Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by Petitioner and was so licensed at all times here relevant. On 6-7 August 1979 Petitioner conducted a survey (inspection) of Respondent's facility and upon completion submitted HRS Form 553D (Exhibit 1). This report of inspection listed no Class I deficiency, one Class II deficiency and 19 class III deficiencies. The Class II deficiency noted was that medications are being administered not in accordance with physician's orders. On Exhibits 1 and 2, five examples of this Class II deficiency are listed where specific drugs or other medications were not recorded, not administered in accordance with physician's orders. Or in which the incorrect dosage was administered and/or recorded as having been given. At a follow-up inspection on or about September 27, 1979, the results of which are memorialized in HRS For 553E (Exhibit2), the Class II deficiency is noted as corrected. By letter dated December 17, 1979 Petitioner notified Respondent that despite Respondent's representations made at an informal conference on 6 December 1979 the "C" rating would stand and advised Respondent of his right to appeal by requesting an administrative hearing within 30 days. Such a request was duly made which let to the instant proceedings.
Recommendation DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of June 1980. 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 19th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire District XI Legal Counsel, HRS 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Barry D. Schrieber, Esquire Suite 301, County National Bank Building 801 Northeast 167th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue DOAH Case No. 02-4795: Whether the licensure status of The Moorings, Inc., d/b/a The Chateau at Moorings Park ("The Chateau") should be reduced from standard to conditional for the period from July 18, 2002, to August 21, 2002. DOAH Case No. 02-4796: Whether The Moorings committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 12, 2002, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is the state Agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing homes operating in the State of Florida. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes; Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. The Moorings, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal address at 120 Moorings Park Drive, Naples, Florida. It is a not-for-profit organization governed by a local board of directors. Moorings Park is a continuing care retirement community. The Chateau is the long-term care facility at Moorings Park. It is a 106-bed skilled nursing facility located at 130 Moorings Park Drive, Naples, Florida. The standard form used by AHCA to document survey findings, titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction," is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. The individual deficiencies are noted on the form by way of identifying numbers commonly called "Tags." A Tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated and provides a summary of the violation, specific factual allegations that the surveyors believe support the violation, and two ratings which indicate the severity of the deficiency. One of the ratings identified in a Tag is a "scope and severity" rating, which is a letter rating from A to L with A representing the least severe deficiency and L representing the most severe. The second rating is a "class" rating, which is a numerical rating of I, II, or III, with I representing the most severe deficiency and IV representing the least severe deficiency. On July 15 through 18, 2002, AHCA conducted an annual licensure and certification survey of The Chateau to evaluate the facility's compliance with state and federal regulations governing the operation of nursing homes. The survey team alleged several deficiencies during the survey, only one of which is at issue in these proceedings. At issue is the deficiency identified as Tag F324 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25(h)(2), relating to ensuring that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents). The deficiency alleged in the survey was classified as Class II under the Florida classification system for nursing homes. A Class II deficiency is "a deficiency that the agency determines has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services." Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes. The deficiency alleged in the survey was cited as a federal scope and severity rating of G, meaning that the deficiency was isolated, caused actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy, and did not involve substandard quality of care. Based on the alleged Class II deficiency in Tag F324, AHCA imposed a conditional license on The Chateau, effective July 18, 2002. The Chateau submitted a plan of correction, and AHCA performed a follow-up survey indicating that the facility had addressed AHCA's concerns. The Chateau's standard license was restored, effective August 21, 2002. The Chateau's submission of a plan of correction did not constitute an admission of the alleged deficiency. The survey allegedly found a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25(h)(2): Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. * * * Accidents. The facility must ensure that-- The resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible; and Each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. (Emphasis added.) In the parlance of the federal Health Care Financing Administration Form 2567 employed by AHCA to report its findings, this requirement is referenced as "Tag F324." The Agency's allegations in this case involved accidental falls suffered by two residents at The Chateau. The Form 2567 listed two incidents under Tag F324, one involving Resident 7 and another involving Resident 12. The surveyor observations read as follows (unless otherwise noted, abbreviations and non-standard spellings are reproduced as they appear in the Form 2567): Based upon record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure that 2 of 16 active sampled residents (#12 and #7) at risk for falls received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent the residents from falling and injuring themselves. This is evidenced by: 1. Resident #12 had a Cerebral Vascular Accident with Left Hemiparesis. The resident required supervision and assistance for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) and was assessed to be at risk for falls. The resident was left unattended on the toilet on 7/9/02, fell off the toilet and sustained a fractured left rib. 2. Resident #7 was at risk for falls due to a Cerebral Vascular Accident and was further at risk for falling due to Parkinson Disease [sic]. The resident was left unattended in the bathroom on 5/31/02 and sustained a fractured left hip after tripping over his Foley catheter tubing and falling to the floor. Findings include: The medical record for Resident #7 was reviewed on 7/16-18/02. This resident was admitted to the facility on 3/25/02 with diagnoses including: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cerebrovascular accident (stroke), and Parkinson's disease. A review of nursing notes dated 5/31/02 revealed the resident had fallen in his bathroom. The note stated the following: "0745 called to Rm CNA reported resident on the floor. Res was brushing his/her teeth @ sink in standing position-- fell backward. Full ROM. No obvious deformity noted. C/O L hip pain. Denies head or back pain. Had prev. fx R hip. Lifted to feet C/O L hip pain. Refused to go to hospital @ this time. Dr. notified of incident new orders received for [x-rays] notified nurse." "1400 Result from x-ray came back @ a Novitis placed L femoral intero chanteric fx. Dr. notified order to send Pt to the ER. Daughter notify agree to keep the Pt room while in the hospital call 911 have Pt sent to ER." The Hospital Consultation Document dated 5/31/02 was reviewed. It revealed: The chief complaint: "I slipped and fell." "History of Present Illness: Resident with multiple medical problems, followed by Dr., who today at the nursing home apparently fell and tripped over his Foley catheter while trying to go to lunch, and had a resultant trauma to his left hip and left shoulder, with resultant hip fracture." The Hospital Admission record dated 5/31/02 showed the diagnosis: "Left intratrochanteric hip fracture. The patient was admitted for opened reduction internal fixation of the left hip." According to facility records, the resident was readmitted on 6/05/02. Following the record review, an interview was conducted with the resident on 7/16/02 at approximately 1:30 PM. The resident stated he had fallen on 5/31/02. He stated he started to move away from the bathroom sink and tripped over the Foley catheter (indwelling urinary catheter) tubing that was on the floor. The staff member left him unattended, according to the resident, while the staff retrieved the resident's glasses on the bedside table. An interview was conducted with the facility's Risk Manager on 7/17/02 at approximately 3:30 PM who stated that no one had interviewed the resident following the accident. Review of the clinical record revealed a Minimum Data Set (MDS), completed on 4/22/02. This MDS showed the following: The resident was assessed as a 2 (2= Moderately Impaired-- decisions poor: cues/supervision required) for Cognitive skills for daily decision-making. Under section P, Special Treatment and procedures Alzheimer's/dementia special care unit was indicated. Interview with the facility Social Worker on 7/18/02 at approximately 9:30 AM revealed the resident's cognitive status had improved so that his capacity was being reviewed for increased cognitive functioning. Additionally, the resident was assessed for ability to walk in the room (How resident walks between locations in his/her room) as needing extensive assistance by one person. (coded 3/2. 3= Extensive Assistance 2= One person physical assist). Under section J, Health Conditions, "Unsteady gait" was indicated for the resident as well as accidents, "Fell in the past 30 days". The RAP summary for Falls had the following documentation: "Ambulating with extensive assist of two in PT room. Compromised safety awareness associated with cognitive impairment." The resident triggered for Falls and a plan of care dated 4/11/02 revealed the following goal: "Resident will not be injured in a fall. Staff are to assist in ambulation and transfer. Anticipate needs as much as possible and place items close at hand." The resident was assessed as at risk for falls, facility staff responsible for the care and supervision of the resident failed to implement the plan of care by not providing adequate supervision as needed. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on 6/25/02 from the hospital. The admitting diagnosis included, but was not limited to: Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA) with Left (L) Hemiparesis; Status Post fracture T-12 (Thoracic); Seizure Disorder; Systemic Lupus; severe Interstitial Lung Disease; Pulmonary Hypertension and Congestive Heart Failure (CHF). The facility initially care planned the resident for falls with a goal that the resident would not be injured in a fall. The approaches included: providing assistance in ambulation and transfer; reminding the resident to use call light for assistance; providing the resident with routine toileting per request of resident to decrease risk and personal protection device to bed and wheelchair. On 6/25/02 the resident had a physical therapy assessment completed in the facility. The facility physical therapist notes state, "Client is now presenting self with severe weakness of left extremities, decreased balance and poor endurance. Causing client to be functioning at a very limited activity level. Client also has complete foot drop on L side with mediolateral instability. Sensation/Proprioception: Noted loss of proprioception in left extremities, which along with present weakness cause client to have no functional use of left extremities at this time. Orientation forgetful at times. Transfers Sit to stand with extensive assist times 2 and verbal cues for posture. Client unable to maintain sitting balance on her own. Sitting posture is round shouldered, head forward position leaning to left side. Client unable to get any support from left lower extremity when standing. Client is at high risk for falls. Client has multifactorial balance problems due to weakness, decreased balance, decreased endurance, decreased vision, decreased proprioception. This was discussed with client and nursing." On 6/28/02 the facility completed a 5 day Medicare Minimum Data Set (MDS) for the resident which showed the following assessment: In Section G Physical Functioning and Structural Problems the resident was assessed in G1b as 3/3 (3= Extensive Assistance/ 3= Two+ person physical assist). In G1c and G1d-- Walk in Room and Walk in Corridor the resident was assessed 8/8 (Activity did not occur during entire 7 days). In G1i-- Toilet use was assessed as 4/2 (4= Total Dependence-- Full staff performance of activity during entire 7 days). In G3a Balance while Standing and G3b Balance while sitting-- position, trunk control the resident was assessed as 3/0 (3= Not able to attempt test without physical help and 0= Maintained position as required in test). In G6 Modes of transfer the resident was assessed in b as using bed rails for bed mobility or transfer, in c as requiring to be lifted manually, and in e as needing transfer aid (e.g. slide board, trapeze, cane, walker, brace). In Section J Health Conditions and in J4 Accidents the resident was assessed as having fell in past 31 to 180 days. In Section P Special Treatments and Procedures the resident was noted to be receiving Speech, Occupational and Physical therapy. Review of the nursing note for 6/29/02 revealed: "1100 hours max assist with all ADLs-- and transfers, alert-- noted to have slid to the floor in the bathroom with CNA in attendance-- lost grip on bar next to toilet, stated banged back of head left side." Further review of the nursing notes revealed: "Daughter notified that mother was with a CNA at the time and that the CNA was assisting her mother with pulling up her pants." Review of the physical therapy notes dated 7/2/02 revealed: "Left knee will tend to buckle easily if client not concentrating on what she is doing. Client does show severe loss of proprioception and severe neglect of left upper extremity, client encouraged to work on HEP on her own. Client remain at high risk for falls (had one fall this past week) will continue to use bed and wheelchair alarms for safety. Also noted much instability of pelvis when standing." Further review of nursing notes from 7/1/02 to 7/8/02 indicated the facility was providing 2 person assist with transfer and toileting. Review of the nursing note on 7/8/02 revealed: "assist of 2-- resident requested only one person transfer her-- educated on risks of this and reinforced that we will continue to use 2 people to transfer." Review of the nursing notes on 7/9/02 revealed: "1900-2400 