Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a licensed practical nursing in Florida and was employed at the Lake Wales Convalescent Center. On the evening of December 29, 1983, Respondent was called into patient Allen's room by the nurses aide because Allen had refused to get into his pajamas as requested and was verbally abusing the aide. Respondent approached Allen, who began swearing at her, whereupon Respondent rolled up a towel and struck Allen several times on the left arm causing some bleeding and bruises which were visible to another witness two days later. Respondent does not deny striking Allen with the towel but contends Allen picked up a pitcher and called her a nigger before she picked up the towel. Respondent denies any intent to hurt the patient and testified she has worked as a licensed practical nurse for 15 years and has never before struck a patient. Allen is senile, often verbally abusive, but has never been violent while a patient at Lake Wales Convalescent Center. He does not bruise as easily as do many elderly patients. It is below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice to strike a patient and, especially, a senile patient who is not violent.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the State Agency charged with the regulation of the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapters 20,456 (formerly Chapter 455, Part II; see Chapter 2000-160, Laws of Florida) and 464, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils or boards, as appropriate, including the issuance of emergency orders of suspension or restriction. Respondent is Cynthia Chance. Respondent is a Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. PN 0855441. On or between March 1997-May 1997, Respondent was employed by Health Force, a nurse-staffing agency. In or about March 1997, Respondent was assigned to work various shifts at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 18, 1997. In or about March 1997, Respondent submitted time-slips to Health Force alleging that she had worked an eight-hour shift on March 21, 1997. Findings of fact based on the evidence of record Missing Drugs On May 13, 1997, Health Force received a "late call" from Cathedral Gerontology Center (Cathedral) needing a "stat" nurse because one of their nurses had not come to work. Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), administrator for Health Force, called Respondent who reported to Cathedral at 6:50 p.m. Kim Harrell, R.N., a supervisor at Cathedral, was the nurse who stayed until Respondent arrived. Also at 6:50 p.m. on May 13, 1997, Barbara Kelley, R.N., received and signed for a delivery of medications for residents from American Pharmaceutical Services. Included in that delivery was an order of Alprazolam (Xanax) and an order of Diazepam (Valium) for two residents on the floor where Respondent was working that evening. The delivery came with a separate medication or narcotics card for each medication. There were two floors of residents at Cathedral. Each floor had its own medication cart and its own nurse assigned to the floor. Controlled medications have a separate box in the medication cart with a separate key. The nurse on each floor had a key to her own medication cart but did not have a key to the medication cart of the other floor. The Director of Nursing (DON) also had a key to both medication carts in the event of an emergency such as a lost key. After receiving and signing for these drugs, Nurse Kelley locked the medications that belonged to her medication cart in it and inserted the narcotic cards for those medications into the notebook that corresponded to her cart. She then gave the medications and control sheets that belonged to Respondent's medication cart to Respondent, placing them in Respondent's hand. Nurse Kelley told Respondent that these were controlled drugs and instructed Respondent to lock up the medications in Respondent's medicine cart. There is conflicting testimony as to what happened next. Respondent admits to receiving the medications and the control cards. However, Respondent maintains that she placed the medications in the locked drawer of the medication cart and inserted the cards into the notebook in front of Nurse Kelley, whereas Nurse Kelley maintains that she walked away immediately after giving the drugs and cards to Respondent and did not see her place the drugs in the controlled drug lock box or the cards in the notebook. It was a policy at Cathedral for the out-going nurse to count controlled drugs with the on-coming nurse. When Respondent arrived on the night in question, she counted the controlled medications with Nurse Harrell. The narcotics count for both narcotics cards and actual doses was 16. At the end of her shift, Respondent counted the controlled medications with the on- coming nurse, Pamela Schiesser. The number of narcotics cards and tablets or doses was 16, the same as when Respondent came on duty. Nurse Schiesser was scheduled to work a double shift, 11 to 7 and 7 to 3. During the 11 to 7 shift, Nurse Schiesser was the only nurse for both floors of residents and she, therefore, had the key to both medication carts. Sometime during the 7 to 3 shift on May 14, 1997, Nurse Schiesser called the pharmacy to find out about a medication order she had placed for two residents so they would not run out. She was informed by the pharmacy that the drugs had been delivered the evening before and that they had been signed for by Nurse Kelley. She checked the delivery sheets and confirmed that Nurse Kelley had signed for the medications. After determining that there were no cards for the missing drugs and the drugs were not in the cart, she then reported to her supervisor, Kim Harrell, that the medication had been delivered but could not be located. Nurse Schiesser and Nurse Harrell checked the entire medication cart, the medication cart for the other floor and the medication room but did not find the missing medications. Nurse Harrell then notified the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Lu Apostol, and the Director of Nursing (DON), Fely Cunanan, regarding the missing medications. The ADON began an investigation and secured written statements from all of the nurses on her staff who had access to the drugs: Nurses Kelley, Harrell, and Schiesser. She called Nurse Kelley to confirm that she had received the medications from the pharmacy and confirmed that the two missing medications, Alprazolam (Xanax) and Diazepam (Valium), were given by Nurse Kelley to Respondent. The ADON also called Tresa Streeter (now Calfee), the administrator of Health Force for whom Respondent worked to notify her of the missing medications. On May 14, 1997, Ms. Streeter (Calfee) called Respondent and informed her about the missing drugs. On May 15,2000, Ms. Streeter and Respondent went to Cathedral for a meeting. They were informed that the two missing drugs had not been located and they were shown the written statements of the other nurses. Respondent admitted that the drugs had been given to her the night before by Nurse Kelley, but stated that she had locked the drugs in her cart. She denied any further knowledge about the drugs. At Ms. Streeter's suggestion, Respondent took a blood test on May 15, 2000.1 The drug test result was negative thus indicating that the drugs were not in her blood at the time of the test, which was two days after the drugs were missing. No competent evidence was presented as to how long it takes for these drugs to leave the bloodstream. Cathedral had a policy that required that all controlled substances be properly accounted for and secured by each nurse responsible for the drugs. This policy was verbally communicated from the off-going nurse to the oncoming nurse. When Nurse Kelley gave the drugs and drug cards in question to Respondent, she specifically instructed Respondent to lock up the drugs in the narcotics drawer. Respondent maintains that other people had keys to her medication cart and could have taken the drugs after she put them in the locked narcotics box. This testimony is not