The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases are: as to Case Number 00-3497, whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should impose an administrative fine against the Respondent's license to operate Beverly Savana Cay Manor, a nursing home in Lakeland; and, as to Case Number 00-2465, whether the Agency should issue a conditional license to the Respondent's facility effective April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of nursing homes and the regulation of the nursing home industry in this state. It is also the agency responsible for conducting surveys to monitor the compliance of nursing homes with the conditions of Medicare and Medicaid participation. Respondents, Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Healthcare Lakeland, and Beverly Enterprises - Lakeland, are licensed by the Agency to operate a skilled nursing home at 1010 Carpenter's Way in Lakeland. On August 31, 1999, the Agency conducted an investigation into a complaint that Savana Cay had failed to provide sufficient nursing service and related services to allow residents to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required by Federal rules governing Medicare and Medicaid. The Agency surveyor, Patricia Mills, observed several residents who did not have their call buttons within reach so that they could summon help if needed. Ms. Mills also talked with residents and family members and from these interviews determined that even when the resident could reach the call button and summon help, the response time was excessively long or, in some instances, the call went unheeded. This sometimes resulted in resident's suffering from the results of their incontinence because the staff did not timely respond to the help calls. Ms. Mills concluded, based on her extensive experience in surveying nursing homes, that the number of staff on duty was not sufficient to meet the residents' needs. It did not allow for the best possible well-being of the residents. Though the information related by Ms. Mills came from her interviews with residents and their families and was clearly hearsay testimony, it was admissible and considered as corroborative of her direct observation. The parties stipulated that a follow-up survey of the facility was conducted on October 13, 1999, at which time the deficiency described was deemed to have been timely corrected. The Respondent, by stipulation, does not concede the validity of this discrepancy on the August 19, 1999, survey, and the Agency does not rely on it to support the administrative fine sought to be imposed herein. Another survey of the facility was conducted by the Agency on April 26-28, 2000. On this occasion, surveyor Patricia Gold interviewed residents regarding the everyday life of the facility and reviewed resident council reports to follow up on any resident or family concerns which did not appear to have been addressed by the facility staff. During the resident interviews, Ms. Gold was advised that call lights were not answered in a timely fashion. In that connection, early on the morning of April 28, 2000, Ms. Gold observed a resident request a nurse to bring something to drink. The nurse was overheard to tell the resident the request would have to wait until she finished her report. Ms. Gold also noted on April 28, 2000, that dirty dishes were left uncollected over night in the facility common corridor and that one resident had two dirty trays left in the room. The dishes in the corridor were also seen by surveyors Donna Edwards and Marie Maisel. Based on their observations, the interviews, and the review of the council reports, the surveyors concluded that the staff on duty were insufficient in number. Another surveyor, Joanne Stewart, reviewed the resident files and medical reports of several of the residents and determined that in several cases the facility had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent falls and inconsistently applied the interventions that were put in place. For example, Ms. Stewart observed Resident 12 on the floor at 2:40 p.m. on April 27, 2000. This resident, a cognitively impaired individual, had been placed in the facility from the hospital after he had sustained a fracture to his right hip and, at the time of the fall, still had staples in his hip. Ms. Stewart's review of the kardexes maintained by the certified nursing assistant (CNA) revealed there were no entries thereon indicating a need for special care to prevent this resident from falling. Although he was supposed to wear a tab alarm at all times, the facility staff knew the resident would periodically remove it, and when Ms. Stewart saw him prior to the fall, he was not wearing it. No other interventions, such as quick-release seat belts or Velcro belts, had been implemented to prevent his falls. It was just the kind of fall that he had which caused his placement in the facility and which gave rise to the need for supervision adequate to prevent further injury. He did not get the needed supervision. In fact, though the resident sustained a skin tear and bleeding of the arm as a result of the fall, the nurse who came to the scene of the fall went back to her desk and did some paperwork for between twenty and twenty-five minutes before the resident was provided any treatment for his injury. Ms. Stewart concluded the facility did not provide adequate supervision and assistance to Resident 12, and it is so found. Due to a cognitive impairment and an inability to ambulate due to an intracerebral hemorrhage, diabetes, and a cardio-vascular accident, Resident 9 was assessed at high risk for falls, and a determination was made that the resident should wear a tab alarm while in bed and in the wheelchair. During the course of her survey, Ms. Stewart observed this resident on several occasions without the tab alarm when she should have been wearing it. The resident had previously sustained falls, one of which occurred while the resident was on leave, on March 31 and April 1, 2000, but the only caveat on the CNA kardex for the resident was the caution not to leave her on the toilet alone. Ms. Stewart did not consider the supervision and assistance rendered Resident 9 to be adequate. It is so found. Ms. Edwards focused her review on the records of Resident 22 who was not at the facility at the time of the survey. The records indicated the resident had been assessed at a high risk for falls at the time of her admission and a tab alarm was used. However, according to the nurse's notes, on April 10, 2000, the alarm went off causing the resident to lose her balance and fall while in the merry walker. She lacerated her scalp and sustained a large swelling in the occipital area. The only fall assessment of this resident was done when she was admitted to the facility. The evidence does not indicate when this was, but presumably, it was not done timely. There is a requirement that fall assessments be done quarterly, but it cannot be determined when it was done here. Even when, on April 11, 2000, the day after the fall, the physical therapy staff re-screened this resident for a merry walker, no change in care notation was noted in her record or implemented. Resident 22 sustained another fall on April 16, 2000. On this occasion, the resident was found on the floor of the day room, out of the merry walker. There was no indication she was being supervised or monitored at the time of her fall. This time she sustained another head injury just above the old one. After this fall, the facility staff ordered a new merry walker even though there was no indication a different one would provide additional protection. The resident sustained a third fall on April 18, 2000, sustaining another injury to the head which resulted in substantial blood loss. As a result of this fall, she was taken to the hospital. Because of this, she was not present when the survey was done, but based on her review of the resident records, Ms. Edwards concluded that the facility did not provide sufficient supervision or assistive devices to this resident. During the period of the survey, Ms. Gold observed Resident 3 on five separate occasions. On none of them was the resident wearing a Tabs alarm even though the facility's care plan called for one to be used. A falls assessment had been started on the resident but not completed. The record also revealed that the resident fell on March 29, 2000, resulting in a skin tear to the right arm. Based on the above, Ms. Gold concluded that the resident was not provided with adequate care and assistive devices. Resident 10 was a resident with a history of falls both before and after admission to the facility. The resident's care plan called for chair alarms, a merry walker, a safety seat belt, a low bed, and a bike horn. Though Ms. Maisel, the surveyor, observed that the resident had a chair alarm, she did not see that any of the other interventions called for in the plan were provided. She did not ever see the resident with a merry walker, and on at least two occasions, she saw the resident when the chair alarm was not in use. In her opinion, the use of one intervention does not make the use of other interventions unnecessary, and she considers the facility's supervision and assistive device provision to be inadequate. Resident 4 was an individual who had sustained a hip fracture, was senile, and was taking pain medications. The resident required help in getting out of bed or a chair. The care plan for the resident called for the use of a Tabs alarm, but on none of the occasions that Ms. Stewart observed this resident was the tabs alarm in use. She considered the supervision and assistive devices provided by the facility to this resident to be inadequate. Respondent does not contest that the incidents cited by the Agency took place. Rather, it contends that the interventions implemented by it were sufficient. It also disputes the effectiveness of some interventions called for, specifically the Tabs alarms, suggesting that the alarm does not prevent falls and often contributes to them by startling the wearer. There is some evidence to support that claim. Respondent further contends that the safety provided by the use of an intervention device, such as the Tabs alarm, straps, bed rails, or the merry walker, restrictive as they are, must be weighed and evaluated against the loss of dignity of the resident caused by their use. It is also urged by the facility that the use of certain interventions such as Tabs alarms is made unnecessary when the resident is immobile and safety is provided by the use of other interventions such as bed rails, which are more pertinent to the condition of the resident. In the case of Resident 9, the failure to provide for the use of a Tabs alarm when the resident was on leave with her husband was off-set by the one-on-one supervision she received during that period. Respondent contends that falls will occur among residents of the type in issue here regardless of the planning to identify the risks of fall, the efforts made to prevent them, and the implementation and use of interventions designed to avoid them. While this may be so, the facility nonetheless has a duty to provide necessary and adequate supervision and assistive devices to minimize to the greatest extent possible, the risk of injury as the result of falls. In some cases, this was not done here. In support of its position, Respondent presented the testimony of Theresa Vogelspohl, a nursing home consultant and an agreed expert on falls, issues of the elderly, issues of care of the elderly, and nursing practices and standards in nursing homes. Ms. Vogelspohl indicated that as a general practice when patients are admitted to a nursing home they are considered at risk for falls until the facility staff gets to know them. Each facility sets its own standard as to the length of the observation period, during which the residents are studied for their gait and safety awareness. In addition, the residents are evaluated for safety awareness by the staff of the physical and occupational therapy departments. Ordinarily, the assessment includes only the minimum data set (MDS) criteria, but increasingly during the last few years, a separate falls assessment has become common. In addition to the initial assessment, the attending nurses do an independent admissions assessment, and Ms. Vogelspohl found that such an assessment process was followed as to each of the residents in issue here. Ms. Vogelspohl found that an incomplete falls assessment had been done on Resident 3. Based upon her own review of the resident's records, however, had the full assessment been completed, other than the fact that she was a new resident, the resident would have been classified as a low risk for falls. She opines that the failure to complete the falls assessment did not deny the resident any care or a care plan for falls. Ms. Vogelspohl determined that the facility had opted, instead, for a more cautious approach to this resident in the care plan which, in her opinion, was appropriate for a new admission. A care plan is a map for the staff to be made aware of the care being provided and the specific interventions pertinent to the resident. If the resident is at increased risk for falls, the care plan would list the interventions designed to decrease the risk of falls. One of the most significant risk factors for falls is increase in age. Others are disease conditions, medications, cognitive functioning levels, eyesight, and other impairments. The interventions available to a facility to address the issue of risk of falls depend upon the condition of the resident. The first consideration should be the need to maintain a safe physical environment for the resident. Appropriate footwear is important as is the availability of assistive devices such as a cane or walker. If the resident has a history of falls, consideration should be given to changing those factors which were related to the prior falls. Included in that is consideration of different seating or a more frequent toileting schedule. According to Ms. Vogelspohl, the last thing one would want to do is to apply physical restraint, but, if all else has failed, the least restrictive physical or chemical restraint may be necessary to decrease the likelihood of falls. Ms. Vogelspohl emphasizes that only the likelihood of falls can be reduced. It is not possible to prevent all falls. Room cleanliness is not something which should appear in a care plan. It is a given, and nurses know to place furniture in such a way and to reduce clutter to the extent that the resident can safely navigate the room either with a walker or a wheelchair. Obviously, in this case the survey staff concluded the placement of the dirty trays in the hallway and in the resident's room constituted a hazard. In Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, supervision and monitoring of residents in a nursing home is a basic. That is generally the reason for the resident's being admitted in the first place. While they should be done on a routine basis, supervision and monitoring are still sometimes placed in a care plan, but the failure to have the requirements in black and white is not a discrepancy so long as the appropriate supervision and monitoring are accomplished. The residents most at risk for falls, and those who are the most difficult to manage, are those who have full physical functioning yet who have almost nonexistent cognitive functioning. Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that for these residents, the best intervention is the merry walker. This is better than a regular walker because the resident cannot leave it behind. If the resident is one who falls from bed, then a low bed, with rails if appropriate, is the primary option. A low bed was called for for Resident 10 but was not provided. Ms. Vogelspohl does not have a high opinion of the Tabs alarm because it can cause as many falls as it prevents. It has a place with the cognitively aware resident who will sit back down if she or he hears the alarm sound. More often than not, however, the routine resident will automatically react by trying to get away from the noise, and, thus, be more likely to engage in rapid, impulsive behavior that can lead to a fall. Ms. Vogelspohl considers the use of the Tabs alarm as only one factor in assessing the degree of supervision provided. She looks at the care plan to see if the Tabs alarm even meets the needs of the resident. If the resident is cognitively alert and at no risk of falls, a Tabs alarm is not appropriate. There are other interventions which can be used such as quick release, velcro seat belts which better prevent falls because they provide a resistance when the resident attempts to stand up. To determine whether a care plan has been developed and implemented, Ms. Vogelspohl reviews the record. She looks at the nurse's notes and those of the social services personnel. She evaluates the records of the physical, occupational, and recreational therapy staff. Finally, she reads the resident's chart to see what staff is actually doing to implement the interventions called for in the care plan. However, on the issue of supervision, she does not expect the notes or the record to affirmatively reflect every incident of supervision. There is no standard of nursing practice that she is aware of that calls for that degree of record keeping. What she would expect to see is a record of any kind of unsafe behavior that was observed. By the same token, Ms. Vogelspohl would not expect a facility to document every time it placed an alarm unit on a resident. The units are applied and removed several times a day for bathing, clothing changes, incontinence care, and the like, and it would be unreasonable, she opines, to expect each change to be documented. Further, she considers it inappropriate and insulting to the resident to require him or her to wear an alarm when cognizant and not displaying any unsafe behavior. If a resident who is not cognitively impaired declines intervention, it would, in her opinion, be a violation of that resident's rights to put one on. In that regard, generally, interventions are noted in the resident records when initiated. Usually, however, they are not removed until the quarterly assessment, even though the intervention may be discontinued shortly after implementation. Ms. Vogelspohl took exception to Ms. Edwards' finding fault with the facility for the three falls experienced by Resident 22. The resident was under observation when the first fall occurred, but the staff member was not able to get to the resident quickly enough to catch her when she stood up and immediately toppled over in her merry walker. The resident had been properly assessed and proper interventions had been called for in the care plan. Ms. Vogelspohl attributes the fall to the resident's being frightened by the Tabs alarm going off when she stood up and believes she probably would not have fallen had she not had the tab unit on. The second fall took place while the resident got out of her marry walker in the day room. Though the day room was visible to anyone out in the hallway, the fall was not witnessed, but Ms. Vogelspohl is of the opinion that it is not reasonably possible to keep every resident under constant visual supervision unless an aide can be assigned on a one-on-one basis to every resident. On the third fall, which occurred at about 10 p.m., the staff had put the resident to bed and had put a Tabs unit on her at that time, but the resident had detached the unit and gotten out of bed. There was nothing the staff could do to prevent that. The resident was able to remove the unit no matter how it was affixed to her. Taken together, the actions taken by the facility with regard to this resident were, to