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.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. 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 h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33 1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. 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. 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. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. 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. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Laura Lee Sergeant Rhodes, held registered nurse license number 1447522 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing. She presently resides at 1432 Moravia, Holly Hills, Florida. When the events herein occurred, Rhodes was employed at Chateau Vivon Nursing Home in Daytona Beach, Florida. On March 11, 1985, Rhodes falsified her application for employment at the nursing home by failing to indicate that she had been fired from previous employment as a registered nurse. However, she did so based upon advice from the then director of nursing at Chateau Vivon. Petitioner has stipulated that respondent is a "good nurse," and has not been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Board of Nursing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of falsifying her employment application in violation of Rule 210-10.05(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and Subsection 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1985), and that she be given a reprimand. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, III, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Laura Lee Sergeant Rhodes 1432 Moravia Avenue Holly Hills, Florida 32017 Ms. Judie Ritter, Executive Director Florida Board of Nursing Room 540, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue At issue is whether petitioner's application for a certificate of need to construct a 97-bed replacement nursing home in Pinellas County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Suncoast proposal Suncoast Nursing Home, Ltd. (Suncoast) has filed an application for a certificate of need (CON) to construct a 97- bed nursing home to replace two older nursing homes in Pinellas County (AHCA District 5, Subdistrict 2), Florida. When completed, the proposed facility would also include a 23-bed assisted living facility component for a total complement of 120 beds. The nursing homes to be replaced are Suncoast Nursing Home (SNH), a 59-bed facility, and Victoria Martin Nursing Home (Victoria Martin), a 38-bed facility. Both facilities are located in south St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, and Suncoast is the current licensee for both facilities. SNH, at 40 years of age, is one of the oldest nursing homes in the area and has problems associated with an aged facility. It has one private room, one semi-private room and fourteen 4-bed wards, none of which comply with current resident space requirements and offer limited space for residents' needs and privacy. As built, the nursing station is not strategically placed to observe and supervise residents, the shower rooms open directly into the hallway, and many residents have no toilet facilities in their room. Due to space limitations, the activity area doubles as the dining room, and resident therapy rooms, lounge areas and visitation areas cannot be accommodated. Open space is likewise limited, and consists of an asphalt area along one side of the building, without trees or other landscaping. In addition to the limited amenities available at the SNH facility dictated by its size and age, the character of the neighborhood around the facility has suffered a significant decline over the past few years. Currently, street crimes, including theft and drug sales, are prevalent in the area. As a result, an 8 foot chain link fence now surrounds the facility; however, thefts still occur on the property and the environment severely limits residents' outdoor access. Victoria Martin, located about two miles west of SNH, is in a better neighborhood than SNH. Although also one of the oldest facilities in the area, Victoria Martin has more adequate space, except for activities and dining, kitchen facilities and private areas for residents and staff. Moreover, its two private rooms, eight semi-private rooms and five 4-bed wards are of adequate size. However, as with SNH, Victoria Martin's site is small and outdoor recreational opportunities for residents are limited.2 Although SNH and Victoria Martin are older facilities, both have a history of superior licensure ratings; however, SNH's most recent survey resulted in the facility receiving a standard license. Moreover, the parties have stipulated that Suncoast provides quality care for its residents and that its qualifications in this regard are not at issue in this proceeding. The replacement facility proposed by Suncoast will be constructed on a 4.856 acre parcel owned by the applicant and located approximately 5 miles north of the current nursing homes, just east of the intersection of I-275 and 54th Avenue North, Pinellas County, Florida. Total cost for the 120-bed facility will be approximately $5 million, with $4 million allocated to the nursing portion. The site for the project, acquired at a cost of approximately $500,000, is unencumbered. The proposed building, a one story fire resistant precast concrete and masonry structure of approximately 47,934 square feet, will include the 97-bed skilled nursing home at issue in this proceeding, as well as 23 beds for assisted living. The nursing home portion consists of five private rooms, with 196 net square feet and full baths, and forty-six semi-private rooms, with 276 square feet and half baths. The facility includes physical, recreational and occupational therapy areas; adequate ancillary support areas and services, including dining, kitchen and laundry; and resident areas and services, including a barber/beauty shop, card room, and activity and lounge areas. Intervenor Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America Intervenor, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America (HCR), is the operator of Rosedale Manor (Rosedale), a 189-bed nursing home located about or slightly less than one mile west of the proposed facility, at 3479 54th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. The Rosedale facility is 31 years old, includes 4-bed wards, and currently holds a superior license. To demonstrate that Rosedale would suffer an adverse impact through the siting of the proposed project, HCR offered the testimony of Pamela J. Osborne, the administrator of Rosedale. Essentially, Ms. Osborne was of the opinion that prospective nursing home residents, and possibly some of Rosedale's current residents, would be attracted to a new facility with modern amenities, as opposed to the 31-year old Rosedale facility, for many of the same reasons that Suncoast proposed a new replacement facility, and that such attraction would result in reduced revenues for Rosedale. To demonstrate the impact a new facility would have on Rosedale, Ms. Osborne testified that she has observed a reduction in admissions over the last two years, with the creation of some hospital based skilled nursing unit (SNU) beds and the opening of the Arbor Nursing Home, a 120-bed facility licensed October 10, 1995. According to Ms. Osborne, Rosedale averaged 180 admissions during calendar year 1994, 151 admissions in 1995, and "most recently" (apparently meaning 1996) 148 admissions. That drop in census, Ms. Osborne opined, translated to a 22 percent decline in revenues. Currently, however, Rosedale has apparently reversed that trend, since it presently averages 13 to 15 admissions per month. Based on such experience, Ms. Osborne's opinion as to the impact the proposed facility would have on Rosedale's admissions was as follows: I would think it would be dramatic, not only reducing at least by 50 percent what I myself am able to admit during a 30-day period, but I would also be fearful for the residents that reside there. To relocate them within a mile would not disturb their family's patterns as far as visiting or anything else. Everything else being equal, the physical plant comparison of a brand-new facility compared to my 30-year-old building would be dramatic. [Tr., at page 266]. On the impact such loss of admissions would have on revenues, Ms. Osborne stated: On the presumption that I lost half of my new admits during the month and on the same assumption that they would be Medicaid . . . [and not higher paying sources such as Medicare or private pay] it would impact probably 16 to $17,000 a month. Ms. Osborne further observed that she didn't "believe" she could reduce expenses at Rosedale to address the reduction in revenues. That Rosedale experienced a decline in admissions and revenues the last two years is supported by its occupancy rates. For the period of January 1995 through June 1995 Rosedale's occupancy rate was 93.96 percent; during the period of July 1995 through December 1995 its occupancy rate was 86.64 percent; and during the period of January 1996 through June 1996 its occupancy rate was 87.93 percent. However, it is doubtful that the decline in occupancy was attributable to the Arbor facility opening. In reaching such conclusion it is observed that Arbor was licensed in October 1995 and, with less than one year of operation, reported an 84 percent occupancy rate for the period of January 1996 through June 1996. During the same period, Rosedale reported an increase in occupancy rate; hardly direct proof of serious impact. As for any impact resulting from the hospital based SNU beds, the proof was simply not insightful or compelling. Notably, the location of the hospitals was not noted, the number of SNU beds was not noted, and there was no proof that the SNU beds offered services similar to Rosedale. While it is possible that the Arbor opening, as well as the creation of hospital based SNU beds, may have had some impact on Rosedale, the proof offered in this regard was not compelling. Rather, the more likely explanation for Rosedale's declining census is the declining utilization experienced by nursing homes in the service area between 1993 and 1996. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that in 1993 there were 542,000 patient days in the service area, but by 1996 the number had fallen to 519,000 patient days. This calculates a net loss or reduction in use equivalent to 126 beds, and is consistent with a net loss of the elderly population in the service area. Notwithstanding the conclusion that the proof failed to support the conclusion advanced by Ms. Osborne regarding the impact of Arbor or the hospital based SNU beds, the opening of the proposed facility in such close proximity to Rosedale will certainly have some impact on its admissions. Ms. Osborne's estimate of a loss of half her admissions was not, however, shown to have any rational support and is rejected. Notably, on opening the new facility Suncoast proposes to transfer its existing residents from the old facilities, and reasonably expects an initial census of 88 residents. At fill-up, calculated at a 94.85 occupancy rate, Suncoast anticipates 92 residents, or the admission of 4 new net admissions during its first year of operation. While its residents will certainly change over time, there should be no dramatic impact to other facilities upon its opening. In sum, it must be concluded that the record lacks any compelling or persuasive proof that would allow one to quantify, with any sense of confidence, an impact to Rosedale from the opening of the proposed facility. Moreover, and perhaps most fundamental, Rosedale failed to demonstrate that any loss of revenue it might suffer would substantially adversely affect any of its existing programs.3 Review criteria Pertinent to this case, Section 408.035, Florida Statutes, and Rules 59C-1.030 and 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code, establish the criteria which must be considered in evaluating an application for a certificate of need to construct a new, albeit a replacement, nursing home. Commonly, however, there is no dispute regarding the applicant's satisfaction of, or ability to satisfy, most statutory or rule criteria. Such is the circumstance of the instant case. Here, the parties agree the following statutory criteria are not at issue or are not relevant to the proposed project: subsections 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h) [Except, Rosedale contests whether the applicant has the available funds for capital and operating expenditures, and for project accomplishment and operation.], (j), (k), (m), (n), and (o), and subsection 408.035(2)(e). Moreover, except to the extent the issue may be intertwined with the criteria established by subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), the portion of (h) heretofore noted, and (i), and subsections 408.305(2)(a)-(d), the opponents have not contested, through question or contrary proof, the applicant's satisfaction of, or the lack of relevance of, the criteria established by subsection 408.035(1)(d) and (l), or Rules 59C-1.030 and 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, since the applicant's proof, including its application and omissions response, persuasively demonstrates that it satisfies or has the ability to satisfy such criteria, or they are not relevant to its proposal, it is unnecessary, as no useful purpose would be served, to indulge in further fact finding regarding those statutory or rule criteria. The matters placed in issue by the parties are, however, addressed in the following pages. Consistency with the district plan and state plan. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes The District 5 local plan provides the following considerations.: Preference should be given to applicants for new or additional beds who commit to the provision of service to Medicaid patients. These numbers should approximate both the percentage of persons below 125 [percent] of the Federal Poverty Level and the average number of Medicaid residents in existing nursing homes in the county. Preference should be given to applicants who propose specialized services (e.g. adult day care) to meet identified unmet needs. Preference should be given to applicants who demonstrate a past practice and future intent to serve HIV infected persons. The subject application is consistent with, and furthers the needs identified in the district plan. First, the applicant has agreed to a condition of 55.31 percent Medicaid utilization on its nursing beds. Such is consistent with the Medicaid utilization rate in the district, and the applicant's history of service to Medicaid residents renders it most likely that such rate will be achieved or exceeded. Second, the applicant has historically provided services to HIV/AIDS patients at its existing facility, and will continue to do so at the new facility. Finally, inpatient hospice services and respite care, although no adult day care, will also be provided. The state health plan provides the following preferences relating to nursing home services: Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to locate a nursing home in areas within the subdistrict with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes to serve some Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds, or propose the development of multi-level care systems. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents including, but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Preference shall be given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and emphasize restorative care. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Preference shall be given to an applicant with a record of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states as determined by the department. The evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RN and LPNs to residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Preference shall be given to an applicant who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the resident needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals shall include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. Preference shall be given to an applicant who provides documentation how they will ensure residents' rights, and residents' privacy, use resident councils, and implement a well designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. The subject application is also consistent with, and furthers the needs identified in the state health plan. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that Preference One is met because the existing nursing homes within the service area of the proposed facility reported a 6 month occupancy rate (January through June 1995) exceeding 90 percent. Preference Two is met since the applicant has committed to 55.31 percent Medicaid utilization on its nursing beds, which is consistent with the Medicaid occupancy for the subdistrict. Preference Three is met since the applicant will provide specialized services, including services to HIV/Aids residents and services to hospice patients. Preference Four is satisfied since the applicant will be able to afford a continuum of care with the available assisted living beds. Moreover, the applicant will provide respite, although not adult day care. Preference Five is met since, as heretofore noted, the proposed facility is designed to maximize resident comfort and quality of care. Special features include large semi-private and private rooms, activity/recreation rooms, visitors' rooms, space for therapy services, and outside recreation areas. Moreover, the features proposed for the new facility are far superior to those presently available in the nursing homes to be replaced. Preference Six is satisfied through the applicant's staff programs dealing with combative residents, social intervention, drug intervention and violent behavior, as well as its acceptance and care for the behaviorally compromised. The proposed project also meets the standard established by Preference Seven. As of January 1, 1996, the highest Medicaid rate in District 5 was $109.04. Inflating that figure at five percent per year results in Medicaid rates of $120.22 for the period ending December 31, 1998, and $126.23 for the period ending December 31, 1999. These rates are higher than the applicant's proposed rates of $92.08 and $109.95 for the same time periods.4 Preference Eight is met since SNH and Victoria Martin have a history of superior licenses, although SNH's most recent survey resulted in a standard license effective February 1, 1996. Preference Nine is met since the facility staffing will exceed minimum standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Preference Ten is met since the applicant proposes a variety of disciplines, through resident staff and contract, to address the residents' therapeutic, nutritional, recreational and spiritual needs, Preference Eleven is met through the applicant's provision of a detailed resident rights and privacy policy, resident council, quality assurance program and discharge planning. Finally, Preference Twelve is met in that, at year two of operations, its resident care costs per resident per day are projected to be $70.56, compared to the district average of $68.49, and its administrative costs will be below the projected average for the district. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. As a touchstone for assessing need within a service district, the agency has established a bed-need methodology that must normally be satisfied before a favorable need determination will be found. That need methodology is codified at Rule 59C- 1.036, Florida Administrative Code. Here, the applicant is currently filling part of the need in the subdistrict, and does not seek any beds in excess of those currently authorized. Consequently, there being no net change in the licensed bed capacity of the subdistrict and, given the applicant's vested right to operate its existing beds, numeric need as calculated by the Agency's rule methodology is not a relevant consideration in assessing the merits of the pending application. Rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether the replacement of the aged facilities currently operated by the applicant with a new facility, as proposed, will have a positive impact on availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of nursing beds in the subdistrict. In addressing these considerations, the applicant offered proof, which is credited, that the age, physical limitations and location of the current facilities, as heretofore noted, detract from the desirability or demand for those beds and, consequently, negatively impact the considerations contemplated by this criterion. The replacement of the aged facilities, with a new facility meeting current licensure requirements, would have a positive influence on the provision of health care services. Moreover, the combined facility would offer certain efficiencies in scale, which would permit savings in supervisory staff, heating and cooling costs, and duplicative kitchen and laundry functions.5 Finally, by meeting current licensure requirements, the new facility, with its modern resident rooms, dining rooms, recreation areas, therapy areas, outdoor areas, and kitchen and laundry facilities, could only serve to increase the quality of life or appropriateness of resident care. Contrasted with the proof offered by the applicant, HCR offered proof through its health planner that, based on census experience and projected population changes in the service area (defined by a five mile radius around the proposed site) there was no need for a new facility or, apparently, the beds provided by the applicant's existing nursing homes, and that the existing facilities in the service area have sufficient capacity to address resident needs. In this regard, HCR's proof demonstrated that from 1993 through 1996, patient days in the area decreased from 542,000 to 519,000. This calculated a net loss or reduction in use equivalent to 126 beds, and is consistent with decreasing occupancy rates, which for calendar year 1995 were 87.54 percent in the service area. Moreover, the census data within the area for 1995 through 2000, projects a loss of 1,655 people age 65 through 74, and 390 people over age 75, and, therefore, a reasonable expectation of decreased utilization or need in the future. According to HCR's planner, the retirement area for the elderly is shifting to north Pinellas County, and the five mile service area of the proposed facility is undergoing a transition from an elderly population to a younger population. Therefore, he concludes that the northern area would be better suited demographically for the proposed beds and that if located there, apparently, they would benefit availability, access, adequacy and utilization of nursing home beds in the subdistrict. The proof offered on behalf of both the applicant and HCR was insightful; however, given the circumstances of this case, that offered by the applicant was most compelling. In so concluding, it must not be overlooked that among the beds currently existing in the service area are those presently operated by the applicant at two aged nursing homes. Clearly, their replacement with a modern facility would have a positive impact on availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, utilization and adequacy, when measured against the present inventory in the service area. Moreover, the demographics relied on by HRC's expert did not consider the special needs of those under age 65 in the subdistrict and which are served by SNH and Victoria Martin. According to the proof, approximately one-third of their current residents are under age 65. Finally, it is observed that the criterion provides for an assessment of "[t]he availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant," not a service area. [Emphasis added.] Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Here, the "district" is District 5 (Pasco and Pinellas Counties) and, for purposes of determining need, the "subdistrict" is Subdistrict 2 (Pinellas County). Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C- 2.200, Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the discussion regarding service area may not be wholly relevant to this proposal. Notwithstanding, a positive impact in the more narrowly defined service area has been demonstrated, as well as a positive benefit to the inventory of the subdistrict, as contemplated by the statute and the rule. The availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation, and the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Section 408.035(1)(h) and(i), Florida Statutes. The applicant, Suncoast Nursing Home, Ltd., is a wholly owned subsidiary of NewCare Health Corporation. NewCare currently operates ten nursing homes, one assisted living facility, and one retirement complex in the states of Georgia and Florida. NewCare has committed to fund the equity contribution necessary to secure FHA financing for the proposed project, which is estimated at $500,000 to $700,000. To date, NewCare has already advanced Suncoast over $600,000, which was used to purchase the 4.856 acre project site and to pay off a Medicaid recapture debt with AHCA for prior periods. Moreover, NewCare has on hand and unencumbered approximately $400,000 in additional funds for equity contribution. Health Properties Capital Group, LLC, has committed to provide the construction and permanent financing for the project. The total would be approximately $5 million for the 120-bed project, with approximately $4 million for the nursing home segment, with permanent financing at 8 to 8 1/4 percent for 40 years. Health Properties has also committed to advance startup expenses, as necessary. Here, assuming positive cash flow,6 the proof demonstrates that Suncoast has the available resources for capital and operating expenditures, as well as for project accomplishment and operation. The only significant issue raised is the long term financial feasibility of the project. To assess the financial feasibility of the project, the applicant assumes that it will achieve 33,400 patient days in its first year of operation and 33,580 patient days in its second year of operation, with a patient mix as follows: private pay-private (.49 percent), private pay-semiprivate (4.51 percent), Medicaid (81 percent), Medicare (12.00 percent), and hospice (2.00 percent). Such assumptions are reasonable. For the first year of operation, the applicant projects routine revenues, based on charge rates discussed infra, and ancillary revenues for the nursing home to generate $3,998,550 which, reduced by nursing home costs of $4,212,940, would generate a net loss of $214,390. For the second year of operation, the applicant projects gross revenues for the nursing home to generate $4,582,580 which, reduced by nursing home costs of $4,424,910, would generate a net income of $157,670. The routine revenue for the nursing home included in its gross revenue is based on the projected patient days in proportion to the patient mix. The daily charge rates used to calculate that revenue for year one are as follows: private pay at $104.76, semi-private pay at $84.83, Medicaid at $92.08, Medicare at $323.88, and hospice at $92.05. For year two, the daily charge rates were as follows: private pay at $107.89, semi-private at $88.08, Medicaid at $109.95, Medicare at $338.43, and hospice at $110.00. Here, as previously noted, the applicant's assumed patient mix and patient days were found reasonable and, but for its Medicaid rate, there is either no dispute or no persuasive dispute regarding its projected revenues and expenses. With regard to the applicant's proposed Medicaid reimbursement rate (charge rate), HCR contends it was erroneously calculated and therefore impermissibly high. Properly calculated, and applied to the projected Medicaid census7 would, according to HCR, substantially reduce projected revenues and demonstrate that the project is not financially feasible. Medicaid reimbursement rates are calculated under the Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan), which provides significant distinctions between "new providers" and "existing providers." The Plan is silent, or does not specifically address, the treatment of facilities, such as the proposed project, where two existing providers are replaced by a new facility. The reimbursement rate for an "existing provider," an existing nursing home with a cost history, are typically set on a perspective basis which, simply stated, means the rate is based on the prior year cost (as reflected in the cost report filed with the Medicaid agency) compounded by an inflation factor. The new rate is, however, subject to what is known as a "target limitation," which restricts the amount of increase in reimbursement from one period to the next. The limitation typically ranges from one to two percent on a semiannual basis. Conversely, a "new provider,” one who has no cost history, is initially reimbursed based upon budgets (a budgeted rate) submitted for the new facility, and the initial period (rate) is ultimately settled (adjusted) based on the actual cost incurred for the initial period. Because they have no reimbursement history, "new providers" are not subject to the "target limitation," but are subject to "new provider ceilings," which limit the maximum reimbursement a "new provider" can receive at the outset of its operations. Here, the proof demonstrated that Suncoast projected its Medicaid reimbursement rate for its first year of operation as if it were an "existing provider," based on the prior cost of the 59-bed SNH, and applied the "target limitation." For the second year of