The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's operation of its nursing home was deficient and, if so, whether Petitioner should have imposed an already-lifted admissions moratorium, pursuant to Section 400.121(5)(a), Florida Statutes; and should impose a conditional license, pursuant to Section 400.23(7)(b), Florida Statutes; administrative fines of $95,000, pursuant to Section 400.19(8), Florida Statutes; a survey fee of $6000, pursuant to Section 400.19(3), Florida Statutes; and costs, pursuant to Section 400.121(10), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates Hallandale Rehabilitation Center (Hallandale), which is a 141-bed nursing home located at 2400 East Hallandale Beach in Hallandale. Licensed as a skilled nursing facility, Hallandale holds license number SNF11920961, effective April 25, 2001, through December 31, 2001. Petitioner's surveyors conducted an inspection of Hallandale on December 3 and 4, 2001. The inspection lasted four to five hours on the first day and twelve and one-half hours on the second day. As a result of the inspection, Petitioner found numerous deficiencies in resident care, as discussed below. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #1 was 84 years old. She had been admitted to Hallandale on September 11, 2001, having suffered a stroke with aphasia, hemiplagia, hypertension, and cardiac arrhythmia. She was totally dependent upon staff for all of her needs, which she was unable to communicate. On October 25, 2001, one of Respondent's staff discovered a large reddened area on the right anterior thigh of Resident #1. The area measured 14 cm by 8 cm and was raised and hard. A licensed practical nurse and registered nurse, both employed by Respondent, examined the wound. The registered nurse spoke to the certified nursing assistants to learn what she could about the wound, but no one was aware of its cause. Without delay, the nurse on duty contacted the advanced registered nurse practitioner, who was employed by the physician who supervised Resident #1's care. After listening to an accurate description of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner opined that the reddened area might be cellulitis, possibly due to a bug bite. At 6:45 a.m., the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered the application of warm compresses to the wound several times a day. Respondent's staff promptly implemented these orders. Respondent's staff also contacted Resident #1's husband and informed him of the situation. The wound quickly deteriorated. When Respondent's staff informed the advanced registered nurse practitioner later the same day that the reddened area had begun to blister and opened blisters had begun to seep clear fluids, the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered that staff discontinue the warm compresses and clean the wound with saline solution, apply triple antibiotic ointment, and cover the wound with Telfa. Respondent's staff promptly implemented these orders. Respondent's staff initiated an investigation into the cause of Resident #1's wound and completed adverse incident reports. In retrospect, the most plausible explanation is that a heated metal plate warmer, which is under the food plate on which residents are served their food, may have somehow slipped out of its protective enclosure and burned Resident #1. But this explanation appears to have emerged later, partly due to the fact that the facility had never previously had a resident burned by a plate warmer and partly due to the belated identification of the wound as a burn. The day after the discovery of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner visited the facility and intended to examine Resident #1's wound. However, Resident #1 was out of the facility at a neurologist's appointment, and the advanced registered nurse practitioner did not see her on that day. Four days after the discovery of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered the discontinuation of the triple antibiotic ointment and the application of Silvadene. It is unclear what prompted this change in orders. Six days after the discovery of the wound, the advanced registered nurse practitioner visited the facility and examined the wound, but was unable to conclude the source of the injury. Satisfied with the present treatment, the advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered the continuation of the Silvadene and a follow-up visit in one week. On November 2, which was eight days after the discovery of the wound, Respondent's staff notified the advanced registered nurse practitioner that the wound was not progressing. The advanced registered nurse practitioner ordered a consultation with a wound care physician, with whom an appointment was made for November 6. In the meantime, Respondent's staff continued to implement the orders of the advanced registered nurse practitioner. On November 4, the advanced registered nurse practitioner re-examined the wound and did not change the treatment order. Two days later, the wound care physician, who is a dermatologist, examined the wound and ordered Santal ointment, which is a debriding agent, and an outpatient debridement, but Resident #1's husband declined the surgical procedure on behalf of his wife. Eight days later, on November 14, a plastic surgeon examined Resident #1's wound. Testifying that he did not know who summoned him to the facility, the physician visited the facility and found that Resident #1's wound was actually a third-degree burn, which was now 16 cm by 9 cm and exhibiting areas of necrosis. Continuing the order for Santal, the plastic surgeon ordered a surgical debridement to remove the nonviable tissue that were impeding healing. Based on the plastic surgeon's testimony, the application of warm compresses, although contraindicated for a burn wound, did not exacerbate the injury because all of the damage was done at the moment of the initial incident. Also, the Silvadene, triple antibiotic, and Santal were appropriate treatments. From the moment of the initial incident, Resident #1 would have required surgical treatment regardless of the diagnosis and nonsurgical treatment of the wound. However, the passage of six days before a physician (or presumably an advanced registered nurse practitioner) examined the wound was unreasonable; at most, two days would be reasonable. On November 18, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for an unrelated condition. During this admission, on November 23, the plastic surgeon performed the debridement. The wound healed nicely after the procedure. The three allegations concerning Resident #1 involve mistreatment and neglect, the failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality, and the failure to provide the services necessary for Resident #1 to attain her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing. Petitioner has focused on Respondent's acts and omissions after discovering the wound and not on any acts or omissions possibly resulting in the wound. These issues turn on the failure of the physician or at least advanced registered nurse practitioner to examine the wound for six days. Ultimately, it is unimportant that the advanced registered nurse practitioner was at the facility the next day, but was unable to examine the injury due to the absence of the resident. The fact remains that Resident #1 was not examined by a physician or an advanced registered nurse practitioner for six days after the injury was discovered. However, when the advanced registered nurse practitioner examined Resident #1 on October 31, he did find that the condition of the wound demanded a change in treatment or immediate intervention. As noted by the plastic surgeon, the Silvadene then being administered was appropriate. The failure of the advanced registered nurse practitioner to diagnose Resident #1's burn would have been material, if timely diagnosis would have resulted in materially different treatment that could have obviated the need for surgical debridement. However, the plastic surgeon established that, from the moment of the burn, Resident #1 was destined to undergo a surgical debridement of the wound. Significantly, the wound healed shortly after the surgery. The failure of the advanced registered nurse practitioner to diagnose Resident #1's burn would also have been material, if a timely diagnosis would have materially shortened the healing process or materially reduced the amount of pain produced by the wound. However, the evidence describing Resident #1's reaction to the pain of the wound prior to debridement is scant. And no evidence suggests timely diagnosis would have meant that a surgical debridement would have taken place earlier than the one actually performed--about one month after the burn occurred. In general, the evidence fails to show that the delayed diagnosis materially affected Resident #1's physical, mental, or psychosocial wellbeing. The question whether Respondent mistreated or neglected Resident #1 requires an assessment of the reasonableness of its reliance upon the nonemployee health care professionals who cared for Resident #1 prior to the intervention of the plastic surgeon. Respondent timely notified these professionals, as well as Resident #1's husband, of the initial injury, as well as subsequent developments. Petitioner has not shown that any shortcomings in diagnosis and treatment by those professionals had a material bearing on the course or outcome of Resident #1's case. In general, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent's care for Resident #1 after discovery of the injury constitutes mistreatment or neglect, a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality, or a failure to provide the services necessary for Resident #1 to attain her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #2 was 61 years old. He had been admitted to Hallandale on October 9, 2001, with a right-leg amputation below the knee a day or two prior to the admission to Hallandale, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dehydration, but not pressure sores. While at the facility, Resident #2 mostly remained in his room. Resident #2 had recently been living in a homeless shelter. When he used his wheelchair, Resident #2 propelled himself with his arms, not his foot. On October 31, about three weeks after his admission, Respondent's staff found a "stage II" open wound measuring 2 cm by 3 cm on the sole of Respondent's foot. Respondent contends that the wound was a vascular ulcer. This contention is supported by the diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and recent amputation. On the other hand, Petitioner's surveyor examined the wound during the survey and found a stage II pressure sore the size of a quarter or half-dollar. Several facts support Petitioner's classification of the wound as a pressure sore; these include the fact that it healed later in December, that some of Respondent's records identify the wound as a pressure sore, various risk factors for pressure sores, and Respondent's haphazard maintenance of medical records for this resident-- featuring one admittedly incorrect record of the inception of the wound and treatment records that Respondent claims are missing. A stage II pressure sore is defined by the presence of opened area through the epidermis and possibly the dermis. A stage I pressure sore is defined by a reddened area. A stage III pressure sore is defined by the exposure of subcutaneous tissue, and a stage IV pressure sore is defined by the exposure of the fascia, muscle, or bone. A pressure sore results from pressure to an area over an extended period of time, so that an area loses blood circulation and suffers tissue breakdown. It is impossible to find sufficient factual bases for mistreatment or neglect of Resident #2 strictly in the development of the pressure sore. His various physical problems predisposed him to this condition. His means of movement in the wheelchair was his hands, not his foot, so that the source of pressure on the foot is not obvious. However, Respondent's response to the pressure sore was inadequate. First, Respondent provided Resident #2 no treatment for the pressure sore for the first three weeks after its discovery; under these circumstances, this absence of treatment was mistreatment and neglect and a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. During this period, Respondent likewise failed to make the necessary revisions in any care plan that it maintained for Resident #2. On November 20, Respondent's staff applied duoderm to the pressure sore and continued to provide effective treatment, including hydrogel, that resulted in the speedy resolution of the condition. However, the period during which Resident #2 suffered with an untreated pressure sore on his foot occurred during a crucial period of his life, as he tried to recover from the amputation of part of his right leg. While his pressure sore remained symptomatic and untreated, Resident #2 suffered a decline in his level of participation in physical therapy. For instance, progress notes from the occupational therapist dated October 17 and 24 report "excellent progress"; the latter note reports "max[imum] motivation" and the therapist's expectation that Resident #2 will make "cont[inued] progress." By November 19, Resident #2 was refusing to participate in physical therapy, citing "drainage pain in foot." He refused physical therapy again the next day for the same reason. One week later, the physical therapist discontinued Resident #2's physical therapy due to his noncompliance. Interestingly, Resident #2's urinary continence also changed for the worse during the same period that his painful foot remained untreated. On October 22, Respondent completed a minimum data set for Resident #2 and determined that he was continent. However, the minimum data set that Respondent completed six weeks later revealed that he was now occasionally incontinent. The interdisciplinary care plan confirms declines during this time in behavior and continence. If Resident #2 reacted poorly to the untreated and painful pressure sore in his left foot, it can perhaps be explained by, not only the fact that this was his sole remaining foot, but also by the circumstances surrounding the loss of the right foot. A week prior to his admission to Hallandale, Resident #2 had been admitted to the hospital complaining of a draining ulcer at the base of his right foot, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee a few days later. Two other allegations involve Resident #2. One involves the discovery of the resident by a surveyor in a urine- soaked condition. The other involves the presence of excessively long toenails on Resident #2, suggestive of a lack of attention to his grooming needs. During the survey, a surveyor found Resident #2 in his bed soaked in urine up to his armpits. She found his sheets and clothing totally soaked in urine and the smell "unbelievabl[y] . . . strong." When the surveyor contacted the Director of Nursing, he told her that staff had last changed Resident #2's incontinence brief 12 hours ago. The evidence concerning the condition of Resident #2's toenails does not establish any deficiency. The surveyor who noted the condition of the toenails had to rely on her report, rather than an independent recollection. The evidence generally does not describe the circumstances surrounding this situation. Although Petitioner did not prove that Respondent unreasonably failed to avoid the development of the pressure sore, Petitioner proved that Respondent's failure to treat the pressure sore promptly was mistreatment and neglect and a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. Similarly, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to revise Resident #2's comprehensive care plan during this period of nontreatment. Although Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to promote care to maintain Resident #2's dignity in terms of any failure to timely trim his toenails, Petitioner proved that Respondent's failure to change Resident #2's briefs for 12 hours, at the end of which time he was totally soaked in urine, constituted a failure to provide those services necessary to maintain personal hygiene to a resident in need of assistance in his activities of daily living. The prompt healing of the pressure sore, once it was treated, is a mitigating factor. However, the effect of the delay in treatment upon Resident #2 is a serious aggravating factor. Having recently undergone the amputation of his lower right leg following a similar sore on his right foot, Resident #2 began the difficult transition period with a worrisome pressure sore on his remaining foot. The period during which Respondent failed to treat this pressure sore corresponds with the period during which Resident #2 suffered declines in urinary continence and therapeutic progress following the leg amputation. Allowing Resident #2 to lie in bed totally soaked in his own urine literally added insult to injury. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #3 was 45 years old. He was quadriplegic and incontinent. Due to decreased bed mobility and bowel incontinence, Resident #3 was at increased risk of developing pressure sores. The surveyor directed that staff remove dressings of wounds, so that she could examine the condition of the wounds. In removing a dressing covering a stage II pressure sore at the sacrum, a nurse either tore the epidermis at the distal end of Resident #3's buttock or a previously reddened area had been masked by the tape used to secure the dressing for the pressure sore at the sacrum. There is little evidence in the record concerning Resident #3. With respect to either of his pressure sores, Petitioner failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or any failure to provide services meeting professional standards of care. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #4 was 77 years old. She was incontinent and dependent on staff for all of her needs. During the survey, a surveyor discovered a severe excoriation of the perineal area extending to Resident #4's groin and right upper thigh. At the time, Respondent's staff was treating the excoriated area with zinc oxide to provide a barrier between the skin and external moisture. The treatment was appropriate, and Respondent's standing orders duly authorized the use of zinc oxide for this condition without obtaining a physician's order to do so. Petitioner failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or failure to meet professional standards of quality in Respondent's care of Resident #4. At the time of the incidents described below, Resident #5 was 87 years old and Resident #7 was 57 years old. Both residents had been admitted to Hallandale less than one month prior to the survey. During the survey, the surveyor noticed that each of these residents had stage II pressure sores without dressings. The Director of Nursing, who was pregnant at the time and unable to remove dressings herself, had directed staff to remove the dressings of a number of residents at the same time, shortly before the wound inspection, to facilitate the surveyor's examination of wounds. Staff did so with respect to Resident #5 and Resident #7, and the surveyor wrongly inferred that Respondent did not maintain the necessary dressings for these residents. As to Resident #5 and Resident #7, Petitioner failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or any failure to meet professional standards of quality. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #6 was 90 years old. During the survey, the surveyor found a dressing on a wound on Resident #6's left lateral ankle. The date written on the dressing was two days prior to the date of the survey, but the physician's order was to change the dressing and treat the wound daily. The treatment record documents that Respondent's staff changed the dressing on the day prior to the survey, even though this date was not noted on the dressing itself. Absent any evidence of harm to the resident, the evidence does not establish that Respondent's staff failed to change the dressing on the prior day. As to Resident #6, Petitioner has failed to prove any mistreatment or neglect or any failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #8 was 47 years old. He had been admitted to Hallandale with diagnoses of heart failure, HIV, neuropathy, and psychosis. Fortunately, Resident #8 required minimal assistance with his activities of daily living because he was intractably abusive toward staff, yelling insults and throwing furniture and dishes. During the survey, a surveyor noticed that Resident #8's fingernails were long and yellowed. The resident claimed that Respondent's staff ignored his frequent pleas that they trim his nails. According to Respondent's staff, Resident #8 refused to allow anyone to trim his fingernails. It is impossible to credit Resident #8's claims. Petitioner cited excessively long nails for only two of about 75 residents. The other situation was discussed above. The most likely explanation for Resident #8's long fingernails was his disruptive lack of cooperativeness and psychotic behavior. Petitioner failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain Resident #8's dignity. There is little evidence concerning Resident #9, whom Petitioner alleges suffered from excoriated buttocks and delays in changing wet briefs. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner did not mention the latter allegation, which consisted of hearsay in this record, but restated the observation of excoriated buttocks. There is also little evidence concerning Resident #10, whom Petitioner alleges suffered from delays in responses to her call bell to be assisted in toileting. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner did not mention this allegation, which consisted of hearsay in this record. Absent evidence of the circumstances surrounding the excoriation or the other alleged deficiencies omitted from the proposed recommended order, Petitioner has failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain either resident's dignity. As for Resident #11, Resident #12, and Resident #13, Respondent's staff double-diapered all of them at the time of the survey. Resident #11 and Resident #13 had requested double diapering. As to these residents, Petitioner failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain their dignity. Resident #12 had not consented to double diapering. However, according to her minimum data set completed about three weeks before the survey, Resident #12 suffers from dementia, has a poor memory, and is completely incontinent of bladder and bowel. Absent additional evidence of Resident #12's response to the double diapering, it is impossible, on this record, to infer sufficient insight on her part as to justify a finding of loss of dignity in this otherwise-benign practice, as evidenced by the fact that some residents request double diapering. Although Respondent had reminded staff not to double diaper residents who had not requested such extra protection, language barriers likely contributed to the unrequested double diapering of Resident #12. As to Resident #12, Petitioner has failed to prove any failure to promote care to maintain her dignity. At the time of the incident described below, Resident #14 was 49 years old. She had been admitted to Hallandale on November 22, 2000, with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure, status--post subarachnoid hemorrhage, status--post cerebral aneurysm, seizure disorder, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube and tracheostomy placement. Respondent was aware that Resident #14 repeatedly pulled at both tubes, without which she would expire. Respondent was aware that Resident #14 was agitated and restless. On January 16, 2001, Resident #14 succeeded in pulling out her tracheotomy tube, and, after onsite resuscitation, she was transported by ambulance to the hospital for treatment. Three days later, Resident #14 was readmitted to Hallandale with wrist restraints, pursuant to her physician's order. The order required that Respondent's staff check the restraints every 30 minutes to assure that they would effectively prevent Resident #14 from pulling out her tubes. The order required that Respondent's staff release the wrist restraints every two hours for ten minutes. Five hours after her readmission to Hallandale, Resident #14 was found with her wrists unrestrained, her tracheotomy tube removed, and not breathing. She was in a coma from which she never recovered, and Resident #14 later died. Petitioner cited Respondent for a class II deficiency in connection with this incident. On April 25, 2001, one of Petitioner's surveyors conducted a complaint-investigation survey concerning Respondent's care of Resident #14 and concluded that Respondent had failed to provide Resident #14 with adequate supervision. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent concedes that it was unable to demonstrate that the citation from this incident had been improperly issued. Petitioner has alleged that Respondent never developed a risk management plan or trained its staff in the management and prevention of risk. Although Petitioner alleges in the alternative that Respondent did not implement a presumably developed risk management plan, the amended Administrative Complaint cites only Section 400.147(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which is not the subsection covering implementation, but is the subsection covering the development of a plan and the training of staff in risk management and prevention. Although Respondent lacked a written risk management plan at the time of the survey, it maintained a program that included the reporting of all adverse incidents, investigation of all adverse incidents, development of plans to avoid the repetition of adverse incidents, and training of staff on avoiding adverse incidents. Additionally, Respondent conducted monthly quality assurance meetings and required the weekly assessment of wounds. Undoubtedly, Respondent's care for Resident #14 was gravely deficient, and its care for Resident #2 was seriously deficient. Resident #2 was not the only resident who was the victim of poor recordkeeping, although he seems to have been the only resident who was the victim of materially false recordkeeping. Respondent's care for Resident #1 was marginally adequate. Notwithstanding obvious shortcomings in staff competence, the record in this case does not portray a facility replete with care problems--from which an inference of risk management deficiencies would be easier. Respondent's nontreatment of Resident #14 and mistreatment of Resident #2 seem isolated, Respondent's treatment of Resident #1--although not without its flaws--reflects a dogged persistence to obtain competent care for her wound, and Respondent's handling of the other residents is either adequate or not materially inadequate. Petitioner has failed to prove any failure to develop a risk management program or to train staff in risk management and prevention. Petitioner has sought a $6000 survey fee, based on the existence of a class I deficiency. Ignoring Petitioner's argument that the citation alone of a class I deficiency satisfies the statutory requirement, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, it is necessary to consider the status of the matters proved as to Resident #2. As to Resident #2, Petitioner cited Respondent for an isolated class I deficiency with respect to the following: mistreatment or neglect and a failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality. The remaining citations were for isolated class II deficiencies. However, in its proposed recommended order, Petitioner refers to the mistreatment or neglect as a class II deficiency. Assuming that this is a typographical error, it remains necessary to consider all aspects of Respondent's mishandling of the care of Resident #2 to determine if it constitutes a class I deficiency. As discussed above, Respondent's mistreatment or neglect of Resident #2 and failure to provide him with services meeting professional standards of quality interfered with his ability to rehabilitate following the amputation of part of his right leg. As such, these deficiencies are class II deficiencies. These deficiencies were not so grave as to meet the class I criterion of causing, or likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed a class I deficiency during the December 2001 survey and thus has failed to prove that Respondent is liable for the $6000 statutory survey fee. The amount of the fines is based on the classification of the deficiencies and whether they are isolated or widespread. As already noted, the deficiencies of mistreatment or neglect and failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality are class II deficiencies, not class I deficiencies as alleged. The failure to revise the comprehensive care plan and the failure to provide services in the form of changing urine-soaked sheets and clothes to maintain personal hygiene are also class II deficiencies, as alleged. The care plan relates closely to the other deficiencies concerning the delayed treatment of the pressure sore, and the failure to alleviate Resident #2's urine-soaked condition compromised his ability to maintain or reach his highest psychosocial wellbeing. As alleged, these deficiencies are isolated because they affect only one resident. In calculating the amount of fines, it is necessary to treat the mistreatment or neglect and failure to provide services meeting professional standards of quality as a single deficiency because they are proved by the same facts. However, the failure to revise the care plan is a separate deficiency, as is obviously the failure to provide services to maintain personal hygiene. The fine for each isolated class II deficiency is $2500 for a total of $7500. However, the citation six months earlier of a class II deficiency in the failure to supervise Resident #14 requires the doubling of the fine to $15,000. On December 11, 2001, Petitioner issued a moratorium on admissions, which Petitioner lifted eight days later. Respondent's mistreatment and neglect of Resident #2 following its recent citation in connection with the death of Resident #14 constitute adequate grounds for Petitioner to have found, at the time of the December 2001 survey, or even a few days later, that the care provided by Hallandale was so inadequate as to present a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of its residents. Based on the facts then known or presently found in this recommended order, an eight-day admissions moratorium was a prudent action. Based on the findings of class I and II deficiencies, Petitioner, by letter dated December 14, 2001, imposed upon Respondent a conditional license, effective December 4, 2001. This license expired on December 31, 2001. Lastly, Petitioner seeks the costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, pursuant to Section 400.121(10), Florida Statutes. Absent evidence of such costs, the Administrative Law Judge shall retain jurisdiction of the case solely for the purpose of entering a supplemental recommended order awarding these costs, if the parties cannot agree to such costs within a reasonable time. The Administrative Law Judge will set a hearing for this purpose on the request of either party.