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 issue in this case is whether the nursing home facility previously owned and operated by Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce, and later owned and operated by Fort Pierce Health Care, ("Nursing Home") was entitled to a standard license during a period in which the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") assigned it a conditional license.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated and admitted facts Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce operated a skilled nursing facility located at 611 S. 13th Street, Fort Pierce Florida, until November 30, 2001. Fort Pierce Health Care is an entity unrelated to Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce that purchased the facility on November 30, 2001, and has operated it since that date. At all times material to this case, both Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce and Fort Pierce Health Care have been licensed by the State of Florida to operate the subject nursing home pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. The AHCA completed a survey of the nursing home on November 8, 2001. At the conclusion of the survey, the ACHA alleged, relevant to the matters at issue in this case, that there were three separate Class II violations of 42 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 483.15(e)(i), 483.20(k)(3)(i), and 483.25(c). The AHCA filed an Administrative Complaint in this matter which sets forth the factual allegations upon which the ACHA reached the conclusion that there were three Class II deficiencies. Based upon the identification of the Class II deficiencies, the AHCA issued a Notice of Intent to Change Beverly Health and Rehab Fort Pierce's licensure rating from Standard to Conditional, effective November 8, 2001. The AHCA issued Fort Pierce Health Care a Conditional license rating on November 30, 2001, when operation of the facility was transferred. Fort Pierce Health Care timely filed a petition challenging AHCA's intent to assign it a Conditional rating. AHCA changed Fort Pierce Health Care's Conditional licensure rating to Standard, effective December 13, 2001. Facts about call bells During the survey of the subject nursing home facility in November of 2001, a group interview of residents was held on November 6, 2001. Eleven residents participated in the group interview. Nine of the eleven residents participating in the group interview reported to the surveyors that sometimes it can take more than one hour for call bells to be answered. Five of the residents participating in the group interview said that on some occasions they had been incontinent because they could not wait an hour to be helped into the bathroom. One of the residents participating in the group interview has a roommate who has a colostomy. The bag sometimes breaks and comes away from the stoma. On such occasions both roommates will ring their call bells. On several occasions it has taken more than an hour for help to come. During that same group interview, nine of eleven residents participating in the interview stated that their call bells are often not in reach. This can be because the nursing home staff fails to put the call bells within reach, or because the call bells fall on the floor or fall behind the bed. During a tour of the nursing home facility on November 5, 2001, it was observed that the call bells were either on the floor, behind the bed, and/or out of reach of the residents in sixteen of the rooms inspected. Facts about long toenails During the survey of the subject facility during November of 2001, Resident 15 told one of the surveyors that upon admission to the subject facility the resident had requested the staff of the nursing home to arrange for a podiatrist to come cut the resident's toenails. The resident's toenails are all very long and needed to be cut. The resident's physical condition was such that he/she could not cut his/her toenails, and because the resident suffered from diabetes, it was necessary to have the toenails cut by a podiatrist. During the course of the survey the records of the facility did not document any effort to obtain the services of a podiatrist for Resident 15. At the time of the survey in November of 2001, all of Resident 15's toenails were thick, were approximately two inches long (measuring for where the nail changes color from pink to white), and were curving around the tips of the toes. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether the length and shape of the toenails interfered with Resident 15's ability to walk or to perform any other activities of daily life. Facts about order for oxygen On October 30, 2001, a physician wrote an order for oxygen to be delivered through a tracheal collar to Resident 23. On November 5, 2001, during the AHCA survey of the subject nursing home, one of the survey team members observed that for a period of approximately ten or fifteen minutes Resident 23 was not wearing his tracheal collar and, therefore, was not receiving the oxygen ordered by his physician. When the matter was brought to the attention of nursing home staff, the tracheal collar was placed on Resident 23 and he once again received the oxygen ordered by his physician. There is no persuasive evidence in the record as to whether Resident 23 did or did not suffer any harm as a result of not having his oxygen equipment in place during the time period observed by the survey team member. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence in the record as to why Resident 23 was not wearing his tracheal collar when he was first observed by a member of the survey team. Facts about physician order for Foley catheter Resident 18 suffered from, among other things, urinary and bowel incontinence. Because of those conditions he wore incontinence briefs. On October 17, 2001, his physician wrote an order for a Foley catheter to be inserted in Resident 18. The purpose of the Foley catheter was preventative--to reduce the risks of infection and to prevent or reduce the likelihood of the development of pressure sores. At the time the order for the Foley catheter was written, Resident 18 did not have any pressure sores.3 Upon receipt of the physician's order for a Foley catheter for Resident 18, a facility nurse attempted to insert the catheter into Resident 18. The nurse was unsuccessful in her efforts because Resident 18 appeared to have an obstruction that made it impossible for her to complete the task. In that situation, good nursing practice requires the nurse to cease efforts to insert the catheter and to contact the Resident's physician, which she did. The physician then directed the nurse to schedule an appointment with a urologist so that the urologist could insert the Foley catheter. Following some delays due to the unavailability of the urologist originally suggested by the resident's physician, an appointment was made to have a urologist insert the Foley catheter in Resident 18. The urologist was unsuccessful the first time he saw Resident 18, but a few days later, on November 12, 2001, the urologist successful inserted the catheter. The physician who originally ordered the insertion of the catheter was kept advised of the status of efforts to accomplish what he had ordered. The physician clarified that the insertion of the Foley catheter was not an emergency matter and that there was no urgency in having the catheter inserted. The physician was satisfied with the action taken by the nursing home staff in response to his order regarding the catheter and was of the opinion that the action taken by the nursing home staff in that regard constituted a timely and appropriate response to what he had ordered. Resident 18 did not suffer any harm as a result of the delays in inserting the Foley catheter. Facts about pressure sores During the course of the survey of the nursing home facility in November of 2001, one of the survey team members observed that Resident 18 had what appeared to the survey team member to be pressure sores high on the back of each thigh, at about the area where the upper thighs meet the lower part of the buttocks. These sores were at approximately the location where the resident's upper thighs would rub against the edges of the incontinent briefs worn by the resident. Wound care notes maintained by the nursing home facility stated that Resident 18 developed a Stage II pressure sore on the right back thigh on October 24, 2001, and a Stage II pressure sore on the left back thigh on October 30, 2001. The wound care notes also indicated that Resident 18 did not have any similar wounds prior to October 24, 2001. The wound care nurse who prepared the notes regarding the two Stage II pressure sores has since had second thoughts about the matter. The wound care nurse is now of the view that the wounds she saw on October 24 and 30 of 2001 and described at that time as pressure sores were in fact bullous pemphigoid sores. At certain stages of the development of bullous pemphigoid sores and pressure sores, it is easy to mistake one for the other. The wound care nurse also clarified in her testimony that the two wounds she observed on the backs of Resident 18's thighs were not located over a bony prominence. Review of the clinical record for Resident 18 reveals that the resident was admitted to the facility with the following diagnoses: Alzheimer's Disease, hypertension, and bullous pemphigoid. Physician notes regarding Resident 18 prepared on October 17, 2001, note the presence of "decubitus ulcers to perineal groin and genital areas." The physician who prepared the notes regarding the "decubitus ulcers" also has since had second thoughts about the matter. The physician is now of the view that the wounds he saw on October 17, 2001, and described as "decubitus ulcers" were in fact bullous pemphigoid sores. The physician agrees with the wound care nurse that at certain stages of the development of bullous pemphigoid sores and pressure sores, it is easy to mistake one for the other. The physician also clarified in his testimony that the two wounds he observed on October 17, 2001, were not located over a bony prominence. The AHCA has prepared a manual to be used when its employees are conducting surveys of nursing home facilities. That manual includes the following definition: "Pressure sore" means ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissue overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or shear. The staging system presented below is one method of describing the extent of tissue damage in the pressure sore.