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 June 14 through August 10, 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 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . 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 statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. 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. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys 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". 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 "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: 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." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. 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 Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 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 issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent is guilty of a Class II violation because Respondent failed to discharge a resident who no longer met the criteria for continued residency contrary to Sections 400.426 and 400.428, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A-5.0181; (b) whether Respondent is guilty of a Class II violation because Respondent transferred a resident’s prescription medication from one storage container to another contrary to Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A-5.0185; and (c) what penalties, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with licensing of assisted living facilities (ALFs) in Florida. Petitioner has the duty to ensure that ALFs comply with the provisions of Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes (2005). In the performance of its duties, Petitioner is required to conduct biennial surveys and monitoring visits to verify correction of any deficient practices. The evaluation, or survey, of a facility includes a resident review/observation and, depending on the circumstances, a record review and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on an agency Form 3020-0001, titled “Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction.” If deficiencies are found during a survey, the violations are noted as “Tags” on the Form 3020-0001. A Tag identifies and summarizes the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyor believes the licensee has violated. A Tag also sets forth specific facts in support of alleged deficiencies, identifies the classifications of deficiencies depending on their nature and gravity, and identifies the probable effect that deficiencies have on facility residents. Respondent operates a licensed ALF facility (the facility) located in Port Orange, Florida. Respondent is also licensed to provide its residents with limited nursing services (LNS). Respondent is authorized to admit a maximum of six residents. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on October 11, 2004. She was an elderly female who had psychological and medical problems, including schizophrenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension. Resident 2 needed supervision for ambulation with a walker, dressing, eating, grooming, bathing, and total care for toileting due to incontinence of bowel and bladder. Resident 2 never received LNS from Respondent. Resident 2 was a strong-minded person who would not always cooperate with the efforts of the facility’s staff to keep her repositioned in her wheelchair or bed. At times she refused to take her medicines. Because Resident 2 was forgetful, the facility’s staff had to provide her with reminders so that she could stay oriented to time and place. She was always very verbal about her wishes, especially her desire to be left alone. Christal Caso is Respondent’s administrator and owner. She is also a licensed practical nurse. In March 2006, Resident 2 experienced trouble with vomiting for several days before she would allow Ms. Caso to take her to the hospital. After receiving treatment for kidney failure in the hospital, she recovered sufficiently to travel in a wheelchair on a seven-day cruise with Ms. Caso. After the cruise, Resident 2's health seemed to decline rapidly. She began to lose weight because she was not eating properly. Around the first of May 2006, Ms. Caso took Resident 2 for an appointment with her personal physician. After that appointment, she was referred to a local hospice. Resident 2 was admitted to hospice care on May 10, 2006. The hospice agreed to provide her hospice care in Respondent’s facility. Because hospice did not provide 24-hour day-to-day care, Respondent continued to provide care for her. A nurse from the local hospice visited with Resident 2 on May 12, 2006. The hospice nurse noted that she was very thin with poor appetite. The hospice nurse observed that she was very stiff with multiple skin breakdowns that seemed to get worse every day. The hospice nurse also noted that Respondent’s staff used normal saline solution and triple antibiotic ointment to treat the pressure sores. Resident 2 yelled when the hospice nurse or anyone touched her. She would not let the hospice nurse treat her pressure sores. On May 12, 2006. the hospice nurse requested the hospice physician to order ibuprofen (Motrin) suspension for Resident 2. The physician’s order stated that she could take the Motrin every six hours as needed for pain. On May 17, 2006, Petitioner’s staff performed a biennial survey of the facility. The survey involved an evaluation of the facilities’ care for Resident 2. Petitioner’s surveyor observed the following problems with Resident 2’s skin integrity: (a) a medical dressing at mid-calf on her right leg, draining a yellow, serosanguineous substance; (b) a bandage on her right foot, covering an swollen area that was deep red to bluish in color; (c) a pressure sore on her right heel that was black but not draining; (d) a black, draining ulcer on the outer side of her right foot about the size of a quarter; (e) a large bandage under her incontinent brief that covered an ulcer approximately 7 centimeters wide, 11 centimeters long, and 2-3 centimeters deep, with a yellow, serosanguineous