persuasive. Every witness from Cathedral testified unequivocally that there was only one key in the facility for each medication cart and that key was in the possession of the nurse assigned to that cart. The only other key, which was in the possession of the Director of Nursing, was not requested or given to anyone at anytime material to these events. The persuasive testimony is that Respondent was the only person during her shift with a key to her medication cart. That key was passed to Nurse Schiesser who discovered that the drugs and narcotics cards were not in the medication cart or notebook. The count of the drugs and the cards on hand did not show that anything was missing at the change of shift from Respondent to Nurse Schiesser as the count was 16, the same as when Respondent came on the shift. If Respondent had put the drugs and corresponding cards in the medication cart, the count should have been 18. The only logical inference is that Respondent did not put the drugs or cards in the cart. In the opinion of the two witnesses accepted as experts in nursing and nursing standards, Respondent's failure to properly secure the narcotics and to document the receipt of these controlled drugs constitutes practice below the minimal acceptable standards of nursing practice. Time-Slips While employed by Health Force as an agency nurse, Respondent was assigned at various times to work at Baptist Medical Center-Beaches (Beaches). Respondent submitted time cards or slips for each shift she worked to Health Force so that she would be paid for the work. Respondent submitted time-slips for working at Beaches on March 18 and 21, 1997. When Health Force billed Beaches for these two dates, Anne Hollander, the Executive Director of Patient Services, the person responsible for all operations at Beaches since 1989, determined that Respondent had not worked on either March 18 or 21, 1997. Ms. Hollander faxed the time-slips back to Health Force for verification. She advised Health Force that Respondent was not on the schedule as having worked on either of those dates. She also advised Health Force that the supervisor's signatures on the two time-slips did not match anyone who worked at Beaches. Ms. Hollander is intimately familiar with the signatures of all the supervisors who are authorized to sign time-slips at Beaches and none of them have a signature like the signatures on the two time-slips. Health Force did an investigation and ended up paying Respondent for the two days, but did not further invoice Beaches. Health Force was never able to determine whose signatures were on the time-slips. Health Force did have Respondent scheduled to work at Beaches on March 21, 1997, but not on March 18, 1997. Beaches keeps a staffing sheet for every day and every shift. The supervisors are responsible for completion of the staffing schedules to ensure that the necessary staff is scheduled to work on each shift. These staffing sheets are used for both scheduling and doing the payroll. According to Ms. Hollander, it is not possible that Respondent's name was just left off the staffing sheets. The staffing sheets are the working sheets. If a person works who is not originally on the staffing sheet, the supervisor writes that person's name into the correct column at the time they come to work. Ms. Hollander has been familiar with these staffing sheets for 12 years and does not recall any time when someone's name has been left off the staffing sheet when he or she had worked. The two supervisors who testified, Erlinda Serna and Carol Lee, are equally clear that in their many years of experience as supervisors at Beaches, no one has worked and not been on the staff schedules. Anybody who worked would show up on the schedule. Every shift and every day should be on the staffing schedules. Ms. Serna is unaware of any time in her 10 years at Beaches that someone's name was left completely off the schedules, but that person actually worked. Respondent's name was on the staffing schedule for March 21, 1997, but it was crossed out and marked as cancelled. When agency nurses are scheduled at Beaches, but are not needed, they are cancelled with the agency. If the agency fails to timely notify the nurse and the nurse shows up for work, the agency must pay her for two hours. If the hospital fails to notify the agency timely and the nurse shows up for work, then the hospital must pay the nurse for two hours. In no event is a nurse who is cancelled paid for more than two hours. There are times when a nurse is cancelled and shows up for work, but the hospital has a need for the nurse either as a nurse or in another capacity such as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). If that happens, the nurse's name is again written into the nursing unit staffing schedule. For March 18, 1997, Respondent's name is not on the schedule for Beaches. She did not work in any capacity on March 18, 1997. For March 21, 1997, Respondent's name was on the schedule, but she was cancelled. Even if she had not been timely notified that she was cancelled and she showed up for work, the most she could have billed for was two hours. If she had stayed and worked in a different capacity, her name would have been rewritten into the staffing schedule. Beaches is very strict and follows a specific protocol. No one except the supervisors is allowed to sign time cards. The signatures on these two time cards do not belong to any supervisor at Beaches. Therefore, it can only be concluded that Respondent did not work on March 18 or 21, 1997, at Beaches and that she submitted false time-slips for work she did not do on March 18 and 21, 1997. In June 1997, Respondent was also working as an agency nurse for Maxim Healthcare Services (Maxim). On June 8, 1997, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim and to Beaches indicating that she had worked eight-hour shifts at Beaches on June 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1997. All four days were on the same time ticket and purported to bear the initials and signature of Carol Lee. This time ticket was brought to Ms. Hollander's attention because Beaches had a strict policy that only one shift could appear on each time slip. Even if a nurse worked a double shift, she would have to complete two separate time tickets, one for each shift. Under Beaches policy, no time ticket would ever have more than one shift on it. The time tickets are submitted to Ms. Hollander's office daily with the staffing schedules that correspond. Therefore, a time ticket for a person who is not on the staffing schedule would immediately stand out. When Ms. Hollander was given the time ticket for June 2-5, 1997, she investigated and reviewed the staffing sheets for those days. Respondent was not listed on any of the staffing schedules. Ms. Hollander then showed the time ticket to Erlinda Serna, who was the nursing supervisor on the 3 to 11 shift. Nurse Serna verified that Respondent had not worked on the shift any of those days. Ms. Hollander then showed the time-slip to Carol Lee, the 11 to 7 nursing supervisor. Carol Lee verified that she had not initialed or signed the time ticket and that the initials and signature were a forgery. Nurse Lee would not have signed a time ticket with more than one shift per time ticket because she was well aware of the policy prohibiting more than one shift per time ticket. Nurse Lee verified that Respondent had not been scheduled to work any of those days and that Respondent had not worked on June 3, 4, or 5, 1997. These inquiries to Nurse Serna and Nurse Lee took place within a few days after the dates for which Respondent had submitted this time ticket. Therefore, the matter was fresh in the minds of both nursing supervisors. Both are certain that Respondent was neither scheduled nor worked on June 2-5, 1997. Only nursing supervisors at Beaches are authorized to sign time tickets. Maxim Healthcare has a policy of never working a nurse in excess of 40 hours in one week. The same policy was in effect in 1997. Susan Ranson, the records custodian who also staffs for Maxim on the weekends