operation, Suncoast calculated a reimbursement rate based on the actual operation of the 97-bed facility, and applied the "new provider ceiling," essentially treating the combined facility as a "new facility." As to the proper treatment of Suncoast (as a "new provider," "existing provider," or some combination thereof) under the Plan, the proof is somewhat conflicting. Mr. Schwartz, the applicant's health care accountant, related a conversation he had with John Owens, administrator of the reimbursement section of AHCA at the time, who Mr. Schwartz testified suggested the approach he adopted in projecting the proposed reimbursement rates. Due to the lack of clear guidance in the Plan, Mr. Schwartz accepted the approach, as reasonable. Mr. Hughes, currently administrator of AHCA's reimbursement section, testified by deposition that by bringing two providers together, Suncoast would not be considered a "new provider" under the Plan and would continue to be reimbursed as an "existing provider." Considering the proof, it is most likely that Suncoast would be treated as an "existing provider" and subject to the "target limitations" of the Plan. It is simply not logical to treat it as an "existing provider" for its first year of operation, subject to the "target limitations," and as a "new provider" its second year of operation, subject to the "new provider ceiling" and not the "target limitations." In sum, Suncoast is either an "existing provider" or a "new provider" at its inception. While it has been concluded that Suncoast's Medicaid reimbursement rate should be calculated as an existing provider, it does not, for reasons discussed infra, affect the ultimate conclusions drawn regarding the financial feasibility of the project. To address the impact on financial feasibility, occasioned by treatment as an existing provider, the applicant recalculated its Medicaid reimbursement rates based on a weighted average of the target limitation from SNH and Victoria Martin. Suncoast then compared the new rates with the rates used in the application to access any change the recalculation would have on revenues. As calculated by Suncoast, the new rates would increase income for year one by $199,082, and decrease income for year two by $88,988.8 While the methodology employed by Suncoast to compute the target limitations is sound, the actual rate that would be paid would be the lower of the target limitation or the inflated per diem rate indicated in the application. Here, that would be the target limitation, and had the correct limitation been applied revenues for the second year of operation would have been reduced by $176,000, resulting in a net loss for the nursing home operation of $18,330. For the complete facility, including the 23-bed ALF, such revenue loss would reduce the projected net income of $182,320 to a net income of $6,320. The Reimbursement Plan also contains a "usual and customary charge limitation" (UCC limitation) which provides that Medicaid will not pay a per diem reimbursement rate which would exceed the per diem revenues for non-Medicaid and non- Medicare patients. This limitation applies to new and existing providers, although the methodology for computing the limitation is different for the two. It is evident from a review of the projected calendar year 1998 and calendar year 1999 revenues contained on Schedule 7 of the Suncoast response to admissions [Petitioner's exhibit 1B), that Suncoast's projected Medicaid per diem rate exceeds the per diem received from non-Medicaid and non-Medicare sources. If calculated for calendar year 1998, the UCC limitation would be $89.85, while the projected Medicaid per diem is $92.08. For calendar year 1999, the UCC limitation would be $106.39, while the projected Medicaid per diem is $109.95.9 Inflating the UCC limitation calculated for calendar year 1998, as a limitation on the Medicaid reimbursement rate for calendar year 1999, would result in a decrease in Medicaid revenues of $424,366. Such reduction in Medicaid revenues for year two would result in a net loss of $266,696 for nursing home operations, as opposed to the net income of $157,670 stated in the application. For the project as a whole, the net loss would be $242,046, as opposed to the net income of $182,320 stated in the application.10 Notwithstanding that Suncoast projected its revenues and expenses in its pro formas based on a calendar year, it contended at hearing that, if it is to be considered an "existing provider," any calculation of a UCC limitation must take into account the fact that its Medicaid cost report, upon which reimbursement is based, is not filed on a calendar year basis, but on a basis with a fiscal year ending August 31. However, Suncoast offered no calculation or projection, and did not explain or demonstrate how the use of a 12-month period from September 1997 through August 1998 would cause a substantial difference in the UCC limitation, compared to the use of the 12- month period from January through December 1998, such that a positive income would be expected for the second year of operation. Indeed, considering the assumptions on which the non-Medicare and non-Medicaid rates are based in the Suncoast pro forma (current rates inflated to January 1, 1998) it is likely (since the non-Medicare and non-Medicaid rates would be lower in the last four months of 1997) that a UCC limitation calculated as suggested by Suncoast would result in a greater loss than that calculated on a UCC limitation for calendar year 1998, as heretofore discussed.11 Since the UCC limitation, as opposed to the target limitation, results in the lower Medicaid reimbursement rate, it would be the primary limitation imposed in this case. Consequently, the proof demonstrates that, as proposed, the 97- bed nursing portion of the proposed facility would have, at a minimum, a net loss of $266,696 for its second year of operation, and that the complete facility would, at a minimum, have a net loss of $242,046. Consideration of subsection 408.035(2)(a)-(d) criteria for projects involving a capital expenditure for the provision of new health services to inpatients. Subsection 408.035(2)(a) requires a consideration "[t]hat less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable," and subsection 408.035(2)(c) requires "[i]n the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable." In large measure, the requirements of these criteria have been previously addressed, and the Suncoast proposal found to be consistent with such requirements. In sum, however, it may be observed that neither the SNH nor Victoria Martin site is conducive to expansion, and the Suncoast site is, because of current demographics, not appropriate for a nursing home. Moreover, the aged facilities do not meet current construction and life safety code requirements for new skilled nursing facilities and, if remodeling were started, the facilities would require extensive and costly renovation. The alternative, to delicense both facilities, is not in the applicant's best interest or the population it serves. Both SNH and Victoria Martin have resident populations which are not readily accepted by other nursing homes. Over one-third of Suncoast's residents are behaviorally compromised. At any time, approximately five residents are HIV/Aids infected. To delicense the facilities would displace these residents. The only practicable alternative is to build a new facility within the service area which would provide adequate food preparation and laundry areas, adequate room size and storage, appropriate recreation and therapy areas, and the myriad of other amenities that may be accommodated in a modern facility, with sufficient area, to meet the needs of the residents. Subsection 408.035(2)(b), requires a consideration or conclusion "[t]hat existing impatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner." Utilization has been previously addressed, and the applicant has been found, on balance, to satisfy this criterion. Finally, subsection 408.035(2)(d) requires a consideration or observation "[t]hat patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new services." Considering the nature of the residents served by Suncoast, it satisfies this criterion. The criteria on balance In evaluating the application at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 408.035, Florida Statutes, and Rules 59C-1.030 and 59C-1.036, Florida Administrative Code, have been overlooked. However, given the facts and circumstances of this case it must be concluded that Suncoast's failure to demonstrate the long-term financial feasibility of its project is dispositive of its application, and such failure is not outweighed by any other, or combination of any other, criterion.12