drainage and that constituted a stage 4 ulcer almost exposing the hip bone. Petitioner’s surveyor could not see other parts of Resident 2’s body because she refused to change her position. During the course of viewing her pressure sores, Petitioner’s surveyor observed Respondent’s certified nurse assistant (CNA) removing Resident 2’s bandages. The CNA took off the dressings, one at a time, and laid them on the over-bed table. The CNA put the same dressings back on her after handling her clothing and the over-bed table, thus contaminating the dressings and the table. Contamination of the reapplied dressings created a direct threat of infection. The CNA stated that he was the only staff member that performed wound care at the facility. Ms. Caso admitted that she did not perform wound care. She also admitted that the facility did not have a staff member who was licensed and properly trained to provide wound care. During the surveyor’s observation, Resident 2 had periods of clearly understanding what was being said to her. At other times, she would either refuse to talk or was unable to do so. She yelled during the observation because she was annoyed and/or in pain. On May 17, 2006, Respondent could not provide Petitioner’s surveyor with a record more recent than 2004 or 2005 of Resident 2’s health status. There was no documentation to show that she received appropriate management of her pressure sores in Respondent’s facility before or after her admittance to hospice care. Respondent did not have a written plan of care for Resident 2 reflecting wound care, pain management, or hospice care. Ms. Caso admitted that she did not have time to keep records. More important, she could not produce any records kept by hospice. Petitioner’s surveyor checked Resident 2’s medication. As of May 17, 2007, she had not received a dose of the Motrin ordered for her on May 12, 2006. Respondent did not pick up the medicine from the pharmacy until May 16, 2006. Petitioner’s surveyor also observed that Resident 2 had a prescription bottle of medicine by the name of Metoprolol, a medicine commonly prescribed for high-blood pressure and heart problems such as angina. The medicine bottle contained two kinds of tablets: pink and round tablets and white oval tablets. When the pharmacist filled Resident 2’s prescription for Metoprolol, he did not have enough of the medicine to complete the physician’s order. When the pharmacist received a shipment of the same medicine from a different manufacturer, he sent Resident 2 the balance of the physician’s order. The Metoprolol tablets from the two manufacturers were different in color and shape. A member of Respondent’s staff combined all the tablets of Metoprolol in one prescription bottle. Thereafter, a third person would not know if these tablets in the same bottle were actually the same prescribed medication or whether someone mixed the wrong medications. Combining the tablets from two prescription bottles was a class II violation of Tag A626 because it created a direct threat to Resident 2‘s health. At the request of Ms. Caso, the hospice nurse visited Resident 2 during the survey on May 17, 2006. The hospice nurse noted that her skin continued to break down. The hospice nurse decided to consult a wound care specialist regarding Resident 2’s skin breakdown. During the hearing, the hospice nurse conceded that at least one of Resident 2’s pressure sores had advanced to a stage 3. During the survey on May 17, 2006, Petitioner’s surveyor recommended that Resident 2 be transferred to a facility with a higher level of nursing care. The surveyor contacted Resident 2’s personnel physician to advise the doctor about her health status and the advanced state of her pressure sores. After making that call, the surveyor was unable to get Resident 2 to voluntarily go see her physician at the emergency room. Ms. Caso took the position that Resident 2 was receiving appropriate care and refused to initiate discharge proceedings. Resident 2 required wound care on a daily basis. Hospice did not perform that care. A hospice nurse visited her on a weekly basis to monitor her condition. A hospice home health aide bathed her three times a week. Respondent’s CNA continued to provide all of her wound care, a task outside the scope of a CNA’s license. Resident 2’s skin breakdown had become very severe by May 17, 2006. Her admission to Respondent’s facility did not include LNS. Clear and convincing evidence indicates that Resident 2 required a higher level of nursing care for her pressure sores than Respondent provided or was licensed to provide. Resident 2’s admission to hospice care did not relieve Respondent of the duty to ensure that Resident 2 received appropriate care or, in the alternative, to initiate steps to discharge her. Respondent’s failure to do so was a class II violation of Tag A509 because it created a direct threat to Resident 2’s health. The hospice nurse made a weekly visit to Resident 2 in Respondent’s facility on May 23, 2006. The hospice nurse made the following progress notes: (a) patient has been eating three meals a day, consisting of approximately three ounces per meal; (b) brought out air pressure seat for wheelchair; (c) instructed ALF to use home health aide to give patient bath that is OK and allowed by ALF’s; (d) patient sitting up in wheelchair and feeds self puree diet very slowly; (e) wounds continue to look clean and without signs of infection; (e) see assessment; (f) poor circulation, poor nutritional status, daily wound care once a day; and (g) continue to assess diet, circulation, and wounds once a week and as needed. Resident 2 died a few days after the hospice nurse’s visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of two Class II violations and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000 and a survey fee in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Christal Caso, Owner Caso, Inc., d/b/a Paradise Manor II 435 Greenleaf Square Port Orange, Florida 32127 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The 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