Ms. Vogelspohl, appropriate. Some things could have been done differently, such as perhaps using a heavier merry walker, but she did not consider these matters as defects in the care plan, in assessment, in design, or in application. Further, she concluded that the actions taken by the facility subsequent to the first fall on April 10, 2000, wherein the resident's medications were adjusted to compensate for their effect on the resident, constituted a recognition of a change in the resident's condition which was properly addressed. Too much supervision becomes a dignity issue. There is no formula for determining how much supervision is adequate. It is a question of nursing discretion based on the individual resident. An unofficial standard in place within the industry calls for a resident to be checked on every two hours, but rarely will this be documented. Staff, mostly nurses and CNAs, are in and out of the residents' rooms on a regular basis, administering medications and giving treatments. Those visits are documented, but not every visit to a resident's room is. Resident 12, a relatively young man of 62 with several severe medical problems, sustained a fall which resulted in a fractured hip just two weeks after admission to the facility and two weeks before the survey. He was far more mobile than expected. According to the records, he was mostly cognitive intact and had been assessed for falls. As a result of this assessment, the facility developed a care plan to address his risk for falls. Implementation of the plan was difficult, however, because he was aware and could make up his own mind as to what interventions he would accept. As to the resident's April 27, 2000 fall, the only evidence in the file shows that he was found on the floor of his room in front of a straight chair, having sustained a small skin tear in addition to the fracture. From Ms. Vogelspohl's review of the record she could find no indication that the facility had failed to do something that it should have done to prevent the fall. The staff had put a Tabs alarm on the resident, and he removed it. They tried to keep his wheel chair as close to him as possible. They tried to restrict his water intake by giving him thickened liquids to reduce his trips to the rest room. He would pour out the thickened fluids and replace them with water. Because of this resident's mobility, Ms. Vogelspohl does not accept the surveyor's conclusion that the facility did not use Tabs alarms. He was able to get out of them by himself and frequently did. She is also of the opinion, in light of the way the resident behaved, that the blank kardex observed by the surveyor in no way contributed to the resident's fall. The CNA's were aware that the Tabs units were supposed to be used, and Ms. Vogelspohl has concluded that there were no more aggressive interventions that could have been used with this resident. To attempt the use of restraints, either belt or vest, would have been futile because he could have gotten out of them easily. The only other thing Ms. Vogelspohl feels could have been done was to put him in a geriatric psychiatric unit, and this was ultimately done, but not in the Respondent facility. Ms. Vogelpohl also addressed the surveyors' write- ups as they related to Residents 9, 4, 3, and 10. Resident 4 was bed-ridden as a result of Parkinson's Disease and did not need a Tabs alarm, the deficiency cited, while in bed. When seated in a wheel chair, his postural deficits were compensated for by lateral supports and a padded cushion, and she was of the opinion that a Tabs alarm was not required. She opines its absence would not have addressed his risk for falls. His January 2000 fall apparently did not relate to the failure to use a Tabs unit. Resident 3, also the subject of a write-up for failure to use a Tabs alarm, was not, in Ms. Vogelspohl's opinion, at risk for falls because she did not move around a lot due to her physical condition. Nonetheless, she experienced a fall in late March 2000 and shortly thereafter, the facility placed a Tabs alarm on her and made the appropriate entry in her care plan. Resident 9 was ambulatory only with assistance and had a special seating device to keep her in her wheel chair. After the resident sustained two falls close together, a Tabs alarm was placed on her, and from that time until the time of the survey she had no further falls. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that it was an appropriate nursing decision not to place a Tabs unit on her. The rationale for this position is not at all clear. The care plan for Resident 10, also one of the residents observed without a Tabs alarm in place, was described as "somewhat cluttered." It showed multiple interventions initiated as early as April 1999. The initial care plan was crossed through and a new one substituted in September 1999 with the family's concurrence. Nonetheless, Ms. Vogelspohl did not find it too cluttered to be understood. The evidence shows that the resident's chair was outfitted with a soft seat belt and a pressure-sensitive alarm, both of which are considered to be more effective than the Tabs alarm. Ms. Vogelspohl contends that the facility did not ignore the requirement to assess the residents for falls or the requirement to address that issue in care planning. She admits that in some cases, the plan addressing falls prevention was covered in another assessment than the one wherein it might most likely be expected, but it is her contention that if the subject is properly and thoroughly addressed somewhere in the resident's care record, that is sufficient. She considers placing it in several areas to be a redundancy and though it is frequently done so, it is done to meet a paper compliance without having any impact on the quality of care provided.
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 Conditional license for the Respondent effective April 28, 2000, and, based only on the conditions observed at the facility on that date, imposing an administrative fine of $700.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the stipulations of the parties and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES The parties stipulated to the following facts: Forum timely filed its letter of intent and application with DHRS and the District IX Local Health Council for the July 1986 batching cycle. DHRS ultimately deemed the application complete and, following review, published its notice of intent to deny the application. Forum timely filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The sole issue is whether there is a need for Forum's proposed services; additionally, it is DHRS's position that a lack of need for the project results in the project not being financially feasible in the short or long term. All other statutory and rule criteria were satisfied, at least minimally, except proof of need pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) [formerly 10-5.11(21)(b)], Florida Administrative Code, and financial feasibility as it relates to need. FORUM'S PROPOSAL Forum is a publicly held health services company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers and nursing homes on a national basis. Forum proposes to develop a retirement living center in Palm Beach County that would consist of 120 to 150 apartment units for independent living, a separate personal care unit (known in Florida as an adult congregate living facility), and a 60-bed nursing home component certified for skilled and intermediate care. Palm Beach County is in HRS Service District IX, Subdistrict 4. All three components of Forum's retirement living center would be physically connected and share some operational functions, such as dietary facilities and the heating plant. Such a design provides for an efficient operation as well as an economic distribution of costs facility wide. No specific site has been selected , although Forum has narrowed its focus to the eastern half of Palm Beach County. It is not economically feasible to acquire property or pay for an option on property until after receiving CON approval. The projected total cost of Forum's proposed 60-bed nursing home is $2,329,800. Forum has the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Forum proposes to seek Medicare certification and will provide up to 25 of its beds for Medicaid patients. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Forum is a national company, with substantial experience in developing and operating nursing homes and retirement living centers. If need for the facility is shown, Forum would be able to capture a sufficient share of the nursing home market to render its proposed nursing home financially feasible while at the same time having no material negative impact on existing providers in the district. NUMERIC NEED Need for new or additional community nursing home beds in Florida is determined, preliminarily, by use of the methodology found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Additional beds normally are not approved if there is no need for beds as calculated under the rule. Pursuant to the rule, need for a defined nursing home subdivision is projected to a three- year planning horizon, in this case July 1989. The need methodology prescribed in the rule is as follows: A (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) or: The District's age-adjusted number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] (The population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental districts projected three years into the future [POPA] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]) + (The population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future [POPB] x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB].) BA LB/(POPC) + (6 x POPD) or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA] (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]/the current population age 65-74 years [POPC] + (6 x the current population age 75 years and over [POPD]) BB 6 x BA or: The estimated current bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district [BB] 6 x the estimated current bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district [BA]. SA A x (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) or: The preliminary subdivision allocation of community nursing home beds [SA] The district's age-adjusted number of community nursing home bids for the review cycle for which a projection is being made [A] x (The number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict [LBD]/the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district [LB]) x (The average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict of the relevant district [OR]/.90) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)(2)(i), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: The new bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for CON approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs a. through i., unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. The appropriate planning horizon for the instant case is July 1989, corresponding to the review cycle which began July 15, 1986, and the subdistrict is Palm Beach County. THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (LB)/THE NUMBER OF LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOME BEDS IN THE RELEVANT SUBDISTRICT (LBD) Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) requires that "review of applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon the number of licensed beds (LB and LBD) as of June 1 preceding this cycle..." On June 1, 1986, there were 5,459 licensed community nursing home beds in District XI (LB) and 4,084 licensed community nursing home beds in subdistrict 4 (Palm Beach County LBD). These figures include 220 licensed beds that were previously categorized as sheltered. In the instant case, the appropriate figure for LB is 5,459, and the appropriate figure for LBD is 4,084. APPROVED BEDS WITHIN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL SUBDISTRICT DHRS's interpretation of the rule is to include in the count of approved beds, those approved up to the date of the supervisor's signature on the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). In this case, there were 640 approved beds in Palm Beach County at that time. As of June 1, 1986, the same date as the licensed bed cutoff, there were 640 approved beds in the subdistrict. In Dr. Warner's opinion, approved beds should be determined as of the same time period as licensed beds in order to have consistency and avoid anomalies in the formula. This opinion is reasonable and appropriate. In the instant case, the figure to be applied in the formula for approved beds in the subdistrict is 640 approved beds. THE POPULATION AGE 65-79 YEARS IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPA). THE POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER IN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTAL DISTRICT PROJECTED THREE YEARS INTO THE FUTURE (POPB). The rule provides that the three year projections of population shall be based upon the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. For the purposes of calculating need, DHRS utilizes at the final hearing the figures for estimated population obtained from data available at the time of initial application and review. The set of population projections which were available when Petitioner's application was filed and reviewed were those published on July 1, 1986. Based on this data, which is reasonable to use, POPA 170,639; and, POPB 122,577. THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 65-74 YEARS (POPC)/THE CURRENT POPULATION AGE 75 YEARS AND OVER (POPD). In calculating POPC and POPD, DHRS also utilizes at final hearing the most current data available at the time of initial application and review, in this case the July 1, 1986, release. Based on that data, POPC 153,005 and POPD 112,894. In the opinion of Dr. Warner, Forum's expert, the base for POPC and POPD should correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate (OR) is calculated. For the July batching cycle, OR is based upon the occupancy rates of licensed facilities for the months of October through March preceding that cycle. According to Warner, January 1, 1986, as the midpoint of this time period, is the appropriate date to derive POPC and POPD in this case. The formula mandated by the rule methodology for calculating the estimated current bed rate requires that the "current population" for the two age groups be utilized. It is reasonable and appropriate for the base for POPC and POPD to correspond to the period for which the average occupancy rate is calculated. Supportive of Dr. Warner's opinion are the past practices of DHRS. Between December 1984 and December 1986, DHRS routinely used a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon date in determining "current population" in its semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocation. In the January 1987 batching cycle, which cycle immediately followed the cycle at issue in this case, DHRS utilized a three and one half year spread between the base population period and the horizon data for "current population" when it awarded beds. DHRS offered In this case, it proposed to use a three year spread between the base population period and the horizon dated for "current population" in calculating POPC and POPD. Using the July 1986 population release, POPC for January 1986 is 149,821 and POPD for January 1986 is 98,933. THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE FOR ALL LICENSED COMMUNITY NURSING HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OF THE RELEVANT DISTRICT (OR). The rule requires the use of occupancy data from the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development for the months of the previous October through March when calculating a July batch of nursing home applicants. However, the rule is not instructive as to how one calculates this number. In this case, DHRS computed average occupancy rates based on the existing occupancy rates at applicable facilities on the first day of each month. Based on this occupancy data, which includes the data for the 220 previously sheltered beds in the subdistrict, occupancy rates for the July 1986 batch of Palm Beach County nursing home applicants is 83.75 percent. Forum's witness, Dr. Warner, determined that the correct occupancy rate was 85.46 percent for Palm Beach County for the period October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner arrived at this figure by including paid reservation days. A paid reservation day is a day which is paid for by the patient or the patient's intermediary during which the patient is not physically in the bed. Typically, the patient will either be in the hospital, visiting relatives or otherwise away from the facility and will continue to pay for the nursing home bed, so that they will be able to return and not have someone occupy the bed. One of the goals and objectives of the District IX Local Health Plan is that paid reservation days be considered when bed need calculations are made. Calculating prepaid reservation days is consistent with the Rule because such beds are no longer available to the public and are therefore in use. Dr. Warner determined that during the applicable period, 1.25 percent of the licensed beds in the subdistrict were paid reservation days. Although taking paid reservation days into account would not be inconsistent with the rule, Forum failed to demonstrate that the 1.25 percent figure arrived at is valid for the applicable period, i.e., October 1985 to March 1986. Dr. Warner merely calculated a two-year average number of paid reservation days, broke this figure down to a six-month average and applied this average to the six-month period specified in the Rule. Gene Nelson, an expert called on behalf of Forum, calculated the occupancy rate as 88.72 percent in Palm Beach County for the appropriate period called for in the Rule. Nelson used the average monthly occupancy data obtained from medicaid cost reports for some facilities rather than first-day of the month data as used by DHRS. In addition, Nelson did not factor in the occupancy date of licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based on his belief that the District IX Local Health Plan mandates that the western area not be considered in any way with the eastern coast section of Palm Beach County for purposes of determining competitiveness. While the use of average full-month occupancy data is generally more reliable than using first-day of the month data, it is best, from a health planning prospective, to be able to use either all full-month data or all first- day of the month data. In making his calculations, Mr. Nelson mixed the two types of data, using full-month data when available and in other cases using first-day of the month data when full-month data was not available. It is inappropriate to fail to consider licensed beds in the extreme western portion of the County based solely on the local health plan. Among other reasons, the rule does not provide for exclusions for any of the subdistricts licensed facilities from the methodology. The appropriate and most reasonable occupancy rate (OR) in the instant case for the applicable time period is 83.75 percent. NET NEED Applying the above-referenced variables to the Rule formula produces the following results. July, 1986. District Allocation BA LB (POPC + (6 x POPD) - 5459 [149,821 + (6 x 98,833)] - .007349 BB - 6 x BA .044094 (.007349) July, 1989 Allocation (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) - (170,639 x .007349) + (122,577 x .044094) - 6659 Subdivision Allocation and Need SA A x (LBD / LB) x (OR 1.9) - 6659 x (4084 / 5459) x (.8375/.9) - 6659 x .74812236673 x .93055555555 4636 Subdistrict Allocation for Palm Beach County 4084 (Licensed Beds) 576 (90 percent of 640 Approved Beds) -24 (Bed Surplus)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the application for certificate of need filed by Forum be Denied. DONE AND ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0704 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Sentence 1 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Rejected as misleading and/or subordinate. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18 and 19. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Richard Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncompliance
Findings Of Fact Charlotte is a nursing home located at 5405 Babcock Street, Northeast, Fort Myers, Florida, with 180 residents and is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency responsible for evaluating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. As such, in the instant case it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida in accordance with Section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2000). AHCA evaluates all Florida nursing homes at least every 15 months and assigns a rating of standard or conditional to each licensee. In addition to its regulatory duties under Florida law, AHCA is the state "survey agency," which, on behalf of the federal government, monitors nursing homes that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On August 27 through 30, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual survey of Charlotte's facility and alleged that there were deficiencies. These deficiencies were organized and described in a survey report by "Tags," numbered Tag F242 and Tag F324. The results of the survey were noted on an AHCA form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to this form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567." The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identified each alleged deficiency by reference to a Tag number. Each Tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Charlotte and cites a provision of the relevant rule or rules in the Florida Administrative Code violated by the alleged deficiency. To protect the privacy of nursing home residents, the 2567 and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number (i.e., Resident 24) rather than by the name of the resident. AHCA must assign a class rating of I, II or III to any deficiency that it identifies during a survey. The ratings reflect the severity of the identified deficiency, with Class I being the most severe and Class III being the least severe deficiency. There are two Tags, F242 and F324 at issue in the instant case, and, as a result of the August 2001 survey, AHCA assigned each Tag a Class II deficiency rating and issued Charlotte a "Conditional" license effective August 30, 2001. Tag F242 Tag F242 generally alleged that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents, based on record review, group interviews, and staff interviews, and that Charlotte failed to adequately ensure that the residents have a right to choose activities that allow them to interact with members of the community outside the facility. On or about August 24, 2001, AHCA's surveyors conducted group interviews. During these interviews, 10 of 16 residents in attendance disclosed that they had previously been permitted to participate in various activities and interact with members of the community outside the facility. They were permitted to go shopping at malls, go to the movies, and go to restaurants. Amtrans transportation vans were used to transport the residents to and from their destinations. The cost of transportation was paid by Charlotte. An average of 17 to 20 residents participated in those weekly trips to dine out with other community members at the Olive Garden and other restaurants. During those trips, Charlotte would send one activity staff member for every four to six residents. The record contains no evidence that staff nurses accompanied those select few residents on their weekly outings. The outings were enjoyed by those participants; however, not every resident desired or was able to participate in this particular activity. Since 1985, outside-the-facility activities had been the facility's written policy. However, in August 2000, one year prior to the survey, Matthew Logue became Administrator of the facility and directed his newly appointed Activities Director, Debbie Francis, to discontinue facility sponsored activities outside the facility and in its stead to institute alternative activities which are all on-site functions. Those residents who requested continuation of the opportunity to go shopping at the mall or dine out with members of the community were denied their request and given the option to have food from a restaurant brought to the facility and served in-house. The alternative provided by the facility to those residents desiring to "interact with members of the community outside the facility" was for each resident to contact the social worker, activity staff member, friends or family who would agree to take them off the facility's premises. Otherwise, the facility would assist each resident to contact Dial-A-Ride, a transportation service, for their transportation. The facility's alternative resulted in a discontinuation of all its involvement in "scheduling group activities" beyond facility premises and a discontinuation of any "facility staff members" accompanying residents on any outing beyond the facility's premises. As described by its Activities Director, Charlotte's current activities policy is designed to provide for residents' "interaction with the community members outside the facility," by having facility chosen and facility scheduled activities such as: Hospice, yard sales, barbershop groups for men and beautician's day for women, musical entertainment, antique car shows, and Brownie and Girl Guides visits. These, and other similar activities, are conducted by "community residents" who are brought onto the facility premises. According to the Activities Director, Charlotte's outside activities with transportation provided by Amtrans buses were discontinued in October of 2000 because "two to three residents had been hurt while on the out trip, or on out-trips."1 Mr. Logue's stated reason for discontinuing outside activities was, "I no longer wanted to take every member of the activities department and send them with the resident group on an outing, thereby leaving the facility understaffed with activities department employees." The evidence of record does not support Mr. Logue's assumption that "every member of the facility's activities department accompanied the residents on any weekly group outings," as argued by Charlotte in its Proposed Recommended Order. Charlotte's Administrator further disclosed that financial savings for the facility was among the factors he considered when he instructed discontinuation of trips outside the facility. "The facility does not sponsor field trips and use facility money to take people outside and too many staff members were required to facilitate the outings." During a group meeting conducted by the Survey team, residents voiced their feelings and opinions about Charlotte's no longer sponsoring the field trips on a regular basis in terms of: "feels like you're in jail," "you look forward to going out," and being "hemmed in." AHCA's survey team determined, based upon the harm noted in the Federal noncompliance, that the noncompliance should be a State deficiency because the collective harm compromised resident's ability to reach or maintain their highest level of psychosocial well being, i.e. how the residents feel about themselves and their social relationships with members of the community. Charlotte's change in its activities policy in October of 2000 failed to afford each resident "self- determination and participation" and does not afford the residents the "right to choose activities and schedules" nor to "interact with members of the community outside the facility." AHCA has proved the allegations contained in Tag F242, that Charlotte failed to meet certain quality of life requirements for the residents' self-determination and participation. By the testimonies of witnesses for AHCA and Charlotte and the documentary evidence admitted, AHCA has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Charlotte denied residents the right to choose activities and schedules consistent with their interests and has failed to permit residents to interact with members of the community outside the facility. Tag F324 As to the Federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged that Charlotte was not in compliance with certain of those requirements regarding Tag F324, for failing to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. As to State licensure requirements of Sections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2000), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that Charlotte had failed to comply with State established rules, and under the Florida classification system, classified Tag F324 noncompliance as a Class II deficiency. Based upon Charlotte's patient record reviews and staff interviews, AHCA concluded that Charlotte had failed to adequately assess, develop and implement a plan of care to prevent Resident 24 from repeated falls and injuries. Resident 24 was admitted to Charlotte on April 10, 2001, at age 93, and died August 6, 2001, before AHCA's survey. He had a history of falls while living with his son before his admission. Resident 24's initial diagnoses upon admission included, among other findings, Coronary Artery Disease and generalized weakness, senile dementia, and contusion of the right hip. On April 11, 2001, Charlotte staff had Resident 24 evaluated by its occupational therapist. The evaluation included a basic standing assessment and a lower body assessment. Resident 24, at that time, was in a wheelchair due to his pre-admission right hip contusion injury. On April 12, 2001, two days after his admission, Resident 24 was found by staff on the floor, the result of an unobserved fall, and thus, no details of the fall are available. On April 23, 2001, Resident 24 was transferred to the "secured unit" of the facility. The Survey Team's review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, completed April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 required limited assistance to transfer and to ambulate and its review of Resident 24's Resident Assessment Protocols (RAPs), completed on April 23, 2001, revealed that Resident 24 was "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's RAP stated that his risk for falls was primarily due to: (1) a history of falls within the past 30 days prior to his admission; (2) his unsteady gait; (3) his highly impaired vision; and (4) his senile dementia. On April 26, 2001, Charlotte developed a care plan for Resident 24 with the stated goal that the "[r]esident will have no falls with significant injury thru [sic] July 25, 2001," and identified those approaches Charlotte would take to ensure that Resident 24 would not continue falling. Resident 24's care plan included: (1) place a call light within his reach; (2) do a falls risk assessment; (3) monitor for hazards such as clutter and furniture in his path; (4) use of a "Merry Walker" for independent ambulation; (5) placing personal items within easy reach; (6) assistance with all transfers; and (7) give Resident 24 short and simple instructions. Charlotte's approach to achieving its goal was to use tab monitors at all times, to monitor him for unsafe behavior, to obtain physical and occupational therapy for strengthening, and to keep his room free from clutter. All factors considered, Charlotte's care plan was reasonable and comprehensive and contained those standard fall prevention measures normally employed for residents who have a history of falling. However, Resident 24's medical history and his repeated episodes of falling imposed upon Charlotte a requirement to document his records and to offer other assistance or assistive devices in an attempt to prevent future falls by this 93-year-old, senile resident who was known to be "triggered" for falls. Charlotte's care plan for Resident 24, considering the knowledge and experience they had with Resident 24's several falling episodes, failed to meet its stated goal. Charlotte's documentation revealed that Resident 24 did not use the call light provided to him, and he frequently refused to use the "Merry Walker" in his attempts of unaided ambulation. On June 28, 2001, his physician, Dr. Janick, ordered discontinuation of the "Merry Walker" due to his refusal to use it and the cost involved. A mobility monitor was ordered by his physician to assist in monitoring his movements. Charlotte's documentation did not indicate whether the monitor was actually placed on Resident 24 at any time or whether it had been discontinued. Notwithstanding Resident 24's refusal to cooperatively participate in his care plan activities, Charlotte conducted separate fall risk assessments after each of the three falls, which occurred on April 12, May 12, and June 17, 2001. In each of the three risk assessments conducted by Charlotte, Resident 24 scored above 17, which placed him in a Level II, high risk for falls category. After AHCA's surveyors reviewed the risk assessment form instruction requiring Charlotte to "[d]etermine risk category and initiate the appropriate care plan immediately," and considered that Resident 24's clinical record contained no notations that his initial care plan of April 23, 2001, had been revised, AHCA concluded that Charlotte was deficient. On May 13, 2001, Dr. Janick visited with Resident 24 and determined that "there was no reason for staff to change their approach to the care of Resident 24." Notwithstanding the motion monitors, on June 17, 2001, Resident 24 fell while walking unaided down a corridor. A staff member observed this incident and reported that while Resident 24 was walking (unaided by staff) he simply tripped over his own feet, fell and broke his hip. Charlotte should have provided "other assistance devices," or "one-on-one supervision," or "other (nonspecific) aids to prevent further falls," for a 93-year-old resident who had a residential history of falls and suffered with senile dementia. Charlotte did not document other assistive alternatives that could have been utilized for a person in the condition of Resident 24. AHCA has carried its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence regarding the allegations contained in Tag F324.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Agency enter a final order upholding the assignment of the Conditional licensure status for the period of August 30, 2001 through September 30, 2001, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 for each of the two Class II deficiencies for a total administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (the “Department”), was “substantially justified” under section 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes,1 in initiating the underlying action against the nursing home administrator license of Petitioner, Sebrina Cameron, N.H.A. (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Cameron”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department, through the Board, is the entity authorized by statute to issue licenses to nursing home administrators and to impose discipline on those licenses when warranted. § 468.1685(4), Fla. Stat. Ms. Cameron is a licensed nursing home administrator, having been issued license number NH 4950. Case No. 20-3025PL was initiated by the Department, a “state agency” for purposes of section 57.111(3)(f). Ms. Cameron qualifies as a “small business party” as defined in section 57.111(3)(d). Because the Administrative Complaint underlying Case No. 20- 3025PL was ultimately dismissed by the Board, Ms. Cameron is a “prevailing small business party” under section 57.111(3)(c)1. The sole issue presented in this bifurcated proceeding is whether the Department was substantially justified in bringing the Administrative Complaint against Petitioner’s nursing home administrator license. Section 57.111(3)(e) states that a proceeding is “substantially justified” if “it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” On May 4, 2020, the Department presented its investigation and recommendation in Department Case No. 2020-12066 to the Panel, which decides whether there is a sufficient legal and factual basis for the Department to move forward with formal charges in license discipline cases. The Panel reviewed the following materials (hereinafter “Panel Materials”): a draft of the proposed Administrative Complaint; a copy of the Department’s Order of Emergency Suspension of License; Petitioner’s detailed response to the allegations; a 980-page Supplemental Investigative Report dated April 23, 2020; and a 196-page Final Investigative Report dated April 22, 2020. The Panel found probable cause and authorized the filing of the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron. The investigation and subsequent Administrative Complaint related to an outbreak of COVID-19 involving several residents at Cross Landings Health and Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home in Monticello. The outbreak commenced on or about April 5, 2020, when a resident at Cross Landings tested positive for COVID-19. By April 14, 2020, 11 additional residents had tested positive. On April 9, 2020, a team of four registered nurses (“RN Team”), contracted by the Department’s Division of Emergency Management, arrived at Cross Landings with the stated assignment of assessing the facility’s infection control procedures and providing education and training on hygiene practices, infection control, isolation procedures, and the proper use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”). The RN Team was also tasked with identifying and recommending actions to be taken to control the spread of COVID-19 infections. The RN Team worked at Cross Landings until April 14, 2020. The record indicates that the RN Team’s dealings with the staff of Cross Landings was contentious, particularly with regard to the facility’s owner, administrators, and senior nursing staff, who regarded the team’s behavior as high-handed, intrusive, and not consistent with its supposed mission of helping Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak. From the RN Team’s point of view, Cross Landings’ leadership was uncooperative when not outright obstructive. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Cross Landings had two licensed nursing home administrators on site responding to the outbreak. The administrator of record was Mark Daniels. However, Mr. Daniels submitted his resignation to Cross Landings on April 7, 2020. During the team’s stay, Ms. Cameron was also at the facility in her role as regional administrator for the parent company of Cross Landings, to ensure continuity of care for the residents and to help on the administrative side. Petitioner argues that the title “regional administrator” was an honorific bestowed upon her by the parent company in recognition of her years of service to the organization. The title carried no additional powers or duties. Petitioner states that Ms. Cameron had no supervisory authority over Mr. Daniels, who was at all relevant times the administrator of record at Cross Landings. At the time of the investigation, the Department was unaware that the title “regional administrator” carried no actual authority. The Department understood the title to mean that Ms. Cameron was senior to Mr. Daniels and exercised some level of administrative authority at Cross Landings. It appeared to the RN Team that Ms. Cameron was a figure of authority at Cross Landings and that she was treated as such by the staff of the facility. The RN Team created daily reports detailing its observations at Cross Landings for April 9 through 11, 13, and 14, 2020. During its subsequent investigation, the Department interviewed the members of the RN Team regarding their observations at Cross Landings. The daily reports and the interviews were part of the investigative file that was before the Panel when it deliberated probable cause in Ms. Cameron’s case. The RN Team reported widespread failure in Cross Landings’ infection prevention and control measures, including the improper use of PPE by staff, inadequate hygiene procedures, the failure to properly isolate COVID-19 suspected or positive residents, the failure to timely notify staff members of COVID-19 positive residents, and the failure to properly screen individuals entering the facility, including Ms. Cameron.2 The RN Team also reported an overall failure to deliver adequate resident care, including residents who were soiled with feces or urine, 2 The RN Team’s reportage was disputed by Cross Landings and would have been subject to challenge by Ms. Cameron at any subsequent hearing. The RN Team’s reportage is relayed in this Final Order not as fact but as information that was available to the Panel in its deliberations. residents who did not have bed sheets, residents who were not receiving adequate wound care, and residents with undated and soiled surgical dressings. The RN Team reported being “shocked and horrified” by the conditions at Cross Landings. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron instructed Cross Landings’ staff to not listen to the RN Team’s recommendations and that Ms. Cameron called the RN Team “nothing but trouble.” Ms. Cameron and her fellow senior employees believed, not without reason, that the main purpose of the RN Team was not to help Cross Landings cope with the COVID-19 outbreak, but to compile a record for the purpose of disciplinary action against the facility and its administrators. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Director of Nursing Mary Lewis actively obstructed the RN Team’s efforts to improve conditions at the facility. The RN Team reported that the trio became increasingly hostile to the RN Team. The RN Team reported that Ms. Cameron, Mr. Daniels, and Ms. Lewis stated that they were following orders from the facility’s owner, Karl Cross. On or about April 14, 2020, the Department issued Quarantine/ Isolation Orders directing that 13 of Cross Landings’ 42 residents be relocated to another facility due to Cross Landings’ insufficient infection control practices and the resultant spread of COVID-19 within the facility. On or about April 15, 2020, the Department issued additional Orders requiring the remaining Cross Landings’ residents to undergo COVID-19 testing. Petitioner’s Motion does not dispute the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint as to her actions at Cross Landings between April 9 and 14, 2020. Petitioner’s case rests on the legal argument that the Department cannot take disciplinary action against Ms. Cameron’s nursing home administrator license under the facts alleged because Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings. The Motion states: Here, the Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron was not substantially justified because Mark Daniels—and NOT Sebrina Cameron—was the designated administrator of Cross Landings at all times referenced in the Amended Complaint. Ms. Cameron was at all relevant times, and continues to be, the administrator of a completely different facility, Crosswinds Health and Rehabilitation Center (“Crosswinds”). These facts were known to the [Department]. The identity of the actual administrator was readily available to [the Department] and was easily determined through a simple review of readily available state records. Petitioner relies on a rule of the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) regulating the licensure, administration, and fiscal management of nursing homes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.103(4) provides: Administration. The licensee of each nursing home must have full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the facility. The licensee of each facility must designate one person, who is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators under Chapter 468, Part II, F.S., as the Administrator who oversees the day to day administration and operation of the facility.[3] Each nursing home must be organized according to a written table of organization. (emphasis added). 3 This portion of the rule implements section 400.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that a licensed nursing home facility shall “[b]e under the administrative direction and charge of a licensed administrator.” Section 400.021(1) defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The Motion notes that the Administrative Complaint acknowledges that Ms. Cameron was not the designated administrator of record at Cross Landings by repeatedly referring to her as the “regional administrator” of the facility. The Motion goes on to argue as follows: There are no rules, codes, statutes, or any other authoritative sources that recognize the existence of or define the responsibilities of a “regional administrator.” Ms. Cameron was given the honorific title as recognition of her years of quality service, but the title did not come with any legislatively recognized responsibilities, official responsibilities, authority, or monetary incentives for any time she chose to spend helping out at Cross Landings during the once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. To be clear, Ms. Cameron was not required by contract, duties, law, or regulation to step foot in Cross Landings and put herself at risk during a deadly pandemic. Despite this, the [Department] elected to proceed against her license through [sections] 468.1755(1)(h) and (k). Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(h), by engaging in fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration, which is defined as follows by section 468.1655(4): “Practice of nursing home administration” means any service requiring nursing home administration education, training, or experience and the application of such to the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling of the total management of a nursing home. A person shall be construed to practice or to offer to practice nursing home administration who: Practices any of the above services. Holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any form of nursing home administration by written or verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card; or in any other way represents himself or herself to be, or implies that he or she is, a nursing home administrator. The Department argues that the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration does not limit its regulatory reach to the designated administrator of a nursing home, but reaches a person who holds herself out as able to perform or who does perform nursing home administration. The Department states that an AHCA rule regarding the overall operation of nursing home facilities does not govern the Department’s regulation of an individual licensee. The Department contends that Ms. Cameron’s undisputed actions at Cross Landings met the statutory definition of the practice of nursing home administration and that it was reasonable for the Panel to find probable cause based on those actions. The Department points out that Ms. Cameron used her title of regional administrator to order supplies on behalf of Cross Landings, including PPE and sanitizing products. Ms. Cameron verbally directed Cross Landings’ staff members. In one instance noted by the RN Team, a newly hired Cross Landings certified nursing assistant (“CNA”) was given a painter’s mask that was too large for her face. The RN Team instructed her to replace it with a smaller mask. The CNA told the RN Team that Ms. Cameron had given her the mask and that she had been given no training on COVID-19 procedures or PPE. Ms. Cameron subsequently refused to give the CNA a smaller mask and instead offered her a used N95 mask from the trunk of her car. When the CNA refused to put on the used mask, she was forced to resign from her position. Ms. Cameron represented Cross Landings in dealing with the Department regarding the placement of a resident who was suspected to have COVID-19. Ms. Cameron met with the RN Team on behalf of Cross Landings. The Department notes that Ms. Cameron held herself out as able to perform nursing home administration and/or represented or implied that she was a nursing home administrator at Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron was physically present at Cross Landings in her role as regional administrator. She employed the title “regional administrator” to some effect and used the administrator’s office while at Cross Landings. She was privy to communications between Mr. Cross and AHCA regarding the RN Team and COVID-19 infection control procedures at Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record, Ms. Cameron held herself out and was treated as having actual administrative authority at Cross Landings during the COVID-19 outbreak and the RN Team’s visit in April 2020. There was a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner engaged in the practice of nursing home administration at Cross Landings as defined in section 468.1655(4)(a) and/or (b), due to her performance of nursing home administrator services and/or by her holding herself out to be a nursing home administrator. Count II of the Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner violated section 468.1755(1)(k), by repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility in which she is the administrator. Chapter 468, enacted to ensure that every nursing home administrator practicing in Florida meets the minimum requirements for safe practice, defines a nursing home administrator as, “a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of nursing home administration in this state under the authority of this part.” § 468.1655(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). As noted above, section 400.021 defines “administrator” as “the licensed individual who has the general administrative charge of a facility.” The stated purpose of chapter 400, part II, is to provide for the development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for the health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and the maintenance and operation of such institutions in a manner that will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment, and health of persons in such facilities. § 400.011, Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cameron was a licensed nursing home administrator pursuant to chapter 468 and used the title of regional administrator. The title “regional administrator” is not defined by statute but in context carries an ordinary meaning that the individual is the administrator supervising more than one nursing home in a geographic area. Ms. Cameron stated that she was at Cross Landings to ensure continuity of care after Mr. Daniels tendered his resignation. It was not illogical for the Department to conclude that “continuity of care” meant that Ms. Cameron was sent to Cross Landings to perform the duties of administrator as Mr. Daniels prepared for his departure. Ensuring “continuity of care” would certainly require control over the various components of a nursing home to provide health care and activities of daily living, including the management of nursing and housekeeping staff, oversight of meal services, and the facilitation of social and recreational activities. Such oversight or control is tantamount to the general administrative charge of the facility. Ms. Cameron would not have been able to ensure continuity of care if she did not have de facto general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Ms. Cameron’s general administrative charge over the facility was evidenced by her actions at Cross Landings, including ordering supplies, distributing supplies to staff members, directing staff members, communicating on behalf of the facility, meeting with the RN Team in the place of Mr. Daniels, and using the administrator’s office as her own. Ms. Cameron’s licensure as a nursing home administrator, her use of the title regional administrator, her stated purpose for being present at Cross Landings, and her actions at Cross Landings provide sufficient grounds for a reasonable person to believe that she had the general administrative charge of Cross Landings. Though she was not the administrator of record and did not have sole administrative charge of the facility, Ms. Cameron presented herself as the person in charge and was treated as such by Cross Landings’ staff. Based on the foregoing, at the time this proceeding was initiated, the Department had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find that Petitioner was the administrator at Cross Landings as defined in sections 468.1655(3) and 400.021(1), and was subject to discipline for repeatedly acting in a manner inconsistent with the health, safety, or welfare of the patients of the facility. During the probable cause hearing on May 4, 2020, the Panel discussed and considered whether Ms. Cameron was subject to discipline for her actions at Cross Landings. Members of the Panel raised questions about her status as the administrator of Cross Landings. The Department informed the Panel that Mr. Daniels was the administrator of record for Cross Landings. The Panel discussed what duties and obligations a licensed administrator other than the administrator of record would have in this specific scenario. The Panel considered that Ms. Cameron was the regional administrator for the parent company, that she was acting in an administrative capacity on the ground at Cross Landings, and that she therefore had some degree of responsibility. The Panel concluded that Ms. Cameron was operating in the capacity of administrator by being the regional administrator on site. The chair of the Panel reasonably concluded that a regional administrator would be in a position to exercise control over Mr. Daniels and that Mr. Daniels was reporting to Ms. Cameron. It is found that the information before the Panel was sufficient to support the Panel’s decision. The Department was substantially justified in finding probable cause and deciding to pursue an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cameron.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s license as a nursing home administrator in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Nursing Home Administrators (Board), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the nursing home administrator profession in this state and the licensing of nursing home administrators. Respondent, Judith Ortiz, was a licensed nursing home administrator holding license number NH 0002926. Respondent has an undergraduate degree in science and art, and a master’s degree in Business Administration and Health Care Administration. Subsequent to the award of her graduate degree, she taught in long-term care facilities in Dade County, Florida, during which time she developed an interest in care of the elderly. Ms. Ortiz took and passed the examination for licensure as a nursing home administrator in 1990 and began work as an assistant nursing home administrator for Unicare, a care provider, in 1991. In December 1992, she came to Unicare’s facility in New Port Richey, Richey Manor, as the administrator, and remained there until she was terminated in May 1994. At the time of her termination, she was being paid a salary of $37,500. Shortly after Respondent assumed the position of administrator at Richey Manor, an inspection of the facility by the Agency for Health Care Administration revealed no significant problem with resident pressure sores. Respondent’s own chronology of events reveals a subsequent series of unfortunate personnel problems which befell the facility. Only two months after the Respondent was hired, the director of nursing at the facility resigned. It was at that point that Respondent’s problems amplified. A survey of the facility in October 1993 resulted in a citation for insufficient staffing, but the company’s nurse consultant, who visited the facility in November 1993, concluded the staffing was sufficient. Respondent continued to seek various forms of assistance from her corporation, but in each case, her request was denied. The director of nursing, whom Respondent hired to replace the head nurse who had resigned at the beginning of the year, did not perform well, but Respondent nonetheless retained her on staff. Ms. Patti K. Silar, a surveyor of nursing homes for the Department of Health Care Administration, has surveyed Richey Manor between six and eight times in the same number of years. In February 1994, as the result of an anonymous complaint filed with the Department, she conducted a survey there during which she found several deficiencies. Specifically, she found that while the number of personnel on duty met minimum license requirements, other factors indicated that staffing was inadequate to meet residents’ needs. This manifested itself in extended delays in responding to patient calls which resulted in resident incontinence and resident falls; failure to maintain resident cleanliness; failure to ensure residents were fed on time; and failure to properly turn bed-ridden patients. All these deficiencies, which continued over a period of months, resulted in adverse health impacts to the residents. A follow-up inspection of the facility was done on April 28, 1994. The follow-up was to a survey done on July 23, 1993, and to an investigation done on October 21, 1993, and February 22, 1994. On this follow-up, the facility’s handling of pressure sores was again found to be inadequate; nursing staffing was determined to be inadequate to meet residents’ needs, resulting in inadequate resident care in several respects; and charge nurses were found not to be fulfilling their responsibilities for the total nursing care of residents in several respects. The facility’s annual survey was conducted on April 29, 1994. Several additional deficiency areas were addressed in this survey, including the failure of the facility’s transfer paperwork to provide for appeal rights; inappropriate utilization of restraints; failure to meet sufficient quality of life standards; failure to maintain acceptable levels of assessments and personal grooming of residents; and failure to maintain acceptable comprehensive care plans for all residents to avoid deficiencies in such areas as dehydration, restraints, and the like. This latter survey revealed, as related to pressure sores, not only that those deficiencies previously noted were not improved, but also that residents who came into the facility without pressure sores developed them while in the facility. There was no plan in place to prevent the development of pressure sores, or to prevent the development of skin breakdown. Simple corrective action, such as the purchase of appropriate mattresses or the frequent turning and repositioning of the resident was not being taken. Ms. Silar concluded that the percentage of residents with pressure sores at Richey Manor was much higher than in other similar facilities, standing at approximately 25% of the residents afflicted, as compared with 7 to 8% in other facilities surveyed. In addition to the level A areas found to be deficient, there were multiple level B areas, somewhat less serious than level A areas, found to be deficient as