Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Central Florida Surgical Ambulatory Center be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care in the practice of medicine by inserting the wrong intraocular lens during cataract surgery, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, or failed to maintain adequate medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0030598. Respondent graduated from medical school in 1976 and completed a three-year residency in ophthalmology in 1980. Board-certified in ophthalmology since 1981, Respondent is the medical director of the Treasure Coast Center for Surgery in Stuart (Surgery Center). The Surgery Center is an ambulatory surgery center licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Since 1980, Respondent has performed over 20,000 surgeries, including over 10,000 cataract surgeries. In that time, he has never previously misidentified a patient, operated on the wrong site, or inserted the wrong lens. This case involves a wrong lens that Respondent inserted into an 80-year-old patient on October 17, 2000. A local optometrist had referred the patient to Respondent for evaluation of cataracts in both eyes. Respondent performed successful cataract surgery on the patient's right eye on August 22, 2000. A cataract is a partial or complete opacification, or clouding, of a natural lens or its capsule. Typically associated with aging, the cataract is a major cause of a slow loss of vision, making it more difficult for the patient to read or drive, especially at night with the glare of lights. Twenty years ago, conventional cataract surgery comprised an intracapsular cataract extraction with the lens implant placed in the front of the eye. In the last 20 years, the predominant mode of cataract surgery comprises an extracapsular cataract surgery or phacoemulsification with the lens implant placed behind the iris of the eye. In the phacoemulsification process, the surgeon, using a smaller incision than that used in the older procedure, dissolves the cataract-involved natural lens using ultrasound and removes the cataract in smaller pieces than the single-piece removal characteristic of the intracapsular extraction process. The patient was scheduled for phacoemulsification of the cataract-involved lens in her left eye at the Surgery Center as the first patient of the day on October 17, 2000. Respondent handled her case as he handles all of the other cases. Prior to the surgery, Respondent reviews the patient's office chart and brings it, together with the office charts of the other patients scheduled for surgery that day, from his office to the Surgery Center. At the Surgery Center, Respondent delivers the office charts to circulating nurses, who remove each chart, read it to determine the lens to be implanted, find the lens specified in the chart for implantation, and insert the packaged lens into the chart. A nurse then stacks the office charts in a stand in the order of the patients' surgeries scheduled for the day. From the patient's perspective, she is greeted by a receptionist upon arrival. The receptionist pulls the already- prepared materials, including an identification bracelet or armband, and has the patient sign the necessary paperwork. At this point, an admission nurse takes the patient to the preoperative area where the patient lies down on a gurney. The nurse identifies the patient and confirms the eye to be operated on and the procedure to be performed. After verifying this information, the nurse places the identification bracelet on the patient's wrist. In cases such as this, in which an anaesthesiologist administers the anaesthesia, the anaesthesiologist meets with the patient to confirm the identity of the patient, the eye to be operated on, and the procedure to be performed. The Surgery Center's policy requires: "the attending physician and/or anesthesiologist, along with the responsible nurse, will review the patient's medical record, the armband and the Surgery Schedule to confirm the correct operative site. The operative site will also be confirmed by the patient or parent/guardian." The cited language, as well as the surrounding context, reveals a policy to ensure that the correct site--here, left eye--is the subject of the actual surgical procedure; nothing in the policy explicitly requires anyone to match the correct lens with the patient. After completion of the preoperative procedure, the circulating nurse takes the patient from pre-op. Among the nurse's other duties is to check the patient's bracelet against the office chart and to ask the patient if she is the person named on the office chart and bracelet. Accompanying the patient into the operating room are the office chart and Surgery Center chart. Once in the operating room, the circulating nurse places the office chart on a side table used by the scrub nurse and the Surgery Center chart with the anaesthesia equipment. Transferred into the operating room, the patient is scrubbed by a scrub nurse, who drapes the patient from just below her knees to above her head with a gown that opens only at the site of the eye to be operated on. The purpose of the gown is to maintain a sterile field, so no one can lift the gown in the operating room, such as to identify the patient by face or bracelet with the name on the chart, without exposing the patient to a risk of infection. When Respondent enters the operating room, he is already scrubbed and wearing gloves. A stand holds the patient's office chart with the packaged lens implant at the side table. Respondent checks the power of the lens, as disclosed on the package, against the power specified on the office chart. In this case, the two powers matched, as the office chart and the lens implant were for another patient. To maintain sterility, Respondent cannot touch a chart while he is in the operating room; if the necessity arises, a nurse may touch the chart. Before proceeding with surgery, Respondent reads the name of the patient on the office chart. Respondent does not verify that the names on the bracelet and either of the charts are the same. Nor does Respondent confirm with the circulating nurse that she has done so. To check the identity of the patient, Respondent says, "Good morning, Ms. . I'd like you to put your chin up for me." However, patients often have fallen asleep from the three preoperative sedatives that they have already received. Respondent conceded that the patient in this case may not have been alert when he addressed her by name. For whatever reason-- reduced consciousness, unconsciousness, nervousness, or inability of the patient to hear Respondent or Respondent (or others) to hear the patient--the patient in this case did not effectively communicate to Respondent that she was not the patient whose name he stated. Respondent proceeded with the surgery and implanted the wrong lens into the patient's left eye. Respondent had specified a lens with a 21.5 diopter refractive power and implanted a lens with a 20.5 diopter refractive power. The circulating nurse discovered the error when she went to get the next patient and found the office chart of the patient on whom Respondent had just completed surgery. The next day, when the patient visited Respondent at his office for a routine post-operative examination, Respondent informed her that he had placed the wrong lens in her eye and recommended that he recheck her vision in a few days and then decide whether to perform a corrective procedure. Three days after the initial surgery, Respondent found an increased degree of anisometropia, which is the difference in refraction between the two eyes. At this time, the patient complained to Respondent about imbalance. Respondent advised corrective surgery, and, on October 26, Respondent performed surgery to replace the implanted lens with another lens. Although the initial surgery was sutureless, the corrective surgery required sutures. The corrective surgery was generally successful, although two and one-half months later, the patient was complaining that her left eye was sore to the touch--a complaint that she had not made following the initial surgery to the left eye. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's medical records are deficient in two respects: inaccurately describing the treatment and failing to justify the corrective surgery. Respondent dictates his operative reports prior to surgery, even though they bear the date of the surgery--here, October 17, 2000. To accommodate contingencies, Respondent dictates three conditional notes, one of which itself contains two alternatives. As found in the patient's operative report, these conditional notes state: The corneoscleral wound was enlarged, if necessary. * * * If necessary, an interrupted suture was placed for pre-existing against-the-rule astigmatism or to help maintain the water- tightness of the wound. If a suture was placed, the wound was retested to be water- tight. Although Respondent's pre-dictated operative notes for the patient are detailed, they omit a salient element of her surgery--that Respondent inserted a lens of the wrong power. Respondent did not try to conceal this fact. To the contrary, as soon as the nurse informed him of her error, he directed her to attach the sticky label on the lens package, which records the power of the lens, to the patient's chart. He also directed her to prepare an incident report, which prompted Petitioner's investigation. The expert testimony in this case was conflicting. Respondent's expert witness was originally contacted by Petitioner and asked for an opinion on the standard-of-care and medical-records issues described above. The witness opined that Respondent met the applicable standard of care and the medical records justified the course of treatment. Respondent then retained this physician as his expert witness. Respondent's expert witness opined that an ophthalmologic surgeon necessarily must rely to a "large extent" on staff for a "certain amount of identification" before the patient is transferred into the operating room. Respondent's expert witness did not explain in detail the qualifications inherent in these statements. Finding an error by the Surgery Center in the insertion of the wrong lens, Respondent's expert witness admitted that Respondent had some control over the circulating nurse, but stated that the nurse administrator basically directs the nurses. Expressing no problem with the conditional notes, Respondent's expert witness testified that it is not unusual for a surgeon to predictate an operative report and then change it if something unusual happens. Petitioner retained another expert witness to replace the expert witness who became Respondent's witness. Petitioner's expert witness opined that Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care and the medical records did not justify the course of treatment. Petitioner's expert witness opined that it was never within the applicable standard of care to insert the wrong lens and admitted that he was unaware of the procedures of the Surgery Center and Respondent to avoid this occurrence. Petitioner's expert witness explained that the surgeon is the captain of the ship and ultimately bears the responsibility for the insertion of the wrong lens. Petitioner's expert witness also opined that all pre- dictated operative notes were not "the standard of care" and likewise criticized the conditional notes. Petitioner's expert witness admitted that nothing included in or omitted from the operative notes would adversely affect the future management of the patient's medical care. Respondent's proposed recommended order identifies various deficiencies in the testimony of Petitioner's expert witness, although Respondent's assertion that the expert relied on a not-yet-effective strict-liability statute is not accurate. Most of these deficiencies pertain to the earlier allegations that Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care in performing cataract surgery on an 80-year-old patient and in performing the corrective surgery. Citing the recent case of Gross v. Department of Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(Orfinger, J., concurring), Petitioner's proposed recommended order invites the Administrative Law Judge to be guided by common sense in assessing the standard-of-care issue. This invitation may arise from a well-placed concern with the means by which Petitioner's expert reached his conclusion that Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care. Petitioner's expert witness has opined that the insertion of the wrong lens violates the applicable standard of care, without regard to the safeguards or precautions that a physician may employ to avoid this mishap. In finding a deviation from the applicable standard of care, the Administrative Law Judge relies on inferences and logic not explicitly identified by Petitioner's expert witness. In addressing the standard-of-care issue, Respondent's expert witness adopted the proper approach, which features a close analysis of the facts to determine the reasonableness of the surgeon's acts and omissions. Under that approach, however, the record establishes that Respondent failed to take all reasonable precautions necessary to prevent this mistake. Although the likelihood of the insertion of the wrong lens seems low, based on Respondent's experience, the burden of additional, effective safeguards would be minor. Both parties focused on the location of the bracelet relative to the length of the protective gown. However, an anklet would be in plain view in the operating room because the gown would not extend that far below the patient's knees. Even if the patient identification remains on a wrist bracelet, the surgeon himself could check the patient's name on the bracelet with the name on the office chart just prior to the surgeon and patient entering the operating room. Either practice would add a few seconds to the overall process and would prevent this type of error. On the other hand, the categoric rejection of Respondent's records by Petitioner's expert witness is correct. The date of the operative record is incorrect; it was not dictated on October 17, 2000, but on an earlier date. The three conditions and one alternative present a confused operative history. The operative record fails to indicate if there was a corneoscleral wound; if there was an interrupted suture; if so, if the suture was for a pre-existing astigmatism or for wound protection; and if there was a suture placed at all. With these conditions and alternative, the operative report fails to memorialize accurately material elements of the surgery. Additionally, the operative report omits an indisputably material element of the surgery--the insertion of the wrong lens. Respondent recorded this fact in an office note a few days later, but never amended his predictated operative report to reflect this important fact. Lastly, the justification for the corrective surgery ultimately was the patient's complaint of imbalance, not the difference in refractive power between the lens implanted and the lens specified. Respondent nowhere recorded any such complaint in any records. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care in inserting the wrong lens and failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of treatment with respect to the deficiencies noted in the operative record and post-operative records preceding the corrective surgery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $10,000, and remanding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for findings concerning costs, pursuant to Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes, if the parties cannot agree as to an amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 18th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine 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 Bruce A. Campbell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brian A. Newman Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell, & Dunbar, P. A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for approval as an office surgery accrediting organization pursuant to Section 459.309(3), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092.
Findings Of Fact In Florida, physicians who perform certain surgical procedures in their offices are required to register the office with DOH. Additionally, DOH must inspect such offices unless a nationally recognized accrediting agency or an accrediting organization approved by the Board inspects and accredits the offices every three years. See § 458.309(3), Fla. Stat. and Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B8-0.0091. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092, entitled "Approval of Physician Office Accrediting Organizations," purports to establish requirements that FLACS must meet in order to achieve the Board's approval to operate as an accrediting organization. FLACS is a not-for-profit corporation, organized for the following purposes: (a) to promote office safety through its accreditation activities; (b) to promote cosmetic surgery; and (c) to provide continuing education courses related to office surgery. FLACS was formed in 1999 and, since that time, has participated actively in office surgery issues considered by the Board. The Board approved FLACS as an accrediting organization early in 2001. In January 2003 FLACS filed a complete renewal application, seeking the Board's approval to continue operating as an office surgery accrediting organization. The Board denied the application and, after a formal administrative hearing, entered a Final Order denying FLACS's application. See Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc. v. Board of Medicine, Case No. DOH-04-0661-FOF-MQA (Final Order, June 18, 2004)(adopting Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 03-3349, April 15, 2004.) FLACS filed a new application for approval as an office surgery accrediting organization on July 12, 2004. The Board never advised FLACS whether its application was complete or incomplete. There is evidence that a member of the Board's staff, Melinda Grey, reviewed the application, finding it incomplete in many respects. On August 5, 2004, Ms. Grey prepared a spreadsheet entitled "Board of Medicine Staff Issues Regarding FLACS Application." The spreadsheet compared the application with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, including Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092. Larry McPherson, the Board's Executive Director, was aware that Ms. Grey was reviewing FLACS's application. She did not tell Mr. McPherson that the application was incomplete. Instead, she informed the Board's legal counsel that FLACS had filed the application. Subsequently, Ms. Grey placed the application on the agenda for the Board's next scheduled meeting. On August 7, 2004, the Board voted to deny the new application. On August 23, 2004, the Board entered an Notice of Intent to Deny FLACS's new application on the following grounds: When participating in accrediting activities in the past, the applicant violated Section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with rules of the Board in the following manner: The applicant failed to provide copies of accreditation reports and corrective action plans to the Board office within 30 days of completion of accrediting activities in violation of Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to immediately report to the Department conditions in physicians' offices that posed a potential immediate threat to patients in violation of Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(f), Florida Administrative Code. When inspecting and accrediting facilities the applicant ignored its written accreditation standards and failed to provide the Board office with accreditation standards under which it was actually operating. Such facts reveal that the applicant operated in violation of Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(g), Florida Administrative Code. When inspecting the facilities, the applicant operated with inadequate or applied inconsistently its quality assurance program in violation of Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to provide evidence of an adequate quality assurance program as required by Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to provide evidence of an adequate ongoing anesthesia related accreditation and quality assurance processes as required by Rule 64B8- 9.0092(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant failed to submit copies of all incident reports filed with the state that originated at FLACS accredited facilities as required by Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Uncorrected "Prior Errors" After FLACS submitted its January 2003 "renewal" application, the Board's staff met several times with FLACS to discuss and "work out" problems that the Board had with FLACS's office surgery accrediting procedures. These meetings, which took place between January 2003 (when FLACS filed its renewal application) and August 2003 (when the Board denied the renewal application,) were supposed to result in changes to FLACS's inspection procedures and to alleviate the Board's concerns about FLACS' renewal application. Apparently FLACS successfully implemented some changes between the time that the Board denied FLACS's renewal application in August 2003 and the time that the Board issued the June 2004 Final Order in DOAH Case No. 03-3349. There is no evidence in the instant case that FLACS committed the following prior violations: (a) failed to provide DOH with accreditation reports and corrective action plans required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(e); and (b) awarded accreditation retroactive to the inspection date. Despite FLACS's effort to make needed changes in its inspection processes, it failed to do so on several occasions. First, on May 23, 2004, FLACS inspected the office of Anthony Rogers, M.D. Even though Dr. Rogers had one crash cart deficiency (missing the drug isuprel), FLACS's facility inspection form indicates that Dr. Rogers passed the inspection. FLACS did not receive confirmation that Dr. Rogers was in 100 percent compliance with the Board's rules regarding the mandated crash cart medications until May 27, 2004. FLACS accredited Dr. Rogers on that date based on a packing slip/boxed content list, showing receipt of the isuprel. Second, FLACS inspected the office of Rodolfo Binker, M.D., on May 22, 2004. FLACS's facility inspection form indicates that Dr. Binker passed the inspection even though he was missing intubation forceps (McGill). FLACS did not receive confirmation that Dr. Binker's monitoring and emergency equipment included intubation forceps (McGill) until May 24, 2004. FLACS accredited Dr. Binker that same day based on an invoice, showing that the forceps had been ordered and shipped to Dr. Rogers. The invoice does not indicate the date that Dr. Rogers received the forceps. Third, FLACS prefers for physicians who fail an inspection to verify compliance with the Board's rules by providing FLACS with a packing slip, showing receipt of the missing drugs or equipment. However, the evidence indicates that one of FLACS's inspectors sometimes accepts purchase orders/invoices, which do not show actual receipt of the missing items. Fourth, there is no evidence that FLACS failed to advise DOH about conditions in any physician's office that posed potential immediate jeopardy to patients as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(4)(f). FLACS's application states that "[a]ll deficiencies, including those which pose potential immediate jeopardy, will be immediately reported to the Department of Health and the Board." However, as a practical matter, FLACS does not believe it is necessary to make such a report as long as it notifies the Board by telephone for any circumstance that it believes constitutes an "immediate threat" to a patient and provides the Board with copies of all inspection materials, facility surveys, and compliance materials on all FLACS accreditations. In other words, unless a patient is in immediate danger, FLACS will leave it to DOH and the Board to review all documentation and determine whether a physician's office poses a "potential immediate threat." Finally, Bruce Hirshman, D.O, is an anesthesiologist who participates in FLACS's ongoing anesthesia-related accreditation and quality assurance processes. At some point in time, FLACS accredited Dr. Hirshman's office surgery facility. As of June 3, 2003, FLACS was aware that Dr. Hirshman had not registered with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and advised him to do so. FLACS took no further action regarding Dr. Hirshman's failure to register until May 2005. FLACS's May 5, 2005, letter to Dr. Hirshman, stated as follows in relevant part: As of April 28, 2004, the Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery was informed by Ms. Rina Palladino at the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine that you had not registered with the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine to perform office surgery. The Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery is withdrawing your accreditation . . . . Rule 64B8-9.0092(2)(f)--Adverse Incident Reports Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(2)(f) requires an application for approval as an office surgery accrediting organization to include copies of all incident reports that accredited physicians file with the state. The incident reports are defined by Section 458.351(4), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: (4) For purposes of notification to the department pursuant to this section, the term "adverse incident" means an event over which the physician or licensee could exercise control and which is associated in whole or in part with a medical intervention, rather than the condition for which such intervention occurred, and which results in the following patient injuries: The death of a patient. Brain or spinal damage to a patient. The performance of a surgical procedure on the wrong patient. 