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the AHCA issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the violations alleged in Count I regarding the location of and the responses to call bells have been proved by the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence and that those violations are Class II deficiencies; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count I regarding long toenails is, at most, a Class III deficiency; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count II regarding providing oxygen to a resident is, at most, a Class III deficiency; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count II regarding insertion of a Foley catheter should be dismissed for lack of persuasive competent substantial evidence; Concluding that the violation alleged in Count III regarding pressure sores on a resident should be dismissed for lack of persuasive competent substantial evidence; and Concluding that the violations described in subparagraph (a), above, provide a sufficient basis for the issuance of a Conditional license to the Nursing Home from November 8, 2001, until December 13, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2003.
The Issue 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
Findings Of Fact Americana operates 48 nursing homes in the United States, including three in Florida. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CENCO, Inc., a diversified, publicly-owned corporation. Americana's application for the certificate of need was approved by DHRS over the recommended denial of The South Central Florida Health Systems Council (HSA). The HSA has health planning responsibilities for a nine-county area which includes Naples (Collier County). See Sections 381.493(3)(h) and 381.494(6), Florida Statutes (1980). 1/ However, DHRS has the authority to grant or deny. See Section 381.494(7), Florida Statutes (1980). The HSA prepared the Health Systems Plan, which indicated a requirement for 95 additional nursing home beds in Collier County for 1980-81. However, the HSA apparently recommended denial based on a project review committee determination that cost of construction and the resulting charges to patients would be too high. Americana estimates cost of construction at $1.714 million. Financing is to be arranged by the parent corporation at 11 percent annual interest (estimated) . There was no evidence to indicate that excessive charges for patient care would result from these construction and financing costs. Further, Americana, through CENCO, is now seeking to finance the project with tax-exempt bonds to be issued by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority. A $3.5 million bond limit and a 120-bed facility were proposed to the Authority. If these bonds are successfully issued, mortgage interest expense would be substantially below the market rate. Petitioner contends that both the bond request and the proposed 120 beds violate the terms of the certificate of need. However, Americana demonstrated that the $3.5 million represents only a ceiling and that the original $1.7 million estimate remains an operative figure. The testimony of DHRS, the Collier County Development Council and bonding company witnesses established that none of these agencies were misled as to proposed costs. However, the continuing inflation and the questionable construction starting date necessitated a "cushion" to the original estimate. This was not shown to be improper but is, rather, a prudent measure to be taken during an inflationary period. There was no deception involved in the 120-bed facility proposed to the Collier County Development Authority. This plan calls for construction of the 95-bed approved facility with a shelled-in area to provide for future expansion. This plan was made known to the HSA and DHRS during the processing of the application and was accepted by these agencies even though separate certification of the additional 25 beds would be required. There are currently 213 extended care nursing home beds in Collier County. These are provided by Petitioner (99) and by the Gulf Drive Nursing Home (114). Both facilities are about 12 years old. In addition, there are 180 beds currently under construction. These include 120 beds at the Naples Villa, which will be available to the general public, and 60 beds at the Moorings Presbyterian. The latter will initially open its facility to the general public but will eventually restrict access to these who are residents of its affiliated congregate living community. All of these facilities are or will be licensed for skilled and intermediate care and, except for the Moorings, will offer a substantial portion of their beds to Medicare/Medicaid patients. The standard used by the HSA sets the upper limit of need for nursing home beds at 27 per 1,000 persons 65 years of age or older. This standard is used by health planning agencies throughout Florida. It results in a computed requirement for 95 additional beds in Collier County which, in the view of Respondents, supports grant of the Americana application. Petitioner points out that this standard produces a maximum figure, and that other factors must be considered in calculating actual need. Such other factors include projected area growth, utilization of existing nursing homes, the availability of alternate care facilities, any average or deficit in beds in surrounding counties, effect of competition on other facilities, and the cast to patients of the new service. The evidence established that Collier County is a rapidly growing area and one which is attracting a substantial number of new residents age 65 or older. The two existing nursing homes average about 90 percent occupancy and regularly have patients awaiting admission during the winter months. A waiting list of Medicaid applicants, which is increasing each year, is maintained by the local DHRS office. In addition, placement inquiries are frequently received by this office from outside the area but are discouraged due to the lack of assured acceptance. A significant number of patients now residing in Naples nursing homes could be cared for at other facilities such as "foster homes" if they were available. Conversely, some patients who do not require acute care must remain at the hospital due to the lack of nursing home beds. Facilities in neighboring counties are limited and offer no real alternative for Naples residents seeking nursing home care. Petitioner established that a shortage of nursing personnel in the area now exists and asserted that this shortage will become severe if Americana opens a nursing home as planned. Petitioner further contends that Americana will necessarily compete for area nurse, thus driving up wages and, ultimately, the cost of care. Americana views the shortage of nurses as a national problem and has implemented an active nurse recruitment program. It has adequately considered its staffing needs and reasonably believes it will be able to attract the necessary personnel. The evidence was inconclusive as to the impact the proposed facility would have on local wages.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Greater Naples Care Center, Inc. to revoke Certificate of Need No. 1288 be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of January, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period March 8 through May 30, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, in Palm Bay, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on March 8, 2001 (the "March survey"). Petitioner noted the results of the survey on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility that Petitioner completed on April 17, 2001 (the "April survey"). The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "tags"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. There are five tags at issue in this proceeding. The March survey cites two Class II deficiencies and three Class III deficiencies. The April survey cites repeat violations of three Class III violations. In this case, Section 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000) establishes the deficiency classifications referred to as Classes II and III. All statutory references in this Recommended Order are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(b) defines Class II deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines have a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility resident. . . . Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those: . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The March survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F224, F282, F314, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies Tags F224 and F314 as class II deficiencies and Tags F282, F325, and F363 as class III deficiencies. Tag F224 in the March survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse to a resident by another resident. Tag F314 generally alleges that Respondent failed to provide necessary assessment, treatment, and documentation for pressure sores for one resident. Tag F282 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that one resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to provide menus that meet the nutritional needs of the residents by not following menus for pureed and dysphagia diets. The April survey sets forth allegations against Respondent in Tags F282, F325, and F363. Petitioner classifies each alleged violation as a Class III deficiency. Tag F282 in the April survey generally alleges that Respondent failed to follow a resident’s plan of care by failing to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard. Tag F325 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including body weight. Tag F363 generally alleges that the facility failed to ensure that menus designed to meet the nutritional needs of the residents were prepared in advance and followed. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288 establishes the requirement for nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal rules and regulations as found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, the state rule provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order). Applicable federal and state laws require Petitioner to assign to the deficiencies alleged in the 2567 a scope and severity rating required by federal regulations. In the March survey, Petitioner assigned a "G" rating to Tags F224 and F314, both of which are Class II deficiencies. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated, caused actual harm to one or more residents, but did not involve substandard quality of care. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey. A "D" rating means that there is no actual harm but there is potential for more than minimal harm without actual jeopardy. Petitioner relies on two grounds for changing Respondent's license rating from standard to conditional. When Petitioner alleges two Class II deficiencies in the 2567, as Petitioner did in the March survey, applicable rules require Petitioner to change the rating of a facility's license. Applicable rules also authorize Petitioner to change a facility's license rating when the facility does not correct Class III deficiencies within the time prescribed by Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to correct three Class III deficiencies alleged in Tags F282, F325, and F363 in the March survey by the time Petitioner conducted the April survey. Effective March 8, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Effective May 31, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from conditional to standard. The allegations in Tag F224 in the March survey pertain to two residents in the dementia unit of the facility who are identified individually as Resident 1 and Resident 13. Tag F224 in the March survey alleges that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.13(c). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: The facility must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The facility must not use verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F224 does not allege that the facility failed to develop the written policies required by 42 CFR Section 483.13(c) and Rule 59A-4.1288. Rather, Tag F224 alleges that Respondent failed to implement its policy. Tag F224 alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services to Resident 13 to prevent the resident from sexually intimidating a female resident identified as Resident 1. Tag F224 further alleges that Resident 13 had a past history of abusive and aggressive behavior to other residents but was not reassessed, "care planned," and monitored. The allegations in Tag F224 are based on observations of one of Petitioner's surveyors who participated in the March survey. On March 5, 2001, the surveyor observed Resident 13 in the dementia unit standing over Resident 1. The surveyor did not observe any overt sexual misconduct by Resident 13. Rather, the surveyor concluded that sexual misconduct occurred because she determined that Resident 13 was "invading [the female resident's] space," Resident 1 appeared "very anxious," "nervous," and "uncomfortable", and screamed for 15 minutes for Resident 13 to leave. The surveyor also relied on the history of Resident 13 to conclude that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001. Resident 13 had, on two occasions, previously expressed a desire to have sex with female residents in the dementia unit and on other occasions had wandered into the rooms of female residents. Based on the inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13 prior to March 5, 2001, the surveyor alleged in Tag F224 that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct with Resident 1 on March 5, 2001. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Resident 13 engaged in sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, by standing in front of Resident 1. Resident 13 did not engage in any overt sexual act or gesture. Resident 13 did not utter any inappropriate sexual comments. Resident 13 suffered from dementia and was elderly. He was mentally incapable of forming the requisite intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and was physically incapable of carrying out any such intent. In the absence of any overt sexual misconduct on March 5, 2001, the only evidence to support the allegation of sexual misconduct in F224 is the inference of the surveyor based on the gender difference between Residents 13 and 1 and the past history of inappropriate sexual statements by Resident 13. The inference of the observer does not satisfy the requirement for a preponderance of the evidence. The resident’s physician was qualified as an expert witness without objection. The physician testified that he was aware of Resident 13’s aggressive behavior, including the two occasions on which the resident expressed a desire to have sex with female residents. However, such incidents are typical of demented residents, do not reflect that Resident 13 was going to attack other residents in the dementia unit, and do not require any alteration to the care plan that was already in place. The only evidence that Petitioner provided to the contrary was the non-expert opinion of its surveyor. The non- expert opinion of the surveyor was insufficient to refute the physician’s expert opinion. Resident 13 suffered from severe cognitive impairment and was not physically or mentally capable of premeditating a plan to sexually intimidate Resident 1 and then carry out that plan. Resident 1 was paranoid of men. Her response to the encounter with Resident 13 was precipitated by her paranoia rather than by Resident 13's intent to sexually intimidate Resident 1. Although Resident 13 voiced a desire to have sex with other residents on two occasions during his stay at the facility, he never acted on those statements and was physically and mentally incapable of acting on them. On those two occasions, Respondent monitored Resident 13 closely but the resident did nothing to indicate that he would act on his stated desires or that he even remembered voicing them. Petitioner did not allege that Resident 13 engaged in any behavior on March 5, 2001, other than sexual misconduct. Even if Tag F224 were to have alleged that Resident 13 engaged in abuse other than sexual abuse, the preponderance of the evidence failed to show that Resident 13 engaged in non-sexual abuse. As a threshold matter, the evidence that the incident lasted for 15 minutes is not credible. It is implausible that a surveyor would allow apparent sexual intimidation to continue after she perceived the incident to be sexual intimidation, much less allow Resident 1 to endure such intimidation for 15 minutes. The surveyor testified that she could not locate a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") on the dementia unit when the incident occurred on March 5, 2001. The dementia unit is a locked unit comprised of resident rooms that open at regular intervals along a 60-foot hallway, and an activities room. There were two CNAs on duty at the time. One of those CNAs was in the hallway at the time of the alleged incident. The surveyor did not inform any member of the staff or administration at the facility that the incident had occurred before Petitioner provided Respondent with the allegations in the 2567 at the conclusion of the March survey. Resident 13’s primary behavior problem did not involve physical aggression toward other residents. Rather, the primary behavior problem was Resident 13's tendency to become aggressive with staff when they attempted to provide personal care, especially that care required for the resident's incontinence. Petitioner incorrectly concluded that the inappropriate behavior by Resident 13 indicated that he was a risk to assault or intimidate other residents. Resident 13’s historical experience at the facility did not involve aggression toward other residents. Instead, Resident 13 directed his aggressive behavior to situations with staff who were attempting to provide personal care for him. Irrespective of the proper characterization of Resident 13's behavior on March 5, 2001, the behavior did not occur because of any failure by the facility to assess Resident 13 or to develop and implement appropriate care plans to address the Resident 13's inappropriate behavior. Respondent acknowledged that Resident 13 wandered the hall, wandered into residents’ rooms, occasionally urinated in inappropriate places, and occasionally made inappropriate sexual remarks. However, those behaviors are typical of residents who suffer from dementia, and the inappropriate behavior cannot be eliminated through a care plan. Facility staff knew to monitor Resident 13 and to re- direct him if he engaged in inappropriate behavior that affected other residents. The chart for Resident 13 is replete with instances of staff consistently implementing those interventions. The care plan for Resident 13 directed staff to approach him calmly, let the resident choose the timing of his care, assess him for pain as a potential cause of agitation, and leave the resident alone and approach him later if the resident became upset during care. All of these interventions were appropriate for the identified behavior problem, and the record is replete with instances of the successful implementation of appropriate interventions. A physician saw Resident 13 and evaluated the resident almost weekly. The physician was aware of and assisted in the evaluation of the resident’s behavior. The physician considered several alternative interventions including the use of anti- anxiety medications to address the resident’s aggressiveness. The physician called in a psychiatric nurse practitioner to evaluate the resident and to recommend medications that might be effective in controlling aggressive episodes. At various times during the course of Resident 13’s stay at the facility, the physician prescribed Seraquil, Risperdal, BuSpar and Ativan for the resident. When aggressive incidents occurred, staff administered these medications with positive effects. Petitioner offered no specific evidence that any intervention used by the facility was not appropriate or that there was another intervention that the facility failed to identify and implement that would have changed any of the inappropriate behavior. Rather, the surveyor concluded that whatever the facility did was inappropriate because Resident 13’s behavioral problems did not subside or disappear while he was at the facility. The surveyor's conclusion fails to adequately understand dementia. The inappropriate behavior displayed by Resident 13 is typical of residents in a dementia unit and cannot be eliminated. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to adequately reassess Resident 13. The resident’s medical record is replete with examples of efforts by the staff to continually re-evaluate the resident and to modify care plan approaches. The facility conducted quarterly re-assessments of the resident. The facility required staff to chart all incidents of inappropriate behavior in the resident’s medical record in an effort to identify any triggering events. The facility provided staff with in-service training for Resident 13 by the resident’s physician. The scope of the training encompassed the care of residents with dementia but focused in particular on the care that was required for Resident 13. The physician wanted to assure that Resident 13 would not become over-medicated and implemented frequent assessments and readjustments of the dosages of the resident's medications. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent failed to assess the resident in a timely manner or that any assessment performed by the facility was inappropriate. Petitioner did not allege in the March survey that the incident between Residents 13 and 1 was a result of Respondent's failure to consistently implement Respondent's policy regarding investigations of abuse. Therefore, any evidence relevant to such an allegation at the hearing is irrelevant to the allegations for which Petitioner provided adequate notice in the March survey. A contrary ruling would violate fundamental due process requirements for notice of the charges that substantially affect Respondent's license to operate the facility. Assuming arguendo that Petitioner can prove charges at the hearing that were not included in the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner's surveyor testified at the hearing that the incident she observed on March 5, 2001, occurred because the facility did not implement its policy and procedure regarding investigations of abuse of residents. As evidence of Respondent's failure to implement its policy, the surveyor contended that the facility did not properly investigate another incident described in nursing notes on January 31, 2001, before the March survey. In the January incident, the nursing notes indicated that Resident 13 made sexual advances to other residents. The implication is that the facility would have done something different with the resident had it properly investigated the January incident and would have, in turn, been able to prevent the occurrence of the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001. Respondent maintains an adequate anti-abuse policy. Respondent’s anti-abuse policy requires its designated staff members to investigate and report to abuse agencies, if necessary, any suspected incidence of abuse of its residents. However, the facility did not fail to implement this policy with regard to Resident 13. Abuse is defined in Respondent's policy as the "willful infraction [sic] of injury . . . resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish." Due to Resident 13's dementia, he was not capable of willfully inflicting harm on anyone. No facility investigator could reasonably conclude that an incident involving Resident 13 constituted abuse within the meaning of the written policy of the facility. Even if the incident described in the January 31, 2001, nursing notes were relevant to the allegations in the March survey, Petitioner failed to show that the incident which the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was the product of any failure by Respondent to implement its policy on January 31, 2001. The facility’s director of nursing adequately investigated the incident described in the nursing notes on January 31, 2001, and determined that Resident 13 made no sexual advances to anyone and did not direct any inappropriate sexual comments to other residents. Rather, the investigation found that Resident 13 made inappropriate sexual comments to a CNA. Staff appropriately monitored Resident 13 after he made that statement to the CNA, and Resident 13 did nothing to act on the statement. The director of nursing notified Resident 13’s physician, and the physician determined there was no need to alter the resident’s care plan. Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F224 was a Class II deficiency. Petitioner presented no evidence that the incident the surveyor observed on March 5, 2001, was anything other than an isolated incident or presented a threat of harm to other residents. Tag F314 alleges that Respondent violated 42 CFR Section 483.25(c). The federal regulation requires, in relevant part: Pressure Sores. Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that— A resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual’s clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable; and A resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new sores from developing. The federal regulation is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. The March survey alleges in Tag F314 that the facility failed to provide required treatment and services to Resident 2. The surveyor determined the facility was out of compliance after she determined that Resident 2 had pressure sores. The surveyor based her findings on her observation of Resident 2 and a review of the records. In the nursing notes of February 22, 2001, the facility noted small open areas to the left thigh, back of scrotum, and buttocks. On March 5, 2001, the resident’s medical record indicated that the resident had two reddened areas on his buttocks. On March 6, 2001, the surveyor observed that the resident had two open areas on his right buttock and two on his scrotum. Petitioner charged in F314 in the March survey that these areas were pressure sores, and that the areas identified on March 6th were those which had been initially identified on February 22, 2001. Petitioner further charged that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services because staff failed to notify the resident’s physician and obtain a treatment order to the areas in accordance with the facility's policy relating to pressure sore care. A threshold issue is whether the reddened areas on Resident 2 were pressure sores or were reddened areas that did not satisfy Petitioner's definition of a pressure sore. If the areas were not pressure sores, Petitioner acknowledges that there would be no deficiency and no violation of the facility's pressure sore policy. The guidelines promulgated by Petitioner to guide its surveyors in the interpretation of the standard applicable under Tag F314 define a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. The areas identified on February 22, 2001, were located on Resident 2’s buttocks, scrotum, and thigh. None of those areas were located over any bony prominence within the meaning of Petitioner's promulgated definition of a pressure sore. Additionally, the areas identified on February 22nd were healed the next day. Pressure sores do not typically heal overnight. A nurse practitioner examined the areas identified on March 5th and 6th during the survey. The nurse practitioner diagnosed those reddened areas as a rash. Petitioner relies on records that identify the reddened areas on forms that the facility uses for both pressure sores and reddened areas that are not located over a bony prominence. For convenience, the facility uses a single form to identify both reddened areas and pressure sores. Petitioner seeks to rely on the facility forms, including elements of the plan of care on such forms, as though they were admissions by the facility that define pressure sores and then attempt to require the facility to prove the areas are not pressure sores. Petitioner is bound by its own definition of a pressure sore, cannot deviate from that definition, and cannot rely on a different definition as a basis for disciplinary action against the licensee. Petitioner limits the definition of a pressure sore to those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that overlie a bony prominence. Those ischemic ulcerations and/or necrosis of tissues that do not overlie a bony prominence are not pressure sores within the meaning of the definition adopted by the state agency. The use by the facility of pressure sore treatment forms and the use of the term pressure sore in the medical records does not create a bony prominence where none exists. The preponderance of evidence shows that the reddened areas at issue were not located over a bony prominence. Clearly, there is no bony prominence in the scrotum, thigh, or