Total assist with all ADL's. Two person transfer. CNA brought resident to bathroom and gave resident call light to pull when finished. Resident leaned to Left side and fell off toilet at 2130. Resident reports hitting top of head on cabinet/floor. No edema or hematoma noted to scalp.... Resident reports pain to Left rib cage. Resident does not want to go to ER (Emergency Room) and agreed to have X- rays of ribs at AM at facility. Between 2400 and 0700.... Still with c/o (complaints of) left rib pain. Interview with Risk Manager and Administrator on 6/18/02 at 10:30 AM revealed that the CNA left the resident alone in the bathroom on 7/9/02. On 7/9/02 the resident was X-rayed in the facility. Nursing note of 7/10/02 states "rib X-ray back. + (positive) for fx (fracture) Left anterior lat (lateral) approximately 10th rib." On 7/10/02 the facility received the following written interpretation from the Radiologist: "There is a definite acute fracture of left lower anterolateral rib, which appears to be the tenth rib." Impression: "Fracture of left anterolateral lower rib, probably the tenth rib. Cannot absolutely exclude fracture of left posterior fourth rib, although this is considered less likely." At the hearing, AHCA conceded that falls can happen, and that a facility is not required to be an absolute guarantor against falls. When a first fall for a resident occurs, AHCA generally deems it an accident and does not cite it as a violation. It is only a second fall for the same resident that is usually deemed an "incident" that may warrant a citation. AHCA employs a "Resident Assessment Protocol" or "RAP" for falls that provides a systematic approach to the evaluation of a fall and assists facility staff in identifying risk factors for falls and potential preventive interventions. The RAP's guidelines for resident care planning state that a major risk factor is the resident's history of falls. The guidelines note that "internal risk factors" involving the resident's underlying health problems should be addressed to prevent falls. The guidelines also list "external risk factors," including medications, appliances and devices, and environmental or situational hazards. The guidelines note that external risk factors can often be modified to reduce the resident's risk of falls. As to the external risk factor of "medications," the guidelines state: Certain drugs can produce falls by causing related problems (hypotension, muscle rigidity, impaired balance, other extrapyramidal side effects [e.g., tremors], and decreased alertness). These drugs include: antipsychotics, antianxiety/hypnotics, antidepressants, cardiovascular medications, and diuretics. Were these medications administered prior to or after the fall? If prior to the fall, how close to it were they first administered? Resident 7 was an 89-year-old male who had been admitted to The Chateau in March 2002. At the time of admission, Resident 7 suffered from several conditions: metabolic myopathy, early stage Parkinson's disease, adult-onset diabetes, hypertension, and failure to thrive. Upon admission, he could not walk or feed himself. As of April 22, 2002, Resident 7's balance was unsteady, but he was able to rebalance himself without the use of an assistive device. Resident 7's treatment plan for functional goals, dated March 12, 2002, noted that he was a "high fall risk." A preliminary fall assessment, also dated March 12, 2002, showed a score of 21, on a scale where a score of 10 or above indicated a risk of falling. Among the factors noted in this assessment was "loss of balance while standing." An assessment of Resident 7's activities of daily living ("ADL") functions, dated March 25, 2002, showed that he required "total care" for eating, "extensive assistance" for dressing and grooming, and assistance in transfers. A RAP summary, dated March 29, 2002, stated that the family reported that Resident 7 had fallen at home within the last 30 days. The RAP stated that Resident 7 required extensive assistance from two people to ambulate in the physical therapy room. In addition to his physical limitations, Resident 7 displayed some mental confusion at the time of his admission to The Chateau. On March 19, 2002, Nancy Lockner, a social worker at The Chateau, administered a mental status examination on which Resident 7 scored 20 out of a possible 30 points. Ms. Lockner testified that a score below 25 on this "mini- mental" exam triggers a finding of incompetency as regards medical decisions. The resident's physician signs a statement of incompetency empowering a designated health care surrogate to make medical decisions for the resident. This procedure was followed with Resident 7. The RAP of March 29, 2002, noted that Resident 7 exhibited "[c]ompromised safety awareness associated with cognitive impairment." Resident 7's care plan, dated April 11, 2002, confirmed that he was at risk for falls, stated a goal that he would not be injured in a fall, and set forth the following among the means to be used to prevent falls: "Anticipate needs as much as possible and place items close at hand. Ask [Resident 7] if he needs anything before leaving room." By May 31, 2002, the date of his fall, Resident 7's overall condition had improved dramatically. His metabolic myopathy had cleared and the failure to thrive had been reversed. By the time of the fall, Resident 7's mental confusion had cleared considerably. He was able to understand what was said to him, and was able to make his wishes known to the staff. The staff persons who worked with Resident 7 believed they could depend on him to follow instructions. On June 6, 2002, a few days after his fall, Resident 7 scored 26 out of 30 points on a second "mini-mental" exam, indicating competency. Resident 7 had initially been placed in the facility's secure unit for his safety, but by late May had improved such that The Chateau's staff was trying to convince him to move off the unit. Resident 7 was functioning at a higher level than the other residents on the secure unit, but wished to stay there because he had become attached to the staff people on the unit. By May 31, 2002, Resident 7 was able to balance himself and to ambulate up to 300 feet without direct physical assistance. His minimum data set ("MDS") of April 22, 2002, coded him as requiring "extensive assistance" for both transfers and walking, with physical assistance from one person. "Extensive assistance" means that the resident is able to perform part of a given activity, but also needs weight-bearing support and/or full staff performance of the activity on occasion. In practice, staff provided Resident 7 with close supervision but no hands-on assistance when he walked. Resident 7 used a walker, which is a recognized safety device. He was counseled as to the danger of walking without supervision by a staff person. Prior to May 31, 2002, Resident 7 had not fallen during his stay at The Chateau. Mondy Sataille was an experienced CNA who worked regularly with Resident 7. Regina Dreisbach, the executive director of Moorings Park, described Ms. Sataille as one of the reasons why Resident 7 insisted on staying in the secure unit. At times, Ms. Sataille allowed Resident 7 to stand with his walker in the room while she gathered his clothes or other items for him, without incident. On the morning of May 31, 2002, Resident 7 called Ms. Sataille into his room. He told her that he wanted to get dressed and go to the bathroom before going out for breakfast. Ms. Sataille asked Resident 7 if he wanted to use his wheelchair, because he was sometimes weak in the morning. Resident 7 declined the wheelchair. Ms. Sataille brought him his walker, then watched him get dressed. After dressing, Resident 7 went to the bathroom while Ms. Sataille waited at the door. After brushing his teeth, he started to walk out of the bathroom and asked Ms. Sataille where his glasses were. Ms. Sataille told him they were lying at the end of his bed, between six and seven feet away from where they were standing. Resident 7 asked Ms. Sataille to get the glasses for him. Ms. Sataille hesitated, because getting the glasses would require her to leave his side. She suggested they wait until they both reached the bed, when he could pick up the glasses for himself. Resident 7 insisted that Ms. Sataille get the glasses. Ms. Sataille agreed to get the glasses. She told Resident 7 that he would have to stand still while she did so, that he should not attempt to walk until she returned to his side. As she took her second step toward the bed and reached for the glasses, Ms. Sataille heard a noise. She turned back and saw Resident 7 on the floor. Resident 7 told Ms. Sataille that he tripped over the tubing from his Foley catheter. The tubing ran from inside his pants to a collection bag, which was attached to his walker. Ms. Sataille reported the resident's statement, though she did not believe that he could have tripped over the tubing, given its short length and the fact that it remained attached to the standing walker even after Resident 7 fell. The evidence is insufficient to find that the tubing from the Foley catheter caused Resident 7's fall. It is at least as plausible that he fell while attempting to walk alone, or that he simply lost his balance. On the date of his fall, Resident 7 was sent to the emergency room of a NCH Healthcare System hospital in Naples, where he was diagnosed with a left intratrochanteric hip fracture. An orthopedic surgeon performed an open reduction internal fixation of the left hip with a DHS compression screw. At the hearing, Ms. Sataille testified that she was "not exactly" aware that Resident 7 was at risk for falls. She knew that he was at risk when he was admitted to the facility, but said she was later told by the physical therapist that "he's okay to use his walker," which led her to believe she did not need to supervise him so closely as she did prior to therapy. Her belief was reinforced by the fact that she had left him standing alone holding onto his walker on prior occasions to no ill effect. However, Ms. Sataille's statements are undercut by her initial hesitation to leave the side of Resident 7 when he asked her to retrieve his glasses and her admonition that he stand still while she was away from his side. These actions make it apparent Ms. Sataille knew that leaving Resident 7 unattended for even a few seconds was risky, despite her testimony that she had done so on prior occasions. Based upon all the facts presented, it is found that Resident 7's fall could have been avoided had facility staff simply provided the close supervision that The Chateau's own medical records indicated was required when the resident used his walker. Though this was Resident 7's first fall in the facility, the staff was aware that he had fallen at home and was at high risk for further falls. The fact that Ms. Sataille had left Resident 7 standing alone on previous occasions without his falling did not change the requirement of close supervision when he ambulated. Diane Gail Ross, The Chateau's director of nursing services and expert in long-term care nursing, opined that Resident 7 was being "supervised," even when Ms. Sataille was not in direct proximity to him. Ms. Ross' opinion begs the question of whether such supervision was adequate to the needs of Resident 7 as established in the medical record. The Chateau failed to provide adequate supervision to Resident 7, and this failure directly led to his fall and consequential injuries. Resident 12 was an 87-year-old female who had been admitted to The Chateau on June 25, 2002. Prior to admission, Resident 12 had suffered a stroke. Her underlying conditions included systemic lupus, seizure disorders, interstitial lung disease, and hypertension. Due to the stroke, her left side was extremely weak to the point of flaccidity, though her right arm had good strength and a full range of motion. Resident 12 was unable to walk and used a wheelchair to ambulate. Resident 12 had no cognitive impairment. She was administered a "mini-mental" exam on June 28, 2002, and scored 27 out of a possible 30 points, indicating that she was able to make her wishes known and was competent to make her own medical decisions. Resident 12's therapy treatment progress notes for June 25, 2002, indicated that she had "complete footdrop" on the left side with medial lateral instability. "Footdrop" refers to the inability to dorsiflex, or evert, the foot caused by damage to the common peroneal nerve. The notes also recorded a loss of proprioception in Resident 12's left extremities. In layman's terms, "proprioception" is the ability to sense one's whereabouts that allows the body to orient itself in space without visual clues. Resident 12 was noted as alert and oriented, but forgetful at times. The June 25, 2002, progress notes also recorded that Resident 12 required extensive assistance from two people to transfer from her bed to her wheelchair, and required verbal cues for posture. She was unable to maintain sitting balance on her own. Her sitting posture was round-shouldered, with her head in a forward position and leaning to the left. Her standing posture was round-shouldered, head forward, and bent heavily forward from the waist. Her left leg provided no support when she stood. Finally, the June 25, 2002, progress notes stated that Resident 12 was at high risk for falls, and that she would need bed and wheelchair alarms for safety. She had balance problems attributed to weakness, poor endurance, decreased vision, and decreased proprioception. Resident 12's MDS dated June 29, 2002, indicated a code of "3/3" for transfers, meaning that she required "extensive assistance" and support from at least two persons to transfer between surfaces. As to toilet use, Resident 12 was coded at "4/2", meaning "total dependence" (full staff performance) with support from one person. Contemporaneous nurses' notes indicate that, on some occasions, Resident 12 required two persons to assist her with toilet use. On the morning of June 29, 2002, Resident 12 slid to the bathroom floor while a CNA was assisting her in pulling up her pants. Resident 12 was standing when the incident occurred. The next set of weekly therapy treatment progress notes for Resident 12, dated July 2, 2002, noted the fall on June 29, 2002, and stated that she remained at high risk for falls. The progress notes indicated that Resident 12's sitting balance now showed a tendency for her to lose her balance backwards and to the left side. Similarly, her standing balance showed a tendency to lean backwards and to the left. During the first week of July 2002, the facility's ADL flowsheets showed that Resident 12 was able to use the toilet with the assistance of one person during the day, but required the assistance of two persons at night. However, the nurses' notes for the same period show that on at least some occasions Resident 12 required two persons to assist her in toilet use during the day. The next set of weekly therapy treatment progress notes for Resident 12, dated July 9, 2002, again showed that her tendency was to lose her balance backwards, both when sitting and standing. She was still at risk for falls and still needed bed and wheelchair alarms for safety. A second MDS for Resident 12 was completed on July 8, 2002. Resident 12's status for transfers was unchanged since the June 29 MDS. However, her status for toilet use was upgraded from "4/2" ("total dependence"/one person physical assist) to "3/2" ("extensive assistance"/one person physical assist). A RAP for Resident 12, dated July 8, 2002, noted that she had "[c]ompromised safety awareness. Resident feels she is capable of independence in tasks and lacks insight into limitations at times." As of July 9, 2002, Resident 12's only fall in The Chateau was her slide to the floor when having her pants pulled up in the bathroom. The facility had noted that she tended to fall backward when losing her balance, and in fact she had never fallen forward. She was able to sit in her wheelchair without falling. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 9, 2002, Resident 12 fell forward off the toilet. She hit the top of her head, either on the cabinet or the floor, and experienced pain in her left rib cage. Subsequent examination revealed that she suffered an acute fracture of a left anterolateral rib. The Chateau had a care plan in place for Resident 12's toileting, and devices in place to maintain her safety. The Chateau had outfitted Resident 12's toilet with a three-sided commode seat that had armrests on both sides and a bar in back. It was designed to support the resident as she sat on the toilet. The Chateau's records for Resident 12 indicated that she was able to maintain a sitting position for up to 30 minutes as of July 9, 2002. Thus, there was every reason to believe the commode seat would be adequate to support Resident 12 for the short time she sat on the commode. There was also a bar on the shower door within reach of the toilet, and a grab bar behind the commode. Resident 12 had adequate strength on her right side to pull herself with that arm. A call bell was within her reach as she sat on the commode. At the time of the fall, Resident 12 was being supervised by Oriaene Celestin, an experienced CNA who knew Resident 12 well. Ms. Celestin and another CNA had helped Resident 12 onto the toilet. Ms. Celestin then positioned herself outside the open door of the bathroom, discreetly monitoring the resident. When Resident 12 fell, Ms. Celestin immediately went into the bathroom and called for assistance. Ms. Celestin testified that she did not go into the bathroom while Resident 12 used the toilet because Resident 12 had expressly told her that she wished to be alone in the bathroom. Ms. Celestin described Resident 12 as a very demanding person who did not hesitate to tell staff what she wanted. Regina Driesbach, executive director of Moorings Park, Diane Lanctot, an RN who worked with Resident 12, and Brian Kiedrowski, M.D., Resident 12's physician, all testified that Resident 12 was an outspoken, independent, strong-willed woman who insisted on making her own decisions even as her health declined. Ms. Lanctot confirmed that Resident 12 had asked to be alone in the bathroom. At the hearing, AHCA objected to the hearsay testimony as to Resident 12's expression of her desire to be alone in the bathroom. The Chateau contended that these statements should be admitted because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to indicate the effect of Resident 12's utterances on Ms. Celestin in particular and of the staff of The Chateau in general. The undersigned overruled the objection and allowed the testimony as to Resident 12's stated desire to be alone in the bathroom, for the limited purpose stated by The Chateau. However, even if the out-of-court statements of Resident 12 were excluded from the record, the requirement that a facility respect the resident's dignity gives rise to a common-sense presumption that the resident should be left alone when using the toilet, unless safety concerns mandate the direct presence of facility staff. The relevant question is not whether Resident 12 asked to be left alone in the bathroom, but whether her safety in the bathroom could not be reasonably assured without Ms. Celestin's physical presence inside the bathroom. Christine Byrne, AHCA's expert in nursing in long-term care facilities, suggested several steps that The Chateau could have taken to make Resident 12 safer when using the bathroom. One of those proposed steps, having "someone standing outside of the bathroom door, which would facilitate resident privacy although asking the resident to crack the door a little bit," merely described what The Chateau in fact did. Ms. Byrne's other suggestions included soliciting safety ideas from the resident, putting a safety belt on the toilet, placing a wheelchair in front of the toilet, consulting with the physical therapist as to positioning the resident on the commode, assessing the physical environment in the bathroom, and re-evaluating the resident's medications in conjunction with the facility's pharmacist. Dr. Kiedrowski, an expert in geriatric medicine, testified that restraining Resident 12 on the toilet would be problematic because she was short and heavyset, and a safety belt could cause the entire commode to flip over if she fell forward. Aside from that practical problem, Dr. Kiedrowski testified that the entire issue of restraints is very sensitive in the long-term care setting, and that anything blocking a resident's movements should be employed only as a last resort. He did not believe that a safety belt on the commode or a wheelchair in front of it would be an acceptable restraint. Ms. Driesbach testified that she did not believe a safety belt could be attached to the three-sided seat on Resident 12's commode. Maher Moussa, director of rehabilitation services at Moorings Park and an expert in physical therapy, testified that the toilet seat was adequate and appropriate. As to medications, AHCA suggested at the hearing that Resident 12's fall might have been caused by her reaction to Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), a hypnotic agent prescribed to induce sleep, and phenobarbital, a barbiturate prescribed for seizure disorders that has a common side effect of drowsiness. On the evening of July 9, 2002, Resident 12 took a 5 mg tablet of Ambien at 8:30 p.m., and a 30 mg tablet of phenobarbital at 9:00 p.m. ACHA suggests that the facility failed to account for the possible effects of these medications, in derogation of the RAP guidelines set forth at Finding of Fact 16 above. While AHCA's suggestion is plausible, no firm evidence was offered to support it. Diane Lanctot was the RN who responded to Ms. Celestin's call for help after Resident 12 fell. She took Resident 12's vital signs and tested her range of motion. Ms. Lanctot testified that Resident 12 seemed alert, and was not confused or disoriented. Based on all the evidence, it is found that The Chateau took reasonable steps to ensure Resident 12's safety and dignity in light of the reasonably foreseeable risk of falls. Resident 12 had been sitting in a wheelchair since her admission and had never fallen forward. Her only previous fall was from a standing position. The only indication in the entire medical record of any tendency to fall forward was in the initial progress notes of June 25, 2002. Every subsequent notation mentioned Resident 12's tendency to fall backward and to the left when she lost her balance. The Chateau took sufficient precautions to prevent a backward fall off the toilet. Two CNAs assisted Resident 12 into the bathroom, as indicated by the MDS and the daily ADL flowsheets. Ms. Celestin did not remain in the bathroom while Resident 12 used the toilet, but remained at the open door keeping watch. There was no foreseeable reason for Ms. Celestin to compromise the resident's dignity by remaining in the bathroom while Resident 12 used the toilet. Under all the circumstances, The Chateau provided adequate supervision and appropriate assistive devices to prevent accidents in the case of Resident 12. In summary, based upon all the evidence adduced at the final hearing, AHCA's finding of a deficiency under Tag F324 was demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the fall of Resident 7. AHCA failed to demonstrate, by even a preponderance of the evidence, that the fall of Resident 12 was due to any act or omission on the part of The Chateau.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order upholding its notice of intent to assign conditional licensure status to The Moorings, Inc., d/b/a The Chateau at Moorings Park, for the period of July 18, 2002, through August 20, 2002, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 7th day of August, 2003. 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 Tom R. Moore, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency care for a nursing home resident in respiratory distress in violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 483.25 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect as of the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the State of Florida. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 830 West 29th Street, Orlando, Florida (the facility). Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of the facility on September 14, 2001. The survey cited the facility for a deficiency described in F309, and rated the deficiency with a scope and severity of "G" and Class II, respectively. The deficiency classifications authorized in Subsection 400.23(8) range from Class I through Class IV. Class I deficiencies are not relevant to this case. The statute defines the remaining classifications as follows: A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. . . . A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines will result in no more than minimal physical, mental or psychosocial discomfort to the resident or has the potential to compromise the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined. . . . A Class IV deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident. . . . Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the state of Florida to adhere to federal regulations found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, Rule 59A-4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. The "G" rating adopted by Petitioner for the scope and severity rating of the deficiency alleged in F309 is a rating authorized in relevant federal regulations. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated. Applicable state law authorizes Petitioner to change a facility's licensure rating from standard to conditional whenever Petitioner alleges that a Class II deficiency exists. Petitioner alleged in the survey report that a Class II deficiency existed at the facility and assigned a conditional rating to the facility's license. The conditional rating was effective September 14, 2001, and continued until substantial compliance was achieved. When Petitioner proves that a Class II deficiency exists, applicable law authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil money penalty. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking to impose a fine of $2,500.00 and subsequently filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The allegations on which both the change in license status to a conditional license and the proposed fine are based are set forth in F309. The deficiency alleged in F309 is set forth on CMS Form 2567, entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" (the 2567). The 2567 that Petitioner used to charge Respondent with the deficiency described in F309 involved only one resident. In order to protect this resident's privacy, the 2567, F309, the Transcript, and all pleadings refer to the resident as Resident 1. F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25. In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Use F309 for quality of care deficiencies not covered by 483.25(a)-(m). F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 CFR Section 483.25 because: Based on interview and record review the facility neglected to provide appropriate emergency care for [Resident 1] in respiratory distress and failure. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the Manual). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The facility admitted Resident 1 to the pediatric long-term care unit on November 20, 2000. The admitting diagnosis was cerebral palsy, pneumonia and convulsions, a tracheostomy, and a gastrostomy. Resident 1 could breathe on her own and was being weaned from the trach. She could breathe through her nose at times. She was not on a ventilator but could breathe room air. At all times, Resident 1 was making respiratory effort. Resident 1 was on an apnea monitor. Resident 1 had three stomas. Stomas are the openings for the tracheostomy tube. Her throat structures were very frail. She had received numerous throat reconstructions. She had significant scar tissue and a granuloma at her stoma sites. A granuloma is a tumor-like growth. The granuloma was vascular, and the blood vessels were easily broken. Resident 1 was spastic as a result of her cerebral palsy. On September 7, 2001, at 2:50 a.m., Resident 1's apnea monitor alarm sounded. Staff immediately responded to find that Resident 1 had pulled out her tracheostomy tube and was bleeding profusely. Facility staff called 911 and notified the treating physician and the parents. An ambulance was dispatched to the facility at 2:51 a.m. on September 7, 2001. While awaiting the ambulance, the Registered Nurse on duty (RN) could not detect an apical or radial pulse. The RN did not administer CPR. Rather, the RN established an airway by successfully replacing the tracheostomy tube. Securing a patent airway was the first thing that the RN should have done for Resident 1 under the circumstances. No oxygen can be given without a patent airway. It was difficult for the RN to visualize the trach opening because of the profuse bleeding. The RN was able to tactilely reinsert the tube. Vital signs taken by the RN showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. CPR is not appropriate when vital signs are present. The ambulance and EMT personnel arrived shortly after the RN reinserted the trach tube. At 2:56 a.m., EMT personnel took over the care of Resident 1. EMT personnel worked on Resident 1 for 23 minutes before transporting her to the hospital. Resident 1 died at the hospital at 3:35 a.m., 38 minutes after the EMTs took responsibility for her care. EMT personnel generated EKG strips indicating that Resident 1's heart was beating at some point after they took over. Two sets of x-rays subsequently taken at the hospital substantiate that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel took over her care. EMT personnel removed the trach the nurse had inserted and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. Removing the trach eliminated the airway that the RN had established for Resident 1 before EMT personnel arrived. The endotracheal tube was 22 centimeters long and significantly longer and larger than the regular trach tube used for Resident 1. The physician's order for Resident 1 stated that nothing should go past 6 centimeters into Resident 1's trach. It took the EMTs three attempts to get the endotracheal tube placed. The EMTs should have hyperventilated Resident 1 before placing the endotracheal tube. They did not do so. The x-ray taken at 3:42 a.m. in the hospital, shows that the endotracheal tube was improperly positioned in Resident 1's lung. All steps taken by the RN were appropriate for Resident 1 under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between any act or omission by the facility and the harm to Resident 1. The care plan for Resident 1 called for suctioning of her tracheal tube. Care plans are to be followed under normal circumstances. Emergency procedures take precedence in critical situations. Suctioning for Resident 1 was appropriate under normal circumstances when she had a patent airway. If Resident 1 did not have an airway, the first priority is to establish an airway. The RN first established a patent airway for Resident 1. It would have been inappropriate for the RN to suction Resident 1 before establishing an airway because it would have sucked out the air remaining in Resident 1's lungs. Suctioning also could have caused a vasovagal response that could stop the heart and could have caused tissue damage. After the RN opened an airway for Resident 1, the next priority would have been for the RN to check for vital signs. The RN checked Resident 1's vital signs after opening an airway, and the vital signs showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. The presence of vital signs made it inappropriate for either the RN or EMT personnel to administer CPR. CPR is appropriate only in the absence of vital signs. When EMT personnel arrived, they continued the same procedure that the RN had followed. EMT first established an airway by removing the trach tube used by the RN and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. The resident had vital signs after placement of the trach and CPR was inappropriate. F282 relates to failure to implement a care plan. Respondent was not cited under F282. Petitioner stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation that both the conditional license and fine were based on F309 alone.