and assists in their billing, indicated that Respondent was paid by Maxim for working at another facility the same week as June 2-5, 1997. June 2-5, 1997, are a Monday through Thursday. Specifically, Respondent submitted a time ticket to Maxim for another facility showing that she worked 12 hours on Saturday, June 7, 1997, and 13 hours on Sunday, June 8, 1997. Maxim pays from Monday through Sunday. If Respondent had worked 32 hours at Beaches on Monday through Thursday and then 25 hours at another facility on Saturday and Sunday, she would have worked more than 40 hours in one week, which would have violated their policy and would have required Maxim to pay overtime. When Maxim gets a request for a nurse and has no one to send who would not exceed 40 hours in one week, rather than exceed 40 hours, the agency does not staff the job. In the disciplinary document from Health Force dated June 18, 1997, Health Force advised Respondent that it would not be scheduling her based on the complaints they received regarding false billing, the missing drugs at Cathedral, and another incident at Beaches that occurred during this same time. Taken in its totality, the testimony of Respondent is not credible. Respondent's explanation of the discrepancy in the count of drugs and corresponding cards is that during her shift "there was [sic] one or two cards that only had one or two pills on them, so you just throw them away. And that's what made it back to 16." This explanation is unpersuasive. If there had been any pills left in the drawer from cards that Respondent threw away, the count would have been off at the change of shift. Moreover, several witnesses testified as to the care that is taken to carefully account for all narcotics. Respondent's assertion that narcotic pills were simply thrown away is not credible. Nurse Schiesser clearly remembered that there were no cards for the medications in question and there were no medications from this delivery in the medication cart. Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Board of Nursing in the Board's case No. 98-20122.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by failing to secure and document receipt of the drugs at Cathedral Gerontology Center; That the Respondent be found guilty of one count of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and of violating Rule 64B9-8.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, by falsifying employment and time records on multiple occasions; and That a penalty be imposed consisting of a fine of $1000 and payment of costs associated with probation, together with a reprimand and a three-year suspension of license to be followed by a two-year probation with conditions as deemed appropriate by the Board of Nursing. Reinstatement of Respondent's license after the term of the suspension shall require compliance with all terms and conditions of the previous Board Order and her appearance before the Board to demonstrate her present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing, which shall include a demonstration of at least three years of documented compliance with the Intervention Project for Nurses. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 2000.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's license to practice as a licensed practical nurse (L.P.N.)?
Findings Of Fact Findings Established by Request for Admissions: Petitioner is the State of Florida department charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all time material to the complaint a L.P.N. in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 9246217. Respondent's address of record is Post Office Box 99, High Springs, Florida 32655-0099. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a L.P.N. by Suwannee Home Care and Medical Personnel, a staffing agency. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to work as a L.P.N. at Alachua Nursing and Rehabilitation in Gainesville, Florida (Alachua). At all times material to this case, Alachua in Gainesville, was a licensed rehabilitation facility as defined in Section 400.021(13), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Patient E.D. was admitted to Alachua (having been admitted) on June 20, 2003, with a diagnosis of status post CVA (stroke). On or about June 21, 2003, Respondent was assigned to care for E.D. on the 3 to 11 p.m. shift, and at the end of the shift, Respondent reported to the oncoming nurse that he assisted with the care of E.D. and that E.D. was okay and in no acute distress. Respondent's nurse's notes regarding the care he provided to patient E.D. do not mention whether he suctioned the tracheostomy care being provided; and do not contain any physical assessment of the patient. Respondent should have performed and documented tracheostomy care, including but not limited to frequency of suctioning, amount of color of sputum suctioned, cleaning of the tracheostomy device, oral hygiene, and method of communication with the patient. Respondent should have performed and documented a physical assessment of the patient that included respiratory rate and effort, color, pulse rate, and exertional level. Respondent should have monitored and followed up on patient E.D.'s vital signs. Additional Facts: Alice Bostick, is a Medical Malpractice Investigator for Petitioner. She was involved in the investigation leading to the drafting of the Administrative Complaint. As part of the process she attempted to notify Respondent of the allegations made against him. On July 15, 2003, she sent a letter of notification to Respondent at an address obtained from a printout of license information associated with Respondent. That address was 13134 North 22nd Street, Apartment 109, Tampa, Florida 33612. The information sent to Respondent was a Uniform Complaint Form and a Nursing Home Adverse Incident Report. The information sent to Respondent was returned as undeliverable and not subject to forwarding, absent a forwarding request made from Respondent to the U.S. Postal Service. Having failed to notify Respondent at the Tampa address, Ms. Bostick took advantage of access which the Petitioner has to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles records to locate Respondent's address maintained by the other state agency. The address provided by the other agency was Post Office Box 99, High Springs, Florida 32655-0099. This was the proper address. Utilizing the new address, the same information was dispatched a second time from Petitioner to Respondent. This time it was not returned as undelivered. Instead Respondent contacted Petitioner's office in person and by his remarks made it known that he received the communication from Petitioner concerning the investigation. At times relevant to this case Respondent worked for the Suwannee Valley Nursing Agency. That agency assigned him to work on a shift at Alachua, now the Manor of Gainesville. On June 21, 2003, Respondent worked the 3:00 p.m., to 11:00 p.m., shift at Alachua. One of the resident's in his care at that time was E.D. Resident E.D. was born on May 18, 1920. She had been released from the hospital on June 20, 2003, and transferred to Alachua. She was receiving oxygen. Physician's orders called for tracheostomy care (trach care) to be administered "Q 6 hours." She had a catheter which was last changed on the date of her release from the hospital. The order indicated that the catheter should be changed every Friday beyond that point. The resident was being fed by tube. As Respondent describes it, E.D. was among 30 patients in his care on the shift. Other residents included persons with G-tubes and insulin-dependent diabetics. Respondent was very busy during his shift helping the residents. Another staff member at the nursing home reminded the Respondent that he needed to suction E.D's trach. At some point in time Respondent and the other staff member suctioned the trach. When this function was performed during the shift is not established in the nursing home record pertaining to resident E.D., as that record was presented at the hearing. Therefore it was not shown an entry was made