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which: Dismisses the petition for leave to intervene filed by Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America; and Denies the application of Suncoast Nursing Home, Ltd., for a certificate of Need, CON Number 8301, to construct a replacement community nursing home facility of 97 beds through the combination of Suncoast Nursing Home, with 59 beds, and Victoria Martin Nursing Home, with 38 beds. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to protect one of the residents of its facility from sexual coercion. Whether Respondent failed to report the alleged violation immediately to the administrator.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida, under state and federal statutes. Respondent is a licensed nursing facility located in Orlando, Florida. Respondent is a small not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Resident 2 is a Hispanic male, 57 years of age, who speaks English and Spanish fluently. He was a self-admitted resident at Respondent's nursing home facility during the relevant time period. Respondent is a small, not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Respondent receives its funds to operate through various types of sources such as United Way, City of Orlando, Orange County, and many foundations. At all times material hereto, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida and the assignment of a licensure status. The statute charges Petitioner with evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." The evaluation, or survey, of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of record reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Agency surveyors use the "State Operations' Manual," a document prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Chapter 483. In March 2003, Petitioner conducted a survey to investigate a complaint that Respondent failed to protect a resident from sexual coercion. The allegation of the deficient practice was based upon an incident involving Resident 2. Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), a nursing facility must assure that a resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, and mental abuse. Failure to do so constitutes a deficiency under Florida Statutes. At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Jane Woodson, nursing program specialist, employed by Petitioner. Woodson testified that she does state and federal surveys in both state and federal licensure and federal institutions to identify or define any noncompliance. She visited Respondent's facility on or about March 26, 2003, and prepared a 2567 form based on her observations, interviews, and record review. It details the results of her investigation, including her interviews with the director of nursing, the administrator, the social worker, the compliance officer, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), and the assistant director of nursing. She also toured the total facility, observed its residents and also observed Resident 2. Woodson observed that Resident 2 was a well-dressed, alert male, and she spoke to him about the incident on March 15, 2003. Woodson did not have an interpreter present at any time when she interviewed Resident 2, nor did she consider it necessary to do so. At no time did she have any concern that Resident 2 was not mentally competent to understand her when she interviewed him. Woodson was not aware that Resident 2 signed his own financial responsibility forms, patient's rights statement, or that he voluntarily checked himself into the facility. She was not aware that Resident 2 made his own medical decisions in the facility. Following her investigation, Woodson conducted an exit interview with the administrator, the director of nursing, the assistant director of nursing, the social worker, and the compliance offer. Woodson included in her report a document filled out by Sharon Ebanks (Ebanks), registered nurse (RN), but she did not personally interview Ebanks. She also did not interview Marilyn Harrilal, LPN, nor did she interview the employee involved in the incident. She advised the administrator of her finding a Class II deficiency and provided a correction date of April 17, 2003. She also concluded that this was an isolated incident. Ebanks was the weekend charge nurse on March 15, 2003, and was in charge of the facility on that date. Ebanks was working on the north wing when she was called by Mr. Daniels, a LPN working on the south wing. Daniels told Ebanks about the alleged incident between Resident 2 and the staff person. Ebanks then called Resident 2; the employee, Marcia Dorsey (Dorsey); and the certified nursing assistants (CNAs), Ms. Polysaint and Ms. Mezier (first names not in the record), who had witnessed the incident, to the green room. She also asked Harrilal to act as a witness to her interviews with the individuals involved. Ebanks first spoke to Resident 2 and Dorsey, both of whom stated that nothing had happened. She then questioned the two CNAs about what they had witnessed. Ebanks concluded, after interviewing both the participants and the witnesses, that the incident was not abuse, but rather, was inappropriate behavior on the part of both Resident 2 and the employee. She based this conclusion on the fact that Dorsey is a trainable Dows Syndrome individual, who was supposed to be working when the incident occurred. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused or hurt in any manner and had participated voluntarily. Ebanks noted that Resident 2 makes his own medical decisions, is considered to be mentally competent, has never been adjudicated mentally incompetent and has not had a legal guardian appointed for him. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused. Ebanks testified that she completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, concerning the incident, after being asked to do so by Respondent's compliance officer. The resident abuse report was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. At the time of the initial investigation of the incident, Ebanks asked Harrilal to accompany her to the green room. While there, Harrilal listened as Ebanks first questioned Resident 2 and then Dorsey. Both stated that nothing happened. Harrilal then witnessed Ebanks question the CNAs, Polysaint and Mezier. Woodson did not interview Harrilal during her investigation. Ann Campbell, RN, a nurse for more than 38 years, was functioning in the role of assistant director of nursing on March 15, 2003. She was not in the facility on that day and was not made aware of the incident on the date of its occurrence, but became aware when she returned to work. Campbell is familiar with Resident 2. He was initially admitted with a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and dementia. She observed that he was a little confused and forgetful when first admitted, but has since became more alert and responsive. Michael Annichiarico, administrator of the facility and custodian of records, including medical records and personnel files, reviewed the personnel file of the employee, Dorsey. There were no disciplinary actions or counseling prior to the incident of March 15, 2003. Annichiarico is familiar with Resident 2 and has interacted with him. Annichiarico testified that, according to the resident's medical record, Resident 2 has never been declared mentally incompetent and that he makes his own medical and financial decisions. The Progress Note of Gideon Lewis, M.D., dated October 9, 2003, with transcription, was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2 and indicates that Resident 2 is mentally competent and is responsible for his actions as his cognitive functions are intact. Patricia Collins, RN, testified as an expert in the areas of nursing, long-term care, nursing home rules and regulations, and survey procedures. Collins is a RN, currently working in consulting work. She reviewed documents related to the incident. She went to the facility on two different occasions and interviewed the staff. She also reviewed the documents contained in the report of Woodson's survey. Collins interviewed the two CNAs, Ebanks, Resident 2, the medical records custodian, the director of nursing, the social worker, and Harrilal. She spent approximately four to five hours in the facility. After speaking with Resident 2, Collins concluded that he was cognitively intact and very alert. He appeared to be mentally competent. Before interviewing Resident 2, Collins reviewed his resident chart and the documents used to sign himself into the facility. She also reviewed physician's orders for medication, progress notes, nurses' notes, the MDS and the care plan. Collins testified that she reviewed the resident's financial responsibility statement and patient's rights statement, both of which were signed by the resident himself. The resident had no legal guardian. Collins concluded that during the incident of March 15, 2003, there was some inappropriate behavior that needed to be addressed and that this behavior was properly addressed by staff. The inappropriate behavior was the observation of hugging and kissing between Dorsey and Resident 2 in an empty resident's room while the employee was on duty. Collins was of the opinion that the behavior was mutual and not abuse. Collins found no reason to conclude that any harm had been done to Resident 2. Collins testified that a nursing home resident has the right to associate with whomever he desires. He also has the right to have voluntary and willing sexual contact with other people. The inappropriateness in this incident was due to the fact that Resident 2 had involvement with someone with mental deficits. The incident was inappropriate on the part of the employee as well, since she was participating in it during her working time. Collins disagrees with the findings of Petitioner's surveyor. Collins testified that the investigator should have determined the abuse allegation was unfounded. According to Collins' expert testimony, the facility staff acted appropriately. The CNA who initially observed the activity called another CNA as a witness. They then went to their supervisor, who then went to the ranking nurse at the facility at that point in time, which was Ebanks. Ebanks questioned the employee, Resident 2 and the witnesses. She had the presence of mind to have a witness there as well, which was Harrilal. Ebanks made the determination, based on her nursing judgment and in her authority as nurse in charge of the facility on that day, that there was inappropriate behavior on behalf of Resident 2 and the employee. She put a care plan in place as to Resident 2, separated the employee and Resident 2, and sent the CNAs back to work. Collins testified there was no need to report the incident to the Department of Children and Family Services because there was no evidence of abuse or harm to Resident 2. Collins' testimony is found to be credible. Based on all the evidence, it is found and determined that an incident occurred at Respondent's facility on Saturday, March 15, 2003, at approximately 11:00 a.m., involving Resident 2 and a staff employee of Respondent, Dorsey. Resident 2 and the employee were seen by staff employees sitting on a bed hugging and kissing each other in a resident's room that was not being used at the time. Two CNA employees witnessed and reported the incident to the charge nurse. Ebanks was the charge nurse on duty on March 15, 2003. Ebanks was advised of the incident shortly after it occurred and interviewed both Resident 2 and the employees involved, as well as the employees who witnessed the incident. The interviews were conducted in the presence of Harrilal. She completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, at the request of the risk manager within four business days of the incident, and the administrator was advised of the incident on the first business day after the incident. Resident 2 was alert and oriented on the date of the incident. Although he had a low level of dementia, he was mentally competent at the time of the incident. He does not meet the definition of an "elderly person" or "vulnerable adult" under Chapter 415, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 28th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: George F. Indest, III, Esquire The Health Law Firm Center Pointe Two 220 East Central Parkway, Suite 2030 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a skilled nursing facility should have been changed to conditional effective January 28, 1998, and March 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nursing home facilities. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes (1997). Edgewater Manor, located at 9555 Southeast Federal Highway, Hobe Sound, Florida, is a 120-bed facility licensed to operate as a nursing home pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules found in Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code. Edgewater Manor also participates in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Edgewater Manor was rated superior from 1991 through 1994, and in 1997; it was rated standard in 1995 and 1996. The Agency conducted a survey of Edgewater Manor with an exit date of January 28, 1998, for the purpose of determining the degree of compliance with the applicable criteria. As a result of the January 28, 1998, survey and insofar as is relevant to the instant proceeding, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for two violations relating to the quality of care provided its residents, classified the violations as Class II deficiencies, assigned Edgewater Manor a conditional rating, and issued Edgewater Manor a conditional license effective January 28, 1998, through February 28, 1998. The Agency conducted a follow-up survey with an exit date of March 30, 1998. The two Class II deficiencies identified during the January 28 survey had been corrected, but Edgewater Manor was cited for another violation relating to the quality of care provided its residents, and the new violation was classified as a Class II deficiency. A conditional rating was assigned, and a conditional license was issued effective March 30, 1998, through February 28, 1999. A follow-up survey was conducted on June 4, 1998, and the Agency found that all previously cited deficiencies had been corrected, a standard rating was assigned, and a standard license was issued. When the Agency prepares to conduct a compliance survey of a nursing home, a team of surveyors is selected, which meets and reviews documentation which includes the facility's history of deficiencies and its resident census. The team then takes an orientation tour of the facility, led by a staff member. After the orientation tour, the team selects its Phase I sample of residents to review; the Phase I review includes both comprehensive and focused reviews. A focused review is conducted when the team selects a particular resident with certain identifiable conditions which fall within the team's areas of concern. After the Phase I review is completed, a Phase II review is conducted, in which the team performs only focused reviews of particular residents. After the facility survey is completed, the team meets to discuss the results of the investigation and to evaluate the results to determine if the nursing home is in compliance with the applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. Violations are assessed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the State Operations Manual, which is published by the federal Health Care Financing Agency and provides guidance to state surveyors in interpreting and applying the federal rules and regulations applicable to nursing homes. The State Operations Manual, Guidance to Surveyors, includes "tag numbers" corresponding to provisions of the rules found in Title 42, Chapter 483, Code of Federal Regulations. In the State Operations Manual, a "tag number" is assigned to each provision of the federal rules, and the intent of the rule provision is set forth, together with guidelines, procedures, and probes which are to be used by the state surveyors in determining whether a particular rule provision has been violated. The parties stipulated that the deficiencies cited in the surveys were based on violations of tag F223, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.13(b) Code of Federal Regulations; tag F224, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), Code of Federal Regulations; tag F225, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), Code of Federal Regulations; tag F250, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.15(g), Code of Federal Regulations; and tag F314, corresponding to Title 42, Section 483.25(c)(1) and (2), Code of Federal Regulations. Unfortunately, neither party offered into evidence the reports of the surveys referenced herein, in which the factual bases for each violation were set out. Accordingly, for purposes of the findings of fact herein, the specific nature of the violations alleged against Edgewater Manor could only be derived from the testimony of the two Agency surveyors who testified at the hearing. DOAH Case No. 98-1270: January 28, 1998, survey Resident 34 With regard to Resident 3, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for a Class II deficiency based on violations of tag F223, tag F224, tag F225, and tag F250, as a result of the January 28, 1998, survey. The tag F223 violation is associated with the requirement of Title 42, Section 483.13(b), Code of Federal Regulations, that residents of long-term care facilities have the right to be free from abuse. The tag F224 violation is associated with the requirements of Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(1)(ii), (iii), and (2) through (4), Code of Federal Regulations, that a facility must develop and implement policies to prohibit abuse, neglect, and mistreatment, and not use abuse to control its residents. The tag F225 violation is, in this case, associated with the requirements of Title 42, Section 483.13(c)(2), (3), and (4), Code of Federal Regulations, that facility staff must report and investigate suspected abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. The tag F250 violation is associated with the requirement in Title 42, Section 483.15(g), Code of Federal Regulations, that a facility must provide social services to maintain the well-being of the residents. Resident 3 became a resident of Edgewater Manor on September 24, 1990. His diagnoses as of September 1992 included organic mental syndrome, arteriosclerotic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression. At the time at issue herein, Resident 3 lived in Room 124, which is in Edgewater Manor's Protective Care Unit. He had lived in Room 124 for quite a while before the unit where that room was located was converted to the locked Protective Care Unit. When asked before the conversion if he wanted to move to another unit, he chose to remain in Room 124. In the opinion of Janice Bey, Edgewater Manor's Director of Nursing, he was appropriate for the unit because he had been diagnosed with dementia secondary to Parkinson's disease. In 1997 and 1998, Resident 3's thought processes were impaired as a result of the dementia associated with Parkinson's disease, which was by that time in an advanced stage. In four Minimum Data Sets (comprehensive assessments) completed for Resident 3 from April 1997 through December 1997, it was noted that he was capable of independently making decisions regarding the tasks of daily life; that his short- and long-term memory was "OK"; that he had no indicators of periodic disordered thinking or awareness; and that he consistently exhibited inappropriate behavior but that the behavior was easily altered. Socially inappropriate behavior, as used in the Minimum Data Set, includes sexual behavior. At the time at issue herein, Resident 3 walked with a shambling gait, and his ability to ambulate was impaired by spasticity associated with Parkinson's disease. Numerous entries in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 3 reflect that he was found on the floor of his room or in the hall after falling or losing his balance and sliding down the wall to the floor. He suffered from obvious tremors in his hands, which increased in severity when he was agitated or excited. Resident 3 was treated with Sinemet for his Parkinson's disease, a drug which has a noted side-effect of hypersexuality. He was referred for a psychiatric consultation in 1995 because he exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior. At the time at issue herein and notwithstanding the assessment included in the Minimum Data Set, Resident 3 was observed to experience periods of confusion regarding time and place, even though, at various times during the day, he appeared oriented as to time, place, and person. He was capable of independently making decisions concerning the basic activities of daily living, such as when to eat, when to sleep, and when to go to the bathroom. Resident 3 was not, however, able to make decisions requiring the