buttocks where the reddened areas were located on Resident 2. Assuming arguendo that the areas were pressure sores, Respondent provided all treatment and services to the areas necessary to promote their healing. The facility treated the areas identified on February 22, 2001, by cleansing and application of Lantiseptic, a skin protector. The effectiveness of the treatment is reflected by the complete healing of the areas on the next day. Facility staff properly notified the treating physician and treated the areas identified on March 5th with Lantiseptic. A physician’s assistant examined the areas identified in the March survey and confirmed the use of Lantiseptic on the areas. The surveyor found no record of any plan of care for the pressure sores alleged in the March survey. The facility subsequently produced a note by a nurse practitioner dated March 6, 2001, stating that Lantiseptic was applied to a rash on the buttocks and scrotum, a doctor’s order for treatment, and a care plan for pressure sores after the physician’s note of February 23, 2001. The surveyor testified that the additional documents did not alter her testimony that the areas were pressure sores and that the facility failed to provide an adequate plan of care. The testimony of the surveyor does not refute the preponderance of evidence at the hearing. The areas at issue did not overlay a bony prominence. In any event, Petitioner failed to show that the deficiency alleged in F314 in the March survey was a Class II deficiency. Even if the areas were pressure sores and it were determined that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, the evidence does not demonstrate that the problem suffered by Resident 2 was systemic or likely to occur with other residents in the facility. At most, the evidence demonstrates a limited failure to provide care to one resident. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove that the identified deficiency presented an immediate threat to other residents in the facility. At the conclusion of Petitioner's case in chief, Respondent moved to dismiss the allegations in Tag F282 on the grounds that Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleged different deficiencies and therefore were not relevant or material to a change in license that is based on uncorrected deficiencies. After hearing arguments from both parties, the ALJ granted the motion to dismiss with leave for Petitioner to revisit the issue in its PRO if Petitioner could provide legal authority to support its position. Petitioner argues in its PRO that the ALJ erred in granting the motion to dismiss. However, Petitioner does not cite any legal authority to support its argument. Tag F282 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two residents in violation of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written plan of care. The federal standard is applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. In the March survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent provided services to residents by unqualified staff. Instead, Tag F282 charged that Respondent's staff incorrectly fastened a clip belt in the back of Resident 21 while she was in her wheel chair and failed to toilet her once in accordance with a physician’s order. In addition, Tag F282 alleged that staff did not weigh Resident 3 weekly as required by his care plan. However, a preponderance of the evidence showed that the facility did not miss any required weights after January 13, 2001. In the April survey, Tag F282 did not allege that Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies alleged in the March survey regarding Residents 21 and 3. Nor did Tag F282 allege that Respondent failed to comply with the plan of corrections submitted by Respondent after the March survey. Rather, Tag F282 in the April survey alleged that Respondent failed to provide a plate guard and weighted spoon for Resident 7 in violation of a physician's order. Petitioner argues that the alleged deficiencies in Tag F282 in the March and April surveys, pertaining to Residents 21 and 7, respectively, involved the failure to comply with a physician's order and, therefore, represent uncorrected deficiencies. Even if Petitioner's definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" were accepted, it would not be dispositive of the issue. The evidence showed that the physician who ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 terminated the order at the conclusion of the April survey. Even if Respondent failed to follow a physician's order for Residents 21 and 3 in the March survey, Respondent did not fail to follow a physician's order for Resident 7 during the April survey. Moreover, the termination of the physician's order evidences a medical determination that the failure to comply with the order did not cause any harm to Resident 7. In any event, the definition of an "uncorrected deficiency" asserted by Petitioner is not persuasive. Notwithstanding the request of the ALJ, Petitioner did not submit any legal authority to support its asserted definition of the phrase "uncorrected deficiency." In the absence of a technical definition established by statute, rule, or judicial precedent, the phrase "uncorrected deficiency" is properly construed in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. The allegations in Tag F282 in the March survey are rooted in a physician’s order that called for a clip belt to be placed around Resident 21 while she was in her wheelchair. The purpose of the order was to guard the safety of Resident 21. The order further directed staff to check the belt every thirty minutes and release it every two hours to toilet the resident. During the March survey, a surveyor observed that staff had placed the clip belt on Resident 21 improperly on one day, and further determined that the resident had not been taken to the toilet. Based upon that information, the surveyor charged that the facility failed to follow the doctor’s order for checking and releasing the belt. The surveyor’s observations established, at most, a single isolated instance of failure to follow the care plan for Resident 21. The surveyor's observations failed to establish a consistent failure to implement the care plan. The alleged deficiency presented no potential for harm to Resident 21. Resident 21 was cognitively alert and could notify staff if she needed to be toileted or needed her belt removed. At the time that the surveyor observed Resident 21, the resident was in a supervised setting with staff readily available to her in the event she needed attention. She was not shown to have experienced any incontinent episode or to have even requested that she be toileted or otherwise released from the belt. Petitioner acknowledges that any failure by staff to remove the resident’s belt during this time presented nothing more than a minimal risk of harm to the resident. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on January 13, 2001, and had a care plan that called for the resident to be weighed weekly. Between the resident’s admission to the facility and the March survey, the facility weighed the resident in accordance with the care plan except for one omission in late February. This one instance of failing to do a weekly weight did not demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no evidence that this single instance of failing to weigh the resident caused the resident harm or presented even the potential for harm to the resident. After the March survey, Respondent submitted a plan of correction to address the alleged deficiencies relating to Tag F282. Applicable law precludes Respondent from arguing the validity of the alleged deficiencies in its plan of correction. In the plan of correction, Respondent indicated that it would focus on restraints and weekly weights to insure that the alleged deficiencies would not re-occur. Petitioner accepted the plan of correction and, in April, did not find that staff at the facility failed to properly apply restraints to residents, failed to do weekly weights for residents, or otherwise failed to implement the plan of correction. Petitioner charged that Respondent violated Tag F282 in April because the facility failed to provide a weighted spoon and plate guard to Resident 7 as required by a physician’s order. It is uncontroverted that the plan of correction adopted to address the March F282 deficiency pertaining to Residents 21 and 3 did not address the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey with respect to Resident 7; and would not have prevented the deficiency alleged in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7. Accordingly, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey pertaining to Resident 7, even if true, did not represent an "uncorrected" deficiency. Instead, the deficiency alleged in Tag F282 in the April survey represented a new deficiency. In any event, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged failure of the facility to comply with any of the orders at issue denied residents any necessary care and treatment, or presented even the possibility that the residents would be harmed. The physician ordered the weighted spoon and plate guard for Resident 7 due to the loss of dexterity in the resident's hand needed to assist him in the consumption of his meals. Even though the plate guard and spoon were not provided to the resident after they were ordered for him, the resident had no trouble with meal consumption. His medical records reflected that he consistently consumed his meals and that he gained almost 20 pounds during the time period that the spoon and plate guard were ordered. The weight gain and food consumption are significant because the facility initially admitted the resident as a hospice resident. The absence of any medical necessity for the physician's order requiring the spoon and plate was confirmed when the facility contacted the doctor during the survey, and the doctor issued