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in F309 and the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint, and changing Respondent's conditional license to a standard license effective September 4, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, Room 3106 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. Post Office Box 2011 2180 Park Avenue, North Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint concerning three nursing home residents, whether Petitioner should impose a civil penalty of $2,500 for each violation, whether Petitioner should change the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional, and whether Petitioner should recover investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida. Respondent is licensed to operate an 87-bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida (the facility). From February 9 through 11, 2004, Petitioner's staff inspected the facility pursuant to regulatory requirements for an annual survey of such facilities (the survey). At the conclusion of the survey, Petitioner issued a document identified in the record as CMS Form 2567L (the 2567 form). The 2567 form alleges violations of federal nursing home regulations that Petitioner has adopted by rule. The Administrative Complaint incorporates the factual allegations from the 2567 form and charges Respondent with committing four violations alleged to be Class II violations defined in Subsection 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Counts I through III in the Administrative Complaint allege that facility staff committed acts involving residents identified in the record as Residents 14, 7, and 8. Count IV alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III show that Respondent administered the facility in a manner that violated relevant regulatory provisions. Counts I through IV propose an administrative fine of $2,500 for each alleged violation and the recovery of unspecified investigative costs. Count V alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III require Petitioner to change Respondent's license rating from standard to conditional while the alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected. Count I alleges that a staff nurse at the facility abused Resident 14, an elderly female. The substance of the allegation is that the nurse "intentionally caused pain" to Resident 14 by raising the resident's left hand above her head so the resident would open her mouth and allow the nurse to ensure the resident had swallowed her medication. Respondent admitted Resident 14 to the facility on January 31, 2000, with multiple health problems, including anxiety, paranoia, psychosis, delusions, and disorientation due to dementia. Resident 14 was not ambulatory and suffered poor wheel chair positioning for which she had been evaluated and received therapy. Resident 14 was non-verbal, angry, aggressive, combative with staff and other residents, displayed territorial aggression, and a tendency to strike out at others. Prior to admission, Resident 14 had suffered a fracture of the left arm resulting in a limited range of motion in her left shoulder of 60 degrees. At the time of the survey, Resident 14 was approximately 93 years old. Two surveyors observed a staff nurse administering medication to Resident 14 while the resident was sitting in her wheel chair in her room. Resident 14 did not respond to repeated cues from the nurse to open her mouth so the nurse could ensure the resident had swallowed her medication. The nurse continued to observe Resident 14 for some indication the resident had not swallowed her medication and offered pudding to the resident. Resident 14 remained unresponsive. The nurse directed a certified nurse assistant (CNA) to give Resident 14 breakfast and left to care for other residents. The surveyors asked the nurse to return to the room to ensure that Resident 14 had swallowed her medication. Resident 14 did not respond to additional cues from the staff nurse to open her mouth because the resident was distracted by the surveyors. The staff nurse attempted to redirect the attention of the resident to the nurse's cues to open her mouth by holding the resident's left hand and raising her hand and arm. Resident 14 opened her mouth, and the staff nurse observed no medication in the resident's mouth. The disputed factual issues call into question how quickly and how high the staff nurse raised the left hand of Resident 14, whether the resident suffered pain, and whether the staff nurse knew the action would cause pain. Although Resident 14 was non-verbal, Count I alleges, in relevant part, that Resident 14 cried "OW" when the staff nurse, without warning, raised the resident's hand over her head. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the staff nurse lifted the hand of Resident 14 in an abrupt manner. During cross-examination of the surveyor, counsel for Respondent conducted a reenactment of the alleged incident. The witness verified the manner in which the person acting as the staff nurse in the reenactment raised the left hand and arm of the person acting as Resident 14. The demonstration did not show the staff nurse acted abruptly. The reenactment showed that the description of the incident by the surveyor was less than persuasive. Petitioner admits in its PRO that a determination of whether the staff nurse raised the resident's hand gently or abruptly is a "matter of perspective." Petitioner argues unpersuasively at page 14 in its PRO that the surveyor's perception should be accepted because: Clearly, the surveyor would not have made comment if the resident had been treated in a gentle manner. Petitioner cites no evidence or law that precludes the written statement provided by the staff nurse during the facility's investigation of the incident from enjoying a presumption of credibility equivalent to that Petitioner claims for the report of the surveyor. The staff nurse had been a nurse at the facility for 19 years without any previous complaints or discipline and had ample experience with residents that suffered from dementia. The nurse had cared for Resident 14 for most of the four years that Resident 14 had been a resident at the facility. Irrespective of how fast and high the staff nurse raised the hand of Resident 14, a preponderance of evidence does not show that Resident 14 suffered an injury or harm that is essential to a finding of abuse. The surveyor asked Resident 14 if the resident had been in pain prior to the incident. Resident 14 was "unable to speak," according to the surveyor, but nodded affirmatively. Resident 14 did not indicate the source or location of any pain, and there is no evidence that the surveyor asked Resident 14 to indicate to the surveyor where the resident was experiencing pain. After the incident, the surveyors undertook no further inquiry or investigation, did not question the nurse or the resident further, and refused a request by facility administrators for a written statement describing the incident. The surveyors at the facility did not make a determination of whether the incident resulted in "harm" to Resident 14. Rather, the allegation of harm arises from Petitioner's employees who did not testify at the hearing. The determination of harm is uncorroborated hearsay, and the trier of fact has not relied on that determination for any finding of fact. Upon learning of the incident, Respondent's nursing staff immediately examined Resident 14 for injuries, had Resident 14 examined by her physician, and had Resident 14 x-rayed for possible injuries. No injury was found. Resident 14 did not complain of pain when her physician performed a range of motion examination on the suspect arm. Resident 14 was able to move both of her arms without pain. The medical records for Resident 14 and the testimony of her occupational therapist show that the resident had use of her left arm. Resident 14 frequently flailed both arms in an effort to strike others. Notes in the medical records show that Resident 14 "lashes out," "swings her arms," was "physically abusive to staff when attempting to provide care," and "refused to open mouth and became agitated and combative." The limited range of motion in the left shoulder of Resident 14 did not prevent Resident 14 from raising her left hand above her head while seated in a wheel chair. Resident 14 sat in a wheel chair with a forward pelvic thrust, causing her to slump with a lateral lean to the left. The wheel chair position effectively lowered the resident's head, reduced the distance between her head and left hand, and enabled the resident to raise her left hand above her head without pain. Count II alleges that Respondent failed to assist Resident 7 in "coping with changes in her living arrangements in a timely manner" after Resident 7 became upset that her guardian was selling her home. The allegation is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Respondent admitted Resident 7 to the facility in September of 2003. Prior to admission, the circuit court for Sarasota County, Florida, entered an order appointing a guardian for Resident 7. In relevant part, the court order authorized the guardian to determine residency of Resident 7 and to manage her property. Prior to December 28, 2003, Resident 7 was reasonably content. Social service's notes in October 2003, show that Resident 7 was "alert with no mood or behaviors." Nurses notes in November 2003, show Resident 7 to be "pleasant" with a "sense of humor." On December 28, 2003, Resident 7 became angry when her guardian revealed plans to sell the resident's home. Resident 7 continued to exhibit anger for several weeks. On January 6, 2004, Respondent conducted a care plan conference with the guardian for Resident 7, discussed Resident 7's emotional state, and obtained the guardian's consent for counseling. Pursuant to the care plan, Respondent's social services staff met with Resident 7 regularly and provided psychological counseling twice a week. Facility staff did not undertake discharge planning for Resident 7. Staff provided other assistance to the resident, but that assistance was minimal and consisted mainly of giving Resident 7 telephone numbers to contact the Long Term Care Ombudsman in the area and the attorney for the guardian. The sufficiency of the other assistance provided by Respondent is not material because the court convened a second hearing to consider the objections of Resident 7 to her guardian and to consider a competency examination by another physician. On February 6, 2004, the court entered an order denying the resident's suggestion of capacity and authorizing the guardian to sell the residence. The allegation that Respondent should have undertaken discharge planning is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Pursuant to two court orders, Resident 7 continued to be in need of a nursing home level of care, and her expectations for discharge to a lower level of care were unrealistic. Count III alleges that a facility staff nurse failed to administer analgesic medication to Resident 8 causing "continued pain and emotional stress to the resident." Resident 8 experienced chronic pain from a joint disorder. A care plan for pain management, in relevant part, authorized Tylenol as needed. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to provide Tylenol to Resident 8 in accordance with the care plan. During the survey, a surveyor observed staff at the facility reinserting a catheter into a vein of Resident 8. The witness for Petitioner testified that the procedure did not cause Resident 8 to experience pain. It is undisputed that Resident 8 did not request pain medication and that no pain medication was medically required prior to the procedure. Respondent did provide Resident 8 with a prescription medication to calm the resident. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to ensure that Resident 8 obtained optimal improvement or that Resident 8 deteriorated. Petitioner submitted no evidence that Resident 8 experienced any lack of improvement or decline in functioning or well-being. Count IV in the Administrative Complaint alleges that the allegations in Counts I through III show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively and efficiently to maintain the highest practical well-being of Residents 14, 7, and 8. For reasons previously stated, the preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent committed the acts alleged in Counts I through III. Without the violations charged in Counts I, II, or III, the charges in Count IV are moot. Assuming arguendo that the staff nurse abused Resident 14, a preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to take action that could have prevented such abuse. Petitioner's surveyor was unable to explain in her testimony how Respondent could have prevented the alleged abuse. The surveyor did not report the incident to management at the facility for approximately 1.5 hours. Management immediately suspended the staff nurse and undertook an investigation required by law. Petitioner's surveyors refused to provide written statements describing the incident. The staff nurse provided a written statement that Respondent included as part of its investigation and report to Petitioner. Respondent maintains adequate policies and procedures for background screening and regular training for its staff relating to abuse and neglect of residents. Respondent had accomplished all background screening and abuse training requirements for the staff nurse involved in the incident. Respondent had no information in the nurse's history that would have enabled the facility to predict any potential for this staff nurse to intentionally harm a resident. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that would ensure the highest practical well-being for Resident 7. Two court orders determined that Resident 7 was incompetent and authorized the guardian to sell the resident's real property. The opinion of a surveyor that Resident 7 was "clearly competent" does not eviscerate the findings of the court. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to administer the facility in a manner that would ensure the highest practical well-being for Resident 8. Respondent maintained an adequate pain management care plan for Resident 8 that included Tylenol as needed. It is undisputed that the care plan did not require Tylenol before or after the re-insertion of the catheter into the vein of Resident 8, that insertion of the catheter caused Resident 8 no pain, that Tylenol was not medically required before or after the procedure, and that Respondent provided Resident 8 with a stronger prescription medication for anxiety. Count V of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the allegations in Counts I through IV require Petitioner to change the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional. In the absence of the violations charged in Counts I through IV, there is no factual basis to support the proposed change in the status of Respondent's license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of committing the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0623 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Was Petitioner's license rating lawfully changed from Standard to Conditional.
Findings Of Fact Cross Creek is a nursing home located in Pensacola, Florida, which is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency which licenses and regulates nursing homes in the state. As such, it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida, pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. 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 which receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On March 8, 2001, an AHCA team completed a survey of the facility. The surveyors included Jackie Klug, Paula Faulkner, Norma Endress, and Sandra Corcoran. All of the surveyors are trained in the business of surveying nursing homes. Ms. Klug is a registered and licensed dietician. Ms. Faulkner is trained in social work. Norma Endress and Sandra Corcoran are registered nurse specialists. Nurse Corcoran was the team leader. Resident 1 Ms. Corcoran observed that Resident 1 had experienced weight loss. This resident was admitted to the facility on July 7, 2000. On October 9, 2000, the resident weighed 115 pounds. In a care planning meeting it was noted that the resident was combative and was refusing to eat. A care plan was not formulated but it was decided that the resident was to be provided a dietary supplement. On January 4, 2001, the resident's weight was 97 pounds. Eventually a care plan was devised which provided for dietary supplements in the form of "shakes." The resident was to consume shakes with meals. On multiple occasions during the survey the facility failed to provide dietary supplements to the resident. This resident could not feed himself and could only consume food which was pureed. The resident could only minimally engage in activities of daily living. Resident 1 had a lung lesion and was expected to lose weight. Despite this expectation, during January, records revealed the resident weighed 103 pounds, in February he weighed 102.3 pounds, and in March he weighed 107.2 pounds. Resident 1 was terminally ill and was being provided what was essentially hospice care. Upon considering all of the circumstances, the resident's weight was satisfactory. Resident 2 Ms. Faulkner observed Resident 2 on two occasions. This resident was totally dependent on the facility staff for feeding. On one occasion during the survey, the resident was provided potatoes which were cold and too hard for her to masticate. On two occasions during the survey, the resident's dentures were not put in her mouth. Ms. Faulkner was concerned with the resident's weight. Interventions which were on the care plan were not consistently provided. For instance, the resident's preferences for various types of food were not considered. Resident 2 was a dialysis patient. Dialysis affects a patient's weight. Patients are typically weighed prior to the administration of dialysis and then are weighed subsequently. In the usual case a weight loss is expected subsequent to dialysis. With regard to this resident, no credible evidence was adduced as to what the resident weighed at any given time. No credible evidence was adduced which would indicate that the resident experienced a weight loss, despite Ms. Faulkner's concerns. Resident 3 Resident 3 was receiving a pureed diet when observed by Ms. Faulkner. The resident ate between 75 and 100 percent of this food. The resident weighed only 87 pounds at this time. The resident was supposed to be fed two "206 shakes" which are supplements designed to promote weight gain. On at least two occasions during the survey, the resident was not provided with these supplements. On March 6, 2001, at 6:35 p.m., Ms. Faulkner observed the resident eating and the resident had not been provided the supplements. Ms. Faulkner informed LPN Pat Nelson, of the facility staff, of the absence of supplements. Nurse Nelson commented that the supplements should have been on the resident's tray. Resident 3 had dirty fingernails and generally was not clean. Moreover, she had multiple bruises and skin tears to the outer ankles. The resident's upper arm had a four centimeter bruise that was reddish brown. This resident was totally dependent on the staff for care. Consequently, Ms. Faulkner concluded that facility staff had caused or permitted the acquisition of these wounds and bruises. Nurse Corcoran observed a wound on the resident's right ankle. She also observed multiple skin tears and bruises on both legs. She also observed an open area on the resident's coccyx. She did not, however, believe that these were pressure sores. Patricia Powell is the assistant nursing director of the facility. She reviewed the medical records of the resident and determined that the resident had been evaluated three different times and that she suffered no skin breakdown. She noted that the resident, at the time of the survey, had been readmitted to the facility subsequent to a hospital stay and that upon readmission, the resident was afflicted with three stasis ulcers including one on her lower left extremity and one on her right lower extremity. Nurse Powell also noted that the resident had bruises on her upper and lower extremities. She stated that the hospital records reflected information from her granddaughter stating that the resident repeatedly bumped herself into the walls in the nursing home and bled from the wounds she received as a result. Nurse Powell stated that hospital records demonstrated that the resident gained weight in 2000. Records at the time of the visit noted that the resident's weight was stable. Linda Gunn is a staff member of the facility and is a LPN. She was a treatment nurse and she was responsible for the care of Resident 3 during times pertinent. She observed that the resident had abrasions and skin tears. She stated that the resident was a fragile patient who required total care. The resident had sores which were caused by vascular problems. Pressure sores were not present. Nurse Gunn checked the resident daily and each time she left the resident she made sure the resident was clean and dry and in a comfortable position. Resident 4 Ms. Faulkner observed Resident 4 during the survey and suspected that the resident might have pressure sores because the resident was not consistently found to have positioning devices which had been determined to be necessary. A record review revealed that the resident had two stage II pressure sores in January of 2001, but that they had healed by the time of the survey. Ms. Faulkner stated that at the time of the survey she observed the resident to have a stage III pressure sore on the right ankle, but she relied on Nurse Corcoran's expertise to make that determination. Ms. Faulkner observed that positioning devices were not used on the resident's legs, as they should have been, on March 1, 5, and 6, 2001. Ms. Faulkner noted that, according to the resident's medical record, the resident often kicked off protective devices and padding. Nurse Powell stated that the resident's medical record reflected that the resident had excoriations on the coccyx and between her leg folds. Excoriation is a break or redness in the skin that is caused by urine or feces. It is not a pressure sore. She also noted that the resident had constant involuntary movements of the left leg against the right leg, and that she was provided padded side rails but the resident removed them. Nurse Powell stated that the resident moved her legs in a scissor-like action all day long and that she removed the side rails, pillows, and foot pads which facility staff used to attempt to ameliorate the damage caused by the leg movement. Ms. Gunn, a staff nurse, also observed the resident frequently. She noted that the resident was diabetic, incontinent of her bowel and bladder, was immobile and needed total assistance to be turned and positioned. She had to be fed and otherwise required total care for all of activities of daily living. Ms. Faulkner additionally observed the resident on March 7, 2001, and noted that during the four times she observed the resident there was no splint or other device or treatment being used to address the resident's contracted right hand. There was no care plan to address this condition. Willa Gilliam is a certified nursing assistant employed at Cross Creek. Specifically she was a restorative aide. It was her duty to provide Resident 4 with range of motion exercises. She accomplished this. After the exercises a towel roll was to be placed inside the resident's hands. Ms. Gilliam placed the towel roll inside of the resident's hands but noted that the resident often removed the towels. Resident 8 Norma Endress is a nurse specialist. She observed Resident 8. The resident was assessed on September 5, 2000, to be at high risk for skin breakdown because he was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident was also dependent on staff for turning. The resident had a care plan which required that the resident be removed from bed and placed in a geri chair for positioning. Nurse Endress observed on March 6, 2001, on ten different occasions during the day, that the resident was lying on the resident's left side and was not being turned or placed in the geri chair as the care plan required. On March 7, 2001, the resident was observed to have a stage I pressure area on his right foot, ankle and heel. The resident had no positioning devices or heel protectors in place, as he should. When Nurse Endress inquired as to why the resident was not being put in a geri chair, a staff nurse informed her that the facility had a shortage of geri chairs. Nurse Endress did not see this resident move during the entire four days that she was present at the facility. Nurse Gunn confirmed that the resident required total care and that he was receiving wound care to his heel. She stated that the resident was supposed to be supplied with pillows and a wedge or wedges and that his feet were required to be elevated on pillows. Resident 9 Nurse Endress observed Resident 9 for four days during the survey. This resident had a history of heart problems. The resident was capable of walking when he reached the facility and he did walk. The resident's physician ordered continued ambulation. However, during the four day survey, the resident was not ambulated. The resident reported to Nurse Endress that he had not been walked for the prior three months and stated that he wanted to walk, if facility staff would help him. Nurse Powell stated the patient had diabetes and that the sore on his right foot was a decubitus ulcer caused by vascular insufficiency. The ulcer generated pain when the resident attempted to walk. Accordingly, the staff of the facility did not provide assistance in ambulation to this resident because it would be too painful for the resident. The resident was also required to wear a splint on his right hand to deter contraction. During the survey Nurse Endress visited the resident and observed the splint resting on the foot of the resident's bed. The splint was soiled. On March 5, 2001, Nurse Endress observed the resident five times during the day and at no time was he wearing a splint. Ms. Gilliam was the staff member charged with placing the splint on the resident. She claimed that she was to install the splint at 10:00 a.m. and to remove it at 2:00 p.m. and that she had in fact accomplished this every day. Her testimony, with regard to this, upon consideration of all of the other testimony, is determined not to be credible. Nurse Endress believed that the resident had a stage I pressure sore on his right foot but she was not allowed to touch the resident to actually make a determination that the observed redness was a pressure sore or was present due to some other cause. Resident 10 Resident 10 was observed by Dietician Klug during the survey. During various times the resident was observed sitting in a geri chair which sported duct tape on both armrests. Resident 10 was cognitively impaired and required extensive to total assistance in activities of daily living. The resident could not move from bed to chair, or chair to bed. Consequently this movement was necessarily accomplished by staff. The care plan determined that a minimum of two people be employed to properly transfer the resident. The resident had very fragile skin and was prone to skin tears, bruises and abrasions. On January 22, 2001, the resident experienced a skin tear to the left lateral leg. On February 4, 2001, the resident acquired a skin tear to the right arm. On February 19, 2001, the resident manifested a blood blister to the lower back. On March 5, 2001, a large skin tear to the right lower leg was observed. Ms. Klug said there was no evidence of competency check lists or records of training of staff in the area of transfers. However, there is no evidence in this record that Ms. Klug checked to see what, if any, evidence was available in the facility which might demonstrate that such training