in the resident's record for care confirming the suctioning of the trach. The only reference to patient E.D. made in writing by Respondent presented at hearing, was from nursing notes related to resident E.D. In the nurse's note Respondent made an entry at the end of his shift as to vital signs for the resident, pulse rate 92, respiration rate 24 and a notation that Respondent "Assisted e-care no acute distress noted." Contrary to the nurse's note made by Respondent, resident E.D. was in distress as discovered by Gloria Brown, L.P.N., who came on shift to work from 11:00 p.m. June 21, 2003, until 7:00 a.m. June 22, 2003. Ms. Brown was familiar with the need to suction a trach and to make appropriate entry in the nursing notes in caring for a trach patient. Notes are also made in relation to oxygen saturation for that resident if a doctor's order calls for that entry. Ms. Brown properly expected the prior shift nurse to notify her concerning the resident's condition as to the number of liters of O2 provided the resident and if the resident had a fever. If the resident had a Foley catheter placed reference would be made to that circumstance. Generally if the resident was experiencing a problem, Ms. Brown would expect the outgoing nurse to mention that fact. On June 21, 2003, at 11:45 p.m., as Ms. Brown described in the nursing notes, "On first rounds observed resident E.D. with shallow breathing, skin color grayish, O2 on a 2 liter per trach mask. Attempt to suction, felt resistance. Sat. 24. O2 increased to three liters. Able to palpate pulse. 911 was called. Transported to Shands at UF via 911. Respiratory distress." Resident E.D. was transported to Shands Hospital at 12:00 midnight. When resident E.D. was transported to the hospital she was experiencing respiratory distress. She had a baseline level of consciousness in the alert range. Petitioner presented an expert to comment on Respondent's care rendered resident E.D. in the context of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. That expert was Meiko D. Mills, R.N., M.N.S., A.R.N.P. Ms. Mills is licensed to practice nursing in Florida. She has a business that involves the preparation for graduates of L.P.N. schools and R.N. schools to take the National Licensing Examination for those fields. Ms. Mills is familiar with trach care. She has had occasion to write nursing notes pertaining to trach care. She is generally familiar with the requirements for nursing notes in the patient record concerning any form of patient care rendered by the nurse practitioner. She was recognized in this case as an expert in the field of nursing related to patient care and L.P.N.s. In providing trach care, Ms. Mills refers to the need for a sterile environment and the part of the trach device that she refers to as a tube, requires a lot of cleaning because of secretions from the patient. She describes the fact that the trach device will form a crust. As a result the center portion of the device sometimes has to be taken out and soaked in sterile water to clean it. The suctioning process associated with trach care involves the use of a suctioning machine in which all the encrustations and saliva are removed. It is possible for a hard mucus plug to form if suctioning is not done appropriately, according to Ms. Mills. Ms. Mills expressed her opinion concerning Respondent's care provided resident E.D., as to a reasonable degree of certainty and whether Respondent met the minimal standards for acceptable and prevailing care and treatment of E.D. She described that care as lacking. Ms. Mills comments that the nursing note that was made by Respondent at the end of his shift was inadequate in describing the kind of care provided to the resident. In particular she describes the lack of reference to the trach issue and the oxygen saturation issue. She perceives that E.D. required considerable attention and that attention is not reflected in the nursing note. As a person responsible for providing care to E.D., who had a trach, Ms. Mills refers to the need for the Respondent to establish a baseline at the beginning of the shift. That baseline is constituted of vital signs and oxygen saturation, as well as a basic assessment of the resident. There was the need to compare the vital signs assessment to the shift before Respondent came on duty to gain an impression of any trends. The observations by Respondent should have been documented in nursing notes beginning with the baseline as to vital signs, oxygen saturation, reference to the condition of the trach, respiratory effort and so forth, and there was the need to go back and reassess over time. As Ms. Mills explains the resident's condition was reaching an abnormal state on the shift before. Without entries concerning the resident's condition, the assumption is made by Ms. Mills, that the patient care and in particular trach care was not performed by Respondent. Ms. Mills refers to a normal pulse rate as 80 to 100, but Ms. Mills cautions her students that a pulse rate close to 100 bears watching. A respiration rate approaching the highest normal demands attention. Anything above that creates concern. Higher readings tend to manifest themselves with shallower breathing by patient at more frequent intervals, given the body's attempt to compensate for a lack of oxygen. To address this condition a baseline oxygen saturation should be established at the beginning of a shift to help set a plan of care. A resident such as E.D. with a pulse rate of 97 and respiration rate of 24 is a person who needs to be closely monitored. There was no record by Respondent reflecting the establishment of monitoring to address these circumstances. The resident's progress should have been noted as to pulse rate and respiration rate several times during Respondent's shift, as Ms. Mills perceives it. Respondent should have also notified the oncoming nurse for the following shift that the patient was not doing well. This was not done. Overall, Ms. Mills feels that Respondent was deficient in his documentation concerning resident E.D. through the nursing notes. The general comment by Respondent that he assisted with care is not sufficient to establish that trach care was performed in Ms. Mills opinion. According to Ms. Mills, some of the vital signs reflected in the resident's record would create the possibility that they were in relation to a mucus plug in the trach. When the Resident E.D. was transported from the nursing home on June 21, 2003, at 11:30 the oxygen saturation at that time was 78 percent and her pulse was 159. In Ms. Mills opinion those values represented the fact that the resident was in distress. Ms. Mills believes that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by acts of omission. Ms. Mills compared the nursing notes made by Respondent to those made by nurses on the prior two shifts at the nursing home. The prior notes were described as good notes talking about the care, while Ms. Mills did not get the same feeling about the notes made by Respondent. Ms. Mills compared the circumstances when Respondent came on shift when resident E.D. had a pulse of 100 and respiration rate of 20 and the change from the respiration of 20 to the respiration rate of 24 at the end of the shift, as indicating that the resident had shallow compensatory respiration because of a lack of oxygen. This leads Ms. Mills to the conclusion that the vital signs look worse and the person was significantly compromised over the day. Whether this circumstance was brought about by the formation of a plug due to a lack of trach care, Ms. Mills is not certain, but the vital signs indicate that the resident was sufficiently compromised to alert a health professional to that possibility. Earlier in the day the resident had a respiration rate of 28 and a pulse of 110. The change in those values over time up through the Respondent's shift did not indicate improvement in resident's condition in Ms. Mills' opinion. Ms. Mills' opinions that have been described are accepted. Based upon the facts found and Ms. Mills' expert opinion, Respondent failed to meet minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice in the care provided resident E.D.