an order discontinuing the use of the plate guard and spoon. Tag F325 in the March and April surveys alleges that the facility failed to comply with the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.25(i)(1). The federal regulation provides, in pertinent part: Nutrition. Based on a resident’s comprehensive assessment, the facility must ensure that a resident-- Maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the resident’s clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible. . . . The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F325 alleges in the March survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 4. Respondent does not dispute this charge. Tag F325 alleges in the April survey that Respondent did not maintain acceptable parameters of body weight for Resident 9. Resident 9 lost approximately 20 pounds between August of 2000 and April 8, 2001. However, Petitioner provided no evidence that the weight the resident lost was "unacceptable" or caused by inadequate nutritional care. Petitioner neither contended nor demonstrated that a 20-pound weight loss over seven or eight months violates any accepted dietary or health standard. Even if such a rate of weight loss were an "unacceptable nutritional parameter," Petitioner provided no evidence that Respondent failed to properly monitor Resident 9's weight, assess his dietary needs, provide the resident with an appropriate diet, or otherwise caused the weight loss. Rather, the resident’s medical records demonstrate on-going assessments of the resident by the dietary staff and numerous interventions to address the resident's weight. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to comply with several directives for supporting care for Resident 9. Facility staff had been directed to cue Resident 9 to use a "chin tuck" to address his risk of aspiration due to swallowing difficulties. Staff were directed to cue the resident to cough and tuck his chin anytime the staff determined that the resident's voice sounded wet. During the survey, the surveyor observed three meals in which the staff provided no cues to Resident 9. However, no cues were required of staff if the resident did not have a wet sounding voice, and the surveyor acknowledged that she did not hear the resident cough during any of her meal observations. Even if cues were required to be given to Resident 9 during the meals observed by the surveyor, the surveyor did not demonstrate that the failure to cue the resident had any negative impact either on the resident's ability to eat or on the resident's weight. Rather, the evidence shows that Resident 9 weighed 151.6 pounds on April 8, 2001, and weighed 160.2 pounds on April 20, 2001, the day after Petitioner completed the April survey. Thus, the failure of the staff to cue the resident during the observed meals did not violate a nutritional parameter. The surveyor testified that the facility failed to provide fortified foods to Resident 9 during the April survey in violation of the resident's dietary care plan. The allegations in Tag F325 in the April survey do not include the allegation of inadequate care to which the surveyor testified during the hearing. In the absence of adequate notice in the written allegations, the testimony of the surveyor cannot be used as a basis for any finding of deficiency. Even if the testimony were considered as a basis for a finding of fact, the failure to provide fortified foods did not violate any nutritional requirements. Resident 9's wife provided the resident with "home-cooked" meals to satisfy his food preferences. Petitioner acknowledges that the meals the wife supplied effectively precluded the resident from eating fortified foods provided by the facility. Moreover, Resident 9 gained weight between April 8 and 17, 2001. Tag F363 alleges in the March and April surveys that the facility failed to meet the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.35(c)(1)-(3). The federal regulation provides in relevant part: (C) menus and nutritional adequacy. Menus must-- Meet the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with the recommended dietary allowances of the Food and Nutrition Board of the national Research Council, National Academy of Sciences; Be prepared in advance; and Be followed. The federal regulation applies to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F363 alleges that the facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, included cranberry sauce and that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in the rehabilitation dining room. The surveyor who made this charge did not evaluate the meal actually provided to the residents for its nutritional adequacy. Rather, the surveyor cited the facility because the facility failed to comply with the literal terms of the printed menu. Respondent does not dispute that the facility did not serve cranberry sauce to 11 residents in its rehabilitation dining room on the day in question. The facility’s menu for March 8, 2001, consisted of roast turkey, poultry gravy, cornbread dressing, peas and carrots, mandarin oranges, bread, and cranberry sauce. The menu called for one-half tablespoon of cranberry sauce. The omission was not significant. The dietician did not include the cranberry sauce in calculating the nutritional content of the meal. The cranberry sauce was only a garnish to the plate. The remainder of the food items offered in the meal met all of the requirements for residents’ nutritional needs. Any failure by Respondent to provide the cranberry garnish presented no risk of harm to any resident. Tag F363 alleges in the April survey that Respondent provided a saltine cracker during one meal to a resident who required a pureed diet. Tag F363 also alleges that Respondent gave a bologna sandwich to a resident whose food preferences did not include bologna sandwiches. Petitioner provided no evidence that either of these residents received nutritionally inadequate meals. Petitioner’s apparent concern with the resident who was served the cracker was that she might attempt to eat it and choke on it because she required pureed foods and the cracker was not pureed. The surveyor who observed the resident acknowledged that the resident did not eat the cracker. She also acknowledged that there is a regulatory standard which requires a facility to provide a therapeutic diet to residents who require such a diet, and that a pureed diet is a therapeutic diet. Accordingly, this observation is, at most, a violation of that standard, not Tag F363, and presented nothing more than a minimal chance of harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show that the resident who did not get the bologna sandwich was deprived of any required nutrition, or that placing a bologna sandwich in front of the resident created any risk of harm to the resident. The surveyor acknowledged that the sandwich did not remain in front of the resident for long and that the facility immediately corrected the situation by providing the resident with an acceptable substitute. Tag F363 also alleges that the facility posted for resident observation the same menu on Monday, April 17, 2001, that the facility posted on Sunday, April 16, 2001. The regulation at issue does not address how or even if menus must be posted in a nursing home. Petitioner failed to explain why posting the same menu on consecutive days would violate any regulation, rule, or statute. Respondent acknowledged that the Sunday menu was not removed on Monday, but demonstrated that different, nutritionally adequate meals were planned and served to residents on each of those days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a factual basis existed upon which Petitioner should have issued a Conditional rating to Respondent on March 8, 2001, and revising the March 8 and April 16, 2001, 2567 reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F224, F314, F282, F363 and F325 (April only); and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating that was in effect from March 8, 2001, until May 31, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Qualified Representative Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the deficiencies found at Petitioner's nursing home by the Agency for Health Care Administration were sufficient to support issuance of a conditional license.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with conducting licensure surveys of nursing home facilities in Florida to ensure that nursing homes are in compliance with state regulations. AHCA also surveys nursing homes to insure that they are in compliance with federal Medicare and Medicaid requirements. AHCA issues survey reports listing the deficiencies found at facilities that it has surveyed. Each deficiency is identified by a tag number corresponding to the regulation AHCA claims to have been violated. A federal "scope and severity" letter rating is assigned to each deficiency. These letter ratings run from A to L. At the end each deficiency, the survey report lists the State licensure regulation claimed to have been violated and the State's classification of the deficiency. The State's classification of deficiencies are Class I, Class II, and Class III. Changes in a facility's licensure rating are based upon the violations of applicable State regulations. The Petitioner, Mt. Dora, is a nursing home in Mt. Dora, Florida, licensed by AHCA pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. AHCA conducted a relicensure survey of Mt. Dora in May of 1996, and a follow-up survey in August of 1996. See AHCA Exhibits 1 and 2. Richard Fuller and Kathy Johnson are Registered Nurses employed by AHCA. Fuller and Johnson inspected Mt. Dora on May 20, 1996, and August 6, 1996. As part of their inspections, Fuller and Johnson observed a "medication pass" in which Mt. Dora's staff administered medications to its residence. Fuller and Johnson compared the medications administered with the physicians' orders for the home's residents. The inspectors considered as a medication error any medication administered, but not ordered; or ordered, but not administered. Each medication ordered to be administered or administered to a patient presented an opportunity for error upon which the home's performance was rated. 