exercise of judgment because, as a result of his dementia and impaired cognitive ability, he could not evaluate the consequences of such decisions. Resident 3 acted primarily to fulfill his basic needs. Inappropriate sexual behavior involving staff. Entries in the Nursing Care Notes maintained for 1997 and early 1998 by the nurses on the Protective Care Unit and in the Social Progress Notes maintained for the same time period by Edgewater Manor's social services director document a number occasions on which Resident 3 engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior toward female staff. According to the reports, this behavior was directed especially at certified nursing assistants and occurred primarily as they provided direct care. Resident 3 reportedly attempted to kiss the certified nursing assistants, grabbed at and actually grabbed their breasts and other private parts, pinched their buttocks, and exposed himself and masturbated in front of them. Resident 3 reportedly cornered one certified nursing assistant in his room, and she had to crawl over his bed to escape. Instances involving such behavior directed to staff were noted to have occurred on December 11, 1996; on January 9, February 11, March 6, July 8, August 29, and December 30, 1997; and on January 24, 1998. Inappropriate behavior toward staff members was also noted in the 1997 monthly summaries included in the Nursing Care Notes for March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, and December. Kelly Streich, the social services director at Edgewater Manor, was notified of some of the instances of inappropriate sexual behavior involving staff. She was notified of an instance involving staff which took place on December 11, 1996, and she responded by notifying Resident 3's sister-in-law and requesting that her husband, Resident 3's brother, talk with him about the behavior. The sister-in-law suggested that Resident 3 should be seen by his physician and by a male psychologist. According to Ms. Streich's notes, Resident 3 denied that his behavior towards staff was serious. On December 18, 1996, Ms. Streich noted a nurse's report that Resident 3 had not exhibited any inappropriate sexual behavior since December 11 and that, in the nurse's opinion, a psychological consultation was not necessary. Later on December 18, Ms. Streich reported that Resident 3 was seen by his physician and promised that he would not make sexual advances to the staff in the future. Resident 3 was not seen by a psychologist at this time due to his promise that he would stop engaging in offensive behavior. After being notified of the behavior involving staff which occurred January 9, 1997, Ms. Streich again notified Resident 3's family and his physician. She also reviewed Resident 3's care plan and modified it to provide that she continue to monitor Resident 3 and to make one-to-one visits and provide counseling. Primarily, however, Ms. Streich determined that staff should continue to discourage Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior and that his physician should speak with him again. Resident 3's annual review was completed in April 1997. In her notes, Ms. Streich reported that Resident 3's cognitive status remained the same and that he was alert and oriented as to time, place, and person. She described Resident 3 as "isolative" and noted that he preferred watching television in his room to interacting with other residents. Ms. Streich also observed that he continued to have episodes of inappropriate sexual behavior and that the staff continued to discourage this behavior. Ms. Streich testified that she should also have noted that Resident 3 sometimes exhibited confused thought processes. In the care plan developed as a result of this annual review and dated April 11, 1997, it was noted that Resident 3 had difficulty with "individual coping" which was "evidenced by inappropriate sexual behavior related to Cognitive impairment." The interventions identified in the care plan to reach the stated goal that Resident 3 would "not exhibit inappropriate sexual gestures to staff by next review," included the following: Be firm but gentle when correcting resident's inappropriate sexual behavior Monitor & document inappropriate behavior Discourage all inappropriate behavior of resident with staff Provide 1:1 individual visits In an entry dated June 25, 1997, Ms. Streich observed as part of her quarterly review of Resident 3's care plan that he continued to exhibit inappropriate sexual behavior. She further noted: "Staff continues to tell him this behavior is unacceptable." Ms. Streich determined that the care plan did not need to be changed and that she would continue to provide one-to- one supportive visits. In her quarterly review recorded September 20, 1997, Ms. Streich noted that Resident 3 "occasionally display[ed] inappropriate sexual gestures." Ms. Streich determined that no changes were needed to his care plan and that staff should continue to discourage Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior. In her quarterly review recorded December 19, 1997, Ms. Streich noted that Resident 3 "continues to be inappropriate at times sexually - displays gesture to direct care staff." She recommended that no change be made to his care plan and indicated that her one-to-one supportive visits would continue and that appropriate behavior would be reinforced. Inappropriate sexual behavior toward staff in a long- term care facility, and especially in a protective care unit for patients suffering from dementia, is not unusual. Edgewater Manor had guidelines directing staff how to handle residents who engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior and provided its staff with in-service training for avoiding and redirecting this behavior. Inappropriate sexual behavior with residents. The Nursing Care Notes and Social Service Notes document instances of Resident 3's sexual behavior involving female residents of the Protective Care Unit. The Agency surveyor was particularly concerned with reports of Resident 3's behavior with three residents of the Protective Care Unit, Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20. Resident 18 When Resident 18 was admitted to Edgewater Manor on June 16, 1997, she was an eighty-five-year-old widow who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. She had short- and long-term memory problems and was moderately impaired in her ability to make decisions regarding activities of daily living. Resident 18 was ambulatory and was very social and outgoing, appearing to enjoy interacting with others, especially men, and she would sometimes escort other residents to her room for conversation. Ms. Streich reported in the Social Service Notes for Monday, June 30, 1997, that, on the previous Friday and Saturday nights, Resident 18 was found in her room with Resident 3 in what were described in Ms. Streich's notes as "various sexual positions." Both Resident 3 and Resident 18 were lying fully clothed in Resident 18's bed during these encounters. On both occasions, Resident 18 resisted when staff separated them. Ms. Streich did not personally observe the encounters, and she did not interview the nurse reporting the encounters to learn what was meant by "various sexual positions." Ms. Streich contacted H. F., Resident 18's daughter, on June 30 regarding her mother's behavior and asked that the family decide if staff should continue to separate Resident 3 and Resident 18 should they attempt to engage in any further intimate contact.5 In her notes dated July 1, 1997, Ms. Streich reported that Resident 18's family had decided that Resident 3 and Resident 18 should be allowed to continue their relationship. A note was added to Resident 3's care plan by the care plan team that "condoms available from floor nurse," and an addition was made to Resident 18's care plan on July 7, 1997, by the care plan team, to address "DESIRE FOR AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER RESIDENT." The care plan provided that Resident will participate in a safe sexual encounter as she wishes. Provide resident with a safe, private room Provide condoms on request Family will be kept aware of situation Condoms available from floor nurse. In H. F.'s opinion, her mother might have Alzheimer's disease and be forgetful, but she still has her personality and would not do anything she did not want to do. H. F. believed at the time at issue herein that her mother was capable of consenting to intimate contact, including sexual intercourse. Although H. F. believed it absurd to think that her mother would want to have sexual intercourse, she also thought it was responsible of Edgewater Manor to include in her mother's care plan a provision that she should be provided with condoms on request. Ms. Bey was notified of the encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18 which had taken place on June 27 and 28, 1997. She spoke with staff about the encounters and concluded that there had not been an incident of abuse involving Resident 3 and Resident 18. The term "incident" is defined in the long-term care context as "any unusual happening in a facility that deviates from day-to-day normal activities or anything that results in an injury." Ms. Bey does not believe that sex is an unusual activity, and, in her opinion, Resident 18 was capable of refusing to do anything she did not want to do. Ms. Bey did not conduct an investigation beyond speaking with staff, and she did not notify the facility administrator of the encounters between the two residents. Ms. Bey concluded as a result of her investigation that no abuse had occurred, and, accordingly, no incident and accident report was completed by the facility, nor were the encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18 reported to Florida's Abuse Registry. The encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18 were also investigated by the Assistant Director of Nursing, Sherree