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of those provisions of law set forth in Counts One through Three, calling for a written reprimand for those violations, imposing an administrative fine of $500.00, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith A. Law, Esquire J. Blake Hunter, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Harvey J. Price Post Office Box 99 High Springs, Florida 32655 Dan Coble, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a skilled nursing home facility located in Blountstown, Florida, and is licensed by HRS. During a routine survey (inspection) of Apalachicola Valley Nursing Center on January 7-8, 1980, a staffing analysis revealed that for the three weeks prior to the survey, Respondent was short one licensed nurse on the night shift (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) for this 21-day period. During the entire period here involved, the adjusted average census of the Respondent was over 60 patients. At the time of this survey, Petitioner's policy was not to cite staff shortages as deficiencies on HRS Form 553D unless they affected patient care or there was a deficiency in patient care to which a staff shortage could relate. At all times here relevant, Mrs. Margaret Z. Brock was Administrator and part-owner of the Respondent. Following the January 7-8, 1980 survey, the results were discussed with Mrs. Brock. The head of the survey team advised Mrs. Brock of HRS' policy on staff shortages which did not affect patient care. As a result of unfavorable publicity regarding HRS' laxness in enforcing regulations involving medical facilities, by memorandum dated January 10, 1980 (Exhibit 2), HRS changed the policy on staff shortages which did not affect patient care. This change directed all staff shortages to be noted on the inspection report (Form 553D), which would thereby require action by the facility to correct. It further provided that all such shortages be corrected within 72 hours and if not corrected within the time specified, administrative action against the facility would be taken. By letter dated January 15, 1980, Mrs. Brock was forwarded the survey report containing the deficiency relating to the shortage of one LPN on the night shift during the three-week period prior to the survey. A follow-up visit was made to the Respondent on February 21, 1980, at which time it was noted that the LPN shortage on the night shift remained uncorrected. By letter dated February 27, 1980 (Exhibit 3), Mrs. Brock was advised of this finding and the accompanying Form 553D stated that the deficiency was referred for administrative action. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1443. A second follow-up visit was made on March 25, 1980, at which time it was noted that the LPN shortage on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift was still uncorrected. By letter dated April 1, 1980 (Exhibit 4), Mrs. Brock was advised of this finding and the accompanying Form 553D indicates that the deficiency is again being referred for administrative action. This resulted in the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1444. There is a shortage of nurses, both registered and licensed practical, nationwide, as well as in the panhandle of Florida. This shortage is worse in smaller towns and rural areas than in more metropolitan areas. Respondent is located in a rural area. Respondent has encouraged and assisted potential employees to attend the LPN courses given in nearby technical schools. One of these enrollees is currently working for Respondent. Respondent has advertised in newspapers for additional nursing personnel and has offered bonuses to present employees if they can recruit a nurse to work for Respondent. Other hospitals and nursing homes in the panhandle experience difficulties in hiring the number of nurses they would like to have on their staff. All of those medical facilities, whose representatives testified in these proceedings, have difficulty employing as many nurses as they feel they need. The LPN shortage is worse than the RN shortage. None of these medical facilities, whose representatives testified to the nurse shortage, except Respondent, was unable to meet the minimum staffing requirements of HRS although they sometimes had to shift schedules to meet the prescribed staffing. Respondent has found it more difficult to keep nurses on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift than other shifts, particularly if these employees are married or have families. Because of this staffing shortage, on July 18, 1980, a moratorium was placed on Respondent's admitting additional patients. This moratorium was lifted presumably after Respondent met the prescribed staffing requirements by employing a second nurse for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Failure to meet minimum staffing requirements is considered by Petitioner to constitute a Class III deficiency.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint in Docket No. 80-1443 be dismissed. It is further recommended that for failure to comply with the minimum staffing requirements after February 21, 1980, Respondent be fined $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District 2 Legal Office Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Dempsey & Slaughter Suite 610, Eola Office Center 605 E. Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a nursing home administrator in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (Board), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the nursing home administrator profession in this state and the licensing of nursing home administrators. Respondent, Judith Ortiz, was a licensed nursing home administrator holding license number NH 0002926. Respondent has an undergraduate degree in science and art, and a master’s degree in Business Administration and Health Care Administration. Subsequent to the award of her graduate degree, she taught in long-term care facilities in Dade County, Florida, during which time she developed an interest in care of the elderly. Ms. Ortiz took and passed the examination for licensure as a nursing home administrator in 1990 and began work as an assistant nursing home administrator for Unicare, a care provider, in 1991. In December 1992, she came to Unicare’s facility in New Port Richey, Richey Manor, as the administrator, and remained there until she was terminated in May 1994. At the time of her termination, she was being paid a salary of $37,500. Shortly after Respondent assumed the position of administrator at Richey Manor, an inspection of the facility by the Agency for Health Care Administration revealed no significant problem with resident pressure sores. Respondent’s own chronology of events reveals a subsequent series of unfortunate personnel problems which befell the facility. Only two months after the Respondent was hired, the director of nursing at the facility resigned. It was at that point that Respondent’s problems amplified. A survey of the facility in October 1993 resulted in a citation for insufficient staffing, but the company’s nurse consultant, who visited the facility in November 1993, concluded the staffing was sufficient. Respondent continued to seek various forms of assistance from her corporation, but in each case, her request was denied. The director of nursing, whom Respondent hired to replace the head nurse who had resigned at the beginning of the year, did not perform well, but Respondent nonetheless retained her on staff. Ms. Patti K. Silar, a surveyor of nursing homes for the Department of Health Care Administration, has surveyed Richey Manor between six and eight times in the same number of years. In February 1994, as the result of an anonymous complaint filed with the Department, she conducted a survey there during which she found several deficiencies. Specifically, she found that while the number of personnel on duty met minimum license requirements, other factors indicated that staffing was inadequate to