11 On May 20, 1996, Johnson observed the administration of medications by the home's staff. A staff nurse administered two doses of Ventolin from an inhaler to a resident, G.L., without waiting at least one minute between doses. The physician's order for G.L. provided that two doses were to be given, but did not indicate a waiting period between the administration of the doses. Johnson wrote this up as a violation because the nurse did not wait one minute between the administration of the two doses as recommended in the manufacturer's instructions. Fuller observed the administration of Mylanta, an over- the-counter antacid, to a resident, M.R., pursuant to a doctor's order for a 30 cc dose of said medication. Fuller observed that the level of liquid in the medicine cup did not reach the 30 cc line; however, he did observe that it was above the 25 cc line. Fuller could not state exactly how much was administered. There were no index marks between the 25 cc and 30 cc lines. Fuller checked the records of a resident, H.T., for whom a physician had prescribed Megace prior to meals. Fuller observed that Megace was offered with the patient's breakfast rather than prior to the meal. The patient's medication administration record revealed that the patient was offered Megace two times, but refused the medication. Fuller observed that a staff nurse administered one drop of Artificial Tears, an over-the-counter medication for the relief of dry eyes, in each eye of R.P., a resident of the home. Fuller checked the physician's order sheet for R.P. and found that the orders did not indicate a number of drops to be given. The physician's order dated May 8, 1996, prescribed one drop to each eye to the patient R.P.1 Further, the manufacturer's recommended dosage for Artificial Tears is one drop in each eye. By administering one drop to each eye of the patient, R.P., the staff nurse was following the manufacturer's instructions. On August 6, 1996, Fuller and Johnson inspected the facility. Fuller observed a staff nurse administer a multivitamin to a resident, J.P.; however, Fuller did not find this vitamin listed on the physician's order sheet. A subsequent review of the physician's records by the facility's consulting pharmacist revealed an ongoing order dated October 8, 1993, for the administration of a multivitamin to this resident. The resident had been at the facility since 1989 and was 112 years old at the time of the inspection. Fuller also observed the staff nurse had failed to give Klonopin to a resident, J.H., during the morning medication pass. When Fuller brought this to the attention of the nurse, the nurse administered the medication. The medication was given within the time frame required by the doctor's orders. During the same period, it was observed that a staff nurse did not administer insulin to a resident, H.Y., until after breakfast when the doctor's order provided that the insulin was to be administered one-half an hour prior to breakfast. The blood sugar test for the patient revealed that the patient was not endangered by the delay in administering the insulin. On the morning of August 6, 1996, the staff nurse responsible for administering morning medications to J.H. and H.Y. suffered a medical emergency which required other staff nurses to intervene and render assistance to the stricken nurse. After the nurse was removed by ambulance to the hospital, a nurse from another wing of the facility finished administering medication on the stricken nurse's wing. On May 21, 1996, the inspectors reported four errors in 41 opportunities to administer medication. This would constitute a 9.75 percent medication error rate for that date. On August 6, the inspectors reported three errors in 42 opportunities to administer medication. This would constitute a 7.1 percent error rate. During both the May 21, 1996, and August 6, 1996, surveys, the inspectors found insulin bottles which were still in use more than three months after having been opened. In addition, the inspectors found some bottles of insulin which had not been dated when opened. This deficiency was assigned a federal scope and severity rating of "B." Mt. Dora had a policy to date bottles when opened, and to discard bottles of insulin three months after opening period. Each insulin bottle bore the date upon which it was dispensed from the pharmacy and the manufacturer's expiration date. Mt. Dora's policy to discard bottles of insulin after three months was put into place to satisfy the comments made in an earlier AHCA survey period. The policy at other nursing homes, according to the home's consulting pharmacist, is to discard insulin bottles within six months after opening. The consulting pharmacist inspects the home's medicines monthly and discards all bottles which are more than three months beyond the date they were dispensed. The record does not support the finding that any of the bottles were used beyond the manufacturer's expiration date.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency take no action regarding the rating of Mt. Dora Nursing Home and that its rating continued to be standard. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1997.
The Issue 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 the Petitioner's license rating for all or some of the time between February 26 and June 1, 1998, should be conditional or standard.
Findings Of Fact When surveyed by AHCA on February 24 through 26, 1998, Spanish Gardens had a license which would expire and have to be renewed on May 31, 1998. The facility had a license rating of superior. For the preceding year (from June 1, 1996, through May 31, 1997), the facility had a license rating of standard. During the survey, a disabled resident told a surveyor that the resident recently had complained to a nurse at the facility that a certified nurse assistant (CNA) had roughly handled the resident while transferring her into her bed, causing redness on the resident's arm, but that the facility did nothing about it. The surveyor viewed the resident's arm to verify the alleged incident. The surveyor also found a nurse's note for February 18, 1998, which mentioned the resident's complaint. On inquiring, the surveyor found that neither the administrator of the facility nor the director of nursing knew about the complaint and that the facility had not telephoned the Central Abuse Registry Hotline (the abuse hotline.) The "Guidance to Surveyors - Long Term Care Facilities" defined "abuse," in pertinent part, as "the willful infliction of injury . . . with resulting physical harm or pain." The surveyor decided to report the alleged incident to the facility's administration and to telephone the abuse hotline herself. The nurse's note stated that the resident first alleged that incident occurred on February 16, 1998; when the CNA, who also was present at the time the complaint was made, stated that he was not working on that day, the resident alleged that the incident had occurred the following day or, directing her comment to the CNA, "whenever you were here." The nurse noted a small red area on the inside of the resident's arm. The resident denied having any complaint of pain. The resident then told the nurse, "I just wanted to tell on him (the CNA)," and laughed. The survey team did not interview the nurse although she was on-duty during part of the time the survey team was at the facility. In fact, the nurse had made a professional judgment that the evidence before her did not give her reason to believe that any abuse had occurred. The survey team also interviewed a group of residents, several of whom complained that the staff at Spanish Gardens was slow to answer the call button located in residents' rooms. It was difficult if not impossible for Spanish Gardens to defend itself against the specific allegations that it had ignored residents' calls for assistance. AHCA never identified the residents who had made the complaints. However, AHCA presented no evidence that any resident was harmed or suffered medically in any way from staff's response time when called for assistance. Slow response to calls for assistance is a common complaint in nursing homes and does not in itself prove neglect. There are a number of reasons why the speed of staff's response may not satisfy a resident. Often, unbeknownst to the resident, staff is attending to the call of another resident whose needs are judged to be a higher priority. Other times, again unbeknownst to the resident, the resident's call for non- emergency assistance may require the attention of a particular staff member who may not be available at the time. The evidence was that Spanish Gardens responds reasonably quickly to residents' calls for assistance. Subject to higher priorities, the nearest staff member responds and assists when able; sometimes, another staff member with special expertise, knowledge, or skills must be summoned. Spanish Gardens does not ignore residents' complaints regarding staff response time. The evidence was that meetings have been held to allow residents to raise complaints of various kinds. Predictably, these included complaints regarding staff response time. Spanish Gardens has attempted to address these as well as the other complaints raised in these meetings. The survey team could not find the abuse hotline telephone number posted anywhere in the facility. When the survey team asked to see the facility's written policies on prevention of abuse and neglect, they were shown a document entitled "Suspected Abuse/Neglect of Residents." The document stated the facility's policy: "Any or suspected abuse/neglect of residents shall be referred immediately to the Administrator