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of three separate, isolated class II deficiencies with respect to Resident #2, imposing a fine of $7500 for these violations, doubling the fine to $15,000 due to the existence of a class II deficiency in the preceding complaint investigation, imposing a conditional license, sustaining the already-lifted admissions moratorium, and imposing costs for the investigation and prosecution (if the parties can agree on an amount; if not, remanding the issue of costs to the Administrative Law Judge for the issuance of a supplemental recommended order on the amount of these costs). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the remainder of the amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th 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 11th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lori C. Desnick Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jay Adams Jay Adams, P.A. Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Fountainhead Nursing and Convalescent Homes, Inc., Respondent, was licensed by the Department of HRS, Petitioner, as a nursing home. On a survey of the nursing home facilities conducted on April 8 and 9, 1980 five Class II deficiencies and twenty Class III deficiencies were reported on HRS Form 553D entitled Classification of Deficiencies for Nursing Home Licensure Requirements (Exhibit 1). These were designated HRS-1, 3, 14, 15 and 20 on Exhibit 1. Because of these Class II deficiencies Respondent was assigned a "C" rating. HRS-1 is a deficiency correctable within 72 hours. HRS-3, 14 and 20 are Class III deficiencies erroneously characterized as Class II deficiencies.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Harmony Health Center was a skilled nursing facility operating at 9820 North Kendall Drive, Miami, Florida, and was licensed under Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On December 5, 2003, AHCA conducted a survey of Harmony Health Center during which three deficiencies were found, one Class I deficiency and two Class II deficiencies. As a result of the deficiencies being found, AHCA filed an Administrative Complaint against Harmony Health Center. Subsequently, AHCA filed an Amended Administrative Complaint, citing two Class II deficiencies. Count I: Failure To Ensure That A Resident Entering The Facility Without A Pressure Sore Does Not Develop One Resident No. 31 was admitted to Harmony Health Center on May 9, 2003. Her records at Harmony Health Center indicate that she had suffered a stroke, paralyzing her on the left side, and that she had a swallowing problem, abnormally high blood pressure, and a feeding tube. Resident No. 31's records did not indicate that she had a pressure sore upon admission. An initial nursing assessment was performed on Resident No. 31 at the time of admission. Relating to pressure sores, the nursing assessment indicates that a Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk (Braden Scale) was performed. The Braden Scale is scored, with the lowest being 6 and the highest being 23, and has six categories, which are Sensory Perception-- ability to respond meaningfully to pressure-related discomfort; Moisture--degree to which skin is exposed to moisture; Activity- -degree of physical activity; Mobility--ability to change and control body position; Nutrition--usual food intake pattern; and Friction and Shear. As to Friction and Shear, Resident No. 31 received a score of one, which designates a "Problem" and states as follows: "Requires moderate to maximum assistance in moving. Complete lifting without sliding against sheets is impossible. Frequently slides down in bed or chair, requiring frequent repositioning with maximum assistance. Spasticity, contractures, or agitation leads to almost constant friction." Resident No. 31 received a total score of 12 on the Braden Scale. As to scoring, the Braden Scale provides, among other things, that a total score of 18 or below indicates that a resident is considered a risk and that "CAN Daily Skin Checks FFWP008 must be initiated." Recognizing the risk of Resident No. 31 developing pressure sores, Harmony Health Center ordered a heel protector for her right foot to prevent pressure sores. Resident No. 31's wound treatment and progress records for May 11, June 18, and July 1, 2003 do not reflect the presence of a pressure sore. The first mention of any pressure sore in Resident No. 31's medical records was on August 8, 2003, when a family member, not a staff person, observed a wound on Resident No. 31's right inner heel and pointed it out to a member of the nursing staff. The wound was described in the progress notes as a "blister like area." Resident No. 31's medical records refer to this wound as "in-house acquired." Harmony Health Center admits that Resident No. 31 developed a pressure sore while a resident but characterizes the pressure sore as "unavoidable." On August 8, 2003, Resident No. 31's physician ordered a podiatric consult. A progress note on August 12, 2003, indicates that the pressure sore was at Stage II. The podiatrist, Ann Marie Millar, DPM (Dr. Millar),who was at Harmony Health Center at least twice a week, usually performs consults within 24 hours. However, the consult did not occur until October 10, 2003, approximately two months after the consult was ordered. Dr. Millar was not contacted for the consult when the physician ordered the consult. The wound care nurse requested and the treating physician authorized the consult by Dr. Millar. No evidence was presented to explain why approximately two months elapsed before the consult was performed. When the consult was performed on October 10, 2003, the pressure sore had progressed to Stage IV, which is the most serious classification for a pressure sore. On October 15, 2003, Resident No. 31 was sent to the hospital for debridement of the wound to promote healing. The process of debridement involved either the chemical or surgical removal of necrotic (dead) tissue of the wound. In December 2003, the pressure sore was eventually resolved. Resident No. 31's medical records do not show that another pressure sore presented itself. Dr. Millar testified1 that Harmony Health Center did all that it could to prevent the pressure sore. Resident No. 31 had a heel protector and a Geo mat. Dr. Millar also testified that she was certain that the staff turned or rotated Resident No. 31; however, no documented evidence or any other testimony was presented which showed that the staff turned or rotated Resident No. 31 or which showed the actual care provided to Resident No. 31 by Harmony Health Center prior to the discovery of the pressure sore. According Dr. Millar, Resident No. 31's clinical condition causes contractures, which in turn causes more pressure to the affected heel and, unless the patient can be suspended, causes a heel ulcer. As a result, according to Dr. Millar, a heel ulcer, as experienced by Resident No. 31, is unavoidable. Dr. Millar further testified that Harmony Health Center had additional interventions, other than those used by it, to prevent a pressure sore. However, according to Dr. Millar, the other interventions were "not covered," as to being cost-covered, and, therefore, were not ordered or used. A registered nurse of 25 years, Eleanore Kennedy (RN Kennedy), performed the survey of Harmony Health Center for AHCA. RN Kennedy testified that for a family member, and not staff, to observe and report a pressure sore is unusual; and that, with protective equipment and proper turning, no reason existed for Resident No. 31 to develop a pressure sore. Consequently, according to RN Kennedy, Resident No. 31's pressure sore was avoidable. A registered nurse of 16 years, Jennifer Mata (RN Mata) testified, as an expert in nursing home care, on behalf of Harmony Health Center. RN Mata was also Harmony Health Center's director of nursing. RN Mata opined that Resident No. 31's pressure sore was unavoidable because, in essence, a resident in a nursing home with Resident No. 31's clinical condition develops pressure sores. The undersigned finds the testimony of RN Kennedy to be more credible than RN Mata. The evidence is irrefutable that the pressure sore developed after the admission of Resident No. 31 to Harmony Health Center. The evidence presented was insufficient to satisfactorily explain why a staff person had not observed the skin area at Resident No. 31's heel if Resident No. 31 had a heel protector, was being rotated or turned, and was having daily skin checks, as required by the Braden Scale. Furthermore, a lack of documented evidence exists showing that Resident No. 31 was turned or rotated and that her skin was checked daily although the evidence showed that her skin was checked weekly. This lack of sufficient evidence and lack of evidence causes the undersigned to find the testimony of RN Kennedy more credible. Further, RN Kennedy's testimony is found to be more credible than Dr. Millard’s as to whether the pressure sore was avoidable. The evidence was insufficient to satisfactorily explain why approximately two months elapsed before Dr. Millar was called to perform a consult on Resident No. 31. Furthermore, a lack of documented