meet residents’ needs. This manifested itself in extended delays in responding to patient calls which resulted in resident incontinence and resident falls; failure to maintain resident cleanliness; failure to ensure residents were fed on time; and failure to properly turn bed-ridden patients. All these deficiencies, which continued over a period of months, resulted in adverse health impacts to the residents. A follow-up inspection of the facility was done on April 28, 1994. The follow-up was to a survey done on July 23, 1993, and to an investigation done on October 21, 1993, and February 22, 1994. On this follow-up, the facility’s handling of pressure sores was again found to be inadequate; nursing staffing was determined to be inadequate to meet residents’ needs, resulting in inadequate resident care in several respects; and charge nurses were found not to be fulfilling their responsibilities for the total nursing care of residents in several respects. The facility’s annual survey was conducted on April 29, 1994. Several additional deficiency areas were addressed in this survey, including the failure of the facility’s transfer paperwork to provide for appeal rights; inappropriate utilization of restraints; failure to meet sufficient quality of life standards; failure to maintain acceptable levels of assessments and personal grooming of residents; and failure to maintain acceptable comprehensive care plans for all residents to avoid deficiencies in such areas as dehydration, restraints, and the like. This latter survey revealed, as related to pressure sores, not only that those deficiencies previously noted were not improved, but also that residents who came into the facility without pressure sores developed them while in the facility. There was no plan in place to prevent the development of pressure sores, or to prevent the development of skin breakdown. Simple corrective action, such as the purchase of appropriate mattresses or the frequent turning and repositioning of the resident was not being taken. Ms. Silar concluded that the percentage of residents with pressure sores at Richey Manor was much higher than in other similar facilities, standing at approximately 25% of the residents afflicted, as compared with 7 to 8% in other facilities surveyed. In addition to the level A areas found to be deficient, there were multiple level B areas, somewhat less serious than level A areas, found to be deficient as well. These included such matters as fluids being added to a resident’s intake without a physician’s orders, or, in the alternative, residents not being provided what a physician ordered. Further, Ms. Silar experienced an inability to reconcile records on seven residents of seven attempted. This is very unusual and showed a repeated failure to carry out doctors’ orders. The responsibility of insuring that all of this is done rests with the administrator who may delegate responsibility, but is not relieved of accountability. Ms. Silar did not conduct the survey for the purpose of determining the competence of the facility administrator, but she observed significant areas in the operation which were out of compliance, and residents were at risk as a result thereof. The care she observed being provided by the staff under the supervision of the Respondent was less than acceptable in those areas identified in the survey reports as being deficient. Overall, the facility was not in compliance. Whereas the February 1994 survey was abbreviated, the April 1994 survey was a full review for re-certification and re-licensure. As such, it was more comprehensive than the complaint survey. This April 1994 survey was done within one year of the prior general survey; earlier than normal because of the Department’s serious concerns arising out of the February 1994 complaint and inspection results. According to Ms. Silar, Richey Manor, when compared with more than 100 other facilities she has surveyed since 1989, was in the lowest 2 percent. A specific problem she observed there during the February 1994 investigation was the facility’s treatment of bed sores. During the April 1994 survey, Ms. Silar found not only no improvement, but, in fact, a worsening of the conditions. As a result of these surveys, a moratorium was placed on admissions to Richey Manor, and, in fact, disciplinary action was subsequently taken against the facility. Federal standards enacted in 1987 charge facilities such as Richey Manor with the responsibility of assisting residents to achieve their highest potential over-all. They also encourage facilities to change their emphasis to achieving practical results rather than concentrating on paper compliance. Ms. Silar found that Richey Manor was placing only minimal emphasis on solving the bed sore problem when she surveyed the facility in February 1994. At that time it was clear that the residents were not being assessed, nor were care plans being developed. When the more comprehensive survey was done in April 1994, 35 of 36 residents still did not have either appropriate assessments or care plans prepared for them. The facility did not have a comprehensive plan of care, and without that it was impossible to develop individual care plans. The federal standards as to staffing relate only to “sufficient” staff to meet the needs of residents. Under state requirements, specific minimum ratios are required. A facility may have the minimum number of personnel, but not have enough to meet the needs of the residents. This may also relate to quality of staff or to inappropriate utilization of existing staff. In the instant case, though schedules were prepared to reposition residents, there were not enough staff members to follow the schedule. The staff shortage resulted in staff not responding to resident calls in a timely manner, and physician orders not being followed. It also was determined that Richey Manor was taking a large number of residents who required more attention and for whom proper care could not be given. Of the more than 111 residents in the facility at the time of the survey, 62 required assistance with daily living and toileting, and approximately 40 required assistance with dressing. The above observations were concurred in by Carole G. Hembree, a health facility evaluator with the Agency. Ms. Hembree concluded she would not put a loved one in Richey Manor at the time in issue because she did not believe the quality of care given there was adequate. The survey reports referred to herein were reviewed for the Agency by Anthony J. Pileggi, a nursing home administrator since 1978 and an expert in nursing home administration. Mr. Pileggi supervises a 120-bed facility and is lead administrator for three other facilities in a care group. He is also licensed as a preceptor for trainees in the field of nursing home administration. After his review of the survey reports, Mr. Pileggi concluded that during the time in question there was a lack of nursing supervision, a large turnover in nursing staff, poor quality in the nurses on staff, and a lack of preventive measures addressing pressure sores. In his opinion, the administrator did not maintain an awareness of the level of care being provided in the facility through frequent review of indicators such as pressure sores, screening, and treatment. It was his observation that at Richey Manor, during the time in question, there was emphasis on treatment and little effort given to prevention. Respondent’s actions in management were less than competent for a qualified administrator. Mr. Pileggi saw what he considered to be an emphasis on admissions based on payor type rather than acuity level at a time when insufficient care was being given to existing residents to prevent the development of pressure sores. When staff is short, it is inappropriate to take more residents who need a high measure of care. To do so compounds the problem. Mr. Pileggi does not believe Respondent did all she could do to solve the problem. Her reliance on budget problems as an excuse for her actions is not, he believes, well placed. In his opinion, budget is not