for investigation." It also stated the facility's procedures: Any staff, family member, friend, who suspects possible abuse/neglect of a resident shall report to the Administrator and Director of Nursing Services immediately. An incident report shall be completed to include all pertinent information of the alleged abuse/neglect. The Director of Nurses or the Administrator will notify the Abuse Hotline (1-800-96-ABUSE). An in house investigation with concerned parties and action to be taken will be conducted. Since the facility is charged with the responsibility of protecting the resident it will be necessary to terminate employee(s) that may be involved if allegations are found to be substantiated. If it is found that it is a family member, or friend who is responsible for the abuse/neglect, such finding shall be turned over to area adult protection agency. It may be necessary to report any substantiated abuse/neglect to appropriate regulatory agencies in accordance with their established policy regarding abuse/neglect. The survey team was not satisfied with the written policy and procedure presented because it did not require staff to report and call in all allegations or complaints of abuse or neglect but rather only known abuse, "suspected" abuse, or "suspected possible" abuse. In an attempt to satisfy the survey team, the facility produced a document entitled, "Adult Abuse Public Law No. 299 Policy," which related to a law prohibiting: battery; placing a dependent in danger to life or health; abandoning or cruelly confining a dependent; and exploiting a dependent by misuse of the dependent's resources. The facility also produced a document entitled, "Grievance Procedure," which informed residents and their family and friends to express concerns to the Charge Nurse, the Director of Nursing, the Department Supervisor, and the Executive Director. It also included two telephone numbers for the Ombudsman, neither of which was the abuse hotline telephone number. The survey team did not review any employee or resident files for additional documentation; nor did the facility produce any for the survey team's review. In accordance with normal procedure, the survey team reported the results of the survey on a federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) form 2567 (the 2567). Under the Statement of Deficiencies "Tag" F224, the 2567 alleged violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(i) for failure to "develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property" and for "use [of] verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion." For purposes of the 2567, the survey team gave the alleged deficiency a federal scope and severity rating of "G." The federal scope and severity ratings range from "A" (for the least serious) to "L" (for the most serious). A deficiency with a rating of "G" is not considered "substandard quality of care" under the federal scope and severity rating system. For purposes of the 2567, the survey team also gave the alleged deficiency a state classification of Class II. The state classifications are from Class I (for the most serious) to Class III (for the least serious). See Conclusion of Law 28, infra. Based on the 2567, AHCA replaced the facility's superior license with a license having a conditional rating from February 26 through May 31, 1998, when the license would expire and have to be renewed. In response to the 2567 and conditional rating, Spanish Gardens requested a formal administrative hearing, as well as an informal dispute resolution (IDR) conference. At the IDR, the facility's new administrator informed the IDR panel that, since at least 1994, all employees (including himself when he began his employment, coincidentally, during the survey conducted February 24 through 26, 1998,) were required to sign an "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy." It states: It is the policy of this facility to protect it's [sic] residents from abuse, neglect, and exploitation by providing a safe and protected environment. Any person who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a resident is an abused, neglected or exploited person shall immediately report such knowledge or suspicion to the Control Abuse Registry (Toll Free Telephone Number 1-800-342-9152) and to the Facility Administrator. The statewide toll-free telephone number for the Control Abuse Registry shall be posted on the Facility Bulletin Board and in each Employee Lounge. Employees who commit acts of abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation are subject to criminal prosecution and/or fines. Employees who witness acts of abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation are required to report them immediately. Failure to report can also result in criminal prosecution and/or fines. * * * No employee of this facility will be subjected to reprisal for reporting abuse, neglect or exploitation. . . . Any employee who has been reported for abuse, will be suspended from work until any and all investigations have been completed. If the investigation confirms the employee committed an act of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, that employee shall be terminated immediately. . . . All employees of this facility will be inserviced on this policy and the consequences of abuse, neglect and exploitation during their initial orientation and alt least once annually. A complete copy of the Florida law on Abuse, Neglect, and exploitation [sic](Section 415, Florida Statutes) [sic] is on file in the Administrator's office and available for inspection upon request. Spanish Gardens also produced at the IDR conference a copy of a Resource Contact List that included a telephone number for the abuse hotline. The facility's administrator testified at final hearing that the list was given to all residents at the time of admission. However, he was not employed at the facility prior to the survey, and it is not clear from his testimony that the list was in use as described at the time of the survey. Notwithstanding the additional information presented to it, the IDR panel declined to rescind the Petitioner's conditional rating. The panel did not believe that the "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy" was in effect at the time of the survey; in fact, it was. The IDR panel also decided that, even if the policy had been in effect, it did not require employees to report and call in all allegations or complaints of abuse or neglect but rather only known abuse, reasonably suspected, or suspected abuse. Finally, the panel decided that, if construed to require employees to report and call in all allegations or complaints of abuse or neglect, the "Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy" was not being followed since the resident's complaint was not either reported to the facility's administration or telephoned to the abuse hotline. The "Guidance to Surveyors - Long Term Care Facilities" states in part: The intent of this regulation [42 C.F.R. § 483.13(1)(c)] is to assure that the facility has in place an effective system that regardless of the source (staff, other residents, visitors, etc), prevents mistreatment, neglect and abuse of residents, and misappropriation of resident's property. Over the years, Spanish Gardens has reported eighteen incidents of suspected abuse or neglect to the abuse hotline. No abuse or neglect has been substantiated in any of these incidents. Never before has Spanish Gardens been cited in a survey for any deficiency relating to abuse or neglect of residents. As required, regardless whether a facility agrees with the Statement of Deficiencies in a 2567, Spanish Gardens submitted a Plan of Correction. The facility's Plan of Correction stated that it does not constitute an admission or agreement with the alleged deficiencies. The Plan of Correction reported that Adult Protective Services had investigated the alleged abuse called in by the surveyor on February 26, 1998, and had concluded that the allegation was unfounded. Otherwise, the Plan of Correction essentially stated that written policies for prevention of abuse, neglect, and exploitation were in place and that the facility's administration would conduct inservices with staff and conferences with residents and the Resident Council to ensure that the policies were understood and followed. The Plan of Correction also stated that it had again posted the abuse hotline telephone number in four different places, one behind the locked glass bulletin board. The Plan of Correction stated that it would be completed by March 26, 1998, and the evidence was that the Plan of Correction was completed by the time promised. On May 1, 1998, a team from AHCA re-surveyed Spanish Gardens and satisfied itself that the Plan of Correction had been completed and that the alleged deficiency had been corrected. On May 13, 1998, AHCA notified Spanish Gardens of the results of the re-survey. However, AHCA took no action with respect to the facility's license until June 1, 1998, when AHCA renewed the license with a standard rating for the period from June 1, 1998, through May 31, 1999. Although the Petitioner's license rating had been superior, it only requests that its license rating for the period from February 26 through May 31, 1998, be made standard. See Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Proposed Recommended Order of Spanish Gardens.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding a Class III deficiency and assigning a standard rating to the Petitioner's license for the time period from February 26 through May 31, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 18th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Stinson, Esquire R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karel Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Regional Services Center 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 309 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