evidence exists to show that Resident No. 31 was turned or rotated and that her skin was checked daily although the evidence shows that her skin was checked weekly. This lack of sufficient evidence and lack of evidence causes the undersigned to find the testimony of RN Kennedy more credible. Hence, a finding is made that Harmony Health Center failed to prevent Resident No. 31's pressure sore and that, therefore, the pressure sore was avoidable. Count II: Failure To Implement Measures To Protect A Resident From Ongoing Falls, Resulting In Actual Harm To The Resident Resident No. 18 was admitted to Harmony Health Center on April 5, 2002. Resident No. 18's nursing assessment upon admission indicated that she had several conditions and needs. She had Alzheimer's Disease and right-side weakness. Her decision- making was severely impaired, with her never or rarely making any decisions. Resident No. 18 was a wanderer, moving with no rational purpose, seemingly oblivious to needs or safety. She required the assistance of two persons in her daily living activities (ADLs)--ambulation, transfer, bed mobility, eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. Resident No. 18 also used a wheelchair. Upon admission, Harmony Health Center identified Resident No. 18 as being at risk for falls and injury and prepared an Interdisciplinary Resident Care Plan (Care Plan) for her regarding falls. On April 5, 2002, the Care Plan indicated that she was at risk for falls and injury and indicated nine interventions to lessen her risk for falls, which were implemented. The interventions were as follows: (1) access/record full risk factors; (2) report to M.D. incidence of fall; (3) monitor possible causes of fall; (4) bed in low position; (5)items within easy reach; (6) maintain environment clutter-free; (7) call bell within reach; (8) provide PT/OT therapy evaluation and treatment as prescribed; and (9) orient to surroundings as needed. In spite of the interventions, Resident No. 18 fell six times at Harmony Health Center. Falls were documented on the Care Plan for April 15, 2002 (ten days after admission), June 5, 2002, August 28, 2002, May 22, 2003, June 25, 2003, and August 11, 2003. At the time of each fall, the documentation indicates that Resident No. 18 was found on the floor in her room. The Care Plan for Resident No. 18 indicates that another intervention was added on June 5, 2002, after the fall on the same day; on August 28, 2002, after the fall on the same day; on May 22, 2003, after the fall on the same day; on June 26, 2003, after the fall on June 25, 2003; and on August 11, 2003, after the fall on the same day. The intervention on June 5, 2002, was to use one-half side rails, to instruct her to use call light when needed, and to assist with ADLs; on August 28, 2002, was to place in well-supervised area; on May 22, 2003, was to instruct her to use call light when needing help; on June 26, 2003, was to have close supervision; and on August 11, 2003, was to monitor closely and frequently. As to the intervention added on June 5, 2002, the staff at Harmony Health Center was aware that Resident No. 18 would, on her own, get out of bed and go to the bathroom. One- half side rails make it easier for and assist a resident to get out of bed. Consequently, the one-half side rails made it easier for Resident No. 18 to get out of bed, which would contribute to her falling. Based on the evidence presented, this intervention to reduce the risk of falls was unreasonable for Resident No. 18, who was a high risk for falls. As to instructing Resident No. 18 to use the call light when needed, this intervention was essentially contained in the original Care Plan before her falls. As a result, this intervention on June 5, 2002, was not a new or different intervention. Further, Harmony Health Center was aware that Resident No. 18 was cognitively confused and suffered from sundowner's syndrome, which meant that she became more confused at night. An example of Resident No. 18's confusion and sundowner's syndrome occurred during the fall of August 11, 2003, when she was questioned, after the fall, as to where she was going; she responded that she was going to visit her sister. Based on the evidence presented, to instruct Resident No. 18 to use a call light, as an intervention to lessen the risk of falls, was unreasonable. A nursing assessment for Resident No. 18 was performed on July 17, 2003, a little over 15 months after her admission and after five falls. The nursing assessment indicates that, as to bed mobility (moving to and from lying position, turning side to side, and positioning body while in bed), Resident No. 18 required limited assistance, with one person assistance; and that, as to transfer (moving between surfaces to and from the bed, chair, wheelchair, and standing position), she required extensive assistance, with one person assistance. Further, the nursing assessment indicates that, as to cognitive skills for daily decision making (making decisions regarding tasks of daily life), Resident No. 18’s cognitive skills were independent (decisions were consistent and reasonable). The restorative nurse for Harmony Health Center, Adrienne Underwood, LPN, provided a service to Resident No. 18. Nurse Underwood's role was to maintain or increase Resident No. 18's level of care after Resident No. 18 completed rehabilitation. Nurse Underwood testified that Resident No. 18 could ambulate independently but could not recall when Resident No. 18 became independent. No medical records or assessments or Care Plan entered into evidence supports Nurse Underwood's testimony as to Resident No. 18's independence in mobility and/or transfer. Nurse Underwood's testimony, as to Resident No. 18's ability to ambulate independently, is found not to be credible. Regarding the falls on June 26, 2003 and August 11, 2003, for which the interventions of close supervision and to monitor closely and frequently, respectively, were added, Harmony Health Center's expert, RN Mata opined that the two interventions were appropriate. However, RN Mata also testified that Harmony Health Center was already performing these interventions, before the falls. A finding is made that the interventions added on June 26, 2003, and August 11, 2003, were not new or different interventions. Related to close supervision is the intervention on August 28, 2002, which was placing Resident No. 18 in a well- supervised area. As aforementioned, Harmony Health Center was already closely supervising and monitoring Resident No. 18 before the falls. Consequently, a finding is made that this intervention was not a new or different intervention. Restraining Resident No. 18 to lessen her risk of falls was not an option available to Harmony Health Center. She had no physician order for restraints. Without a physician order, Harmony Health Center could not and would not restrain Resident No. 18. No determination, as to the cause of Resident No. 18's falls, was made by either AHCA or Harmony Health Center. AHCA made no determination in its survey. Neither Resident No. 18's records presented into evidence nor testimony presented showed that Harmony Health Center determined the cause of the falls. AHCA did not contact the physician for Resident No. 18 regarding her falls as to whether the interventions were adequate or the cause of the falls. Whether to contact a physician is a judgment call for AHCA's consultants. AHCA's consultant made a judgment call not to contact Resident No. 18's physician. As an intervention, AHCA suggests that Harmony Health Center could have used bed alarms. Harmony Health Center does have bed alarms for some residents. RN Mata testified that bed alarms are used for residents who have a history of falling out of bed, i.e., from the bed to the floor. Furthermore, according to RN Mata, the purpose of bed alarms is to alert the staff to assist a resident before the resident falls. Resident No. 18's records indicate that she was found on the floor in her room. No evidence was presented that Resident No. 18 was found on the floor next to her bed, which would be an indication that she fell moving from the bed to the floor. However, the evidence does show that Resident No. 18 needed assistance to ambulate. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that, based on Resident No. 18's fall history, her cognitive ability, her need for assistance to ambulate, and the failure of prior interventions, a bed alarm would have been a reasonable intervention.2 Regarding Resident No. 18's fall on August 12, 2003, which was at 3:00 a.m., she sustained an injury, i.e., a hematoma to the right frontal area of her head. After the fall on August 12, 2003, Resident No. 18 was a total care resident. According to Harmony Health Center, the interventions were added after Harmony Health Center investigated each fall, the treating physician was contacted, and a team of Harmony Health Center's personnel reviewed each investigation and reached a consensus as to how to address the falls. To Harmony Health Center, the interventions were appropriate and adequate. No evidence was presented to indicate that an investigation of a resident's fall would not produce the cause of the fall. Based on the evidence presented, an inference is drawn and a finding is made that the investigations were inadequate and not thorough and failed to produce sufficient information to assist Harmony Health Center in determining the cause of Resident No. 18's falls. AHCA has no expectation that a facility will prevent all falls. AHCA has no rule or requirement that a new or different intervention must be developed and implemented for every fall by a resident at a nursing home. Based on the evidence presented, a finding is made that all the interventions added in Resident No. 18's Care Plan after her falls, except for the interventions on June 5, 2002, found to be new and different, were not new or different from the interventions developed by Harmony Health Center, before the falls. Based on the evidence presented, a finding is made that the interventions added after Resident No. 18's falls failed to lessen the risk of her falls and were, therefore, inadequate and inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order: Finding Ayintove Associates, LLC, d/b/a Harmony Health Center, f/k/a Integrated Health Services at Greenbriar in violation of Counts I and II for two Class II deficiencies. Imposing a fine of $5,000. Upholding the issuance of a conditional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 22nd day of March, 2005.