had occurred or that there was a deficiency in the training. Despite her belief that the injuries experienced by the resident were the result of rough or inexpert handling by staff, a causal connection was not demonstrated by the evidence. Cleanliness and grooming Ms. Klug observed resident 11 during the survey. At the time of observation the resident had long dirty fingernails and was emitting an unpleasant odor. This caused Ms. Klug to conclude that the resident needed a bath. This resident needed total assistance with the activities of daily living and this assistance was not being adequately provided. Residents F, G, M, and 14 were observed by Nurse Corcoran during the survey. Resident F was sitting in the day room in the morning with dried food smeared upon his mouth. Resident G was sitting in a wheelchair while wearing soiled pants and a soiled shirt. Resident M was seen in the main dining room during one afternoon of the survey and on that occasion the resident's fingernails were long and jagged, and a dark substance was present under the resident's nails. The resident's false teeth were caked with food. Resident 14's hair was greasy and disheveled. Ms. Faulkner observed residents number 3, 4, 21, and 22 to have dirty fingernails and noted that they were, "not clean, in general." Resident 19 Ms. Klug observed Resident 19. This resident was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Both of her hands were severely contracted. She had received physical therapy from September 26 to October 25, 2000, for the purpose of promoting comfort and preventing further contraction or deformity of her hands. Splints were applied to her hands at that time and the resident could tolerate them for four hours a day. In December 2000, the resident complained that the splints were causing more pain than she could bear. As a result, the use of splints was discontinued. Instead, the resident was to have a washcloth placed in the hands to prevent further deformity. Some members of the therapy staff informed Ms. Klug that the real reason the splints were not being used was because they had gone missing. On March 8, 2001, Ms. Klug interviewed a restorative aid who stated that the resident had not been treated for the prior month. The increase in contraction of the resident's hand resulted in the resident being unable to feed herself. The resident's record reflects that the splints were discontinued due to severe pain secondary to arthritis. A "Restorative Progress Note-Splinting" dated December 2, 2000, states that splints should be discontinued. It further states, that range of motion exercises should continue but, "We'll use washcloth for hand." Based on all of the available evidence of record, it is determined that the resident was receiving the best possible care for her hand contractions. Resident 19 was observed on March 6, 7, and 8, 2001, being fed pureed food. This was contrary to her then current diet order which called for a mechanical soft diet. The resident informed Ms. Klug that she did not like the taste of the pureed diet and claimed that she could masticate sufficiently well to subsist on a mechanically soft diet. Inquiry to the dietary manager revealed that a unit nurse had changed the diet order on December 18, 2000, because the resident had a sore mouth and missing teeth. Between January and March the resident suffered an 11-pound weight loss. The resident weighed 118 pounds in January of 2000. The resident was programmed to maintain a weight of between 113 and 118 pounds but only weighed 104 pounds at the time of the survey. Ms. Klug reviewed documentation in the resident's record which, as recently as March 2, 2001, reflected that the resident had a physician's order for a mechanically soft diet. Through observations and interviews she determined that facility staff were unaware of the discrepancy in the texture of the resident's diet. A change in a diet order, with regard to consistency, may come only from a physician. Resident 21 Ms. Faulkner observed Resident 21 in the resident's bed. She observed the head nurse attempt to do a range of motion on the resident's left hand. This resulted in the resident crying out in pain. The resident's left hand was moist and emitted an odor. Her care plan required interventions to keep her nails cleaned and trimmed and to decrease irritation through her palms. During the survey there were at least two times when the resident had no supportive devices in her hands. Ms. Faulkner discussed this with the facility occupational therapist on March 8, 2001, and the therapist stated that he was unable to splint the resident's hand. Ms. Gilliam was assigned to provide restorative assistance to Resident 21. She noted that after the motion exercises a towel roll was required to be placed in her hand. However, she stated that range of motion was impossible to conduct because of the pain and that the insertion of a towel roll into her hand might result in breaking the resident's fingers. During the time Ms. Gilliam was assigned to resident 21, she observed that her condition had worsened. Resident 22 Resident 22 also had range of motion issues. This resident had contracting of the arm, hand, leg, and foot. Ms. Faulkner sought from the facility a plan of care addressing the contracting of the resident's left hand. Facility staff informed her that none existed. The resident was admitted to the facility with contractures. No evidence was adduced as to whether or not the resident's contractures had become worse because the facility presented no documentation which would permit that determination. Staffing Staffing at the facility was in substantial compliance with AHCA requirements in terms of quantity and training.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assigning a Conditional license to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 27th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Mail Stop No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period March 8 through May 30, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, in Palm Bay, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on March 8, 2001 (the "March survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the survey on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on April 17, 2001 (the "April survey"). The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "tags"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. There are five tags at issue in this proceeding. The March survey cites two Class II deficiencies and three Class III deficiencies. The April survey cites repeat violations of three Class III violations. In this case, Section 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000) establishes the deficiency classifications referred to as Classes II and III. All statutory references in this Recommended Order are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(b) defines Class II deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines have a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility resident. . . . Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The March survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F224, F282, F314, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies Tags F224 and F314 as class II deficiencies and Tags F282, F325, and F363 as class III deficiencies. Tag F224 in the March survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse to a resident by another resident. Tag F314 generally alleges that Respondent failed to provide necessary assessment, treatment, and documentation for pressure sores for one resident. Tag F282 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that one resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide menus that meet the nutritional needs of the residents by not following menus for pureed and dysphagia diets. The April survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F282, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies each alleged violation as a Class III deficiency. Tag F282 in the April survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to follow a resident’s plan of care by failing to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that menus designed to meet the nutritional needs of the residents were prepared in advance and followed. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288 establishes the requirement for nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal rules and regulations as found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, the state rule provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order). Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign to the deficiencies alleged in the 2567 a scope and severity rating required by federal regulations. In the March survey, Petitioner assigned a "G" rating to Tags F224 and F314, both of which are Class II deficiencies. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated, caused actual harm to one or more residents, but did not involve substandard quality of care. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey. A "D" rating means that there is no actual harm but there is potential for more than minimal harm without actual jeopardy. Petitioner relies on two grounds for changing Respondent's license rating from standard to conditional. When Petitioner alleges two Class II deficiencies in the 2567, as Petitioner did in the March survey, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of a facility's license. Applicable rules also authorize Petitioner to change a facility's license rating when the facility does not correct Class III deficiencies within the time prescribed by Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to correct three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey by the time Petitioner conducted the April survey. Effective March 8, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Effective May 31, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The allegations in Tag F224 in the March survey pertain to two residents in the dementia unit of the facility who are identified individually as Resident 1 and Resident 13. Tag F224 in the March survey alleges that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.13(c). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: The facility must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The facility must not use verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F224 does not allege that the facility failed to develop the written policies required by 42 CFR Section 483.13(c) and Rule 59A-4.1288. Rather, Tag F224 alleges that Respondent failed to implement its policy. Tag F224 alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services to Resident 13 to prevent the resident from sexually intimidating a female resident identified as Resident 1. Tag F224 further alleges that Resident 13 had a past history of abusive and aggressive behavior to other residents but was not reassessed, "care planned," and monitored. The allegations in Tag F224 are based on observations of one of Petitioner's surveyors who participated in the March survey. On March 5, 2001, the surveyor observed Resident 13 in the dementia unit standing over Resident 1. The surveyor did not observe any overt sexual misconduct by Resident 13. Rather, the surveyor concluded that sexual misconduct occurred because she determined that Resident 13 was "invading [the female resident's] space," Resident 1 appeared "very anxious," "nervous," and "uncomfortable", and screamed for 15 minutes for Resident 13 to leave. The surveyor also relied on the history of Resident 13 to conclude that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001. Resident 13 had, on two occasions, previously expressed a desire to have sex with female residents in the dementia unit and on other occasions had wandered into the rooms of female residents. Based on the inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13 prior to March 5, 2001, the surveyor alleged in Tag F224 that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct with Resident 1 on March 5, 2001. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, by standing in front of Resident 1. Resident 13 did not engage in any overt sexual act or gesture. Resident 13 did not utter any inappropriate sexual comments. Resident 13 suffered from dementia and was elderly. He was mentally incapable of forming the requisite intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and was physically incapable of carrying out any such intent. In the absence of any overt sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, the only evidence to support the allegation of sexual misconduct in F224 is the inference of the surveyor based on the gender difference between Residents 13 and 1 and the past history of inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13. The inference of the observer does not satisfy the requirement for a preponderance of the evidence. The resident’s physician was qualified as an expert witness without objection. The physician testified that he was aware of Resident 13’s aggressive behavior, including the two occasions on which the resident expressed a desire to have sex with female residents. However, such incidents are typical of demented residents, do not reflect that Resident 13 was going to attack other residents in the dementia unit, and do not require any alteration to the care plan that was already in place. The only evidence that Petitioner provided to the contrary was the non-expert opinion of its surveyor. The non- expert opinion of the surveyor was insufficient to refute the physician’s expert opinion. Resident 13 suffered from severe cognitive impairment and was not physically or mentally capable of premeditating a plan to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and then carry out that plan. Resident 1 was paranoid of men. Her response to the encounter with Resident 13 was precipitated by her paranoia rather than by Resident 13's intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1. Although Resident 13 voiced a desire to have sex with other residents on two occasions during his stay at the facility, he never acted on those statements and was physically and mentally incapable of acting on them. On those two occasions, Respondent monitored Resident 13 closely but the resident did nothing to indicate that he would act on his stated desires or that he even remembered voicing them. Petitioner did not allege that Resident 13 engaged in any behavior on March 5, 2001, other than sexual misconduct. Even if Tag F224 were to have alleged that Resident 13 engaged in abuse other than sexual abuse, the preponderance of the evidence failed to show that Resident 13 engaged in non-sexual abuse. As a threshold matter, the evidence that the incident lasted for 15 minutes is not credible. It is implausible that a surveyor would allow apparent sexual intimidation to continue after she perceived the incident to be sexual intimidation, much less allow Resident 1 to endure such intimidation for 15 minutes. The surveyor testified that she could not locate a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") on