does not allege that the facility failed to provide routine preventative care to the resident. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not perform weekly skin checks for three weeks in May preceding the identification of the area of concern on Resident 1. However, the failure to perform those skin checks did not cause Resident 1 to develop a pressure sore. A weekly skin check is a head-to-toe assessment of a resident’s skin by a nurse. Since a nurse can only observe a pressure sore after it has appeared on a resident, this assessment is not preventative in nature. Instead, it is designed to assure that appropriate and immediate treatment can be provided to the area after a reddened area develops. Even if weekly examinations of a resident’s skin were an integral part of a plan intended to prevent the development of pressure sores on Resident 1, the facility necessarily exceeded this standard with regard to the resident’s right buttock where the area of concern actually occurred. Facility staff observed the resident’s buttock more than once a day when the resident received incontinence care, bath, or showers. Consistently through May and June, the resident’s chart shows that the resident was incontinent at least three times a day and that she received a partial bath or full shower at least once a day. On June 4, 2001, facility staff in fact observed a reddened area during the resident's shower. Petitioner submitted no evidence that the facility could or should have been observing the resident’s buttock more frequently than its staff actually did or that the area could have been identified any earlier. The preponderance of evidence shows that the facility consistently implemented the component of its care plan that required monitoring of the resident’s buttock. The care plan for Resident 1 included two other primary components to prevent pressure sores. One component was prompt incontinence care. The other was turning and repositioning of the resident every two hours to relieve pressure over areas susceptible to breakdown. Petitioner alleges that the facility failed to comply with these components during the June survey. Proving that a facility consistently turns and repositions a resident and provides prompt incontinence care is problematic for a facility. Those interventions are routine care. There is no regulation or standard that requires nurses to chart routine care. Because these interventions are not typically charted, a nursing home will not typically have documentary evidence to demonstrate that the interventions were provided to a resident. The facility provided sufficient evidence to show that the interventions of repositioning and prompt incontinence care were provided to Resident 1 during the June survey. The facility provided incontinence care to the resident at least three times a day. With regard to turning and repositioning the resident, the director of nursing testified that she saw staff turning and repositioning the resident prior to the survey. Resident 1 was at high risk of developing pressure sores. If staff had not consistently turned and repositioned the resident and provided prompt incontinence care, it is more likely than not that the resident would have developed serious pressure ulcers on most or all of her weight bearing surfaces. The appearance of one small area on the resident and the absence of any other areas over any bony prominence is persuasive evidence that the facility consistently turned and repositioned the resident and consistently provided her with prompt incontinence care. The final issue is whether the facility provided the treatment to Resident 1 that is necessary for healing of the alleged pressure sore. Petitioner agrees that the facility developed an appropriate care plan for the identified area immediately upon its discovery. An order in the care plan developed after discovery of the alleged pressure sore called for application of a duoderm patch to the wound. Petitioner alleges that the facility did not follow the order because the surveyor observed no patch on the resident during the survey. It is more likely than not that the duoderm patch came off of Resident 1 during an episode of incontinence prior to the time that the surveyor observed the resident. Duoderm patches commonly come off when a resident has an incontinent episode. Regardless of why the patch was not on Resident 1 during the survey, the absence of the patch one time during the survey does not demonstrate that staff consistently failed to comply with the order calling for the patch. The instance observed by Petitioner's surveyor was the only instance identified by the surveyor as a failure to follow the resident's care plan. The resident’s medication administration records demonstrate that facility staff applied the duoderm patch in all other instances in compliance with the doctor’s order. Furthermore, the facility continued to provide the routine preventative care called for by the care plan. Petitioner did not show that the facility consistently failed to follow the care plan for Resident 1 as alleged in Tag F314. The area of concern on Resident 1 healed quickly and progressively after it was discovered. Petitioner offered no evidence that the alleged pressure sore did not heal or that the resident was otherwise harmed as a result of the failure to place a duoderm patch on the resident on June 13, 2001. The pressure ulcer report and nurse’s notes indicate that the wound healed by July 3, 2001. The records noted with each successive entry after June 4, 2001, that the area was smaller in size. The area demonstrated characteristics of healing, including the absence of any odor or drainage, and pink granulating tissue. Resident 1 was at high risk for pressure sores, and pressure sores do not typically heal quickly. The progressive pattern of healing indicates that the facility provided the necessary and effective treatment for the area of concern on Resident 1.