The Issue DOAH Case No. 01-3148: Whether the Respondent's licensure status should be reduced from standard to conditional. DOAH Case No. 01-4649: Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 15, 2001, 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: AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nursing home facilities, including ensuring that nursing homes are in compliance with criteria established by Florida statute. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (2001). AHCA is authorized in Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes, to impose administrative fines on nursing home facilities that fail to meet the applicable criteria. Florence Treakle conducted surveys of Life Care on May 9, 2001, and June 12, 2001, as a result of complaints received by AHCA. Because the surveys were conducted as a result of complaints received by AHCA, Ms. Treakle was the only AHCA surveyor conducting the surveys. The results of the surveys were reported on a form identified as "HCFA-2567," which is generated by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration, and is commonly referred to as a "Form 2567." Several deficiencies were identified in the Form 2567s completed for the May 9, 2001, and June 12, 2001, surveys, which were each cited to a federal "tag number" designated as "F" tags,1 to the applicable provision of the Code of Federal Regulations, and to the applicable Florida administrative rule. Each deficiency was also classified under Florida law as either a Class II or a Class III deficiency, and a factual narrative was included to support each deficiency cited. May 9, 2001, survey.2 The Form 2567 for the May 9, 2001, survey included a citation for a Class III deficiency under F-279, "Resident Assessment," and Section 483.13(c), Code of Federal Regulations. This citation involved the care provided to residents L.D. and A.M. and was supported by the assertion that, "[b]ased on observation and record review[,] . . . the facility did not have comprehensive care plans in place for healing of the residents [sic] pressure sores." A care plan is a tool used by the nursing staff to ensure that the resident is getting consistent care and is compiled from data included in a resident's Comprehensive Assessment. An entry in a care plan includes the identification of a problem, a goal for resolving or improving the problem, and the approaches, or means, to be used to reach the goal. Resident L.D. L.D. came into Life Care with pressure ulcers, including a Stage IV pressure ulcer3 on his coccyx, which is located at the bottom of the backbone. L.D. was receiving wound care both at Life Care and at a wound care center pursuant to a physician's order dated April 4, 2001, which contained the following requirement: "[O]ffload[] all boni [sic] prominences as much as possible." In accordance with this order, L.D. was turned and repositioned in bed every two hours, and he was provided with a special, pressure-relieving mattress. L.D. was a very quiet person, but he had no cognitive impairment and was able to communicate his needs to staff. L.D.'s wife visited him every day; she usually arrived in mid-morning and left in mid-afternoon, and she returned for a few hours in the evening. Both L.D. and his wife made it clear to the Life Care staff that L.D. wanted to sit in a wheelchair as much as possible so that he could move around the facility, take walks outdoors with his wife, and have his meals sitting up. L.D. used a special, high-backed wheelchair that he provided for his use while he was a resident of Life Care. The chair reclined so that pressure on his coccyx could be relieved somewhat, and Life Care furnished him a gel cushion for his wheelchair, also to help relieve pressure on his coccyx. On May 9, 2001, Ms. Treakle observed L.D. sitting in his wheelchair for over two hours, from 10:20 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. She found nothing in L.D.'s Care Plan regarding the amount of time L.D. would be permitted to sit in a wheelchair. Resident A.M. A.M. entered Life Care with a Stage III pressure ulcer on his left buttock. A.M. was receiving wound care at Life Care in accordance with the approaches included in his Care Plan. A.M. was not cognitively impaired, and he could communicate his needs to staff. His granddaughter and one year-old great-grandson visited him every day, and he enjoyed sitting outside in a wheelchair with his great-grandson on his lap. A.M. also liked to spend most of his time outside his room, moving himself around the facility in a wheelchair. Life Care provided a gel cushion for his wheelchair to help relieve pressure on A.M.'s buttock. On May 9, 2001, Ms. Treakle observed A.M. sitting in a wheelchair from 2:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. A.M.'s Care Plan did not contain an entry establishing the amount of time A.M. would be permitted to sit in a wheelchair. Summary. AHCA has failed to establish by even the greater weight of the evidence that the Care Plans developed for L.D. and A.M. were deficient. AHCA failed to present credible evidence of the contents of L.D.'s Care Plan,4 but the evidence is uncontroverted that L.D.'s wound care orders contained approaches for healing his pressure sores. A.M.'s Care Plan included several approaches for healing his pressure sores, and AHCA has not alleged that the required wound care was not provided to either L.D. or A.M. Rather, AHCA's specific complaint regarding the Care Plans of L.D. and A.M. is that there was no approach specifying the amount of time L.D. and A.M. would be permitted to sit in their wheelchairs. This complaint is based exclusively on the expectations of Ms. Treakle. Ms. Treakle expected to find this approach in the Care Plans because, in her opinion, pressure on the coccyx and buttocks can never be completely relieved when a resident is sitting,5 and any pressure on a pressure ulcer impedes healing because it decreases blood flow to an area. Accordingly, Ms. Treakle "would expect good practice would [sic] be for the Care Plan to indicate how long the resident was going to sit on this pressure sore."6 AHCA did not, however, submit any evidence of a standard of care requiring that the duration of time a resident can sit in a wheelchair be included as an approach in the care plan of a resident with a pressure ulcer, especially when the resident is alert, mobile, and able to communicate with staff. June 12, 2001, survey. The Form 2567 for the June 12, 2001, survey cited Life Care for three deficiencies: A Class II deficiency was cited under F-224, "Staff Treatment of Residents," and Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), Code of Federal Regulations, involving the care provided to residents E.G. and N.D. and supported by the assertion that "[b]ased on observation, record review and interview[,] the facility did not monitor and supervise the delivery of care and services." A Class III deficiency was cited under F-279, "Resident Assessment," and Section 483.20(k), Code of Federal Regulations, supported by the assertion that, "[b]ased on review of the care plan for resident #1 [N.D.], . . . the facility did not complete a comprehensive care plan that was revised to reflect all fall risks." A Class II deficiency was cited under F-281, "Resident Assessment," and Section 483.20(k)(3)(i), Code of Federal Regulations, supported by the assertion that, "[b]ased on citations at F 224[,] F 279 and F 324[,] the facility nursing staff did not provide care that met professional standards for residents #1 [N.D.] and #2 [E.G.]." Resident E.G. Diabetes management. Pertinent to these proceedings, E.G. was diagnosed with insulin-dependent diabetes; his blood sugar generally ranged from 150 to 270, which is in the mid-range, although it once reached 348. E.G. was alert, oriented, self-ambulatory, and somewhat grouchy. E.G.'s brother visited him about three times each week, and E.G. often left the facility with his brother for a meal. He did not adhere strictly to his diet, but often ate fried foods when he went out with his brother, and he kept a supply of orange juice in the small refrigerator in his room. Both fried foods and orange juice are contraindicated for diabetics. Pursuant to physician's orders, E.G.'s blood sugar was to be monitored four times a day, before each meal and at bedtime,7 and insulin was to be administered on a sliding scale, in an amount to be determined based on his blood sugar level. This order was transcribed on E.G.'s Medication Record, which, for each day of the month, included spaces for the time, the blood sugar level, the insulin coverage (the dosage expressed in number of units administered), and the site of injection, together with the initials of the staff member providing the care. Life Care staff also maintained glucose monitoring sheets, which included spaces for the date, the time, the blood sugar level, the dosage of insulin administered, and the initials of the staff member providing the care. There is no documentation in E.G.'s Medication Records, his glucose monitoring sheets, or the Nurses Notes that his blood sugar was checked at 11:30 a.m. on June 7, 2001. When his blood sugar was checked at 4:30 p.m. on June 7, it was 317, which is substantially higher than usual. For the 6:30 a.m. checks on June 2, 3, and 8, 2001, E.G.'s blood sugar level was documented and there are notations that insulin was given, but the dosages and sites of injection were not noted; E.G.'s blood sugar at the 11:30 a.m. checks on these days was either virtually the same as, or less than, the levels noted at the 6:30 a.m. checks. For the 6:30 a.m. check on June 4, 2001, E.G.'s blood sugar level was documented, but there is no notation that insulin was given; E.G.'s blood sugar at the 11:30 a.m. check