the dementia unit when the incident occurred on March 5, 2001. The dementia unit is a locked unit comprised of resident rooms that open at regular intervals along a 60-foot hallway, and an activities room. There were two CNAs on duty at the time. One of those CNAs was in the hallway at the time of the alleged incident. The surveyor did not inform any member of the staff or administration at the facility that the incident had occurred before Petitioner provided Respondent with the allegations in the 2567 at the conclusion of the March survey. Resident 13’s primary behavior problem did not involve physical aggression toward other residents. Rather, the primary behavior problem was Resident 13's tendency to become aggressive with staff when they attempted to provide personal care, especially that care required for the resident's incontinence. Petitioner incorrectly concluded that the inappropriate behavior by Resident 13 indicated that he was a risk to assault or intimidate other residents. Resident 13’s historical experience at the facility did not involve aggression toward other residents. Instead, Resident 13 directed his aggressive behavior to situations with staff who were attempting to provide personal care for him. Irrespective of the proper characterization of Resident 13's behavior on March 5, 2001, the behavior did not occur because of any failure by the facility to assess Resident 13 or to develop and implement appropriate care plans to address the Resident 13's inappropriate behavior. Respondent acknowledged that Resident 13 wandered the hall, wandered into residents’ rooms, occasionally urinated in inappropriate places, and occasionally made inappropriate sexual remarks. However, those behaviors are typical of residents who suffer from dementia, and the inappropriate behavior cannot be eliminated through a care plan. Facility staff knew to monitor Resident 13 and to re- direct him if he engaged in inappropriate behavior that affected other residents. The chart for Resident 13 is replete with instances of staff consistently implementing those interventions. The care plan for Resident 13 directed staff to approach him calmly, let the resident choose the timing of his care, assess him for pain as a potential cause of agitation, and leave the resident alone and approach him later if the resident became upset during care. All of these interventions were appropriate for the identified behavior problem, and the record is replete with instances of the successful implementation of appropriate interventions. A physician saw Resident 13 and evaluated the resident almost weekly. The physician was aware of and assisted in the evaluation of the resident’s behavior. The physician considered several alternative interventions including the use of anti- anxiety medications to address the resident’s aggressiveness. The physician called in a psychiatric nurse practitioner to evaluate the resident and to recommend medications that might be effective in controlling aggressive episodes. At various times during the course of Resident 13’s stay at the facility, the physician prescribed Seraquil, Risperdal, BuSpar and Ativan for the resident. When aggressive incidents occurred, staff administered these medications with positive effects. Petitioner offered no specific evidence that any intervention used by the facility was not appropriate or that there was another intervention that the facility failed to identify and implement that would have changed any of the inappropriate behavior. Rather, the surveyor concluded that whatever the facility did was inappropriate because Resident 13’s behavioral problems did not subside or disappear while he was at the facility. The surveyor's conclusion fails to adequately understand dementia. The inappropriate behavior displayed by Resident 13 is typical of residents in a dementia unit and cannot be eliminated. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to adequately reassess Resident 13. The resident’s medical record is replete with examples of efforts by the staff to continually re-evaluate the resident and to modify care plan approaches. The facility conducted quarterly re-assessments of the resident. The facility required staff to chart all incidents of inappropriate behavior in the resident’s medical record in an effort to identify any triggering events. The facility provided staff with in-service training for Resident 13 by the resident’s physician. The scope of the training encompassed the care of residents with dementia but focused in particular on the care that was required for Resident 13. The physician wanted to assure that Resident 13 would not become over-medicated and implemented frequent assessments and readjustments of the dosages of the resident's medications. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent failed to assess the resident in a timely manner or that any assessment performed by the facility was inappropriate. Petitioner did not allege in the March survey that the incident between Residents 13 and 1 was a result of Respondent's failure to consistently implement Respondent's policy regarding investigations of abuse. Therefore, any evidence relevant to such an allegation at the hearing is irrelevant to the allegations for which Petitioner provided adequate notice in the March survey. A contrary ruling would violate fundamental due process requirements for notice of the charges that substantially affect Respondent's license to operate the facility. Assuming arguendo that Petitioner can prove charges at the hearing that were not included in the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner's surveyor testified at the hearing that the incident she observed on March 5, 2001, occurred because the facility did not implement its policy and procedure regarding investigations of abuse of residents. As evidence of Respondent's failure to implement its policy, the surveyor contended that the facility did not properly investigate another incident described in nursing notes on January 31, 2001, before the March survey. In the January incident, the nursing notes indicated that Resident 13 made sexual advances to other residents. The implication is that the facility would have done something different with the resident had it properly investigated the January incident and would have, in turn, been able to prevent the occurrence of the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001. Respondent maintains an adequate anti-abuse policy. Respondent’s anti-abuse policy requires its designated staff members to investigate and report to abuse agencies, if necessary, any suspected incidence of abuse of its residents. However, the facility did not fail to implement this policy with regard to Resident 13. Abuse is defined in Respondent's policy as the "willful infraction [sic] of injury . . . resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish." Due to Resident 13's dementia, he was not capable of willfully inflicting harm on anyone. No facility investigator could reasonably conclude that an incident involving Resident 13 constituted abuse within the meaning of the written policy of the facility. Even if the incident described in the January 31, 2001, nursing notes were relevant to the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner failed to show that the incident which the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was the product of any failure by Respondent to implement its policy on January 31, 2001. The facility’s director of nursing adequately investigated the incident described in the nursing notes on January 31, 2001, and determined that Resident 13 made no sexual advances to anyone and did not direct any inappropriate sexual comments to other residents. Rather, the investigation found that Resident 13 made inappropriate sexual comments to a CNA. Staff appropriately monitored Resident 13 after he made that statement to the CNA, and Resident 13 did nothing to act on the statement. The director of nursing notified Resident 13’s physician, and the physician determined there was no need to alter the resident’s care plan. Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F224 was a Class II deficiency. Petitioner presented no evidence that the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was anything other than an isolated incident or presented a threat of harm to other residents. Tag F314 alleges that Respondent violated 42 CFR Section 483.25(c). The federal regulation requires, in relevant part: Pressure Sores. Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that— A resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual’s clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable; and A resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. The March survey alleges in Tag F314 that the facility failed to provide required treatment and services to Resident 2. The surveyor determined the facility was out of compliance after she determined that Resident 2 had pressure sores. The surveyor based her findings on her observation of Resident 2 and a review of the records. In the nursing notes of February 22, 2001, the facility noted small open areas to the left thigh, back of scrotum, and buttocks. On March 5, 2001, the resident’s medical record indicated that the resident had two reddened areas on his buttocks. On March 6, 2001, the surveyor observed that the resident had two open areas on his right buttock and two on his scrotum. Petitioner charged in F314 in the March survey that these areas were pressure sores, and that the areas identified on March 6th were those which had been initially identified on February 22, 2001. Petitioner further charged that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services because staff failed to notify the resident’s physician and obtain a treatment order to the areas in accordance with the facility's policy relating to pressure sore care. A threshold issue is whether the reddened areas on Resident 2 were pressure sores or were reddened areas that did not satisfy Petitioner's definition of a pressure sore. If the areas were not pressure sores, Petitioner acknowledges that there would be no deficiency and no violation of the facility's pressure sore policy. The guidelines promulgated by Petitioner to guide its surveyors in the interpretation of the standard applicable under Tag F314 define a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. The areas identified on February 22, 2001, were located on Resident 2’s buttocks, scrotum, and thigh. None of those areas were located over any bony prominence within the meaning of Petitioner's promulgated definition of a pressure sore. Additionally, the areas identified on February 22nd were healed the next day. Pressure sores do not typically heal overnight. A nurse practitioner examined the areas identified on March 5th and 6th during the survey. The nurse practitioner diagnosed those reddened areas as a rash. Petitioner relies on records that identify the reddened areas on forms that the facility uses for both pressure sores and reddened areas that are not located over a bony prominence. For convenience, the facility uses a single form to identify both reddened areas and pressure sores. Petitioner seeks to rely on the facility forms, including elements of the plan of care on such forms, as though they were admissions by the facility that define pressure sores and then attempt to require the facility to prove the areas are not pressure sores. Petitioner is bound by its own definition of a pressure sore, cannot deviate from that definition, and cannot rely on a different definition as a basis for disciplinary action against the licensee. Petitioner limits the definition of a pressure sore to those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that overlie a bony prominence. Those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that do not overlie a bony prominence are not pressure sores within the meaning of the definition adopted by the state agency. The use by the facility of pressure sore treatment forms and the use of the term pressure sore in the medical records does not create a bony prominence where none exists. The preponderance of evidence shows that the reddened areas at issue were not located over a bony prominence. Clearly, there is no bony prominence in the scrotum, thigh, or buttocks where the reddened areas were located on Resident 2. Assuming arguendo that the areas were pressure sores, Respondent provided all treatment and services to the areas necessary to promote their healing. The facility treated the areas identified on February 22, 2001, by cleansing and application of Lantiseptic, a skin protector. The effectiveness of the treatment is reflected by the complete healing of the areas on the next day. Facility staff properly notified the treating physician and treated the areas identified on March 5th with Lantiseptic. A physician’s assistant examined the areas identified in the March survey and confirmed the use of Lantiseptic on the areas. The surveyor found no record of any plan of care for the pressure sores alleged in the March survey. The facility subsequently produced a note by a nurse practitioner dated March 6, 2001, stating that Lantiseptic was applied to a rash on the buttocks and scrotum, a doctor’s order for treatment, and a care plan for pressure sores after the physician’s note of February 23, 2001. The surveyor testified that the additional documents did not alter her testimony that the areas were pressure sores and that the facility failed to provide an adequate plan of care. The testimony of the surveyor does not refute the preponderance of evidence at the hearing. The areas at issue did not overlay a bony prominence. In any event, Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F314 in the March survey was a Class II deficiency. Even if the areas were pressure sores and it were determined that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, the evidence does not demonstrate that the problem suffered by Resident 2 was systemic or likely to occur with other residents in the facility. At most, the evidence demonstrates a limited failure to provide care to one resident. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove that the identified deficiency presented an immediate threat to other residents in the facility. At the conclusion of Petitioner's case in chief, Respondent moved to dismiss the allegations in Tag F282 on the grounds that Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleged different deficiencies and therefore were not relevant or material to a change in license that is based on uncorrected deficiencies. After hearing arguments from both parties, the ALJ granted the motion to dismiss with leave for Petitioner to revisit the issue in its PRO if Petitioner could provide legal authority to support its position. Petitioner argues in its PRO that the ALJ erred in granting the motion to dismiss. However, Petitioner does not cite any legal authority to support its argument. Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents in violation of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written plan of care. The federal standard is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. In the March survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent provided services to residents by unqualified staff. Instead, Tag F282 charged that Respondent's staff incorrectly fastened a clip belt in the back of Resident 21 while she was in her wheel chair and failed to toilet her once in accordance with a physician’s order. In addition, Tag F282 alleged that staff did not weigh Resident 3 weekly as required by his care plan. However, a preponderance of the evidence showed that the facility did not miss any required weights after January 13, 2001. In the April survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies alleged in the March survey regarding Residents 21 and 3. Nor did Tag F282 allege that Respondent failed to comply with the plan of corrections submitted by Respondent after the March survey. Rather, Tag F282 in the April survey alleged that Respondent failed to provide a plate guard and weighted spoon for Resident 7 in violation of a physician's order. Petitioner argues that the alleged deficiencies in Tag F282 in the March and April surveys, pertaining to Residents 21 and 7, respectively, involved the failure to comply with a physician's order and, therefore, represent uncorrected deficiencies. Even if Petitioner's definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" were accepted, it would not be dispositive of the issue. The evidence showed that the physician who ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 terminated the order at the conclusion of the April survey. Even if Respondent failed to follow a physician's order for Residents 21 and 3 in the March survey, Respondent did not fail to follow a physician's order for Resident 7 during the April survey. Moreover, the termination of the physician's order evidences a medical determination that the failure to comply with the order did not cause any harm to Resident 7. In any event, the definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" asserted by Petitioner is not persuasive. Notwithstanding the request of the ALJ, Petitioner did not submit any legal authority to support its asserted definition of the phrase "uncorrected deficiency." In the absence of a technical definition established by statute, rule, or judicial precedent, the phrase "uncorrected deficiency" is properly construed in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. The allegations in Tag F282 in the March survey are rooted in a physician’s order that called for a clip belt to be placed around Resident 21 while she was in her wheelchair. The purpose of the order was to guard the safety of Resident 21. The order further directed staff to check the belt every thirty minutes and release it every two hours to toilet the resident. During the March survey, a surveyor observed that staff had placed the clip belt on Resident 21 improperly on one day, and further determined that the resident had not been taken to the toilet. Based upon that information, the surveyor charged that the facility failed to follow the doctor’s order for checking and releasing the belt. The surveyor’s observations established, at most, a single isolated instance of failure to follow the care plan for Resident 21. The surveyor's observations failed to establish a consistent failure to implement the care plan. The alleged deficiency presented no potential for harm to Resident 21. Resident 21 was cognitively alert and could notify staff if she needed to be toileted or needed her belt removed. At the time that the surveyor observed Resident 21, the resident was in a supervised setting with staff readily available to her in the event she needed attention. She was not shown to have experienced any incontinent episode or to have even requested that she be toileted or otherwise released from the belt. Petitioner acknowledges that any failure by staff to remove the resident’s belt during this time presented nothing more than a minimal risk of harm to the resident. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on January 13, 2001, and had a care plan that called for the resident to be weighed weekly. Between the resident’s admission to the facility and the March survey, the facility weighed the resident in accordance with the care plan except for one omission in late February. This one instance of failing to do a weekly weight did not demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no evidence that this single instance of failing to weigh the resident caused the resident harm or presented even the potential for harm to the resident. After the March survey, Respondent submitted a plan of correction to address the alleged deficiencies relating to Tag F282. Applicable law precludes Respondent from arguing the validity of the alleged deficiencies in its plan of correction. In the plan of correction, Respondent indicated that it would focus on restraints and weekly weights to insure that the alleged deficiencies would not re-occur. Petitioner accepted the plan of correction and, in April, did not find that staff at the facility failed to properly apply restraints to residents, failed to do weekly weights for residents, or otherwise failed to implement the plan of correction. Petitioner charged that Respondent violated Tag F282 in April because the facility failed to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard to Resident 7 as required by a physician’s order. It is uncontroverted that the plan of correction adopted to address the March F282 deficiency pertaining to Residents 21 and 3 did not address the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey with respect to Resident 7; and would not have prevented the deficiency alleged in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7. Accordingly, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7, even if true, did not represent an "uncorrected" deficiency. Instead, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey represented a new deficiency. In any event, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged failure of the facility to comply with any of the orders at issue denied residents any necessary care and treatment, or presented even the possibility that the residents would be harmed. The physician ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 due to the loss of dexterity in the resident's hand needed to assist him in the consumption of his meals. Even though the plate guard and spoon were not provided to the resident after they were ordered for him, the resident had no trouble with meal consumption. His medical records reflected that he consistently consumed his meals and that he gained almost 20 pounds during the time period that the spoon and plate guard were ordered. The weight gain and food consumption are significant because the facility initially admitted the resident as a hospice resident. The absence of any medical necessity for the physician's order requiring the spoon and plate was confirmed when the facility contacted the doctor during the survey, and the doctor issued an order discontinuing the use of the plate guard and spoon. Tag F325 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to comply with the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.25(i)(1). The federal regulation provides, in pertinent part: Nutrition. Based on a resident’s comprehensive assessment, the facility must ensure that a resident-- Maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the resident’s clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible. . . . The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F325 alleges in the March survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 4. Respondent does not dispute this charge. Tag F325 alleges in the April survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 9. Resident 9 lost approximately 20 pounds between August of 2000 and April 8, 2001. However, Petitioner provided no evidence that the weight the resident lost was "unacceptable" or caused by inadequate nutritional care. Petitioner neither contended nor demonstrated that a 20-pound weight loss over seven or eight months violates any accepted dietary or health standard. Even if such a rate of weight loss were an "unacceptable nutritional parameter," Petitioner provided no evidence that Respondent failed to properly monitor Resident 9's weight, assess his dietary needs, provide the resident with an appropriate diet, or otherwise caused the weight loss. Rather, the resident’s medical records demonstrate on-going assessments of the resident by the dietary staff and numerous interventions to address the resident's weight. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to comply with several directives for supporting care for Resident 9. Facility staff had been directed to cue Resident 9 to use a "chin tuck" to address his risk of aspiration due to swallowing difficulties. Staff were directed to cue the resident to cough and tuck his chin anytime the staff determined that the resident's voice sounded wet. During the survey, the surveyor observed three meals in which the staff provided no cues to Resident 9. However, no cues were required of staff if the resident did not have a wet sounding voice, and the surveyor acknowledged that she did not hear the resident cough during any of her meal observations. Even if cues were required to be given to Resident 9 during the meals observed by the surveyor, the surveyor did not demonstrate that the failure to cue the resident had any negative impact either on the resident's ability to eat or on the resident's weight. Rather, the evidence shows that Resident 9 weighed 151.6 pounds on April 8, 2001, and weighed 160.2 pounds on April 20, 2001, the day after Petitioner completed the April survey. Thus, the failure of the staff to cue the resident during the observed meals did not violate a nutritional parameter. The surveyor testified that the facility failed to provide fortified foods to Resident 9 during the April survey in violation of the resident's dietary care plan. The allegations in Tag F325 in the April survey do not include the allegation of inadequate care to which the surveyor testified during the hearing. In the absence of adequate notice in the written allegations, the testimony of the surveyor cannot be used as a basis for any finding of deficiency. Even if the testimony were considered as a basis for a finding of fact, the failure to provide fortified foods did not violate any nutritional requirements. Resident 9's wife provided the resident with "home-cooked" meals to satisfy his food preferences. Petitioner acknowledges that the meals the wife supplied effectively precluded the resident from eating fortified foods provided by the facility. Moreover, Resident 9 gained weight between April 8 and 17, 2001. Tag F363 alleges in the March and April surveys that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.35(c)(1)-(3). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: (C) menus and nutritional adequacy. Menus must-- Meet the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with the recommended dietary allowances of the Food and Nutrition Board of the national Research Council, National Academy of Sciences; Be prepared in advance; and Be followed. The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F363 alleges that the facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, included cranberry sauce and that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in the rehabilitation dining room. The surveyor who made this charge did not evaluate the meal actually provided to the residents for its nutritional adequacy. Rather, the surveyor cited the facility because the facility failed to comply with the literal terms of the printed menu. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in its rehabilitation dining room on the day in question. The facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, consisted of roast turkey, poultry gravy, cornbread dressing, peas and carrots, mandarin oranges, bread, and cranberry sauce. The menu called for one-half tablespoon of cranberry sauce. The omission was not significant. The dietician did not include the cranberry sauce in calculating the nutritional content of the meal. The cranberry sauce was only a garnish to the plate. The remainder of the food items offered in the meal met all of the requirements for residents’ nutritional needs. Any failure by Respondent to provide the cranberry garnish presented no risk of harm to any resident. Tag F363 alleges in the April survey that Respondent provided a saltine cracker during one meal to a resident who required a pureed diet. Tag F363 also alleges that Respondent gave a bologna sandwich to a resident whose food preferences did not include bologna sandwiches. Petitioner provided no evidence that either of these residents received nutritionally inadequate meals. Petitioner’s apparent concern with the resident who was served the cracker was that she might attempt to eat it and choke on it because she required pureed foods and the cracker was not pureed. The surveyor who observed the resident acknowledged that the resident did not eat the cracker. She also acknowledged that there is a regulatory standard which requires a facility to provide a therapeutic diet to residents who require such a diet, and that a pureed diet is a therapeutic diet. Accordingly, this observation is, at most, a violation of that standard, not Tag F363, and presented nothing more than a minimal chance of harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show that the resident who did not get the bologna sandwich was deprived of any required nutrition, or that placing a bologna sandwich in front of the resident created any risk of harm to the resident. The surveyor acknowledged that the sandwich did not remain in front of the resident for long and that the facility immediately corrected the situation by providing the resident with an acceptable substitute. Tag F363 also alleges that the facility posted for resident observation the same menu on Monday, April 17, 2001, that the facility posted on Sunday, April 16, 2001. The regulation at issue does not address how or even if menus must be posted in a nursing home. Petitioner failed to explain why posting the same menu on consecutive days would violate any regulation, rule, or statute. Respondent acknowledged that the Sunday menu was not removed on Monday, but demonstrated that different, nutritionally adequate meals were planned and served to residents on each of those days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a factual basis existed upon which Petitioner should have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on March 8, 2001, and revising the March 8 and April 16, 2001, 2567 reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F224, F314, F282, F363 and F325 (April only); and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating that was in effect from March 8, 2001, until May 31, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Qualified Representative Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