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order finding that there was no basis upon which the agency could have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on June 13, 2001, deleting the deficiency described under Tag F314, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional 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: Eileen O'Hara Garcia Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North Sebring Building, Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the nursing home facility previously owned and operated by Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce, and later owned and operated by Fort Pierce Health Care, ("Nursing Home") was entitled to a standard license during a period in which the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") assigned it a conditional license.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated and admitted facts Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce operated a skilled nursing facility located at 611 S. 13th Street, Fort Pierce Florida, until November 30, 2001. Fort Pierce Health Care is an entity unrelated to Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce that purchased the facility on November 30, 2001, and has operated it since that date. At all times material to this case, both Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce and Fort Pierce Health Care have been licensed by the State of Florida to operate the subject nursing home pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. The AHCA completed a survey of the nursing home on November 8, 2001. At the conclusion of the survey, the ACHA alleged, relevant to the matters at issue in this case, that there were three separate Class II violations of 42 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 483.15(e)(i), 483.20(k)(3)(i), and 483.25(c). The AHCA filed an Administrative Complaint in this matter which sets forth the factual allegations upon which the ACHA reached the conclusion that there were three Class II deficiencies. Based upon the identification of the Class II deficiencies, the AHCA issued a Notice of Intent to Change Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce's licensure rating from Standard to Conditional, effective November 8, 2001. The AHCA issued Fort Pierce Health Care a Conditional license rating on November 30, 2001, when operation of the facility was transferred. Fort Pierce Health Care timely filed a petition challenging AHCA's intent to assign it a Conditional rating. AHCA changed Fort Pierce Health Care's Conditional licensure rating to Standard, effective December 13, 2001. Facts about call bells During the survey of the subject nursing home facility in November of 2001, a group interview of residents was held on November 6, 2001. Eleven residents participated in the group interview. Nine of the eleven residents participating in the group interview reported to the surveyors that sometimes it can take more than one hour for call bells to be answered. Five of the residents participating in the group interview said that on some occasions they had been incontinent because they could not wait an hour to be helped into the bathroom. One of the residents participating in the group interview has a roommate who has a colostomy. The bag sometimes breaks and comes away from the stoma. On such occasions both roommates will ring their call bells. On several occasions it has taken more than an hour for help to come. During that same group interview, nine of eleven residents participating in the interview stated that their call bells are often not in reach. This can be because the nursing home staff fails to put the call bells within reach, or because the call bells fall on the floor or fall behind the bed. During a tour of the nursing home facility on November 5, 2001, it was observed that the call bells were either on the floor, behind the bed, and/or out of reach of the residents in sixteen of the rooms inspected. Facts about long toenails During the survey of the subject facility during November of 2001, Resident 15 told one of the surveyors that upon admission to the subject facility the resident had requested the staff of the nursing home to arrange for a podiatrist to come cut the resident's toenails. The resident's toenails are all very long and needed to be cut. The resident's physical condition was such that he/she could not cut his/her toenails, and because the resident suffered from diabetes, it was necessary to have the toenails cut by a podiatrist. During the course of the survey the records of the facility did not document any effort to obtain the services of a podiatrist for Resident 15. At the time of the survey in November of 2001, all of Resident 15's toenails were thick, were approximately two inches long (measuring for where the nail changes color from pink to white), and were curving around the tips of the toes. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether the length and shape of the toenails interfered with Resident 15's ability to walk or to perform any other activities of daily life. Facts about order for oxygen On October 30, 2001, a physician wrote an order for oxygen to be delivered through a tracheal collar to Resident 23. On November 5, 2001, during the AHCA survey of the subject nursing home, one of the survey team members observed that for a period of approximately ten or fifteen minutes Resident 23 was not wearing his tracheal collar and, therefore, was not receiving the oxygen ordered by his physician. When the matter was brought to the attention of nursing home staff, the tracheal collar was placed on Resident 23 and he once again received the oxygen ordered by his physician. There is no persuasive evidence in the record as to whether Resident 23 did or did not suffer any harm as a result of not having his oxygen equipment in place during the time period observed by the survey team member. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence in the record as to why Resident 23 was not wearing his tracheal collar when he was first observed by a member of the survey team. Facts about physician order for Foley catheter Resident 18 suffered from, among other things, urinary and bowel incontinence. Because of those conditions he wore incontinence briefs. On October 17, 2001, his physician wrote an order for a Foley catheter to be inserted in Resident 18. The purpose of the Foley catheter was preventative--to reduce the risks of infection and to prevent or reduce the likelihood of the development of pressure sores. At the time the order for the Foley catheter was written, Resident 18 did not have any pressure sores.3 Upon receipt of the physician's order for a Foley catheter for Resident 18, a facility nurse attempted to insert the catheter into Resident 18. The nurse was unsuccessful in her efforts because Resident 18 appeared to have an obstruction that made it impossible for her to complete the task. In that situation, good nursing practice requires the nurse to cease efforts to insert the catheter and to contact the Resident's physician, which she did. The physician then directed the nurse to schedule an appointment with a urologist so that the urologist could insert the Foley catheter. Following some delays due to the unavailability of the urologist originally suggested by the resident's physician, an appointment was made to have a urologist insert the Foley catheter in Resident 18. The urologist was unsuccessful the first time he saw Resident 18, but a few days later, on November 12, 2001, the urologist successful inserted the catheter. The physician who originally ordered the insertion of the catheter was kept advised of the status of efforts to accomplish what he had ordered. The physician clarified that the insertion of the Foley catheter was not an emergency matter and that there was no urgency in having the catheter inserted. The physician was satisfied with the action taken by the nursing home staff in response to his order regarding the catheter and was of the opinion that the action taken by the nursing home staff in that regard constituted a timely and appropriate response to what he had ordered. Resident 18 did not suffer any harm as a result of the delays in inserting the Foley catheter. Facts about pressure sores During the course of the survey of the nursing home facility in November of 2001, one of the survey team members observed that Resident 18 had what appeared to the survey team member to be pressure sores high on the back of each thigh, at about the area where the upper thighs meet the lower part of the buttocks. These sores were at approximately the location where the resident's upper thighs would rub against the edges of the incontinent briefs worn by the resident. Wound care notes maintained by the nursing home facility stated that Resident 18 developed a Stage II pressure sore on the right back thigh on October 24, 2001, and a Stage II pressure sore on the left back thigh on October 30, 2001. The wound care notes also indicated that Resident 18 did not have any similar wounds prior to October 24, 2001. The wound care nurse who prepared the notes regarding the two Stage II pressure sores has since had second thoughts about the matter. The wound care nurse is now of the view that the wounds she saw on October 24 and 30 of 2001 and described at that time as pressure sores were in fact bullous pemphigoid sores. At certain stages of the development of bullous pemphigoid sores and pressure sores, it is easy to mistake one for the other. The wound care nurse also clarified in her testimony that the two wounds she observed on the backs of Resident 18's thighs were not located over a bony prominence. Review of the clinical record for Resident 18 reveals that the resident was admitted to the facility with the following diagnoses: Alzheimer's Disease, hypertension, and bullous pemphigoid. Physician notes regarding Resident 18 prepared on October 17, 2001, note the presence of "decubitus ulcers to perineal groin and genital areas." The physician who prepared the notes regarding the "decubitus ulcers" also has since had second thoughts about the matter. The physician is now of the view that the wounds he saw on October 17, 2001, and described as "decubitus ulcers" were in fact bullous pemphigoid sores. The physician agrees with the wound care nurse that at certain stages of the development of bullous pemphigoid sores and pressure sores, it is easy to mistake one for the other. The physician also clarified in his testimony that the two wounds he observed on October 17, 2001, were not located over a bony prominence. The AHCA has prepared a manual to be used when its employees are conducting surveys of nursing home facilities. That manual includes the following definition: "Pressure sore" means ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissue overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or shear. The staging system presented below is one method of describing the extent of tissue damage in the pressure sore.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the AHCA issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the violations alleged in Count I regarding the location of and the responses to call bells have been proved by the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence and that those violations are Class II deficiencies; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count I regarding long toenails is, at most, a Class III deficiency; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count II regarding providing oxygen to a resident is, at most, a Class III deficiency; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count II regarding insertion of a Foley catheter should be dismissed for lack of persuasive competent substantial evidence; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count III regarding pressure sores on a resident should be dismissed for lack of persuasive competent substantial evidence; and Concluding that the violations described in subparagraph (a), above, provide a sufficient basis for the issuance of a Conditional license to the Nursing Home from November 8, 2001, until December 13, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 March, 2003.
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