on June 4 was less than the level noted at the 6:30 a.m. check. Wound Care. On June 5, 2001, a dermatologist removed a lesion from the top of E.G.'s left hand. The dermatologist prescribed Bactroban ointment, which was to be applied to the wound twice a day. Wound care instructions were included with the prescription, which provided as follows: Leave bandage on for 24 hours only without getting wet. Remove bandage after 24 hours and then do not apply another bandage. Leave the area open and clean the wound twice daily with warm water. Pat the wound dry and then apply Bactroban Ointment. Bactroban Ointment is a topical antibiotic that can be purchased without a prescription. Continue to do this until the wound has healed. Normal bathing can be resumed after the bandage is removed. Some redness and swelling are normal in the immediate area of the wound. If the wound develops significant redness, tenderness or a yellow drainage, please contact this office immediately . . . . A physician's order dated June 5, 2001, was written for E.G. for "Bactroban oint to wound on L hand, 45gm." The order did not state how often the ointment was to be applied or include the other instructions accompanying the prescription. The order was transcribed on E.G.'s Treatment Record on June 5, 2001, but the entry provided only that Bactroban ointment was to be applied to the wound once a day. There is nothing in E.G.'s Care Plan, Treatment Record, or Medication Record to document that his wound was treated between June 5 and June 12, 2001, nor was there any indication in E.G.'s chart that anyone signed for the Bactroban ointment. Marion Neuhaus, the Director of Nursing at Life Care at the times pertinent to these proceedings, observed E.G.'s wound every day because E.G. came to her office to show her the wound and other bumps and scrapes he accumulated as he walked around the facility. Ms. Neuhaus noted that the wound was scabbed, that there was a pink area around the wound, and that there was no swelling or drainage. Treatment was begun on the wound on June 12, 2001, and it healed without any complications. Summary. AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that Life Care did not provide E.G. with the wound care that was ordered by his physician. AHCA has, however, failed to establish by even the greater weight of the evidence that the healing process of E.G.'s wound was compromised by this lack of treatment. Ms. Treakle observed E.G.'s wound on June 12, 2001, and noted that it was scabbed and red around the edges. Ms. Treakle concluded that this redness alone indicated that the wound was infected. This conclusion is undermined by the notation in the wound care instructions included with E.G.'s prescription from the Dermatology Center that "[s]ome redness and swelling are normal in the immediate area of the wound." Furthermore, Ms. Treakle did not follow E.G.'s wound after June 12, 2001, and the evidence presented by Life Care that E.G.'s wound healed in a timely manner is uncontroverted. AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that there are several omissions in the documentation of Life Care's monitoring of E.G.'s blood, but these omissions do not reasonably support the inference that Life Care failed to monitor E.G.'s blood sugar and administer insulin on these dates as required by the physician's orders; rather, Life Care's failure on these occasions was inadequate documentation, not inadequate care. AHCA has, however, established clearly and convincingly that Life Care did not monitor E.G.'s blood sugar as required by his physician's order at 11:30 a.m. on June 7, 2001; this inference may reasonably be drawn based on the lack of documentation and E.G.'s elevated blood sugar at the next check at 4:30 p.m. Ms. Treakle assumed that E.G. suffered actual harm as a result of this omission because, in her view, hyperglycemia, or elevated blood sugar, always causes damage to the body; Ms. Treakle could not, however, identify any specific harm to E.G. caused by this one omission. AHCA has failed to establish by even the greater weight of the evidence that E.G.'s physical well-being was compromised by Life Care's failure to monitor his blood sugar on this one occasion. Resident N.D. Fall from Shower Chair.8 At the times pertinent to these proceedings, N.D. was a 79 year-old woman who had been a resident of Life Care since October 26, 1999. According to the assessment of N.D. included in the Minimum Data Set completed on May 3, 2001, N.D. suffered from Alzheimer's disease, had long- and short-term memory problems, and was severely impaired and unable to make decisions; as of June 12, 2001, N.D. was almost entirely dependent on staff for all of the activities of daily living. N.D.'s Care Plan for November 6, 2000, which was updated with handwritten notes, reflects that she had poor safety awareness. The Interdisciplinary Notes maintained by Life Care reflect that, on June 5, 2001, a nurse observed N.D. leaning forward in her wheelchair at breakfast; this was the first mention of this behavior in N.D.'s chart. Dr. Gil, N.D.'s physician, included a notation in the Physician's Progress Notes for June 8, 2001, that he observed N.D. leaning forward but was unable to assess her abdomen because of her anxiety. The Interdisciplinary Notes reflect that Dr. Gil visited N.D. on Saturday, June 9, 2001, and that she was again leaning forward in her wheelchair, "almost falling out of [her] chair." Dr. Gil ordered an ultra-sound of N.D.'s abdomen and a "lap buddy while in w/c [wheelchair] to prevent falls." Dr. Gil's order was noted in the Interdisciplinary Notes for June 9, 2001, as well as on a physician's order form signed by Dr. Gil on June 10, 2001. According to Life Care's written policy, physician orders are to be transcribed into a patient's care plan, treatment plan, or medication administration record, depending on the nature of the order. Dr. Gil's order for a lap buddy had not been transcribed into N.D.'s November 6, 2000, Care Plan at the time Ms. Treakle conducted her survey on June 12, 2001.9 A lap buddy was used on N.D.'s wheelchair beginning on the morning of June 11, 2001. On the evening of June 11, 2001, CNA Nova Coleman was caring for N.D. Ms. Coleman had been working for Life Care for only a short time, and N.D. was one of the first patients Ms. Coleman cared for after finishing her initial training. Ms. Coleman was, however, not an inexperienced CNA, having previously worked at another nursing home. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Ms. Coleman and another CNA had just finished showering N.D., and N.D. was sitting in a shower chair; her hair had been toweled dry, and she was dressed in her night clothes. The second CNA left the room, and Ms. Coleman, who had been standing in front of N.D., moved to the back of the shower chair so she could push N.D. out of the shower area. As she moved around the chair, N.D. pitched forward and fell face-first onto the floor. Ms. Coleman tried to grab N.D. to stop her from falling, but N.D. toppled over so quickly that Ms. Coleman could not reach her. N.D. suffered severe bruises to her face and a laceration on her lip as a result of the fall, but she did not break any bones. Ms. Coleman had not been advised prior to the fall of N.D.'s tendency to lean forward in her chair. N.D.'s tendency to lean forward in her wheelchair should have been entered in her Care Plan, together with the requirement that a lap buddy was to be used whenever she was in a wheelchair. In addition, Ms. Coleman should have been briefed on N.D.'s condition, including her tendency to lean forward, before Ms. Coleman was allowed to care for N.D. Although a lap buddy was not ordered for the shower chair and, in fact, could not appropriately have been used on a shower chair, the former Nursing Director of Life Care conceded that there were other means by which N.D.'s fall could have been prevented.10 The former Nursing Director also conceded that the failure to brief Ms. Coleman on N.D.'s condition probably contributed to the fall from the shower chair. Summary. AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that Life Care failed to provide N.D. with the services necessary to prevent her from falling from the shower chair and injuring herself, that Life Care failed to provide services that met professional standards, and that Life Care failed to revise N.D.'s Care Plan to include the risk of her falling forward while seated and the approaches Life Care would take to prevent her from injuring herself. Life Care conceded that the Care Plan should have included N.D.'s tendency to lean forward while seated and Dr. Gil's order of June 9, 2001, that N.D. be provided with a lap buddy when she was in the wheelchair. Life Care also conceded that the CNA should have been briefed on N.D.'s condition before she was assigned to care for N.D. Life Care further conceded that, even though Dr. Gil did not specifically prescribe a restraint to be used in the shower chair, measures could have been taken to ensure that N.D. did not fall out of the shower chair. AHCA has also established clearly and convincingly that Life Care's failure to provide proper care to N.D. resulted in her suffering significant injuries to her face. Although the injuries were to soft tissue and ultimately healed, N.D.'s physical well-being was adversely affected. In addition, AHCA has established clearly and convincingly that, even had N.D. not fallen and suffered injuries, the failure to include in N.D.'s Care Plan her tendency to lean forward and its failure to transcribe the physician's orders regarding the lap buddy into the Care Plan could have caused a lapse in the care provided to N.D. that could have possibly resulted in injury.