all-controlling. The administrator must strive to provide adequate care within the budget, and must oversee the director of nursing to insure that staff nurses are performing properly. The appearance of pressure sores is an indicator of other problems. These could include a failure to properly use restraints, improper hydration, and inadequate nutrition. Though Respondent lays blame for the facility’s problems on the nursing staff, as administrator she had the responsibility to ensure there is a proper screening and evaluation of new residents to determine the likelihood of those residents developing pressure sores and to ensure the residents’ skin care is adequate. The administrator must ensure the staff is properly trained and that schedules are developed to provide adequate care. In Pileggi’s opinion, the administrator should perform a weekly review to ensure the facility is working properly, and if not, make appropriate changes to ensure the residents get proper treatment, A nursing home administrator is required to provide supervision of resident care - not provide the care herself. Resident care requires more attention than other administrator duties. Administrators should have a general knowledge of how to review a care plan to provide appropriate care for residents and to meet the residents’ needs. It is the responsibility of the nursing home administrator to ensure proper care plans are developed by qualified persons. The failure to have proper care plans has a direct negative impact on the quality of care. Based on Mr. Pileggi’s review of the survey reports, he found that Richey Manor’s care plans were not sufficient. Respondent points out that in April 1993, she noted a negative trend in patient skin care. Mr. Pileggi does not believe Respondent did enough at that point or thereafter to ensure an appropriate care plan was developed and implemented to combat this trend. Respondent had sufficient authority to act. She could have changed the approach of the various committees towards admissions so as to lower acuity level, but it appeared to Pileggi that she emphasized a payor source admissions policy to conform to budgetary considerations. Acuity level of the resident is related to what staff is needed to provide the appropriate support. The greater the acuity level, the more staff is required. A nursing home administrator can manage the resident census by acuity level to ensure that existing staff can provide the level of care needed. Pileggi contends that if the Respondent recognized she did not have adequate staff to provide the appropriate level of care to the residents, she could have stopped admissions or screened prospective admissions for more independent residents who would require less care. Respondent complained of a lack of corporate support in the areas of staffing and funding; however, Pileggi believes there was much by way of monitoring and supervision of staff she could have done to improve the care provided without more staff or more money. He does not believe Respondent did enough in this regard. To the contrary, if staffing were already inadequate to meet residents’ needs, as Respondent claims, it would negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the residents to take in more residents of a high acuity level. Mr. Pileggi concluded that Respondent showed a strong concern for budgetary considerations of the company. One of her highest priorities appeared to be the effect of any action on operating income. Pileggi contends that a nursing home administrator should use the budget as a tool to provide guidelines for patient care. At those times when line items are not satisfactory, the administrator must look to other budget areas for funds to provide appropriate care. In this case, Pileggi is of the opinion that Respondent’s primary concern should have been for the residents. This means answering calls, keeping the residents comfortable, and other like activities. Respondent claims she devoted 20% of her time to marketing. This time could have been better spent, according to Pileggi, dealing with problems. In short, Respondent should have spent more time in supervising preventive care, rather than seeking additional residents. Evidence presented at hearing indicates that the Director of Nursing at Richey Manor at the time of Respondent’s incumbency was performing poorly, and Respondent advertised for a replacement. Proof of the director’s incompetence, in Pileggi’s opinion, was the deterioration of resident skin condition. Pileggi is satisfied that Respondent’s awareness of this situation was demonstrated by her seeking to replace the director. However, in his opinion, merely seeking to replace the incompetent employee was not enough. Respondent should have worked around her to correct a situation which was obviously of long standing. The development of pressure sores does not come about over-night. Mr. Pileggi would not state that Respondent repeatedly acted contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Richey Manor, but because of the existence of the pressure sore problem, a condition which takes a significant time to develop, Respondent’s decision to admit more high acuity level residents indicates that she intentionally failed to act in the best interests of the residents. In summary, Mr. Pileggi concluded that Respondent’s actions constituted neglect or incompetence in that she did not ensure the facility had adequate staff, and she did not take adequate measures to treat and prevent pressure sores on the residents. The magnitude of the pressure sore problem was, for Mr. Pileggi, proof positive of the failure of Respondent to perform properly. His opinion would not change even if it were shown that Respondent authorized and was trying to hire more staff when, at the same time she was actively seeking to admit more patients who required a high level of care. Ms. Ortiz is adamant in her denial of the allegations that she acted in an incompetent or negligent manner while serving as administrator at Richey Manor. When she went to the facility as its administrator, she was confronted with a director of nursing who had been there for more than a year and who had a management style which conflicted radically with the more structured style of the Respondent. As a result, the director of nursing became disgruntled and resigned in February 1993. Respondent claims she immediately placed an advertisement in area papers for a replacement but got no response. She discussed this problem with her supervisor, Unicare’s regional director of operations, who gave her some recruiting suggestions. Respondent also requested monetary assistance to advertise out-of-state, but this request was denied. Nonetheless, in June 1993, Respondent was able to hire a director of nursing. In the interim, while the hiring search was going on, the assistant director of nursing filled in and Unicare’s regional office sent in a temporary director from another area. In June 1993, Respondent hired Ms. Paderoff, a woman over 60 years old, as director of nursing. However, though her performance at first was good, Ms. Paderoff began to fail to show up for work, and the assistant director would not support her. Her effectiveness was, therefore, diminished. Ms. Paderoff was an experienced nurse - knowledgeable and capable. While she worked at Richey Manor, she was given goals for the nursing department and immediately began implementing them. She was supportive and worked well until the end of 1993. At that time the facility’s personnel problems began to take their toll on her and she threatened to resign. Respondent attempted to support Ms. Paderoff, and Ms. Paderoff withdrew her resignation, but it shortly became apparent her performance had deteriorated badly. Respondent felt that additional supervision was necessary and met weekly with Ms. Paderoff and the other department heads to evaluate their expectations. Ultimately, Paderoff terminated employment. In mid-February 1994, Respondent was able to hire an assistant director and a month after Paderoff left, Respondent hired a very experienced