well. These included such matters as fluids being added to a resident’s intake without a physician’s orders, or, in the alternative, residents not being provided what a physician ordered. Further, Ms. Silar experienced an inability to reconcile records on seven residents of seven attempted. This is very unusual and showed a repeated failure to carry out doctors’ orders. The responsibility of insuring that all of this is done rests with the administrator who may delegate responsibility, but is not relieved of accountability. Ms. Silar did not conduct the survey for the purpose of determining the competence of the facility administrator, but she observed significant areas in the operation which were out of compliance, and residents were at risk as a result thereof. The care she observed being provided by the staff under the supervision of the Respondent was less than acceptable in those areas identified in the survey reports as being deficient. Overall, the facility was not in compliance. Whereas the February 1994 survey was abbreviated, the April 1994 survey was a full review for re-certification and re-licensure. As such, it was more comprehensive than the complaint survey. This April 1994 survey was done within one year of the prior general survey; earlier than normal because of the Department’s serious concerns arising out of the February 1994 complaint and inspection results. According to Ms. Silar, Richey Manor, when compared with more than 100 other facilities she has surveyed since 1989, was in the lowest 2 percent. A specific problem she observed there during the February 1994 investigation was the facility’s treatment of bed sores. During the April 1994 survey, Ms. Silar found not only no improvement, but, in fact, a worsening of the conditions. As a result of these surveys, a moratorium was placed on admissions to Richey Manor, and, in fact, disciplinary action was subsequently taken against the facility. Federal standards enacted in 1987 charge facilities such as Richey Manor with the responsibility of assisting residents to achieve their highest potential over-all. They also encourage facilities to change their emphasis to achieving practical results rather than concentrating on paper compliance. Ms. Silar found that Richey Manor was placing only minimal emphasis on solving the bed sore problem when she surveyed the facility in February 1994. At that time it was clear that the residents were not being assessed, nor were care plans being developed. When the more comprehensive survey was done in April 1994, 35 of 36 residents still did not have either appropriate assessments or care plans prepared for them. The facility did not have a comprehensive plan of care, and without that it was impossible to develop individual care plans. The federal standards as to staffing relate only to “sufficient” staff to meet the needs of residents. Under state requirements, specific minimum ratios are required. A facility may have the minimum number of personnel, but not have enough to meet the needs of the residents. This may also relate to quality of staff or to inappropriate utilization of existing staff. In the instant case, though schedules were prepared to reposition residents, there were not enough staff members to follow the schedule. The staff shortage resulted in staff not responding to resident calls in a timely manner, and physician orders not being followed. It also was determined that Richey Manor was taking a large number of residents who required more attention and for whom proper care could not be given. Of the more than 111 residents in the facility at the time of the survey, 62 required assistance with daily living and toileting, and approximately 40 required assistance with dressing. The above observations were concurred in by Carole G. Hembree, a health facility evaluator with the Agency. Ms. Hembree concluded she would not put a loved one in Richey Manor at the time in issue because she did not believe the quality of care given there was adequate. The survey reports referred to herein were reviewed for the Agency by Anthony J. Pileggi, a nursing home administrator since 1978 and an expert in nursing home administration. Mr. Pileggi supervises a 120-bed facility and is lead administrator for three other facilities in a care group. He is also licensed as a preceptor for trainees in the field of nursing home administration. After his review of the survey reports, Mr. Pileggi concluded that during the time in question there was a lack of nursing supervision, a large turnover in nursing staff, poor quality in the nurses on staff, and a lack of preventive measures addressing pressure sores. In his opinion, the administrator did not maintain an awareness of the level of care being provided in the facility through frequent review of indicators such as pressure sores, screening, and treatment. It was his observation that at Richey Manor, during the time in question, there was emphasis on treatment and little effort given to prevention. Respondent’s actions in management were less than competent for a qualified administrator. Mr. Pileggi saw what he considered to be an emphasis on admissions based on payor type rather than acuity level at a time when insufficient care was being given to existing residents to prevent the development of pressure sores. When staff is short, it is inappropriate to take more residents who need a high measure of care. To do so compounds the problem. Mr. Pileggi does not believe Respondent did all she could do to solve the problem. Her reliance on budget problems as an excuse for her actions is not, he believes, well placed. In his opinion, budget is not all-controlling. The administrator must strive to provide adequate care within the budget, and must oversee the director of nursing to insure that staff nurses are performing properly. The appearance of pressure sores is an indicator of other problems. These could include a failure to properly use restraints, improper hydration, and inadequate nutrition. Though Respondent lays blame for the facility’s problems on the nursing staff, as administrator she had the responsibility to ensure there is a proper screening and evaluation of new residents to determine the likelihood of those residents developing pressure sores and to ensure the residents’ skin care is adequate. The administrator must ensure the staff is properly trained and that schedules are developed to provide adequate care. In Pileggi’s opinion, the administrator should perform a weekly review to ensure the facility is working properly, and if not, make appropriate changes to ensure the residents get proper treatment, A nursing home administrator is required to provide supervision of resident care - not provide the care herself. Resident care requires more attention than other administrator duties. Administrators should have a general knowledge of how to review a care plan to provide appropriate care for residents and to meet the residents’ needs. It is the responsibility of the nursing home administrator to ensure proper care plans are developed by qualified persons. The failure to have proper care plans has a direct negative impact on the quality of care. Based on Mr. Pileggi’s review of the survey reports, he found that Richey Manor’s care plans were not sufficient. Respondent points out that in April 1993, she noted a negative trend in patient skin care. Mr. Pileggi does not believe Respondent did enough at that point or thereafter to ensure an appropriate care plan was developed and implemented to combat this trend. Respondent had sufficient authority to act. She could have changed the approach of the various committees towards admissions so as to lower acuity level, but it appeared to Pileggi that she emphasized a payor source admissions policy to conform to budgetary considerations. Acuity level of the resident is related to what staff is needed to provide the appropriate support. The greater the acuity level, the more staff is required. A nursing home administrator can manage the resident census by acuity level to ensure that existing staff can provide the level of care needed. Pileggi contends that if the Respondent recognized she did not have adequate staff to provide the appropriate level of care to the residents, she could have stopped admissions or screened prospective admissions for more independent residents who would require less care. Respondent complained of a lack of corporate support in the areas of staffing and funding; however, Pileggi believes there was much by way of monitoring and supervision of staff she could have done to improve the care provided without more staff or more money. He does not believe Respondent did enough in this regard. To the contrary, if staffing were already inadequate to meet residents’ needs, as Respondent claims, it would negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the residents to take in more residents of a high acuity level. Mr. Pileggi concluded that Respondent showed a strong concern for budgetary considerations of the company. One of her highest priorities appeared to be the effect of any action on operating income. Pileggi contends that a nursing home administrator should use the budget as a tool to provide guidelines for patient care. At those times when line items are not satisfactory, the administrator must look to other budget areas for funds to provide appropriate care. In this case, Pileggi is of the opinion that Respondent’s primary concern should have been for the residents. This means answering calls, keeping the residents comfortable, and other like activities. Respondent claims she devoted 20% of her time to marketing. This time could have been better spent, according to Pileggi, dealing with problems. In short, Respondent should have spent more time in supervising preventive care, rather than seeking additional residents. Evidence presented at hearing indicates that the Director of Nursing at Richey Manor at the time of Respondent’s incumbency was performing poorly, and Respondent advertised for a replacement. Proof of the director’s incompetence, in Pileggi’s opinion, was the deterioration of resident skin condition. Pileggi is satisfied that Respondent’s awareness of this situation was demonstrated by her seeking to replace the director. However, in his opinion, merely seeking to replace the incompetent employee was not enough. Respondent should have worked around her to correct a situation which was obviously of long standing. The development of pressure sores does not come about over-night. Mr. Pileggi would not state that Respondent repeatedly acted contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Richey Manor, but because of the existence of the pressure sore problem, a condition which takes a significant time to develop, Respondent’s decision to admit more high acuity level residents indicates that she intentionally failed to act in the best interests of the residents. In summary, Mr. Pileggi concluded that Respondent’s actions constituted neglect or incompetence in that she did not ensure the facility had adequate staff, and she did not take adequate measures to treat and prevent pressure sores on the residents. The magnitude of the pressure sore problem was, for Mr. Pileggi, proof positive of the failure of Respondent to perform properly. His opinion would not change even if it were shown that Respondent authorized and was trying to hire more staff when, at the same time she was actively seeking to admit more patients who required a high level of care. Ms. Ortiz is adamant in her denial of the allegations that she acted in an incompetent or negligent manner while serving as administrator at Richey Manor. When she went to the facility as its administrator, she was confronted with a director of nursing who had been there for more than a year and who had a management style which conflicted radically with the more structured style of the Respondent. As a result, the director of nursing became disgruntled and resigned in February 1993. Respondent claims she immediately placed an advertisement in area papers for a replacement but got no response. She discussed this problem with her supervisor, Unicare’s regional director of operations, who gave her some recruiting suggestions. Respondent also requested monetary assistance to advertise out-of-state, but this request was denied. Nonetheless, in June 1993, Respondent was able to hire a director of nursing. In the interim, while the hiring search was going on, the assistant director of nursing filled in and Unicare’s regional office sent in a temporary director from another area. In June 1993, Respondent hired Ms. Paderoff, a woman over 60 years old, as director of nursing. However, though her performance at first was good, Ms. Paderoff began to fail to show up for work, and the assistant director would not support her. Her effectiveness was, therefore, diminished. Ms. Paderoff was an experienced nurse - knowledgeable and capable. While she worked at Richey Manor, she was given goals for the nursing department and immediately began implementing them. She was supportive and worked well until the end of 1993. At that time the facility’s personnel problems began to take their toll on her and she threatened to resign. Respondent attempted to support Ms. Paderoff, and Ms. Paderoff withdrew her resignation, but it shortly became apparent her performance had deteriorated badly. Respondent felt that additional supervision was necessary and met weekly with Ms. Paderoff and the other department heads to evaluate their expectations. Ultimately, Paderoff terminated employment. In mid-February 1994, Respondent was able to hire an assistant director and a month after Paderoff left, Respondent hired a very experienced director of nursing. At that point, finally, both the director and assistant director were qualified in their jobs. The problems faced by the facility continued, however, and in May 1994, Respondent was fired. In October 1995, the Agency sought to impose an administrative fine of $1,575 against Unicare for the deficiencies relating to insufficient staff and improper handling of pressure sores identified during the tenure of Respondent but still uncorrected by February 2, 1995. Respondent contends that at the very beginning of her employment at Richey Manor she recognized the staffing problems and sought to correct them. She contacted the local community college’s nursing department to attempt to recruit, as did the director of nursing, who also served as nurse consultant to the college. She sent recruitment letters to over 100 nurses without any response. She encouraged nursing students to perform their rotations at Richey Manor, and she tried to get a pay raise approved for certified nursing assistants (CNA). She also tried to retain and supplement the existing nursing staff by introducing CNA helpers, instituted perfect attendance bonuses, established a recruitment and retention committee to brainstorm ways to get and keep nursing staff, and had two licensed nurses mentor new nursing employees. She also had plans for offering continuing education units in the area, and looked into the possibility of developing an in-house CNA training program. Ms. Ortiz claims her time as administrator was spent evaluating the activities of eight departments in the facility. She spent a lot of time with hiring and replacing staff, including department heads. She started her work day at 7:00 a.m., and her day would end at around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. She would also periodically come in on weekends to show support for the staff and to see what was going on, and would attend the monthly family dinners hosted by the facility. During January and February 1993, as a result of the weekly reports of the nursing staff, Respondent sent reports of resident pressure sores to the company’s regional and national office. As she became more acquainted with the problem, she set goals to address it, starting in March or April 1993. She instructed the director of nursing, when she first came on board, to look into and assess the program in effect and to make recommendations to improve the system. Though Respondent claims this worked well, in fact, the problem continued. Respondent claims that in July 1993 she developed a skin-care program at Richey Manor to address the problem and it appeared the director of nursing was enthusiastically supporting it. In a letter to the company dated November 12, 1993, Respondent outlined the local actions taken regarding skin-care and observed that the facility had experienced a “marked decrease in in-house acquired decubes,” but this apparently was not so. In addition, Respondent contends that Unicare’s skin care policy and procedures were followed at Richey Manor. This policy includes a risk assessment program and continuing observations of factors bearing on the potential for developing decubetes - all the things Respondent claimed she had implemented in her referenced letter to the company. Notwithstanding those efforts, from November 1993 to February 1994, residents who already suffered from pressure sores continued to be admitted to the facility, and it was also during this time that the performance of the director of nursing deteriorated, as previously described. Nonetheless, from February 1994 onward, more emphasis was placed on staff to deal with the pressure sore problem, and the corporate office got more involved as well. The company stepped into the picture because at a meeting at the regional office which she attended in January 1994, she requested the approval of an incontinence care product, and the provision of nurse consultants to train the local staff. Both requests were denied by the company. At a similar meeting held in February or March 1994, the request for this product was again made and again denied. All during this time, Respondent believed she was being attentive to the needs of her residents. She was open to and sought suggestions from staff on the issues confronting the facility, and contacted corporate staff to discuss the problems with them. Apparently, the Agency was not satisfied with Respondent’s efforts and concluded the facility no longer merited a regular license. On May 12, 1994, the Agency changed the rating for Richey Manor to conditional, and, as was noted previously, Respondent was dismissed shortly thereafter. Mr. Pileggi characterized Respondent’s emphasis on recruiting high acuity level residents as being an example of mismanagement. As a for-profit institution, corporate policy sought achievement of a certain levels of resident census and income/profit. Corporate goals called for a resident census of between 95 and 97 percent of capacity. Consistent therewith, Respondent sought to obtain more private pay residents. While Respondent admits to seeking to obtain private pay/insurance pay residents, she categorically denies at any time seeking to admit more high acuity level residents, or of admitting a resident over the objection of the director of nursing. The decision of admission to Richey Manor was a collegial decision of a committee with Respondent having final authority. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any correlation between the source of payment and acuity level, and Ms. Schild, also a nursing home administrator and owner, categorically indicates there is none. Though Respondent may not have sought high acuity level residents, she also did not seek to reduce the case load by declining to admit residents who required a high level of care. The documents considered by Mr. Pileggi and the Board were also reviewed by Kelly Schild, a nursing home administrator and expert in nursing home administration. Based on her review of the documents and what she heard at hearing regarding the Respondent’s actions, she concluded that Respondent took all steps necessary to address the items listed in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent had a care plan in place and made repeated but unfulfilled requests to her corporate headquarters to redress her staffing problems. In her opinion, Respondent had a more than adequate plan for identifying residents at risk from pressure sores and did everything a prudent nursing home administrator could do to address the issues confronting her in light of the lack of financial and other support from her company. Ms. Schild does not believe Respondent repeatedly acted in a manner contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of her residents. To the contrary, Respondent repeatedly addressed the issue of insufficient staff and the pressure sore problem. Respondent was hampered in the performance of her duties by her corporate hierarchy which prevented her from taking appropriate corrective action. Even in light of corporate resistance, Respondent did all a reasonable and prudent nursing home administrator could do. Nonetheless, Ms. Schild notes that if she had confronted the problems Respondent was having with pressure sores, she would not have admitted any new residents with the same problem. In fact, she would not admit any new residents if she had insufficient staff to support the existing resident census. It is in this area that Respondent’s actions fell most below acceptable standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing Home Administrators enter a Final Order in this matter imposing an administrative fine of $1,575 on Respondent, and placing her license as a nursing home administrator on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions relating to restriction of her practice to only supervised employment as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Williams and Holz, P.A. 355 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 1341 Timberlane Road Suite No. 101-A Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether a certificate of need for an additional 60 nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida, in July, 1990, should be granted to any of the four competing certificate of need applicants in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact Procedural. Arbor, Health Quest, HCR, Trecor and fourteen other applicants filed certificate of need applications with the Department in the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle of the Department for Sarasota County. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed a letter of intent with the Department within the time required for the filing of letters of intent for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed their certificate of need application within the time required for the filing of certificate of need applications for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. The applications were deemed complete by the Department. The Department completed its State Agency Action Report for the October, 1987, nursing home bed review cycle on February 19, 1988. The State Agency Action Report relevant to these cases was published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 4, 1988. The Department proposed to approve the certificate of need application filed by Trecor and to deny all other applications. Eleven of the applicants whose certificate of need applications were denied by the Department filed Petitions pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Department's proposed action. All of the Petitioner's except the three Petitioners in these cases withdrew their Petitions. The Parties. The Department. The Department is the agency responsible for reviewing certificate of need applications for or nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida. Arbor. Arbor is a nursing home company that designs, develops, constructs and operates nursing homes. Arbor's corporate headquarters are located in Lima, Ohio. Arbor owns and operates eighteen nursing home and adult congregate living facilities comprising approximately 2,218 beds. In Florida, Arbor owns Lake Highlands Nursing and Retirement Center in Clermont, The Village at Brandon, and The Village at Countryside. In Florida, Arbor is currently developing certificate of need approved facilities in Clay, Orange, Polk, Pinellas and Sarasota Counties. Arbor formed Sarasota Health Center, Inc., to hold the certificate of need it is seeking in this proceeding. Although this corporation is in form the applicant, Arbor is in substance the applicant in these proceedings. Health Quest. Health Quest is an Indiana corporation which has been in the business of constructing and operating nursing homes and retirement housing facilities for approximately twenty years. Health Quest currently operates eleven nursing centers and three retirement housing developments. In Florida, Health Quest operates three nursing centers and two retirement housing developments. The nursing centers are located in Sarasota, Jacksonville and Boca Raton, Florida. The Jacksonville center is located adjacent to, and is operated in conjunction with, a retirement facility. The facility located in Sarasota is Regents Park of Sarasota (hereinafter referred to as "Regents Park"), a 53-bed sheltered nursing center. Regents Park is located at Lake Pointe Woods, a Health Quest retirement community, which includes 212 independent living apartments and 110 assisted living apartments. The assisted living apartments qualify as an adult congregate living facility. The 53 sheltered nursing home beds are authorized as part of a living care complex pursuant to Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Health Quest has received approval from the Department to locate 60 nursing home beds, which Health Quest has received as part of a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds, at Regents Park. The other 120 approved nursing home beds will be located at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County by Health Quest. Health Quest also has two other projects under construction in Florida: a new facility in Winter Park, Florida, and a new facility in Sunrise, Florida. HCR. HCR is a corporation engaging in the business of designing, developing, constructing and operating nursing homes and related facilities. HCR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Owens Illinois Corporation. HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds. HCR has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities. 24 HCR owns and operates ten nursing homes in Florida, including Kensington Manor, a 147-bed nursing center located in Sarasota County, Florida. HCR also has ten other projects being developed in Florida. Trecor. Trecor is a Florida corporation formed to engage in the business of developing and operating facilities within the full spectrum of the health care industry. Trecor was founded in 1985 when it acquired Burzenski Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as "Burzenski"). Trecor does not own or operate any other health care facility. Burzenski is an existing nursing home with 60 dually certified beds located in the City of Sarasota. The facility was built in 1955 as a private residence. An addition to the facility was constructed in 1962. The Proposals. Arbor's Proposal. Pursuant to a stipulation with the Department dated September 9, 1987, Arbor received certificate of need 4182. Certificate of need 4182 authorizes Arbor to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. 20. Arbor's approved 60-bed nursing home facility will consist of 18,000 gross square feet. Costs of $2,200,000.00 have been approved by the Department in the certificate of need issued for the facility. Arbor intends to develop certificate of need 4182 by building a facility large enough for 120 beds. This facility will house the approved 60 nursing home beds and, if Arbor's application in this case is not approved, an additional 60 beds, licensed as adult congregate living facility beds. In this proceeding Arbor is requesting approval of a proposed conversion of the 60 adult congregate living facility beds to 60 nursing home beds. Arbor has proposed the construction of an additional 18,000 gross square feet to house the additional 60 nursing home beds sought in this proceeding. The proposed cost of the proposal is $2,380,000.00. The total cost of 120 bed facility will be $4,580,000.00. Health Quest's Proposal. Health Quest is seeking approval to convert its 53 sheltered nursing center beds at Regents Park to nursing home beds and to add 7 nursing home beds. The 60 nursing home beds are to be housed in the new community nursing home facility at Regents Park. The beds will be housed in 30,945 square foot of the Regents Park facility. Health Quest also intends to add 60 nursing home beds, which have already been approved by the Department, to Regents Park. The certificate of need application filed by Health Quest indicates that its proposal involves no capital costs. This is incorrect. There will be minimal costs associated with the addition of the 7 additional nursing home beds being sought by Health Quest which it has failed to include in its proposal. Health Quest did not present evidence concerning the total cost of the facility it plans to use to house the proposed 60 beds or the cost of the 60 beds already approved by the Department which it plans to add to Regents Park. HCR's Proposal. HCR is seeking approval to construct a new, freestanding 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. HCR's proposal also includes a 31-bed adult congregate living facility. The nursing home component will consist of 25,600 gross square feet (including 2,300 square feet to be used for adult day care). The total facility will consist of 43,000 gross square feet. Total capital cost for the nursing home component is estimated to be $2,519,000.00. The total cost, including the costs attributable to proposed adult day care services, is $2,657,000.00. The cost of the 31-bed adult congregate living portion of the project will be $1,800,000.00. The total cost of HCR's planned facility is $4,457,000.00. Trecor's Proposal. Trecor is seeking approval to construct a 60-bed addition to the Burzenski 60-bed nursing home. Burzenski is located at 4450 Eighth Street, Sarasota, Florida. The building in which the existing 60 nursing home beds are housed will be replaced by Trecor with a new building. The existing Burzenski building has out-lived its useful life and contains several structural deficiencies. Operations are severely restricted and inefficient. Existing three and four bed wards limit the placement of residents. The existing building does not comply with all current licensure requirements. The noncompliance, however, was "grandfathered" in. In order to replace its existing building with a modern building which meets all current licensure requirements, Trecor applied for a certificate of need in 1985 to build a replacement facility on an adjoining parcel of real estate for which Trecor held an option to purchase at the time. This application was approved on December 4, 1985. After an error by Trecor caused the time established for exercising the certificate of need to pass and a requested six-month extension of the certificate of need was denied by the Department, the certificate of need to construct the replacement facility lapsed. Another application for a replacement facility was filed in January, 1987. This application was approved by the Department in May, 1987. The replacement facility was not, however, constructed. Subsequently, in April and May, 1988, the Department determined that replacement of the existing building was exempt from certificate of need review. Trecor now proposes to add 60 nursing home beds at the same time that it builds its replacement facility for its existing 60 nursing home beds. The new nursing home beds will be housed on a second floor to be built on the replacement facility. In Trecor's application for (30 additional nursing home beds, Trecor has proposed the addition of 12,061 gross square feet to its replacement facility and a project cost of $885,210.00. The cost of Trecor's replacement facility will be $1,303,424.00 plus a $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building. The total cost of Trecor's 120 bed facility will be $3,588,634.00. Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need. Pursuant to the need methodology of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code, there is a need for an additional 75 community nursing home beds for Sarasota County for July, 1990, the planning horizon applicable in these cases. All of the applicants have agreed with the Department's determination of the need for additional nursing home beds for Sarasota County. All of the applicants are seeking to provide 60 of the needed nursing home beds. The District Health Plan. The district health plan for the Department's District 8, which includes Sarasota County, provides certain standards and criteria to be considered in determining community nursing home care need. The policy guidelines and their application, if applicable to the applicants in this proceeding, are as follows: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. Sarasota County is a separate planning subdistrict for community nursing home beds. Therefore, this guideline should be applied to Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase the availability of nursing home services to the residents of Sarasota County. Community nursing home beds should be geographically distributed throughout the counties of District Eight to promote optimal availability and accessibility. The 2,264 existing licensed and 283 approved community nursing home beds located, or to be located in Sarasota County, are already geographically distributed throughout Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase geographic distribution of beds throughout Sarasota County, regardless of where they may be located. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy g. occupational therapy laboratory h. physical therapy x-ray i. speech therapy dental care j. mental health counseling visual care k. social services diet therapy l. medical services All of the applicants will meet thin guideline. New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. The applicants have proposed to provide the following percentage of care to Medicaid patients: Arbor: 45% Health Quest: 16.7% HCR: 42% Burzenski: 59% 1st Year; 60% 2d Year. All of the applicants except Health Quest comply with this guideline. Community nursing home facilities in District Eight should expand their financial base to include as many reimbursement mechanisms as are available to them including Medicare, Medicaid, Champus, VA, and other third-party payers, and private pay. This guideline applies to existing facilities. None of the applicants are proposing to "expand their financial bases" in the manner suggested in this guideline. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. This guideline has been filled. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable services areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. Existing facilities cannot reasonably meet the need for the 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County for July, 1990. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. All of the applicants meets this guideline. Expansion of existing facilities to 120 beds should be given priority over construction of new facilities in the health service area. The proposals of Arbor, Health Quest and Trecor meet this guideline. The proposal of HCR does not meet this guideline. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. All of the applicants meet, or will meet, this guideline. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up service with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Nursing home services should be within at least one hour typical travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of all residents of District Eight. This guideline is not applicable. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest meets this guideline less than the other applicants because of its minimal Medicaid commitment. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest has not, however, provided Medicaid care at Regents Park. Health Quest does provide Medicaid at all its other nursing centers and will obtain Medicaid certification at Regents Park if its application for a certificate of need in this case is approved. Medicare is not provided at Burzenski at this time. Burzenski will, however, provide Medicare at its proposed facility. Failure of a holder of a certificate of need to substantially comply with statements of intent made in the application and relied upon the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as set forth in the Certificate shall be cause for the Department to initiate an action for specific performance, fines as specified in s. 381.495(3), or injunctive relief. This guideline is not applicable. Need for Services. HCR conducted a "non-numeric community need survey" in Sarasota County. Based upon this survey, HCR has suggested that there is an unmet need for 1,600 nursing home beds for Sarasota County for Alzheimer patients and other dementia patients. HCR's conclusions concerning unmet need for services for Sarasota County are unrealistic. HCR failed to prove that any need in Sarasota County for services for Alzheimer patients and others is not being met adequately. Services for Alzheimer patients are currently being provided by Trecor and Health Quest. HCR and Trecor have proposed to dedicate 30 of their proposed nursing home beds to the care of Alzheimer patients and patients with other forms of dementia. All of the applicants propose to provide a full range of services to their residents, including sub-acute care. Other Considerations. Health Quest's avowed purpose for the proposed conversion of its 53 sheltered beds is to insure that Regents Park remains available for use by the general public. Florida law allows sheltered nursing home beds to be used by persons other than residents of an adult congregate living facility for five years from the issuance of a license for the sheltered nursing home beds. Regents Park received its license in November, 1986. Therefore, its sheltered nursing home beds can remain available for use by the general public until November, 1991. Health Quest has received a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds for Sarasota. Health Quest intends on placing 60 of those beds at Regents Park. The other 120 beds will be placed at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County. Health Quest may be able to use some of its 180 approved nursing home beds to avoid the closing of Regents Park to the general public. Health Quest has not, however, explored this alternative. Health Quest's decision not to pursue this course of action is based in part on its decision that the 43% Medicaid care required for its certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds is not acceptable at Regents Park. Health Quest has failed to prove that its proposal is needed because of its desire to convert its sheltered beds to community nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence in this case failed to prove that like and existing health care services in Sarasota County are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care except to the extent that existing services cannot meet the need for 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Two of Arbor's three licensed facilities in Florida are currently rated superior. The other facility is rated standard. Arbor's proposal may qualify it for a superior rating at its proposed facility. Arbor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Arbor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Health Quest. Health Quest has a corporate policy of emphasizing quality of care. It attempts to obtain the highest quality rating in every community it serves. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton have been rated superior. Health Quest's Sarasota facility has not been in operation long enough to qualify for a superior rating. Health Quest's Sarasota facility offers a high level of staffing, including a Human Resources Director, who is responsible for personnel administration and training, a full time social activities director and an activities coordinator. It also has a high nursing ratio. Health Quest is proposing the highest level of staffing of the applicants in this proceeding. Extensive training and development of staff at Health Quest's Sarasota facility is provided. Orientation training and in-service training on an on- going basis will be provided. Health Quest proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Health Quest should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. HCR. HCR's existing Sarasota nursing home has received a license with a standard rating. Other HCR facilities have received standard ratings, including some facilities which were acquired by HCR with superior ratings. HCR also has facilities which have been rated superior. HCR will enhance the quality of care available by providing a full range of services, from the least intensive level (adult day care) to the most intensive levels (i.e., sub- acute care). HCR's proposal to provide adult day care, a dedicated Alzheimer's unit, sub-acute care and respite care, and its adult congregate living facility will enhance quality of care in Sarasota County. HCR adheres to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines. HCR provides adequate training, exceeding state minimum requirements, for its staff. HCR proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. HCR should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Trecor. Trecor has contracted with Central Care, Inc., a Florida corporation providing a full spectrum of health care and retirement living services, to manage its facility. Trecor provides education and training for its staff on an ongoing basis. Even though Trecor is operating in an inadequate building, Trecor received a superior rating in 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. Trecor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Trecor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants provided sufficient proof to conclude that they will provide joint, cooperative or shared health care resources sufficient to provide them with an advantage over the other applicants. Section 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that there is any need in the service district for special equipment or services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Section 381.705(1)(g), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that this criterion applies in this proceeding. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants' proposals will be accessible to all residents of the service district. Health Quest will, however, provide less access to Medicaid residents than the other applicants. Trecor will attempt to initiate internship and training programs for area nursing and allied health programs, and provide clinical placements. Health Quest participates in training programs for nurses from Sarasota Vocational/Technical school. A certified nursing aide program is also offered by Health Quest through Sarasota Vocational/Technical School. All of the applicants will be able to attract and maintain the staff necessary to operate their proposed facilities. HCR is proposing to provide the highest salaries and benefits for staff. Health Quest already has staff for its existing 53 beds. Health Quest is adding, however, 60 nursing home beds to Regents Park. HCR failed to prove that all of the existing staff will be used to staff the proposed 60 nursing home beds and not the already approved 60 nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate Financial Feasibility. Short-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to finance a project. Arbor. The total projected cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00. The total cost for its 120-bed facility is $4,580,000.00. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor is proposing to contribute 10% of the cost of its proposal and finance the remaining 90%. Arbor has $39,000,000.00 in bank lines of credit, of which $34,000,000.00 remain available for development of Arbor's proposed project. Arbor also has sufficient money market funds to meet its projected equity contribution of 10%. Arbor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Health Quest. Health Quest indicated in its application that there were no capital costs associated with its proposal. This is not correct. It will have some minor costs for the addition of the seven new nursing home beds it is seeking. Health Quest's proposal is the lowest in terms of additional capital costs which must be incurred. Most of the capital costs associated with the 53 nursing home beds it is seeking were already incurred when it built Regents Park. Health Quest did not provide proof of the cost of Regents Park. The unaudited financial statements of Health Quest indicate that it experienced a loss of $3,200,000.00 in 1986 and a loss of $5,000,000.00 in 1987. Health Quest has net worth and equity of $300,000.00 on over $200,000,000.00 in assets. The losses Health Quest has been experiencing have been the result of Health Quest's development activities. Health Quest can finance its project with internal funds. The evidence failed to prove that Health Quest must liquidate assets to generate operating funds. Health Quest demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. HCR. HCR's total estimated project costs for its 60-bed facility is $2,657,000.00. This amount includes the cost of the portion of the project to be used for adult day care ($138,000.00). The costs to be incurred for the adult congregate living facility is $1,800,000.00. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. HCR intends to contribute 25% of the total project costs and finance the remaining 75%. HCR has sufficient funds on hand to fund 25% of its project costs. In fact, HCR has the ability to contribute 100% of the total project costs. HCR has lines of credit with banks and other sources of obtaining financing for the project, including a loan from its parent corporation. HCR has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Trecor. The total cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed nursing home addition is $885,210.00. The total cost of replacing the existing Burzenski building is projected as $3,588,634.00 ($885,210.00 for the proposed addition; $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building; and $1,303,424.00 for the replacement of the existing building). Trecor is proposing to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs, or $88,521.00, and to finance the remaining 90%. To finance the entire project will require an equity contribution of over $300,000.00. Trecor has experienced operating losses in 1986 and 1987 and has a negative net worth of $259,000.00. Trecor has a positive cash flow, however. Trecor does not have sufficient equity to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs. The Board of Directors of Trecor has, however, adopted a resolution indicating Trecor's intent to provide the necessary contribution. Trecor can obtain the necessary funds from its owners if necessary. NCNB has expressed an interest in financing the rest of the project. Although NCNB has not legally committed to such an arrangement, it is reasonable to conclude that a satisfactory loan agreement can be reached with NCNB or Barnett Bank. Trecor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Long-Term Financial Feasibility. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to operate a project at a profit, generally measured at the end of the second year of operation. Arbor. At the formal hearing Arbor presented an updated pro forma. Arbor suggested that the purpose of the updated pro forma was to reflect increased personnel costs and reduced utilization from 97% to 95%. According to Arbor, the changes reflect changes caused by inflation and "actual experience." The updated pro forma submitted by Arbor includes substantial increases in salary expense ranging from 10% to 30% (and one increase of 50%). The updated pro forma also includes at least one position not included in the original pro forma filed with Arbor's application. Arbor's original pro forma understated salary expenses. The updated salary expenses were foreseeable, and should have been foreseen, when Arbor filed its application. The updated pro forma was accepted into evidence over objection. In the updated pro forma, Arbor has projected a loss of $347,043.00 from revenue of $2,034,837.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $41,833.00 from revenue of $3,016,512.00 for the second year of operation. Arbor has projected a payor mix of 45% Medicaid, 5% Medicare and 50% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Arbor's projected fill-up rate is reasonable. Arbor's projected charges are reasonable. The evidence failed to prove that Arbor's projected revenue and expenses as contained in its original application are reasonable. The evidence also failed to prove that Arbor's projected expenses as contained in its updated pro forma are reasonable either. Arbor has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. Health Quest. Health Quest is operating at close to capacity at Regents Park and is already charging close to its projected patient charges. The facility has been operating at a loss. The facility experienced a profit only during its latest month of operation. The addition of Medicaid beds will erode Health Quest's revenues to some extent. Health Quest has projected a profit of $16,663.00 from revenue of $1,771,303.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $40,698.00 from revenue of $1,850,156.00 for the second year of operation. Health Quest is projecting a payor mix of 16.7% Medicaid, 4.2% medicare and 79.2% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Regents Park opened in November, 1986, and filled up rapidly. It has been operating at full occupancy and with a waiting list. Health Quest's estimated fill up rate is reasonable in light of this fact. Health Quest has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. HCR. HCR has projected a loss of $267,436.00 on $1,068,427.00 of revenue for its first year of operation and a profit of $62,729.00 on $1,772,399.00 of revenue for its second year of operation. HCR has projected a payor mix of 42% Medicaid, 4% medicare and 54% private pay. These projections are reasonable. HCR's projected fill-up rate to 95% occupancy is reasonable. HCR's projected patient charges are reasonable. HCR's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. HCR's project is feasible in the long term. (4). Trecor. Trecor has projected a profit of $77,458.00 on revenue of $2,481,229.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $367,896.00 on revenue of $3,106,152.00 for the second year of operation. The pro forma submitted by Trecor is for the 120-bed nursing home facility and not just the proposed 60-bed project. Trecor has a negative net worth and Trecor has been operating at a loss. Trecor has projected a payor mix of 59% Medicaid, 3.5% medicare, 34% private pay and 3.5% V.A. These projections are reasonable. Trecor has estimated it will achieve 50% occupancy in the first month of operation and an occupancy of 96% by the seventh month. This is a fill up rate of 2 residents a week. Arbor and HCR have projected fill up rates of 2 residents a month. Trecor does not expect to lose any patients during construction of its facility. Trecor is currently at full occupancy and has a waiting list. Trecor's projected fill up rate is achievable. Trecor's projected patient charges are reasonable. They are the lowest of the competing applicants. Trecor has failed to include some expenses in its projections. Trecor left $50,000.00 of administrative salaries out of its projections and FICA is underestimated because Trecor used the old rate. When these expenses are taken into account, Trecor's project is still financially feasible. Trecor's projected revenue and expenses, except as noted above, are reasonable. Trecor's project is feasible in the long term. Section 381.705(1)(1), Florida Statutes. Based upon the projected rates for nursing home services to be charged by the applicants, Arbor and Trecor will have the least adverse impact on patient charges, followed by HCR. Health Quest will have the greatest adverse impact on patient charges. Generally, all of the applicants will enhance competition if their projects are approved. Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Arbor's building will contain 36,000 gross square feet, with 18,000 gross square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds it is seeking in this proceeding. The cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00 ($132.22 per square foot) and the cost of its entire project is $4,580,000.00. The projected cost of construction is $1,228,000.00, a cost of $68.22 per square foot. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor's proposed building will provide 300 square feet per bed. Arbor plans to build its prototype 120-bed nursing home facility. It has used its 120-bed nursing home plans for other Florida projects. These plans have been approved by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification. Arbors' building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The building will be constructed on a 6.5 acre site which is appropriately zoned and of sufficient size. The design of Arbor's proposed building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Health Quest. Health Quest has already constructed the building in which its proposed 60 nursing home beds dire to be located. The building is already licensed. The building complies witch all code and regulatory requirements. A total of 30,945 square feat will be devoted to the nursing home portion of Regents Park. This is the largest of the proposed facilities. The proposed building will have 515 square feet per bed. There are no construction costs to be incurred for Health Quest's proposal. Construction costs have already been incurred to construct the facility in which Health Quest's proposed beds will be housed. Health Quest's building design is of the highest quality. HCR. HCR is proposing to construct a 60-bed nursing home. Additional space for 31 adult congregate living beds and for an additional 60 nursing home beds will also be built. The facility will include a dedicated 30-bed Alzheimer's unit. The inclusion of this unit requires more space. The proposed HCR building will consist of 25,600 square feet for the 60-bed nursing home. This includes the $138,240.00 cost and the 2,300 square feet of the adult day care unit. The projected cost of HCR's project is $2,657,000.00 or $103.79 per square foot. The projected cost of constructing HCR's proposed building is $1,536,000.00 or $60.00 a square foot. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. 166. HCR's facility will consist of 426 square feet per bed. 167. HCR's facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. 168. HCR's design and methods of construction are reasonable. 169. HCR's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Trecor. The Trecor proposal entails the addition of a 60-bed patient wing on the second floor of a two-story building. The first floor of the building will be constructed by Trecor to replace its existing building. Approval of the replacement facility is not part Trecor's proposal at issue in this proceeding. The plans for the replacement building and the addition thereto have been developed together. The plans can be modified to insure that all of the proposed services can be accommodated in the building. The proposed Trecor building will be constructed in phases. First, the portion of the new building which will house the 120 nursing home beds will be constructed. Patients will then be transferred to the newly constructed facility. All of the existing building except the kitchen and administration facilities will then be demolished. Patients will be fed out of the existing kitchen and the administrative functions will be handled form the old administrative facilities. The new kitchen, dining and administrative offices will then be constructed. When this portion of the building is completed, the old kitchen and administrative offices will be demolished. Although inconvenient, Trecor should be able to continue to provide quality of care during the construction period. The other applicants have raised a number of issues concerning the Trecor building. The issues do not, however, involve violations of code or regulatory requirements for nursing home facilities. Trecor's building will contain a total of 31,398 square feet. This total includes 19,337 square feet attributable to the existing 60 nursing home beds and 12,061 square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds at issue in this proceeding. The proposed building is relatively small. Trecor's architect did a very good job of properly using the relatively small parcel of real estate he had to work with. The small size of the building, however, accounts for the lower cost of the Trecor proposal. The evidence failed to prove that Trecor cannot provide adequate care, despite the building's size. The cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $885,210.00 ($73.39 per square foot) and the cost of its replacement facility is $1,303,424.00. The projected cost of construction for Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $592,500.00, a cost of $49.13 per square foot. Questions have been raised concerning the project development costs and the estimated architecture/engineer fees for Trecor's project. Trecor did not include all of the expenses for these items in the projected costs of its proposed 60-bed addition because the costs were included as part of building the replacement facility. Some of those costs could have been included as part of the cost of the proposal being reviewed in this proceeding. If those costs had been included, their inclusion would not affect the conclusions reached in this proceeding concerning the reasonableness of Trecor's project. Trecor's projected costs are reasonable. Trecor's proposed building will provide 201 square feet for the proposed 60 nursing home beds, 322 square feet for the existing 60 nursing home beds and 261 square feet for the total 120 nursing home beds. Trecor's building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The Trecor facility will be located on 1.97 acres. The design of the Trecor building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Trecor's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants have a history of providing care to Medicaid patients. Health Quest, however, does not provide care to Medicaid patients at Regents Park. If Health Quest's application is approved, Regents Park will become Medicaid certified. The projected Medicaid of the applicants is as follows: Arbor: 45% Health Quest 16.7% HCR 42% Burzenski 59% first year; 60% second year All of the applicants except Health Quest are proposing to provide at least 42% Medicaid, which is the average Medicaid provided in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Trecor's application for certificate of need number 5443 and denying Arbor's application for certificate of need number 5841, Health Quest's application for certificate of need number 5442 and HCR's application for certificate of need number 5437. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1945; 88-1949; 88-1950 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Arbor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 10-13. 2 1 and 29-33. 3 15-21 and hereby accepted. 4 19-20, 34 and 36. 5 22-25. 6 37-40. 7 26-27. 28, 41 and 44-47. Trecor applied for a certificate of need in January, 1987, not May, 1987. Hereby accepted. Not all of the applicants in this proceeding, however, have met the minimum criteria for the issuance of a certificate of need. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and a statement concerning the proceedings. 51. The last two sentences are argument. 51. The fifth through ninth sentences are argument. The evidence proved that Health Quest is adding 60 nursing home beds to its existing facility. Therefore, if its application in this case is approved it will have a 120-bed nursing home facility. 51. The last five sentences are statements of law and argument. Statement of law or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15 64-66. 16 67-69 and 73. 74 and hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43 and 81. The fifth, sixth and eighth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The third, fourth and seventh sentences are hereby accepted. Although this proposed finding of fact, except the last sentence, is generally correct, this is not the only factor to consider in determining whether an applicant can provide quality of care. Argument, not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-55 and hereby accepted. The last sentence, except the reference to the state health plan, is hereby accepted. The second, sixth, ninth, tenth and eleventh sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. See 52-56. Argument. 56 and hereby accepted. 85, 87-88 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51, 60-61 and 86. The second, third, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. 26 92 and 114. 27 95-97 and 106-107. 28 98 and 100. 109-111. The last five sentences are argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 111-113. 97 and 107. Short-term financial feasibility of Health Quest is not moot and Trecor can finance its project with the assistance of its shareholders. Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115 and 118. The last four sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. 119-120. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding or are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 123. 34 130 and 134. 125, 127 and 132. The fifth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is hereby accepted. 136-137 and 143. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument, not relevant to these proceedings or taken into account in determining the weight to be accorded to testimony. 40 Hereby accepted. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 139-141. 42 See 97, 103, 107, 113, 124, 129, 135 and 145. Arbor has not proven that it is financially feasible in the long term. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43, 46 and 56 Statements of law. 146 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 47 148 and 153-155. 48 157-158, 160 and 175. 49 161-163 and 175. 171, 175, 180 and hereby accepted. The sixth, ninth and tenth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 171. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-54 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. 55 185 and 187-188. The last sentence is argument. 57-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 32, 34, 37 and 41. 3 2. 4 3. 4 and 6. 7. Not all of the applicants filed petitions. 7 48. 8 15-16. 9 67-68. 10 17-19. 11 21. 12 19. 13 58-59. See 57. The weight of the evidence did not prove that Regents Park will be closed to the public "unless Health Quest's application for conversion to community status is approved." 14-15 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. 16 See 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17-19 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant to this proceeding. 20 70 and hereby accepted. 21, 24, 27, 30-48, 52, 54-57, 61, 64, 70, 77, 88-89, 93, 95, 97, 107-108, 110-111, 113, 118, 124, 126, 128-129, 132, 135-136 and 138-139. Hereby accepted. 22 Hereby accepted and summary of testimony. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 91. 23 72. 25-26 88 and hereby accepted. 56 and hereby accepted. Not relevant to this proceeding. 49 Hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, are based upon hearsay and constitute opinion testimony from a nonexpert witness. 50 69. 51 Not relevant to this proceeding or based upon hearsay. 53 126 and 128. 58 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 59 157. 60, 65-67, 71, 91, 112, 114-116, 121-122 and 125 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 62 Not relevant to this proceeding. 63 51 and 185-186. 68 100-101. 69 102. 72 51. The last sentence is rejected. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. The parties did not indicate that Section 381.703(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, was at issue in this proceeding or that Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, does not apply. 73-76 Not relevant to this proceeding. The issue is not just whether nursing home services are available to all residents of the service area. Also at issue is whether each applicant is proposing to serve all of the residents of the service area. Health Quest's proposal does indicate Health Quest intends on serving a significant portion of Sarasota County's Medicaid population. 78 60-61. The portion of this proposed finding of fact prior to subparagraph a, the portion of subparagraph a appearing on page 19 of the proposed recommended order and subparagraphs b-d are rejected as argument, statements of law or as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. 79-82 Although generally correct, these proposed findings of fact are argument. 83 Not relevant to this proceeding. 84-86 Summary of testimony and argument. 87 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding or supported by the weight of the evidence. 90, 92 Not relevant to this proceeding. 94 Summary of testimony and argument. 96 Hereby accepted. The last sentence and the last half of the second sentence are rejected as not being relevant to this proceeding. 98-106 These proposed findings of fact were taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. 109 Although the first sentence is correct, the rest of the proposed finding of fact is not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 117, 119-120 Not relevant to this proceeding. 123 108. The portion of this proposed finding of fact contained on page 30 of the proposed recommended order is primarily argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 127 143. 130-131 and 133-134 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, cumulative or not relevant to this proceeding. 137 The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. Summary of testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2, 4-9, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 30-32, 35, 41-42, 45, 47, 49-51, 53, 63-67, 71 and 75 Hereby accepted. 3, 15 and 33 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The last sentence, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally true, this proposed finding of fact, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 12 55. 17 37-4 and 55. 18 Hereby accepted, except that the first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21 51 and 86. 24 51. The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 25 22-25. 26 76-78 and hereby accepted. 77 and hereby accepted. 78 and hereby accepted. 34 106-107. 36 Although generally true, the evidence failed to prove that HCR would provide these benefits without cost to its proposed Sarasota facility. 37 131-132. 38 133. 39 134-135. 40 89-90. 43 39-40, 163-164 and 166. 44 152, 167-170, and 180. 46 169-170. 48 165-166. 52 Hereby accepted. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that appropriate services for "AD patients" are not adequately available. 54 The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 55 2-3. 56-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. 59 148-149. 60 Taken into account in determining the weight to be given to testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 61 123. 62 Hereby accepted except the last two sentences which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 68-69 115-117. 70 Not relevant to this proceeding. 72 41, 45-47, 175-176, 180 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted except the third through fifth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted except the last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. Not relevant to this proceeding. 80-81 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 109-110. The last three sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted, except for the first two sentences, which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted except the third and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 136. Not relevant to this proceeding. Trecor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-6, 20-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 37-39 and 56. Hereby accepted. 7 28 and 41-42. 8 41, 43 and 81. 9 26-27. 10 41, 44 and 81. 11 44-45. 12 46 and 171. 13 173. 14 46, 171-172 and 174. 15-16 173. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 16 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17 181. 18 54-55 and hereby accepted. 19 79. 25 40, 47, 109, 111-112 and hereby accepted. 26 175 and 177. 28 178 and hereby accepted. 33 184 and hereby accepted. 34 138 and 142. 36 139-141. 40 50. 41 51. 42 51. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although the Arbor site was not disclosed, the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Arbor's proposal meets this portion of the district plan. 43-47 51. 48 51. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49-50 51 and hereby accepted. 51 51 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-53 51. Argument. 51 and hereby accepted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2-3 49. 4 Not relevant to this proceeding. 5-6 Conclusions of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Contrary to a stipulation of the parties that all of the parties meet the state health plan to the extent that it is applicable. See 63. 10, 13, 15 and 17 Hereby accepted. 11 See 64-84 concerning Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes, had been met or did not apply. 12 86 and 129. 14 Not relevant in this de novo proceeding and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 16 See 60-62. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Charles M. Loeser Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 James M. Barclay, Esquire 231 A East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jay Adams, Esquire Jay Adams, P.A. 1519 Big Sky Way Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adele "Nikki" Leon, holds Florida teaching certificate number 413436, covering the area of emotional disturbances and special learning disabilities. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. At all times material hereto, respondent was employed by the Dade County Public Schools, Palmetto Adult Education Center, as a part-time teacher, and was assigned to teach Adult Basic Education for the Elderly (ABE) at Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Pertinent to this case, respondent's assignment during September and October 1992, included the teaching of an ABE class at Snapper Creek Nursing Home each Tuesday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. According to respondent's attendance reports for that period, twenty-five residents were enrolled in the class. On September 15, 1992, Ivette Morgan, assistant principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, at the request of Edward Gehret, principal of Palmetto Adult Education Center, visited Snapper Creek Nursing Home to evaluate the adult education program. During the course of that visit, as well as visits on September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, Dr. Morgan had an opportunity to observe respondent's Tuesday class. On those occasions, Dr. Morgan noted only four to six residents in the classroom. 4/ Dr. Morgan reported her observations regarding class attendance to Dr. Gehret who, at the time, had been involved with enrollment and attendance review for, inter alia, Snapper Creek Nursing Home. Based on that review, Dr. Gehret observed that respondent had routinely marked all twenty-five residents in her class as "present," which did not square with Dr. Morgan's observations. On October 22, 1992, Dr. Gehret met with respondent to review the discrepancies he perceived in her attendance report procedures. At that time, it was the School Board's policy to mark residents "present" for an ABE class if they appeared at any time during the class period, no matter how briefly; but if they never appeared, to mark them as "absent." 5/ Respondent advised Dr. Gehret that she was of a different perception, and understood that nursing home residents enrolled in an ABE class were not to be marked as "absent" but, rather as "present," whether attending or not, so long as they were still in the facility. Notwithstanding, following the meeting, respondent agreed to conform her attendance procedure to the policy Dr. Gehret outlined. Regarding the discrepancies in respondent's attendance reports, when measured against the School Board's policy, the proof demonstrates that for the attendance reporting periods of September 14-27, September 28-October 11, and October 12-25, 1992, respondent completed and signed the attendance report for her Tuesday class on which she marked as "present" nursing home residents Helen Ambler and Gertrude Monge. Ms. Ambler and Ms. Monge were not, however "present" during such periods since they had died September 2, 1992, and June 15, 1992, respectively. The proof further demonstrated that for the same reporting periods, respondent had marked as "present" nursing home residents Agaton Bolanio, Nazario Lopez, and Martin Ruiz. Mr. Bolanio, Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ruiz were not, however, "present" during such periods since they had been discharged from the nursing home on June 19, 1992, July 20, 1992, and May 14, 1992, respectively. Finally, based on Dr. Morgan's observations of respondent's Tuesday class on September 15, September 22, September 29, and October 20, 1992, wherein she observed no more than four to six residents in attendance, it is reasonable to conclude that a significant number of residents who were marked as "present," other than the residents heretofore mentioned, were likewise not "present" on those dates. Which residents and why they were not present was not, however, established of record. 6/ Regarding the ABE program and the preparation of enrollment and attendance reports at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, the proof demonstrates that the ABE program was under the direction of the nursing home activities director who, without the participation of the instructors, prepared the enrollment for each class. 7/ Accordingly, respondent would not necessarily have known the residents assigned to her class, and reasonably assumed that the list of residents she received from the activities director contained current residents of the nursing home. Likewise, respondent relied on the activities director to advise her when residents died, were discharged or were otherwise no longer able or interested in attending before removing them from the roll; however, such information was rarely provided by the activities director. Finally, absent advice to the contrary from the activities director, respondent did not consider a resident's failure to attend on a given day an absence, as in the traditional classroom setting, and routinely marked them "present." Such practice in the ABE program was reflective of the voluntary nature of the program, as opposed to compulsory attendence in the traditional school setting, and the unavailability of information, except from the activities director, as to the reason a resident did not attend. Notably, residents frequently did not attend because, inter alia, nurses aides failed to bring them to class or they were too ill to attend, as opposed to not wanting to attend the course any longer. That such was the procedure at Snapper Creek Nursing Home, and perhaps other adult education centers in Dade County, finds other support in the record apart from respondent's testimony. For example, another instructor, Evelyn Foster, during the times in question, carried Francies Lambrou as "present" on her attendance record until July 27, 1992, although she was discharged July 2, 1992; and carried Maria Diaz, Carmen Morela, and Lorenzo Legundo as "present" until at least October 9, 1992, although Ms. Diaz and Ms. Morela were discharged September 5, 1992, and Mr. Segundo was discharged September 24, 1992. Moreover, Dr. Morgan found it necessary, at sometime between September 15 and October 26, 1992, to give the activities director specific instructions on how attendance was to be recorded, and Dr. Gehret found it necessary to conduct a "rollbook workshop" at Snapper Creek Nursing Home for all instructors, as well as agreeing to urge the nurses aides to bring the residents who desired to attend to class. [Petitioner's exhibit 1, pages 17 and 21, and respondent's exhibit 12.] Finally, there is of record a memorandum of July 8, 1993, almost one year after the events at issue in this case, from Connie Gilbert, District Director, Division of Adult Education, Dade County Schools, to all adult education center principals, which suggests continued confusion in attendance procedures for off- campus classes and that the practice at Snapper Creek Nursing Home was not an isolated occurance. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows: SUBJECT: ATTENDANCE PROCEDURES Off-campus visitations have revealed problems and confusion about attendance procedures. Please inform all teachers of the following procedures: Students must be present in a teacher's class and participate in the class activities in order for the teacher to mark this student present in that class. * * * Please make sure that off-campus teachers understand that students present "someplace in the facility" can not be considered present in a particular class. Students must be physically present in a class in order to be marked present in that class. Given the proof, it must be concluded that respondent's failure to record attendance in accordance with school board policy was, more likely than not, a consequence of a misunderstanding of, or ignorance of, that policy. In this regard, it is observed that no state policy for recording ABE attendance was established of record, and no proof that any policy established by the school board had been reduced to writing or imparted to respondent, or any other adult education instructor, prior to the events giving rise to the issues in this case. Accordingly, it follows that there was no compelling proof that respondent, by completing the attendance reports in the manner she did, had any intent to deceive the school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the administrative compliant. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of May 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 18th day of May 1995.