1. The performance of a wrong- site surgical procedure; The performance of a wrong surgical procedure; or The surgical repair of damage to a patient resulting from a planned surgical procedure where the damage is not a recognized specific risk as disclosed to the patient and documented through the informed- consent process if it results in: death; brain or spinal damage; permanent disfigurement not to include the incision scar; fracture or dislocation of bones or joints; a limitation of neurological, physical or sensory function; or any condition that required transfer of the patient. A procedure to remove unplanned foreign objects remaining from a surgical procedure. Any condition that required transfer of a patient to a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, from any facility or any office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine which is not licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The incident reports are further defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.001(1)(a), which states as follows in relevant part: . . . an event over which the physician or other licensee could exercise control and which is associated in whole or in part with a medical intervention, rather than the condition for which such intervention occurred, and which results in the following patient injuries: The death of a patient. Brain or spinal damage to a patient. The performance of a surgical procedure on the wrong patient. The performance of a wrong-site surgical procedure, the performance of a wrong surgical procedure; or the surgical repair of damage to a patient resulting from a planned surgical procedure where the damage is not a recognized specific risk as disclosed to the patient and documented through the informed-consent process and if one of the listed procedures in the paragraph results in: death; brain or spinal damage; permanent disfigurement not to include the incision scar; fracture or dislocation of bones or joints; a limitation of neurological, physical or sensory function; or any condition that required transfer of the patient. A procedure to remove unplanned foreign objects remaining from a surgical procedure. Any condition that required transfer of a patient to a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, from any facility or any office maintained by a physician for the practice of medicine which is not licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. FLACS understood that the "incident reports" referenced in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.0092(2)(f) are the same as the "reports on adverse incident" defined by Section 458.351, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.001(1)(a). FLACS's application specifically references adverse incident reports as defined by Section 458.351, Florida Statutes. FLACS provided two such adverse incident reports with its new application: (a) one filed by Fabio Arturo Castro, M.D., from an incident that occurred on November 24, 2003; and (b) one filed by Kurt S. Dangl, M.D., from an incident that occurred on September 25, 2003. The new application did not include the following incident reports that FLACS included with its January 2003 renewal application: (a) one filed by Robert Gregory Smith, M.D., from an incident that occurred on August 16, 2001; and (b) one filed by Rafael A. Fleites, M.D., from an incident that occurred on March 9, 2002. As of July 12, 2004, DOH had received a total of nine (9) office incident reports from doctors' offices that are, or were at the time the incidents occurred, accredited by FLACS. FLACS's accredited physicians did not provide it with the following incident reports: (a) one filed by Michael Patipa, M.D., from and incident that occurred on March 29, 2004; (b) one filed by Constantino F. Mendieta, M.D., from an incident that occurred on February 2, 2004; (c) one filed by Edward J. Gross, M.D., from an incident that occurred on July 22, 2003; (d) one filed by Timothy Fee, M.D., from an incident that occurred on November 11, 2003; and (e) one filed by Ramiro Morales, Jr., M.D., from an incident that occurred on April 9, 2002. The Board's staff discovered that FLACS's application did not provide copies of these five incident reports by reviewing individual physician office registration files. FLACS has several methods to use in collecting incident reports. First, FLACS requires its accredited physicians and office surgery facilities to attest and acknowledge that they are required to provide FLACS with any and all adverse incident reports related to or following surgery in the accredited offices. Second, FLACS requires the staff of accredited offices to perform self-evaluation surveys after the first and second year of accreditation, said surveys to include such incident reports. Third, FLACS watches for information about adverse incidents as reported by news media or complaints from the public. Most important, FLACS can make quarterly public record requests for the reports even though the state system of record keeping for adverse incident reports is not computerized. There is no persuasive evidence that FLACS ever made an oral or written public records request for copies of incident reports related to its accredited physicians and office surgery facilities. There is no statutory or rule requirement for physicians to file copies of incident reports with their accrediting organization. However, at least two of the nationally recognized accrediting agencies, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization (JACHO) and American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (AAAASF), have provisions in their accreditation manuals related to adverse incidents. JACHO's "Accreditation Manual for Office-Based Surgery Practices," Second Edition (2005), defines a "sentinel event" as follows: A sentinel event is an unexpected occurrence involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or the risk thereof. Serious injury specifically includes loss of limb or function. The phrase "or risk thereof" includes any process variation for which a recurrence would carry a significant chance of a serious adverse outcome. Such events are called "sentinel" because they signal the need for immediate investigation and response. The terms "sentinel event" and "medical error" are not synonymous; not all sentinel events occur because of an error, and not all errors result in sentinel events. JACHO requires each accredited practice to define "sentinel event" for its own purposes in establishing mechanisms to identify, report, and manage these events. JACHO encourages, but does not require, its clients to report "sentinel events" to the accrediting agency within 45 days of the event or of becoming aware of the event. The report should include a root cause analysis and an action plan. If JACHO becomes aware of an unreported "sentinel event," JACHO will advise the accredited practice to prepare and submit the report within a certain timeframe. If the accredited practice fails to file an appropriate report within that time frame, JACHO will not revoke accreditation, but will place the accredited practice on an "Accreditation Watch" list. AAAASF's "Standards and Checklist for Accreditaion of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities" contains forms for accredited surgery facilities to use in reporting "unanticipated sequela." The forms refer one to AAAASF's "Quality Assurance and Peer Review Manual" for questions relative to their completion. The record indicates that "unanticipated sequela" are the equivalent of adverse incident reports, including but not limited to, events that result in unplanned hospital admissions. In Florida, physicians are required to file adverse incident reports with DOH's Consumer Services Unit (CSU), which is part of DOH's Medical Quality Assurance Program. On at least a quarterly basis, the Board's staff requests CSU to provide it with copies of adverse incident reports filed during a certain timeframe. The staff of the CSU has access to medical consultants who review the incident reports to determine whether there might have been a violation of law or a violation of a standard of care. If so, the matter is referred for further investigation, determination of probable cause, and possible disciplinary prosecution by the Board. The Board's staff places the incident reports in physician registration files and in office surgery inspection/accreditation files. The Board's staff also places copies of incident reports involving physicians or facilities in the respective file of their accrediting agency or accrediting organization. The Board's staff provides copies of adverse incident reports to DOH's state inspectors before they make office inspections of non-accredited facilities or facilities formerly accredited by a national agency or FLACS. The state inspector/risk manager uses the incident reports during inspections to recommend improvements so that such incidents can be avoided in the future. The Board's Surgical Care Committee, uses the incident reports for statistical purposes. The Surgical Care Committee reviews the reports to determine whether changes need to be made in administrative rules, including but not limited to, rules related to standard of care or physician registration. It is important for FLACS to be aware of adverse incident reports filed by its accredited physicians and office- surgery facilities. Such reports are an essential part of any accreditation program. Without such knowledge, FLACS cannot be assured that its accredited physicians and offices are taking steps to prevent such incidents in the future. Moreover, if FLACS is not aware of the adverse incidents occurring in the offices it inspects, FLACS cannot implement changes in its own policies to improve the accreditation process. The Board has no policy or practice for routinely sharing incident reports with accrediting organizations. Nevertheless, requiring FLACS to file copies of incident reports with the Board could alert the Board to incidents that were known to FLACS but never reported to the state and vice versa. As stated above, FLACS could make routine public records requests for copies of reports filed with the Board but not reported directly to FLACS. Rules 64B8-9.0092(4)(a) and 64B8-9.0092(4)(c) Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B8-9.0092(4)(a) and 64B8-9.0092(4)(c) were declared invalid in Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc. v. Department of Health, Board of Medicine, DOAH Case No. 05-0402RX (Final Order, August 8, 2005). For the reasons set forth below in the Conclusions of Law, it is unnecessary to report facts related to a mandatory quality assurance program or the ongoing anesthesia-related accreditation and quality assurance processes involving the active participation of anesthesiologists.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board issue a Final Order denying FLACS's application for approval as an office surgery accrediting organization. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2005, 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 9th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a physician assistant by application dated June 29, 1991. Under the statutory scheme regulating physician assistants, in certain circumstances, the Board of Medicine may grant temporary certification to applicants for licensure. The temporary certification is good only until the applicant receives notice of the applicant's scores received on the first available examination. At its meeting of October 30 through November 1, 1992, the Board approved Petitioner for temporary certification contingent upon his completion of specified requirements prior to such temporary certification and his completion of 25 hours of continuing medical education after issuance of such certification. Petitioner completed the specified requirements for issuance of the temporary certification and was issued a temporary certificate. Petitioner was so notified by letter dated October 4, 1993. Petitioner was first notified of the need to pay a required fee for the licensure examination by letter dated February 27, 1993. That letter set forth that the fee must be paid by March 31, 1993. Petitioner did not pay the fee by that deadline. On June 8, 1993, Petitioner was notified that the deadline for payment of the required examination fee had been moved to June 25, 1993. The extension had been given because the Board was still involved with processing applications for this special licensure program. Petitioner did not pay the fee by that deadline. On October 11, 1993, Petitioner was sent another letter notifying him that the deadline had been extended once again. This time the deadline was set for November 15, 1993. The notice sent to Petitioner specified three times that the required examination fee must be received in the office of the Board by November 15, 1993. It specifically informed Petitioner that a postmark of November 15, 1993, would not be sufficient. Furthermore, the notice informed Petitioner that if he failed to submit the required examination fee in a timely fashion, he would not be eligible to take the licensure examination. Although Petitioner testified that he was confused with regard to when the required fee could be sent, it was established that he could read the letter and that he understood that his failure to timely pay the examination fee would result in his not being permitted to take the licensure examination. Petitioner did not have the money for the required examination fee until November 14, 1993. Petitioner mailed the examination fee from Miami to the Board office in Tallahassee by certified United States mail on November 15, 1993. Although Petitioner testified that he believed the fee would be delivered the same day or the next day, Petitioner did not use any type of special delivery to provide same day or next day delivery at the Board's office. The fee submitted by Petitioner in the form of three Travelers Express Company checks was received in the Board's office on December 22, 1993. Petitioner did not submit the required examination fee in a timely manner for any of the three deadlines set by the Board. With the exception of one case involving an applicant with a heart condition, the Board has uniformly denied any request for the late payment of the required examination fee. If he does not take and pass the first available licensure examination, Petitioner will not be able to receive his permanent certification as a physician assistant. The licensure examination for persons in Petitioner's category has not yet been given by the Board. Therefore, none of the applicants for certification as physician assistants through this special licensure program have yet been tested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner is not eligible to take the physician assistant examination and that Petitioner's temporary certification is null and void. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 7-9, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being subordinate. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-12 have been rejected as being not supported by any evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 18 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Office of the Attorney General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Alexander J. Alfano, Esquire 45 Southwest 9th Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Surgical Services of Tampa, Inc. (SST) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Surgical Services, Inc., (SSI) located in Orlando, Florida. Eighty percent of SSI is owned by American Medical International, Inc. (AMI), the third largest health care provider in the United States. The remaining twenty percent ownership of SSI is held by Randall M. Phillips, who also serves as the president of SST. AMI owns and operates some 70 acute care hospitals in the United States and abroad, a nursing home and 7 or 8 ambulatory surgery centers around the country. Two of these centers are located in Florida, one in Clearwater and one in Tallahassee, and SSI has the responsibility for these centers. SSI also holds several Certificates of Need for other free standing ambulatory surgery centers to be constructed in Florida. AMI has made a commitment to provide financial support for the total development of the applicant's proposed ambulatory surgery facility in Tampa. This support includes the purchase of the land, construction of the building, equipping the facility and working capital. The financing is to be in the form of a fifty percent equity contribution and a 28-year loan at 12 percent interest to SST for the remaining funds. AMI has sufficient financial resources to fulfill its commitment to the proposed project. The total projected cost for the proposed facility is $2,240,800.00. The parties have stipulated that the proposed costs associated with construction, equipment and land acquisition and preparation are reasonable. The parties have also stipulated that the proposed staffing pattern is adequate and that the applicant SST will have the ability to adequately staff the proposed facility. While SST had not made a firm site selection at the time of the hearing, it has plans to locate its facility somewhere near the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital and the Human Women's Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Its service area includes all of Hillsborough County. The center will consist of four operating rooms or surgical suites, and laboratory, x-ray and administrative areas for a total of 15,000 square feet. SST plans to handle all types of surgical procedures which can be performed on an outpatient basis. Its medical staff will be open to all doctors qualified to perform the types of surgeries that can be accomplished on an ambulatory, outpatient basis. The facility will admit any patient a surgeon schedules for surgery, and will accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. SST plans to invoke an aggressive marketing effort to inform and educate consumers, insurance companies, employers, physicians and other health care facilities in the market area as to the benefits and cost- effectiveness of using its facility to perform surgery on an outpatient basis. It has budgeted some $20,000.00 to effect such a marketing program. Professional accreditation with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals will be sought after the proposed facility completes its first year of operation. Based upon a 15 percent Medicare utilization or patient mix and using the lowest Medicare reimbursement level and a projected number of procedures of 2,234 and 2,681 for the first and second years of operation, SST projects that it will have a loss of $17,426 in its first year of operation and a profit of $22,173 in its second year of operation. Using the highest payment level in the amount of contractual allowances, SST's pro forma statement shows a net income in both years of $689 and $41,444, respectively. The projected Medicare utilization percentage of 15 percent was not demonstrated to be erroneous and approximates the Medicare mix experienced at the petitioner's ASC facility in the preceding year. The projection of 2,234 procedures to be performed in the first year of operation was derived by estimating the number of potential ambulatory surgeries in the proposed service area (approximately 30 percent of all surgeries) and subtracting therefrom the number currently being performed in hospitals (approximately 15 percent), leaving a projected unmet caseload of 2,234. The salary projections, which were adjusted for inflation under the assumption that the proposed facility would begin operations in August of 1984, appear to be reasonable and adequate. In the 1981-82 reporting period, approximately 58,000 total surgical procedures were reported in Hillsborough County. Of this number, approximately 82 percent were performed on an inpatient basis, while 18 percent were performed on an outpatient basis. The literature on the subject, as well as some other states, predicts that between 28 percent and 48 percent of all surgeries could be performed in ambulatory settings. In Salt Lake City, Utah, 38.2 percent of all surgeries are performed on an outpatient basis. A wider acceptance on the part of patients, consumers and physicians of the concept of performing surgery on an outpatient basis, as well as changes in third party reimbursement (including the new Medicare reimbursement system of payment based on diagnostic related groupings as opposed to lengths of hospital stay), should result in the performance of an increased percentage of surgeries on an outpatient basis. The applicant's expert ambulatory surgical facilities health planner utilized four different methodologies to evaluate the need for additional ambulatory surgery facilities in Tampa. The first methodology utilized was use rate-based and took into account population and historical surgery utilization data. Using the assumption that 30 percent of all surgeries performed can be performed in an ambulatory setting, projecting the number of surgeries expected in 1984 and subtracting the number performed on an outpatient basis in the last reporting period (1981-82), it was determined that the remaining unmet need in 1984 would be 8,226 ambulatory surgeries, and the respective figures for 1985 and 1986 would he 8,596 and 8,955. A flaw in this methodology is the assumption that existing facilities will not increase their usage of outpatient surgical procedures. The second methodology is also use rate-based, but predicts an increased performance of outpatient procedures by existing facilities, said increase approximating the percentage of population growth, assumes a 30 percent to 40 percent outpatient to inpatient ratio and produces a range of unmet need in 1984 of 7,586 to 13,753, in 1985 of 7,737 to 14,028, and in 1986 of 7,885 to 14,295. The third method is a use rate and capacity-based methodology. It also uses the 30 percent to 40 percent range as the potential ambulatory surgery market and then designates a number of dedicated operating rooms which would be appropriate to fill that need. Assuming that an average capacity is 1,200 procedures per room per year and that all current ambulatory surgeries are performed in dedicated ambulatory surgery suites, and then dividing that capacity figure into the number of expected ambulatory surgeries in 1984, the required number of dedicated operating rooms ranges from 16 to 21 in 1984 and 1985 and from 17 to 22 in 1986. Assuming 9 current dedicated ambulatory surgery operating rooms, the net need is determined as a range from 7 to 12 additional dedicated rooms in 1984 and 1985 and from 8 to 13 in 1986. The fourth methodology is similar to the first, but is based on patient day utilization. It uses a 30 percent outpatient to inpatient ratio, and yields an unmet need, after subtracting current procedures performed at existing facilities, of 8,221 procedures in 1984, 8,591 in 1985 and 8,950 in 1986. Each of the methodologies results in a sufficient number of outpatient surgical procedures to support the applicant's proposed surgery center. The respondent HRS has no promulgated rule prescribing the methodology to be utilized to determine the need for additional ambulatory surgical centers in an area. Its non-rule methodology, utilizes a use rate per 1,000 population for a given year, applies that to a projected population two and three years into the future and then multiplies that figure by 29 percent. The 29 percent represents a midrange between 18 percent and 40 percent, the range suggested by the literature as representing the percentage of total surgeries that can be performed on an ambulatory basis. Taking into account the existing outpatient use rate being experienced, the projected population and the projected number of outpatient procedures which will be provided by existing facilities, a total number of outpatient procedures that could be performed by an applicant is produced. The Department also considers the number of procedures an applicant would have to perform in order to break even financially in its second year of operation. This methodology relates need to financial feasibility, but does not consider capacity or optimum utilization factors. In this case, the use of HRS's methodology results in a total figure of 7,569 outpatient procedures that need to be provided in 1986 beyond those that would be provided by the existing outpatient facilities of the area hospitals. The HRS calculations do not consider those procedures being performed at the petitioner's ASC facility. HRS calculated that SST would have to perform 2,463 procedures by the year 1986 in order to break even financially, and therefore that there were a significant number of procedures available to support the need for an additional ambulatory surgery facility. Existing hospitals in Hillsborough County currently perform surgery on an outpatient basis. As indicated above, some 18 percent of all surgeries, or 10,276 procedures, were reported as outpatient in the 1981-82 reporting period by Hillsborough County facilities, including the petitioner. With the exception of the petitioner's four dedicated operating rooms and two more at an area hospital, the remaining existing operating rooms are not used exclusively for outpatient surgeries, but are available for such surgery. Many existing hospitals are currently in the process of expanding their outpatient services. These expansion efforts generally involve new pre-admission, pre-operative and recovery room beds and reception areas for ambulatory surgical patients, and not new dedicated operating rooms for outpatients. Among those receiving recent Certificates of Need to expand their outpatient services are Tampa General Hospital, St. Joseph's Hospital, Brandon Community Hospital and Humana's Women's Hospital. University Community Hospital is also active in the performance of outpatient surgical procedures. Depending upon the sufficiency and efficiency of management and staff, a freestanding ambulatory surgery center offers some advantages over outpatient surgery performed in a hospital operating room utilized for both inpatients and outpatients. The freestanding facility may have staff surgeons and anesthesiologists with specialized outpatient surgery training. Total overhead costs are likely to be less, thus resulting in reduced patient costs. Since the operating room staff effort is continually focused on outpatient surgery only, management problems may be reduced, thus making the experience more pleasant for the patient, his family and the surgeon. Patients will experience less waiting times as there will not be as many emergencies as in a hospital setting or as much "bumping" of an elective surgery outpatient in an ambulatory center. If properly and efficiently managed, there may be less danger of cross-infection in the freestanding facility. The petitioner ASC is a freestanding facility built in 1979 and located adjacent to the University of South Florida in Tampa. It occupies 14,350 square feet, has four operating rooms, a special procedures room, several examination rooms, 12 recovery beds, 8 pre- and post-operative beds, waiting rooms and administrative and business office areas. Staff privileges are held by 157 surgeons from the Tampa area. At the time of the hearing, 15 more surgeons had applied for staff privileges. Its total caseload for the first eleven months of operation was 257. Cases performed in 1980 increased to 420. In 1981 and 1982, ASC performed 1,172 and 1,217 procedures, respectively. For the first seven months of 1983, 1,191 procedures were performed, for a utilization rate of approximately 25 percent. ASC has no formal, regular budgeted marketing program. It has received accreditation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS issue a Certificate of Need to Surgical Services of Tampa, Inc. to construct and operate a freestanding, four operating room ambulatory surgery center in Hillsborough County. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Phillip Blank and Robert A. Weiss, Esquires 241 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred W. Baggett and Michael J. Cherniga, Esquires 101 East College Avenue P.O. Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Surgicare III is a Florida general partnership comprised of Surgicare Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Medical International, Inc. (MCI) and Surgicare III of Jacksonville, Inc., a Florida corporation. MCI is the nation's largest provider of ambulatory surgical centers operating 34 such centers throughout the United States. MCI will manage the proposed facility under a management contract. The proposed facility will be financed 25 percent equity and 75 percent debt. Petitioner is financially capable of constructing and operating the proposed facility. While Surgicare had not finalized its site selection at the time of the hearing, it proposes to construct the facility in or near Brandon, with the primary service area to comprise Hillsborough County east of U.S. 301. Exhibit 15 is a unilateral prehearing stipulation by Surgicare to construct the facility in the above-described service area if the requested certificate is granted. There are many advantages of outpatient surgery in a freestanding facility over inpatient surgery and over outpatient surgery in an inpatient environment such as an acute-care hospital, of which cost is significant. Without belaboring the issue, it is accepted as a fact that many surgical procedures requiring general anesthesia and taking from a few minutes up to six hours can be performed in an outpatient setting where the patient goes home following the surgery and does not remain in the hospital overnight. Most, if not all, of these outpatient surgeries are elective and freestanding outpatient surgical centers are less costly to the patient, more convenient to the patient and to the surgeon, and provide a better environment for the patient than do most hospital outpatient facilities. Furthermore, the advent of freestanding outpatient surgical facilities has provided competition to hospitals which has resulted in lowering of hospital charges for outpatient surgery. Hillsborough County comprises one service area which includes 13 hospitals and one existing ambulatory surgery center, and a certificate of need has been issued to Surgical Services of Tampa to provide additional outpatient surgical facilities. DHRS has no rule methodology to determine need for additional ambulatory surgical facilities; however, a methodology has been established as a policy under which need for ambulatory surgery centers is determined. This policy has been in effect for an extended period of time; and, with two exceptions, is accepted by Petitioner as the proper method from a health planner's view to determine the need for additional outpatient surgical facilities. These exceptions are the percentage of surgeries expected to be performed in an outpatient setting during the second year of operation of the proposed facility and calculations of need based on a subdivided county. This methodology takes the latest available information for hospitals in the service area as to the number of surgeries, both inpatient and outpatient, performed in each hospital during this latest available period which, in this case, was calendar year 1984. The number of surgeries performed in Hillsborough County divided by the population of Hillsborough County will result in a surgical rate. Since the year in which Petitioner is expected to pass through the break-even point and show a profit is 1989, the population is projected to 1989 and multiplied by the surgical rate to determine the number of surgeries projected for 1989. Those 13 hospitals in 1984 performed 52,482 inpatient surgical procedures and 20,152 outpatient surgical procedures (a total of 72,834) when the Hillsborough County population was 715,435. Using these figures, the surgical rate of Hillsborough County in 1984 is 72,634/715,315 x 1,000 = 101.5 procedures per 1,000 population; the outpatient surgical rate is 24.5 per 1,000; and the Ambulatory Surgery Center is 3.7 per 1,000 (Exhibit 12). With a 1989 population projection of 757,309 in Hillsborough County, the outpatient surgeries performed in hospitals in 1989 will be 24.5 x 787,309/1,000 = 19,289 and Tampa Ambulatory Surgery Center surgeries will be 2,913 (3.7 x 787,309/1,000) or a total of 22,202 outpatient surgeries performed at existing facilities plus an additional 2,222 outpatient procedures to be performed at Surgical Services of Tampa, which will be fully operational at that time. The disputed percentage is the expected percentage of total surgeries which will be performed on an outpatient basis in 1989. Petitioner contends this figure should be 34, while Respondent contends 30 to be the correct percentage. Both parties attempt to extrapolate outpatient surgery percentage provided by the American Hospital Association. In certificate of need hearings involving freestanding ambulatory centers in 1984, DHRS used a figure of 29 percent, which was the mean of 18 percent and 40 percent, the former being the number of outpatient surgical procedures performed in 1981 and the high figure the AMA's estimate of the ultimate percentage of surgical procedures that could be performed in an outpatient setting. Since 1981 the percentage of surgeries performed in an outpatient setting has increased. In 1984 the percentage of total surgeries in Hillsborough County that were performed in an outpatient setting was 27.74 percent. Freestanding outpatient surgical facilities are a recent innovation in the health care provider field. Due to the lower costs associated with outpatient surgical procedures over inpatient surgical procedures, the advent of freestanding outpatient surgical centers has brought much needed competition to the health care provider field and has induced hospitals to provide for outpatient surgery and lower their charges for the use of these facilities. As a result the percentage of surgeries performed in an outpatient setting has grown rapidly in recent years, perhaps at an exponential rate. However, this growth is not unlimited and, as the percentage curves of outpatient surgeries versus total surgeries approaches this limit, the curve flattens. Today nearly all ophthalmic procedures are performed in an outpatient setting; there will be little further percentage growth in that field. Petitioner's contention that outpatient surgeries will increase percentage-wise at the same rapid pace they have increased during the past few years and be at 34 percent in Hillsborough County in 1989 is less credible than is the figure of 30 percent used by Respondent. A proliferation of freestanding outpatient surgical facilities will have the effect of increasing the costs to those patients whose surgery, now done in a doctor's or dentist's office, is shifted to a freestanding outpatient facility. As noted by one of Petitioner's witnesses in these proceedings, his malpractice insurance could be reduced if he performed in an outpatient surgical facility those operations he is currently performing in his office. Obviously, the patient so affected would be charged for the services of an anesthesiologist and other outpatient surgical facility services for which he is not charged when the office surgery is performed. Petitioner further supports the need for this facility by proposing to serve the eastern half of Hillsborough County, which will comprise its service area. Of the 13 hospitals in Hillsborough County, only three are located east of U.S. 301 and none of these has dedicated outpatient operating rooms. There are no official census figures or projections therefrom showing the population of the eastern portion of Hillsborough County in 1984 and DHRS does not so divide Hillsborough County for health care planning purposes. The county is one service area and Petitioner's attempt to subdivide the eastern portion into a sub-area is inconsistent with statewide procedures. Multiplying the surgical rate in Hillsborough County of 101.5 per 1,000 population by the 1989 projected population of 787,309 equals 79,912 surgeries to be performed in 1989. If 30 percent of these are performed in an outpatient setting, the outpatient surgeries will be 23,974. The Hillsborough County hospital outpatient surgeries projected to 1989 are 19,289 and those outpatient surgeries to be performed at Tampa Ambulatory Surgery Center are 2,913. Adding these latter figures results in 22,202 outpatient surgical procedures to be performed in existing facilities. Altogether 2,222 outpatient surgical procedures are projected to be performed at Surgical Services of Tampa. Thus, by 1989 existing and approved facilities will perform 24,424 outpatient procedures and the projected need is 23,974. This results in an excess capacity or negative need of 450 outpatient surgical procedures in Hillsborough County for 1989.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent Lucien Armand, M.D., violated Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2006), by violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2) and (4), and Section 458.351, Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2006); and Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006), as alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health before the Board of Medicine on June 20, 2008; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Lucien Armand, M.D., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 33997. Dr. Armand is board-certified in general surgery by the American Board of Surgery. Dr. Armand’s mailing address of record at all times relevant to this matter was 2071 Southwest 52nd Way, Plantation, Florida 33317. At the times relevant, Dr. Armand practiced medicine at 4100 South Hospital Drive, Suite 108, Plantation, Florida 33317. The office at which Dr. Armand practiced medicine was located very close to Plantation General Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “Plantation”). Dr. Armand has been the subject of three prior disciplinary matters arising out of five separate cases. Penalties were imposed in those three disciplinary matters. The Department summarized those disciplinary matters in paragraph 37 of its Proposed Recommended Order: In DPR Case Numbers 0019222, 0019123 and 0091224, Respondent was fined, received a reprimand, and was required to complete 30 hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) in general vascular surgery and risk management within the surgical practice. In Case Number 94-10100, Respondent was required to submit to and comply with an evaluation at the University of Florida, to pay a fine, was reprimanded, was required to complete twenty hours of CME in general surgery in performing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, and was placed on Probation for two (2) years. In Case Number 1999- 58474, Respondent was restricted from performing Level II or above office surgery as defined in Rule 64B8-9.009(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, until the Respondent demonstrated to the Board that he had successfully completed the University of Florida Comprehensive Assessment and Remedial Education Service (UF C.A.R.E.S.) course and complied with all recommendations, was reprimanded, was placed on probation for two (2) years, was required to attend the Florida Medical Association “Quality Medical Record Keeping for Health Care Practitioners” course, was required to perform 100 hours of community service, and was required to reimburse the Department for costs. Dr. Armand, who is 70 years of age, has been practicing medicine for 46 years. He has practiced medicine in Florida since 1979. During the eight months prior to the final hearing of this matter, Dr. Armand was working in South Sudan pursuant to contract with the United States State Department. October 6, 2006, Surgery on Patient W.C. On September 14, 2006, Patient W.C. presented to Dr. Armand and was diagnosed as having a slow-growing left inguinal hernia. Dr. Armand scheduled Patient W.C. for surgical repair of the inguinal hernia. The surgery was scheduled for October 6, 2006, at Dr. Armand’s office and, at the request of Patient W.C., under local sedation. At approximately 9:30 a.m., October 6, 2006, Patient W.C. arrived as scheduled at Dr. Armand’s office, accompanied by his wife and child. Patient W.C., who was not asked to execute any paperwork concerning the operation, was taken into a room where he was directed to lie down. There were two nurses in the room. Patient W.C. was given one shot of some form near the site of the procedure. This shot is the only medication he remembers receiving. He denied any recollection of having received medication intravenously, intramuscularly, or rectally. According to Dr. Armand, Patient W.C. was given “local anesthesia, Xylocaine 1% and ½% during the procedure and I gave some oral sedation, 10mg. of Valium, by mouth.” Page 171, Lines 19-21, Vol. II, Transcript of Final Hearing. At some point during the surgery, Patient W.C.’s intestines eviscerated, pushed themselves out through the hernia, making the hernia impossible to repair in the office. Due to the evisceration of Patient W.C.’s intestines, Dr. Armand eventually closed the incision and decided to transport Patient W.C. to Plantation to complete the procedure. Dr. Armand’s testimony that he closed and took patient W.C. to Plantation because Patient W.C. began “fidgeting” is not credited. While Patient W.C. did not have any clear recollection of the surgery while at Dr. Armand’s office, he did recall that “I was shaking myself and one of the nurses put something on my head and I went to sleep.” Page 40, Lines 20-22, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing. Patient W.C. later indicated that “[o]ne of the ladies sprayed something on my face,” at which point Patient W.C. “went to sleep.” Page 41, Lines 23-24, and Page 42, Line 8, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing. Patient W.C. did not remember anything else from this point in the surgery until he awoke at approximately 2:00 p.m., October 6, 2006, in a room at Plantation. Patient W.C. was transported to Plantation after he “fell asleep” by Dr. Armand. When Patient W.C. arrived at the Plantation emergency room, he was noted to be “sleepy” and, based upon Dr. Armand’s representation to the emergency room physician, Cornell Calinescu, M.D., was described as “somewhat sedated secondary to Valium and Clonidine.” Patient W. C. was also described by Dr. Calinescu and an emergency room nurse as able to speak. Upon admission to Plantation, Dr. Armand performed emergency surgery on Patient W.C. under general anesthesia, completing the procedure he had begun in his office. The surgery was completed without further complication. As noted above, Patient W.C. has no recollection of arriving at the Plantation emergency room, how he got to the hospital, or anything else that took place after falling asleep in Dr. Armand’s office, until he awoke in a hospital room later in the afternoon. Dr. Armand’s Medical Records for the October 6, 2006, Surgery. Dr. Armand’s office notes for Patient W.C. lack any documentation as to what took place in his office on October 6, 2006. Dr. Armand did not record the date of the procedure; the type of procedure performed; pre-operative care; any drugs that were prescribed, dispensed, and/or administered; the type and dosage of anesthetic sedation used; or post-operative care. Dr. Armand’s medical records for Patient W.C. also failed to include any informed consent for the procedure performed on October 6, 2006. As noted above, Dr. Armand did complete an operative report after the emergency surgery performed on Patient W.C. at Plantation. Office Surgery; Level of Anesthesia. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Office Surgery Rule”) prescribes standards for the performance of office surgery. In providing those standards, the Office Surgery Rule defines three levels of sedation and the conditions under which each level may be achieved and must be performed. Level II and Level III office surgery require registration of the physician’s office to perform. Dr. Armand’s office was not registered to perform Level II or Level III office surgery at the times relevant to this proceeding. Only the first and second levels of office surgery are relevant to this case. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(3) describes the types of procedures appropriate for “Level I” office surgery, which Dr. Armand has argued he performed on Patient W.C., as follows: Minor procedures such as excision of skin lesions, moles, warts, cysts, lipomas and repair of lacerations or surgery limited to the skin and subcutaneous tissue performed under topical or local anesthesia not involving drug-inducted alteration of consciousness other than minimal pre- operative tranquilization of the patient. Liposuction involving the removal of less than 4000cc supernatant fat is permitted. Incision and drainage of superficial abscesses, limited endoscopies such as proctoscopes, skin biopsies, arthrocentesis, thoracentesis, paracentesis, dilation of urethra, cysto-scopic procedures, and closed reduction of simple fractures or small joint dislocations (i.e., finger and toe joints). . . . . 5. Chances of complication requiring hospitalization are remote. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(4) describes the types of procedures appropriate for “Level II” office surgery, which the Department argues Dr. Armand utilized on Patient W.C., as follows: Level II Office Surgery is that in which peri-operative medication and sedation are used intravenously, intramuscularly, or rectally, thus making intra and post- operative monitoring necessary. Such procedures shall include, but not be limited to: hemorrhoidectomy, hernia repair, reduction of simple fractures, large joint dislocations, breast biopsies, colonoscopy, and liposuction involving the removal of up to 4000cc supernatant fat. Level II Office surgery includes any surgery in which the patient is placed in a state which allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining adequate cardiorespiratory function and the ability to respond purposefully to verbal command and/or tactile stimulation. Patients whose only response is reflex withdrawal from a painful stimulus are sedated to a greater degree than encompassed by this definition. [Emphasis added]. While the Department relies in part upon the language of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(4) that “[s]uch procedures shall include, but not be limited to . . . hernia repair . . .” to support its argument that the procedure performed by Dr. Armand on Patient W.C. was in fact performed as Level II surgery, this reliance is misplaced. Regardless of the proper interpretation of this language of the Rule (whether it clearly puts physicians on notice that all hernia repair surgery must be conducted as Level II surgery or not), at best it establishes a proscription. Such a proscription, cannot, however, be relied upon to establish the “fact” that Level II surgery was performed or not. The question of whether Dr. Armand performed the procedure defined as “Level II” office surgery is the disputed issue of fact in this case. Resolving this factual dispute requires an ultimate factual determination, which involves the application of a legal standard (the Rule) to the historical facts (what Dr. Armand actually did) as found by the trier-of-fact based upon the evidence. The Rule is not evidence of what Dr. Armand did; rather it is the yardstick against which Dr. Armand’s conduct must be measured and, ultimately, judged. The evidence either way concerning the level of surgery performed by Dr. Armand consisted of his testimony denying that Level II surgery was performed, the testimony of Patient W.C. concerning his condition, the description of Patient W.C.’s condition by emergency room personnel, and the opinion of the Department’s expert witness, Christian Brikedal, M.D., as to the level of surgery. Dr. Armand’s denial that he performed Level II surgery was not convincing because it was inconsistent with the patient’s description of his condition on October 6, 2006, and the description of his condition by emergency room staff when arrived at Plantation. Patient W.C. had no recollection of going to the hospital or anything that transpired there until he awoke at about 2:00 p.m. the afternoon of October 6, 2006. Emergency room staff noted that Patient W.C. was able to talk when he arrived. These facts, convincingly proved, are more consistent with what constitutes Level II surgery: “the patient is placed in a state which allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining . . . the ability to respond purposefully to verbal command and/or tactile stimulation.” This finding is further supported by Dr. Brikedal opinion that Patient W.C.’s condition was consistent with having undergone Level II sedatopm. Dr. Brikedal, whose testimony was convincing and uncontroverted, was asked the following question and gave the following answer at Page 22, Lines 7-14, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing: Q Assuming W.C. is going to testify that as soon as the complication occurred that he was put to sleep and didn’t wake up until he was in the hospital, are you able to reach any conclusions about the level of sedation that occurred? A He would have to have been given a sedative I.V. or I.M. to be that sleepy. This opinion, as to Patient W.C.’s condition on October 6, 2006, supports a finding that Patient W.C. was under Level II anesthesia while surgery was being performed in Dr. Armand’s office. Having found that Patient W.C. was under the level of sedation described in the definition of “Level II” office surgery, leads inescapably to the finding that Dr. Armand administered Level II sedation to Patient W.C. The foregoing finding is further supported by the portion of the Office Surgery Rule quoted, supra, in finding of fact 24. Dr. Brikedal explained during the hearing why it is “appropriate and necessary to do an inguinal hernia repair” as Level II surgery: “Sedation to the point that the patient’s comfortable so they’re able to or they’re not pushing against you, inhibiting you from performing this very safely.” Page 24, Lines 20-22, Vol. I, Transcript of Final Hearing. As a board- certified general surgeon who has previously registered and had his office accredited as an office at which Level II surgery could be performed, Dr. Armand must have been aware of why it is prudent to perform hernia repairs as Level II surgery. While Dr. Armand may have begun the surgery as Level I, when Patient W.C.’s intestines eviscerated, Dr. Armand must have realized that taking Patient W.C. to Level II sedation would give him a better opportunity to correct the problem. Unfortunately for Dr. Armand, it was too late. Office Surgery Rule Procedures. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2) prescribes requirements for conducting “office surgery,” taking into account of the level of sedation utilized during a procedure. The hernia repair performed by Dr. Armand on Patient W.C. constituted “surgery” as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(1). Performance of the surgery in Dr. Armand’s office constituted “office surgery” as those terms are defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(1)(d). The “office surgery” performed by Dr. Armand on Patient W.C. failed to comply, as required, with all the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2), applicable to conducting Level II office surgery and, in some instances, Level I office surgery: Dr. Armand failed to “maintain complete records” of the surgical procedure as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.003, or a written informed consent from the patient as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 9.009(2)(a)(applicable in part to Level I and Level II surgery); No log of Level II surgery was kept as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2)(c); No adverse incident report was filed as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009(2)(k). This portion of the rule requires that “[t]he surgeon shall report to the Department of Health any adverse incidents that occur within the office surgical setting. . . .” (Emphasis added). This requirement is separate from any requirement that a hospital report adverse incidents and the burden of reporting is put directly on the surgeon; and Dr. Armand did not have an established risk management program as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 9.009(2)(j). The Standard of Care. Dr. Birkedal provided an opinion to the Department and testified at the final hearing as to whether Dr. Armand’s treatment of Patient W.C. met the “level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers ” (Hereinafter referred to as the “Standard of Care”). In his original opinion dated December 22, 2007, Dr. Birkedal indicated that he did not believe that Dr. Armand’s care of Patient W.C. violated the Standard of Care. There were caveats or assumptions, however, which Dr. Birkedal recognized in his written opinion could change his opinion if not correct. In particular, at the time of his original opinion, Dr. Birkedalk had incorrectly assumed that the procedure performed on Patient W.C. was a Level I procedure. Dr. Birkedal recognized in his original opinion that, if his assumption were incorrect, that his opinion would change: “[i]f he did give an IV sedative, then he may have violated the standard of care if his office is not licensed to give IV sedatives.” At hearing, Dr. Birkedal was of the opinion that Dr. Armand had not simply performed Level I surgery and, therefore, opined that he had violated the Standard of Care because his office was not a properly licensed office surgery suite. Dr. Birkedal also offered other opinions at hearing concerning what he perceived were violations of the Standard of Care, but those “violations” were not alleged by the Department in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Lucien Armand M.D., has violated Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2006), by violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009 and Section 458.351, Florida Statutes (2006); Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2006); and Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, to the extent found in this Recommended Order; and indefinitely suspending his license to practice medicine in Florida, but allowing him to continue to practice medicine outside the United States through his relationship with the United States Department of State after full disclosure of the Board’s final order to the United States Department of State. Should a medical license not be a condition of employment by the United States Department of State, his license should be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Kiesling Assistant General Counsel Robert A. Milne Assistant General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Sean Ellsworth, Esquire Ellsworth Law Firm, P.A. 1501 Collins Avenue, Suite 208 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed July 7, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See § 455.225, Fla. Stat. (2006). The Board is the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. See § 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). Dr. Edison is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 44240. Dr. Edison received his medical degree from the University of Massachusetts; did his residency in general surgery at the Kaiser Foundation in Los Angeles, California; and did a residency in plastic surgery, with specialties in reconstructive surgery and cosmetic surgery. Dr. Edison is certified in plastic surgery by the American Board of Plastic Surgery and is a lifetime diplomate of that Board. Dr. Edison was also certified in Advanced Cardiac Life Support ("ACLS") at the times material to this proceeding. Dr. Edison has been practicing plastic surgery in Florida for 22 years. Prior to the time material to this proceeding, Dr. Edison performed approximately 150-to-200 breast augmentation surgeries each year and approximately 100-to-150 liposuction procedures each year. Dr. Edison practices at the Cosmetic Surgery Center, which is an office that contains two operating rooms, a recovery room, and an overnight recovery facility that is staffed by an ACLS-certified nurse for patients who undergo procedures such as stomach tucks or facelifts. Dr. Edison's surgical practice is limited to Level II office surgery, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009, Standard of Care for Office Surgery, in pertinent part as follows: Level II Office Surgery. Scope Level II Office Surgery is that in which peri-operative medication and sedation are used intravenously, intramuscularly, or rectally, this making intra and post- operative monitoring necessary. . . . Level II Office Surgery includes any surgery in which the patient is placed in a state which allows the patient to tolerate unpleasant procedures while maintaining adequate cardiorespiratory function and the ability to respond purposefully to verbal command and/or tactile stimulation. Patients