director of nursing. At that point, finally, both the director and assistant director were qualified in their jobs. The problems faced by the facility continued, however, and in May 1994, Respondent was fired. In October 1995, the Agency sought to impose an administrative fine of $1,575 against Unicare for the deficiencies relating to insufficient staff and improper handling of pressure sores identified during the tenure of Respondent but still uncorrected by February 2, 1995. Respondent contends that at the very beginning of her employment at Richey Manor she recognized the staffing problems and sought to correct them. She contacted the local community college’s nursing department to attempt to recruit, as did the director of nursing, who also served as nurse consultant to the college. She sent recruitment letters to over 100 nurses without any response. She encouraged nursing students to perform their rotations at Richey Manor, and she tried to get a pay raise approved for certified nursing assistants (CNA). She also tried to retain and supplement the existing nursing staff by introducing CNA helpers, instituted perfect attendance bonuses, established a recruitment and retention committee to brainstorm ways to get and keep nursing staff, and had two licensed nurses mentor new nursing employees. She also had plans for offering continuing education units in the area, and looked into the possibility of developing an in-house CNA training program. Ms. Ortiz claims her time as administrator was spent evaluating the activities of eight departments in the facility. She spent a lot of time with hiring and replacing staff, including department heads. She started her work day at 7:00 a.m., and her day would end at around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. She would also periodically come in on weekends to show support for the staff and to see what was going on, and would attend the monthly family dinners hosted by the facility. During January and February 1993, as a result of the weekly reports of the nursing staff, Respondent sent reports of resident pressure sores to the company’s regional and national office. As she became more acquainted with the problem, she set goals to address it, starting in March or April 1993. She instructed the director of nursing, when she first came on board, to look into and assess the program in effect and to make recommendations to improve the system. Though Respondent claims this worked well, in fact, the problem continued. Respondent claims that in July 1993 she developed a skin-care program at Richey Manor to address the problem and it appeared the director of nursing was enthusiastically supporting it. In a letter to the company dated November 12, 1993, Respondent outlined the local actions taken regarding skin-care and observed that the facility had experienced a “marked decrease in in-house acquired decubes,” but this apparently was not so. In addition, Respondent contends that Unicare’s skin care policy and procedures were followed at Richey Manor. This policy includes a risk assessment program and continuing observations of factors bearing on the potential for developing decubetes - all the things Respondent claimed she had implemented in her referenced letter to the company. Notwithstanding those efforts, from November 1993 to February 1994, residents who already suffered from pressure sores continued to be admitted to the facility, and it was also during this time that the performance of the director of nursing deteriorated, as previously described. Nonetheless, from February 1994 onward, more emphasis was placed on staff to deal with the pressure sore problem, and the corporate office got more involved as well. The company stepped into the picture because at a meeting at the regional office which she attended in January 1994, she requested the approval of an incontinence care product, and the provision of nurse consultants to train the local staff. Both requests were denied by the company. At a similar meeting held in February or March 1994, the request for this product was again made and again denied. All during this time, Respondent believed she was being attentive to the needs of her residents. She was open to and sought suggestions from staff on the issues confronting the facility, and contacted corporate staff to discuss the problems with them. Apparently, the Agency was not satisfied with Respondent’s efforts and concluded the facility no longer merited a regular license. On May 12, 1994, the Agency changed the rating for Richey Manor to conditional, and, as was noted previously, Respondent was dismissed shortly thereafter. Mr. Pileggi characterized Respondent’s emphasis on recruiting high acuity level residents as being an example of mismanagement. As a for-profit institution, corporate policy sought achievement of a certain levels of resident census and income/profit. Corporate goals called for a resident census of between 95 and 97 percent of capacity. Consistent therewith, Respondent sought to obtain more private pay residents. While Respondent admits to seeking to obtain private pay/insurance pay residents, she categorically denies at any time seeking to admit more high acuity level residents, or of admitting a resident over the objection of the director of nursing. The decision of admission to Richey Manor was a collegial decision of a committee with Respondent having final authority. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any correlation between the source of payment and acuity level, and Ms. Schild, also a nursing home administrator and owner, categorically indicates there is none. Though Respondent may not have sought high acuity level residents, she also did not seek to reduce the case load by declining to admit residents who required a high level of care. The documents considered by Mr. Pileggi and the Board were also reviewed by Kelly Schild, a nursing home administrator and expert in nursing home administration. Based on her review of the documents and what she heard at hearing regarding the Respondent’s actions, she concluded that Respondent took all steps necessary to address the items listed in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent had a care plan in place and made repeated but unfulfilled requests to her corporate headquarters to redress her staffing problems. In her opinion, Respondent had a more than adequate plan for identifying residents at risk from pressure sores and did everything a prudent nursing home administrator could do to address the issues confronting her in light of the lack of financial and other support from her company. Ms. Schild does not believe Respondent repeatedly acted in a manner contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of her residents. To the contrary, Respondent repeatedly addressed the issue of insufficient staff and the pressure sore problem. Respondent was hampered in the performance of her duties by her corporate hierarchy which prevented her from taking appropriate corrective action. Even in light of corporate resistance, Respondent did all a reasonable and prudent nursing home administrator could do. Nonetheless, Ms. Schild notes that if she had confronted the problems Respondent was having with pressure sores, she would not have admitted any new residents with the same problem. In fact, she would not admit any new residents if she had insufficient staff to support the existing resident census. It is in this area that Respondent’s actions fell most below acceptable standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing Home Administrators enter a Final Order in this matter imposing an administrative fine of $1,575 on Respondent, and placing her license as a nursing home administrator on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions relating to restriction of her practice to only supervised employment as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Williams and Holz, P.A. 355 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 1341 Timberlane Road Suite No. 101-A Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