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Sections 400.23(4) and 400.141, Florida Statutes (1979), and Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to correct alleged deficiencies in its nursing center; and whether Respondent should he penalized.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. is licensed to operate southside Nursing Center at 40 Acme Street in Jacksonville, Florida and is under the direction and charge of a licensed administrator, Raymond R. Savage. The nursing home was built in 1965 and has been in operation since that date. It has 119 beds and is usually fully occupied with elderly people. On December 30, 1980 an Administrative Complaint was served on Mr. Savage notifying him that after 30 days from receipt of the complaint Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services intended to impose a civil penalty of $2,000 upon the nursing home for alleged violations of the statutes and rules of Florida pertaining to nursing homes. Respondent was cited for the following: Corridor to office windows have wired glass panels in aluminum frames with glass areas exceeding 1,296 square inches; Two doors between kitchen and the dining room do not have any automatic positive latching hardware and the window from the kitchen to the accounting office is wired glass in an aluminum frame exceeding 1,296 square inches; Eight skylights are not boxed in vertically with a one-hour fire rated sheathing and the steel roof structure is unprotected from fire through the plastic panels. The dining room and lobby have six built-in ceiling light fixtures; nurses station #2 has two built-in light fixtures and nurses station #1 has one built-in light fixture; arts and crafts room has two built-in fixtures, all of which compromise the one-hour fire rated ceiling assembly; and Smoke detectors have not been tested and logged in conjunction with the weekly fire alarm system tests. On January 9, 1981 Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At the bearing Petitioner called one witness and offered one exhibit which was entered as evidence. The Administrator, Mr. Savage, testified on behalf of Respondent. An inspector for Petitioner made an on-site inspection of the subject nursing home on September 6, 1979 and filed his report on September 15, 1979. He listed certain deficiencies and classes of deficiencies and designated the date of October 10, 1980 as the date by which the deficiencies must be corrected (Petitioner's Exhibit #1). Inspection on September 24, 1980 showed that tests of the smoke detectors were being made and logged as required and for which Respondent had been cited in violation (d), Page 2 supra, but no changes had been made as to violations (a) , (b) and (c). On both occasions the inspector informed Respondent's administrator of each alleged violation, but Respondent failed to change the structural deficiencies outlined by Petitioner. Respondent admitted that the violations of the Life Safety Code cited by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaint existed and stated that they had existed since the building had been constructed. They were first called to his attention in 1978 but, except for the smoke detectors, he had not rectified the alleged deficiencies and felt they were no danger. He said that if he complied with the subject requirements of the statutes and rules the home would not look as good as it presently does. Mr. Savage noted that he had recently corrected the violation noted in (d) , Page 2 supra. Petitioner acknowledged that reports on tests of the smoke detectors as required by the statutes and rules were being made at the time of hearing. Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order, which instrument has been considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services assess a penalty against Respondent Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc., doing business as Southside Nursing Center, of $500 for each of the three (3) violations of Rule 100-29.50, Florida Administrative Code, prohibited and continuing on the date of the formal hearing. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Raymond R. Savage, Administrator Cheshire's Nursing Center, Inc. d/b/a Southside Nursing Center 40 Acme Street at Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the duly promulgated rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services by designating and continuing to designate the same person as the Assistant Administrator and the Director of Nursing of the Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., after having been cited for such deficiency and allowed sufficient time to correct the deficiency.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed by Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 27, 1980 notifying Respondent Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., a skilled nursing care home, that Petitioner intended to impose a civil penalty of $100 for violating duly promulgated rules by designating the same person to act as Assistant Administrator and Director of Nursing of the nursing home. At the formal administrative hearing the Administrator admitted that he served more than one health facility, that at all times pertinent to the hearing the acting Assistant Nursing Home Administrator was also designated as the Director of Nursing, and that she was the only registered nurse on duty. It was admitted that no change had been made after the inspector for the Petitioner Department had called attention to this alleged violation until after the time period allowed for correcting this situation had expired and after the Petitioner had informed Respondent it intended to impose a $100 civil penalty. In mitigation Respondent presented testimony and adduced evidence showing that as the owner and operator of the nursing home he had made an effort to employ registered nurses at the home and that on the date of hearing the nursing home was in compliance with the statutes, rules and regulations. It was evident to the Hearing Officer that the nursing home serves a need in the community and that the residents appreciate the service. Petitioner Department submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the writing of this order. Respondent submitted a memorandum. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered by the Petitioner assessing an administrative fine not to exceed $50. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. J. E. Speed, Administrator Bonifay Nursing Home 108 Wagner Road Bonifay, Florida 32425 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