whose only response is reflex withdrawal from a painful stimulus are sedated to a greater degree than encompassed by this definition. Standards for Level II Office Surgery. * * * 4. Assistance of Other Personnel Required. The surgeon must be assisted by a qualified anesthesia provider as follows: An Anesthesiologist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, or Physician Assistant qualified as set forth in subparagraph 64B8- 30.012(2)(b)6., F.A.C., or a registered nurse may be utilized to assist with the anesthesia, if the surgeon is ACLS certified. An assisting anesthesia provider cannot function in any other capacity during the procedure. If additional assistance is required by the specific procedure or patient circumstances, such assistance must be provided by a physician, osteopathic physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, or operating room technician. . . . The level of pain and anxiety management achieved under Level II sedation is determined by the type of drugs administered and the dosages in which they are administered. Dr. Edison was ACLS certified and was, therefore, authorized to use the services of a registered nurse to administer the drugs that bring patients to Level II sedation. He does not use the services of an anesthesiologist or of a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist in his surgical facility. Patient P.L. P.L. first consulted with Dr. Edison on July 5, 2005. P.L. filled out a portion of a Patient Information form, and Dr. Edison took a general medical history from P.L., but he did not weigh P.L. during this initial visit, and the Patient Information form does not include her blood pressure, height, or weight. Dr. Edison found P.L. to be a healthy 29-year-old female, the mother of three children, who had no known allergy or adverse reaction to any medication. P.L. wanted breast implants, and, upon examination, Dr. Edison found that P.L. would be a good candidate, anatomically, for the surgery. Dr. Edison spent the majority of time during this initial consultation talking with P.L. and her husband, A.A., about the various breast implant options. He also discussed with them the risks and possible complications of the surgery. After her visit to Dr. Edison's office on July 5, 2005, P.L. notified Dr. Edison's office that she had decided to have the surgery. Dr. Edison had a cancellation on July 7, 2005, and P.L. was scheduled for surgery for 8:00 a.m. on that date. P.L. returned to Dr. Edison's office on July 6, 2005, for a pre-operative examination. At that time, Dr. Edison did an examination during which he checked P.L.'s heart, lungs, blood pressure, and pulse rate, and he noted the results in his examination notes dated July 6, 2005. He found nothing abnormal and concluded that P.L. was a 29-year-old patient in perfect health, with no known allergy or adverse reaction to any medication. Dr. Edison also had blood drawn during the July 6, 2005, office visit, which was sent to a laboratory for testing. The laboratory report was completed at 8:21 a.m. on July 7, 2005, and showed nothing abnormal. P.L. presented herself at Dr. Edison's office on July 7, 2005, at approximately 8:00 a.m. She was examined by Dr. Edison at 8:10 a.m., and he stated in his office notes that she had decided on the 300 cubic centimeter implant. There were no notations of her vital signs in his office notes. Dr. Edison intended for P.L.'s breast augmentation surgery to be Level II office surgery, and he noted this on P.L.'s Immediate Pre-Op Evaluation, which he completed on July 7, 2005. He also decided to use the transaxillary technique, making incisions under the arms through which to insert the implants under the muscle in P.L.'s chest. Dr. Edison was assisted during surgery by Michelle Hoff, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, who administered the sedatives and other drugs to P.L. under Dr. Edison's direction. Dr. Edison was also assisted by Liliana Gabor, a surgical technician. Ms. Hoff is not a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, nor has she received any formal training in administering sedative drugs or anesthesia. She has a significant amount of experience administering drugs for pain and anxiety management. Her experience administering drugs to achieve Level II sedation consists of an externship with Dr. Edison while working on her master's degree in nursing and extensive on-the-job training while working in the operating room with Dr. Edison, which she has done every day since beginning to work with Dr. Edison full-time in November 2003. At some point immediately prior to surgery, Dr. Edison asked P.L. her weight, which she reported as 95 pounds, or 43 kilograms, on the morning of surgery. Dr. Edison needed to know P.L.'s weight in order to calculate the correct dosage of the drugs she would be given, and he wrote "95 lbs" on the outside of P.L.'s folder. Dr. Edison noted P.L.'s weight on the outside of the folder so it would be plainly visible to Ms. Hoff when she had the chart on the anesthesia stand.4 Dr. Edison did not enter P.L.'s weight in his examination notes, and the only other mention of P.L.'s weight in the medical records maintained by Dr. Edison is the notation "<100 lbs" on a sheet containing the contact numbers for P.L. and for her husband, who would be picking her up after surgery. At approximately 8:20 a.m. on July 7, 2005, P.L. walked to the operating room. Working under Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff hooked P.L. up to various monitoring devices, so that her heart, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation level could be monitored during surgery. Her vital signs were noted on the anesthesia chart by Ms. Hoff; at 8:20 a.m., P.L.'s heart rate was approximately 104. At 8:20 a.m., Ms. Hoff began to administer drugs to P.L. to achieve Level II sedation in accordance with directions from Dr. Edison; she documented the name of the drugs she administered, together with the time and dosage administered; she monitored and documented P.L.'s vital signs, including heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation level; and she maintained anesthesia notes. At 8:20 a.m., Ms. Hoff administered two milligrams of Valium; one gram of Ancef, and 0.2 milligrams of Robinol at Dr. Edison's direction. At 8:25 a.m., she administered 10 milligrams of Ketamine and 10 milligrams of Talwin and started the administration of Diprivan by microdrip at the rate of approximately 25 micrograms per kilogram of weight per minute. Ms. Hoff's notes do not indicate the manner in which she administered the Diprivan, nor the dosage or rate of administration. Ms. Hoff also administered nitrous oxide and oxygen at 8:25 a.m., and she noted that Dr. Edison also began administering local anesthetic by injection at 8:25 a.m. Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. was responding to verbal stimuli. Ms. Hoff was not involved with the preparation or administration of local anesthetic to P.L. Dr. Edison prepared a dilute solution of 70 cubic centimeters of 1% Lidocaine with epinephrine with 350 cubic centimeters of saline solution and 10 cubic centimeters of 1/2% marcaine. At approximately 8:25 a.m., Dr. Edison began injecting the Lidocaine solution, which totaled approximately 700 milligrams or approximately 14 milligrams of Lidocaine per kilogram of P.L.'s body weight and 50 milligrams of marcaine, into the tissue surrounding P.L.'s breasts. At 8:30 a.m., Ms. Hoff, at Dr. Edison's direction, administered another 10 milligrams of Talwin. At 8:35 a.m., P.L.'s heart rate was 112 beats per minute and her blood pressure was 142/102. At Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff administered 1/4 cubic centimeter of Labetalol to help control P.L.'s blood pressure. Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. tolerated the Labetalol well and was responsive to verbal stimuli. At 8:45 a.m., Ms. Hoff noticed a brief facial twitch on P.L.'s face, which is an indication of a possible seizure. At Dr. Edison's direction, she immediately stopped administering all sedatives, and the surgery was cancelled. At Dr. Edison's direction, Ms. Hoff administered 2.5 milligrams of Valium to keep P.L. sedated and to help control the seizure, together with three liters of oxygen by mask. At 8:55 a.m., Ms. Hoff administered another 2.5 milligrams of Valium at Dr. Edison's direction,5 and she noted that P.L.'s status was unchanged, by which Ms. Hoff meant that P.L.'s airway, breathing, and circulation were maintained, that her vital signs were stable, and that she remained responsive to verbal stimuli. Between 8:55 a.m. and 9:15 a.m., P.L.'s status was unchanged. According to Ms. Hoff's notes, P.L.'s airway, breathing, circulation, and vital signs were maintained at normal levels, and she responded well to the Valium and oxygen. Ms. Hoff observed during this time that P.L. was lethargic and appeared to be a little more deeply sedated than typical Level II sedation. P.L. continued breathing on her own and responding to verbal stimuli. During this interval, Dr. Edison was waiting for P.L. to come out of sedation, and he intended to send her home and recommend that she see her doctor about the twitch. Ms. Hoff noticed a second facial twitch between 9:15 a.m. and 9:20 a.m., and Dr. Edison directed Ms. Hoff to call Emergency Medical Services to transport P.L. to the hospital. Ms. Hoff continued to monitor P.L.'s airway, breathing, circulation and vital signs until the Emergency Medical Services team arrived at 9:30 a.m. During this time, Ms. Hoff noted that P.L. responded to verbal stimuli by moving her head a little bit and attempting to open her eyes. P.L.'s oxygen saturation rate was consistently maintained at 99% to 100% between 8:20 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., when Emergency Medical Services arrived. During this time, P.L. was breathing independently and did not need any assistance with her airway. Emergency Medical Services received the call from Dr. Edison's office at 9:21 a.m. and arrived at 9:26 a.m. At that time, P.L. was receiving oxygen, her airway was normal, and her perfusion was good. Her blood pressure was 102/68, her pulse was strong and regular at 120 beats per minute, her respiratory rate was 20, her respiratory effort was normal, and her breath sounds were clear. She was, however, non-responsive: She was not able to open her eyes, she had no motor response, and she was not able to give a verbal response. She appeared to be having seizure activity in the form of twitching on both sides of the jaw line. P.L. was transported to Memorial Regional Hospital at 9:31 a.m., and she arrived at the hospital at 9:36 a.m. A notation on the EMS Report for the incident states that a "[l]ist of sedation medication [was] given to ER staff." Dr. Todd Gardner was the emergency room physician who treated P.L. on her arrival at Memorial Regional Hospital. His diagnosis on admission was status epilepticus and hypoxia. Status epilepticus is seizures that are unrelenting to normal therapeutic intervention, and hypoxia is low oxygen level. Dr. Gardner did not attribute a cause to the status epilepticus. Dr. Gardner's intake notes reflect that, prior to presenting at the emergency room, P.L. had received Ketamine, Labetalol to lower her blood pressure, and Valium to relieve the seizures. Nothing on the intake sheet indicates that P.L. had received Lidocaine, and there is no list of the medications given by Dr. Edison in the hospital file. Dr. Gardner intubated P.L. at 10:02 a.m. and placed her on a ventilator in the emergency room because she was unable to breathe on her own. He also treated her with Valium, Dilantin, and Diprivan, which is used to sedate patients in the intensive care unit. Dr. Robert Alterbaum, an internist specializing in pulmonary medicine and critical care, provided care to P.L. in the intensive care unit of Memorial Regional Hospital. P.L.'s chest X-ray was abnormal and showed pneumonitis, or an inflammation of the lungs, caused by fluid being aspirated into the lungs. Based on the emergency room chart, Dr. Alterbaum diagnosed P.L. with status epilepticus, or seizures, related to the administration of Ketamine during the pre-operative procedure for breast augmentation surgery. There was no objective medical evidence to support Dr. Alterbaum's conclusion that Ketamine was the cause of the seizures; he reached this conclusion because Ketamine was the only medication noted on the chart as having been administered to P.L. Dr. Alterbaum was not aware that P.L. had also received Lidocaine; had he been aware of this, it might have been information he would have considered in reaching his conclusion regarding the cause of P.L.'s seizures.6 P.L. was discharged from Memorial Regional Hospital on July 12, 2005. She had difficulty walking at first, but has fully recovered except that she sometimes experiences a little memory loss. Drugs administered to P.L. Valium Valium is a benzodiazopene used to control anxiety, and the standard dosage ranges from two to 20 milligrams for conscious sedation. Valium is a controlled substance. Ancef Ancef is an antibiotic. Ketamine Ketamine is a disassociative non-barbiturate analgesic used for sedation and general anesthesia; the maximum dosage is 4.5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. Ketamine causes a large amount of secretions, and its effects last only five to 10 minutes. Ketamine is a controlled substance. Robinol Robinol is an anticholinergic medication used to prevent bradycardia, a heart rate of less than 60 beats per minute, and to help dry out secretions in mucous membranes. Robinol is contraindicated for a patient with tachycardia, or a heart rate of more than 100 beats per minute, however, because it could make the patient's heart rate increase. In a healthy 29 year-old patient such as P.L., however, it was not a violation of the standard of care to administer 0.2 milligrams of Robinol to P.L. even though her heart rate was 104 beats per minute at the time it was administered; a healthy 29-year-old patient could easily sustain a heart rate of 140 beats per minute without ill effects. Dr. Edison administered Robinol to P.L. as a drying agent, to control secretions brought on by the use of Ketamine. Although other drugs can be used to control these secretions, Robinol is the best drug for this purpose and the one most commonly used. Dr. Edison had ample justification for using Robinol under the circumstances, and he did not violate the standard of care by ordering Ms. Hoff to administer the drug even though P.L.'s heart rate slightly exceeded 100 beats per minute. Talwin Talwin is an opiate analgesic that is used to control pain, and the standard dosage is 30 milligrams. Talwin is a controlled substance. Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide is an anesthetic gas that is used for analgesia and sedation; it was administered to P.L. by nasal cannula, which delivers a relatively small amount of gas. Diprivan Diprivan is a sedative hypnotic medication used both for intravenous sedation and for general anesthesia; the package insert recommends a dosage from 100 to 150 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per minute. Diprivan's clinical effects wear off approximately three minutes after its administration is discontinued. The total dose of Diprivan administered to P.L., 25 milligrams, was included in Dr. Edison's medical records, but the manner of administering the Diprivan and the rate of infusion are not recorded. Diprivan, together with other sedative drugs, may be administered in Florida by a registered nurse at the direction and under the supervision of a surgeon during Level II office surgery.7 Dr. Edison did not deviate from the standard of care in Florida by delegating responsibility to Ms. Hoff, an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, for administering the various drugs to P.L., under his direction and supervision. Based on her training and experience, Ms. Hoff was qualified to administer these drugs to P.L. to achieve Level II sedation under Dr. Edison's direction and supervision. The combination of sedative drugs Dr. Edison ordered administered to P.L., specifically Diprivan, Ketamine, Talwin, Valium, and nitrous oxide, was appropriate to induce Level II sedation in P.L., and the dosage of each of the drugs administered to P.L. was well below the maximum dosage recommended for each of the drugs. These drugs work synergistically, however, and, depending on the patient and the circumstances, the same combination of sedative drugs could induce Level III sedation. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.009 defines Level III office surgery and sets forth the standards that must be met, in pertinent part, as follows: Level III Office Surgery. Scope. Level III Office Surgery is that surgery which involves, or reasonable should require, the use of a general anesthesia or major conduction anesthesia and pre- operative sedation. This includes the use of: Intravenous sedation beyond that defined for Level II Office Surgery; General Anesthesia: loss of consciousness and loss of vital reflexes with probable requirement of external support of pulmonary or cardiac functions: or Major conduction anesthesia. * * * Standards for Level III Office Surgery. In addition to the standards for Level II Office Surgery, the surgeon must comply with the following: * * * 4. Assistance of Other Personnel Required. An Anesthesiologist, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist, or Physician Assistant qualified as set forth in subparagraph 64B8- 30.012(2)(b)6., F.A.C., must administer the general or regional anesthesia and an M.D., D.O., Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, Physician Assistant, or Operating Room Technician must assist with the surgery. . . . One difference between Level II and Level III sedation is the degree of alertness of the patient. At Level II sedation, the patient must be able to respond to verbal and/or tactile stimuli. If a patient's only response is a reflexive withdrawal from a pain stimulus, the patient is sedated beyond Level II. A primary indication that a patient has slipped from Level II to Level III sedation is the loss of the ability to breathe without assistance, and the patient's airway must be partially or totally managed. In Level II sedation, the need for management of the airway is minimal compared to that required at Level III sedation. P.L.'s blood pressure, pulse rate, oxygenation, and mental state were consistent with Level II sedation until P.L. had her first seizure and all medications, except for the one- half therapeutic dose of Valium, were discontinued. She remained responsive to verbal stimuli after the second 2.5 milligram dose of Valium was given to control the seizure activity, even though she was more lethargic than normal under Level II sedation. P.L. was non-responsive when examined by Emergency Medical Services personnel, but she was breathing independently and was not at Level III sedation. Her lack of response was more likely than not the result of the seizures, after which a patient can go into a postictal state, or a trance of sleepiness.8 Dr. Edison did not violate the standard of care for office surgery in ordering the amounts and combination of drugs used to sedate P.L. because P.L. did not reach Level III sedation. In accordance with the standard of care for Level II office surgery, Ms. Hoff, as a registered nurse, was qualified to administer anesthesia to P.L., including Diprivan, Ketamine, and the other sedative drugs used in P.L.'s surgery, at the direction and under the supervision of Dr. Edison. Dosage of Lidocaine As stated above, Dr. Edison injected a dilute solution of Lidocaine with epinephrine and marcaine into the tissue around P.L.'s breasts between 8:25 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., before P.L. had her first seizure at 8:45 a.m. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic used to numb nerves and tissue. In breast augmentation surgery Dr. Edison always uses Lidocaine with epinephrine because epinephrine is a vasoconstrictor that causes intense vasoconstriction, or closing of the small blood vessels, which slows the rate of absorption of the Lidocaine and virtually eliminates bleeding at the site of surgery. Marcaine is also a local anesthetic similar to Lidocaine, but it is slow to take effect and lasts four to six hours and helps control pain after surgery is completed. Marcaine is commonly used with Lidocaine. It is Dr. Edison's practice to perform breast augmentation surgery using the tumescent infiltration technique to infuse a relatively large volume of dilute Lidocaine solution into the breast area as a local anesthetic. Dr. Edison uses this tumescent infiltration technique in breast augmentation surgery because he can deliver a large volume of Lidocaine that is evenly distributed throughout the breast area, which results in more effective pain reduction. The injection technique Dr. Edison uses for tumescent infiltration in the breast area is very specific, and it takes between 20 and 30 minutes to complete the injections. The needle cannot penetrate close to the pectoral muscle, especially in a woman as small as P.L., because of the danger of puncturing a lung. Dr. Edison injects the solution under pressure into the subcutaneous tissue between the breast and the pectoral muscle. Lidocaine is absorbed faster in areas that are highly vascular. The tissue in the aerolar space between the breast and the pectoral muscle does not contain many blood vessels, so Lidocaine injected in this tissue is absorbed more slowly than it would be if injected into highly vascular tissue. In Dr. Edison's experience, because the epinephrine in the Lidocaine solution causes intense vasoconstriction in the tissue surrounding the injection sites, the Lidocaine stays in place and numbs the area in which the surgery is to be performed. The Lidocaine solution is absorbed slowly over approximately 24 hours, and the peak serum concentration of Lidocaine occurs approximately 10 to 12 hours after it is administered. In this case, Dr. Edison prepared approximately 400 cubic centimeters of solution, which contained 700 milligrams of Lidocaine and 50 milligrams of marcaine, together with a small, non-therapeutic dose of epinephrine. According to his surgical notes, Dr. Edison began the injections of Lidocaine at 8:25 a.m. and had completed the injections by the time P.L. had the first seizure at 8:45 a.m., although it is his recollection that he had not used all of the Lidocaine solution he had prepared. Dr. Edison did not, however, record in the medical records the amount of Lidocaine solution he injected, and any remaining solution was discarded without being measured, so he does not know the dosage of Lidocaine P.L. actually received. Had he injected all of the solution, P.L. would have received approximately 14 milligrams of Lidocaine per kilogram of body weight. According to the package insert that accompanies a bottle of Lidocaine, the maximum dosage of Lidocaine without epinephrine is five milligrams per kilogram of body weight, and the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine is seven milligrams per kilogram of body weight. There is nothing in Dr. Edison's medical records to indicate that the Lidocaine he used in P.L.'s surgery included epinephrine or that he calculated the amount of Lidocaine to administer to P.L. based on her body weight Using the maximum dosage specified on the package insert, the maximum dosage of Lidocaine without epinephrine for P.L. would have been 215 milligrams, and the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine would have been 301 milligrams, using the traditional method of administering the drug. Based on the standard established by the package insert, Dr. Edison exceeded the maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine injected into P.L. by approximately 400 milligrams, which constituted a toxic dose of Lidocaine when measured by the maximum dosage stated on the package insert. The maximum dosage of Lidocaine with epinephrine stated on the package insert is routinely exceeded by surgeons performing liposuction, which involves suctioning fatty tissue. The tumescent infiltration technique using Lidocaine with epinephrine in a dilute solution is commonly used with liposuction, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 9.009(2)(d), which sets out the standards of care for office surgery, specifically provides that a "maximum of fifty (50) mg/kg of Lidocaine can be injected for tumescent liposuction in the office setting." Large dosages of Lidocaine can be safely used in liposuction because Lidocaine is metabolized more slowly by fatty tissue than by muscle or skin, and approximately 20% of the Lidocaine solution is suctioned out of the body with the fat that is aspirated during liposuction. As a result, it is possible to administer what would otherwise be toxic doses of Lidocaine under the maximum dosages specified in the package insert. Dr. Edison has used the tumescent infiltration technique many times in performing breast augmentations without his patients' suffering any ill effects. There is, however, no rule in Florida equivalent to that relating to liposuction that permits the use of high dosages of Lidocaine as local anesthetic in breast augmentation surgery. Furthermore, Dr. Edison has failed to submit persuasive evidence of a standard of care in Florida among plastic surgeons that would permit the use of dosages of Lidocaine with epinephrine in excess of the seven milligrams per kilogram specified on the package insert for breast augmentation surgery.9 Dr. Edison violated the standard of care by injecting approximately of 700 milligrams of Lidocaine with epinephrine into the tissue surrounding P.L.'s breasts when the maximum allowable dosage, according to the insert packaged with the drug and based on P.L.'s weight, was approximately 300 milligrams. Dr. Edison's previous discipline10 Dr. Edison was charged in an Administrative Complaint dated February 21, 1995, with having committed medical malpractice in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. He executed a Consent Agreement in which he neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations in the complaint but agreed that, if proven, the facts would constitute a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. The Agency for Health Care Administration entered a Final Order dated August 20, 1995, adopting the Consent Agreement in relevant part. This Final Order does not establish that Dr. Edison committed a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. In a Final Order entered January 4, 2007, the Board adopted the recommended disposition in the Recommended Order in Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Richard B. Edison, M.D., DOAH Case No. 06-0598PL (Recommended Order August 25, 2006), that Dr. Edison be found guilty of a single violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order Dismissing Counts Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint; Finding Dr. Edison guilty of a single violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and of two violations of Section 458.331(1)(t)1., Florida Statutes; Suspending Dr. Edison's license for a period of 90 days, followed by four years' probation under such terms as shall be imposed by the Board; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 1st day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The parties further stipulated at the hearing that the billing for which Shands seeks payment does not include charges for services rendered during the months Linda Sue Austin was being treated as an out-patient at Shands. All other facts, as stipulated to by the parties and as set forth above, are hereby adopted.