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order Sustaining the reduction in the licensure status of Life Care Center of Port Saint Lucie to conditional for the period extending from June 12, 2001, to August 17, 2001; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 15th day of May, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of the isolated Class III deficiency alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed, skilled nursing home facility located in North Miami, Florida. Respondent was at all times pertinent hereto licensed by Petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 400 Part II, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate skilled nursing homes in Florida. Petitioner surveys nursing home facilities to evaluate their compliance with applicable rules. Petitioner classifies any deficiency noted by a survey according to the nature and scope of the deficiency. The severity of the deficiency determines the amount of any administrative fine and whether the licensure status of the facility should be "standard" or "conditional." A licensee’s failure to comply with an applicable statute or rule is a deficiency. A survey results in a report that lists each deficiency that is found, identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyor believes has been violated, provides a factual basis for the alleged violation, and indicates the scope and severity of the deficiency. A facility is given a deadline to correct each alleged deficiency found during the initial survey. Disciplinary action is typically initiated if a facility has not corrected a deficiency as determined by a follow-up survey. Petitioner conducted a survey of Respondent during the period February 28 - March 3, 2005 (the initial survey). Barbara Catinella, who is a registered nurse and an experienced surveyor, participated in the initial survey on behalf of Petitioner. On March 1, 2005, Ms. Catinella observed perineal care being administered to two female residents (identified as Resident 26 and Resident 27). Each resident was being attended to following an episode of urinary incontinence. The first observation began at approximately 2:00 p.m. and the second began approximately thirty minutes later. Two certified nurses assistants (CNAs) administered the perineal care to Resident 26 and two different CNAs administered the perineal care to Resident 27. In both instances, the CNAs failed to properly perform the perineal care. In each instant, the CNAs performing the perineal care failed to open and clean the labia. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy as to perineal care for female residents that conformed to accepted perineal care standards. Paragraph 15 of the policy required Respondent's staff to do the following in sequence for a female resident who had suffered an episode of incontinence, whether the episode was of bowel, bladder, or both: For a female resident: Wet washcloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent. Wash perineal area, wiping from front to back. Separate labia and was area downward from front to back. Continue to wash the perineum moving outward to and including thighs, alternating from side to side, and using downward strokes. Rinse perineum thoroughly in same direction, using fresh water and a washcloth. Gently dry perineum. Instruct the resident to turn on her side. Rinse wash cloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent. Wash the rectal area thoroughly, wiping from the base of the labia and extending over the buttocks. Rinse. Dry area. 8. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy as to perineal care for male residents that conformed to accepted perineal care standards. Paragraph 16 of the policy required Respondent's staff to do the following in sequence for a male resident who had suffered an episode of incontinence, whether the episode was of bowel, bladder, or both: For a male resident: Wet washcloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent. Wash perineal area starting with the urethra and working outward. Retract foreskin of the uncircumcised male. Wash and rinse urethral area using a circular motion. Continue to was the perineal area, including the penis, scrotum and inner thighs. Thoroughly rinse perineal area in [the] same order using fresh water and clean washcloth. Gently dry perineum following [the] same sequence. Reposition foreskin of uncircumcised male. Instruct or assist the resident to turn on his side. Rinse washcloth and apply soap or cleansing agent. Wash and rinse the rectal area thoroughly, including the area under the scrotum, the anus, and the buttocks. i. Dry area. The perineal care policy was adopted ". . . to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition." Respondent's staff is trained to adhere to the perineal care policy. The perineal care provided Resident 26 and Resident 27 as observed by Ms. Catinella failed to adhere to Respondent's policy and constituted a failure to provide care and services to prevent potential urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent argued that the failure to adhere to its policy by failing to spread and cleanse the labia would not cause a urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent correctly argues that urine, in the body, is sterile and would not by itself cause a urinary tract infection. Most, but not all, urinary tract infections are caused by the e-coli bacteria found in feces. Respondent established that incontinent residents typically receive perineal care from Respondent's staff 10 times during a 24-hour period. Respondent also established that the facility uses only anti-bacterial soap for perineal care. Based on those considerations, Respondent argued that the perineal care observed by the surveyors may have led to a skin irritation, but that it would not have resulted in a urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The greater weight of the credible evidence established clearly and convincingly that the failure to spread and cleanse the labia has the potential for various adverse consequences for the resident, including urinary tract infection.3 If staff does not spread and cleanse the labia, the fact that anti-bacterial soap is being used is irrelevant. If the soap does not reach the labia, that area will not be cleansed, regardless of the number of times perineal care is administered during a typical day. Petitioner established the Class III violations pertaining to perineal care as to the initial survey by the requisite evidentiary standard. Petitioner also established that the violations should be considered "isolated" since there were some 55 incontinent residents in Respondent's facility at the time of the initial survey and only two episodes of improper perineal care were observed. Respondent was provided with a correction date thirty days from the conclusion of the initial survey to correct the noted deficiencies by coming into substantial compliance with accepted perineal care standards. The first follow-up survey occurred April 19-20, 2005. Eleanor Kennedy participated in that follow-up survey and testified, in her deposition, as to three incidents of perineal care that she observed. During the course of the follow-up survey, Ms. Kennedy observed two CNAs administering inappropriate perineal care to a female resident referred to as Resident 15. Ms. Kennedy observed that this resident had suffered an episode of incontinence involving both bowel and bladder. In the course of administering the perineal care, the CNAs failed to open and clean the labia. In addition to observing perineal care to Resident 15, Ms. Kennedy observed perineal care administered to a female resident referred to as Resident 16 and a male resident referred to as Resident and to a male resident referred to as Resident The perineal care administered to Resident 16 and to Resident 17 were inconsistent with Respondent's perineal care policy. The CNAs performing the perineal care for Resident 16 did not follow the proper sequence for cleaning. They first washed the resident's abdominal folds and thigh creases and then opened and washed the labia with the same disposable cloth. Ms. Kennedy testified that the sequence of the cleaning is significant because it risked the transfer of bacteria from the areas first washed to an area that could result in a urinary tract infection. The CNAs who performed the perineal care for Resident 17 first washed the resident's face, underarms, and back. Then, without changing water, the CNAs took a clean cloth and washed the resident's groin area, his retracted foreskin area, and the urinary urethral meatus. The CNAs then dried the resident, but failed to follow the required sequence. As with Resident 16, Ms. Kennedy testified that the incorrect sequence followed by the CNAs risked the transfer of bacteria to an area that could result in a urinary tract infection. Although this sequence clearly violated Respondent's perineal care policy, Respondent established that the potential for urinary tract infection as a result of the sequence was reduced because anti-bacterial soap was used. Ms. Kennedy was uncertain as to whether the use of anti-bacterial soap would alleviate the concerns she had as to the care given these two residents. Because of that uncertainty, it is found that Petitioner did not prove that the perineal care provided Resident 16 and Resident 17 constituted a failure to provide care and services to prevent potential urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The perineal care provided Resident 15 as observed by Ms. Kennedy failed to adhere to Respondent's policy and constituted a failure to provide care and services to prevent potential urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On May 26, 2005, Petitioner conducted a second follow- up survey and determined that Respondent was in substantial compliance with applicable regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is recommended that Count I of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner find Respondent guilty of an isolated, Class III deficiency based on Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner assess an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 for the Class III deficiency found in Count II of the Administrative Complaint and that Petitioner's records reflect that Respondent's licensure was classified "conditional" for the period April 20 - May 19, 2005, and that Respondent's licensure was classified as "standard" before and after those dates. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2006.