Montero. Ms. Montero interviewed both staff who had observed Resident 3 and Resident 18 together on June 27 and 28 and staff who had heard about the encounters from other staff. Ms. Montero concluded that there was no evidence that Resident 3 had sexually abused Resident 18. Resident 3 and Resident 18 apparently abandoned their relationship after their first two encounters because there are no further reports of their engaging in sexual conduct, and neither ever requested condoms. On the basis of the information contained in the nursing and social service notes and of the information she obtained through interviews, the Agency surveyor concluded during the survey which was completed on January 28, 1998, that Resident 18 had been the victim of sexual abuse by Resident 3 on June 27 and 28, 1997, and that Edgewater Manor had allowed the abusive situation to occur. In the surveyor's opinion, Resident 18 "lacked the capacity to make that decision [to be sexual] and needed to be protected,"6 even though the surveyor was told by H. F. that Resident 18 could make her own decisions. The surveyor's conclusion that Edgewater Manor's management and the nurses on the Protective Care Unit allowed an abusive situation to exist was also based on her opinion that, even if Resident 18 were able to consent to a sexual relationship, she would need a physical examination and a lubricant before having intercourse. There is no evidentiary basis in the record to support these conclusions of the Agency's surveyor or a finding of fact that Resident 3 sexually abused Resident 18. Rather, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 18 had the capacity to consent to an intimate relationship and that she did so with regard to her two encounters with Resident 3. The evidence is also sufficient to establish that Edgewater Manor's staff responded appropriately to the situation. Resident 19 Resident 19 suffers from Alzheimer's disease and, at the time at issue herein, was alert and oriented towards herself only. She was severely impaired in her ability to make decisions involving activities of daily living. She was incontinent of bowel and bladder and wore a diaper at all times. She was non- verbal except that she would respond to her name being called by uttering noises. She constantly wandered throughout the Protective Care Unit and seldom stayed in one place for any length of time. She often wandered into the rooms of other residents on the unit, and she was sometimes found on the beds in these rooms. When she sat or lay down, she would often lift her legs and wave them in the air. It was reported in the Nursing Care Notes that, on December 30, 1997, Resident 19 was found in Resident 3's room, lying across his bed. In the opinion of the nurse who observed this behavior, Resident 3 was attempting to remove Resident 19's slacks and briefs. Resident 19 was described as disoriented, and she was assisted out of Resident 3's room. When Resident 3 was interrupted, he reportedly stated "It's hard, let me do her - let me do her." The nurse told Resident 3 that his behavior was unacceptable, and he was closely monitored for the rest of the night. On December 31, it was noted that Ms. Streich called Resident 3's brother, who came in and talked to him about his behavior. Resident 3 was reportedly well-behaved until mid- January 1998. Ms. Bey was notified of Resident 3's encounter with Resident 19, and she spoke with staff members about the incident. She was unable to find a staff member who had witnessed Resident 3 pulling Resident 19's slacks down below her waist, although a corner of her brief was sticking above the waistband of the slacks, as though the slacks had not been pulled up completely. The nurse who documented the incident in the Nursing Care Notes would not change her interpretation of what had occurred in Resident 3's room that night; other witnesses interviewed by Ms. Bey stated that Resident 3 sat in his chair until Resident 19 was escorted from his room. As a result of her investigation, Ms. Bey concluded that there had not been an incident of abuse involving Resident 3 and Resident 19. As a result, she did not report the incident to the administrator or prepare an incident and accident report. Ms. Montero also investigated this encounter and interviewed both staff who had observed the incident and staff who had heard about it from others. Based on these interviews and on her own knowledge of Resident 3's physical condition, Ms. Montero concluded that it was not likely that Resident 3 could have successfully pulled Resident 19's slacks down because he often needed assistance dressing himself. The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, when he was interrupted by Edgewater Manor's staff, Resident 3 was attempting unsuccessfully to pull Resident 19's pants down as she lay on the bed. The evidence presented by the Agency is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 sexually abused Resident 19: To the contrary, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 did not have the mental capacity to formulate the intention to inflict either physical or psychological injury on Resident 19 by his behavior. Moreover, the evidence is uncontroverted that Edgewater Manor's staff intervened promptly to prohibit Resident 3 from completing the act of removing Resident 19's slacks. Resident 20 At the time at issue herein, Resident 20 suffered from Alzheimer's disease and was alert and oriented to herself and others, although she was sometimes confused as to time and place. She had short- and long-term memory problems and was moderately impaired in her ability to make decisions regarding activities of daily life. It was noted on the Multiple Data Set for June 1997 that her cognitive status had deteriorated since the previous quarterly review. She was combative and frequently angry with herself and others, and she sometimes resisted care. She wandered throughout the Protective Care Unit and sometimes exhibited frustration, anxiety, and agitation. Her husband visited her every day, and he attended to her personal needs. Resident 20 was very territorial and would become agitated if another resident came into her room. She did not speak very well, but she would communicate by chattering loudly and waving her arms. As a result, it was always obvious when Resident 20 was agitated or upset. It was reported in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 3 that, on January 22, 1998, he was found in Rm 123 making sexual advances to both ladies and ejaculation [sic] on the floor after masturbating in front of them. Both ladies were upset. R escorted to own room and then did it on the floor there. R laughed when this nurse told him his actions were not appropriate for public viewing. Room 123 is occupied by Resident 20 and her roommate and is directly across the hall from Resident 3's room. It was reported in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 20 that, on January 22, 1998, she was very upset because the man from "124-2" had come into her room and made sexual advances to her. She reportedly yelled and pushed away from him. When this encounter was reported to Ms. Bey, she was told that Resident 3 held up his gown with his left arm while he walked, masturbated with his right hand, and ejaculated. Ms. Bey investigated by interviewing staff, and she concluded that the report of the event contained in the Nursing Care Notes was not objective. In Ms. Bey's opinion, Resident 3 was physically incapable of performing these acts simultaneously because of his advanced Parkinson's disease and his history of falling. Ms. Bey spoke with the nurse who had charted the nursing note, but the nurse refused to change the note, stating that the note accurately described the encounter. Ms. Montero also investigated this event and concluded that Resident 3 was not physically capable of simultaneously walking, holding up his gown, and masturbating, much less of ejaculating twice within a thirty-minute period. The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish that Resident 3 stood in Resident 20's room holding his gown up, masturbating, and ejaculating. The evidence presented by the Agency is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 sexually abused Resident 20. To the contrary, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 did not have the mental capacity to formulate the intention to inflict either physical or psychological injury on Resident 20 by his behavior. Moreover, the evidence is uncontroverted that Edgewater Manor's staff intervened promptly to remove Resident 3 from Resident 20's room. Generally In addition to the instances of inappropriate sexual behavior involving Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20, Resident 3 was reported to have behaved inappropriately toward other residents of the Protective Care Unit. The following notation was entered in the Nursing Care Notes for July 9, 1997, at 10:00 p.m.: Resident walks down hallway grabbing [at] other female residents. Attempts to pull a female resident into another room. This nurse found resident pushing shoulders of a female resident down towards bed. Resident starting [sic] kissing another female resident on lips and started leaning over. This nurse caught them. This nurse reminds resident about behavior towards females. Resident continued this behavior for over 2 [hours] this evening. In the Nursing Care Notes for January 24, 1998, it was reported that Resident sexual promiscuity has increased during the last two weeks. Resident calls female staff into room while he is masturbating. He laughs when staff attempts to tell him that his behavior is not appropriate. He was also observed to fondle fellow female residents & was observed undressing them in his room. Fellow residents do not have the mental capacity & are unaware of his sexual advances as it appears. He was again redirected & told that his behavior is unacceptable & . . . the resident just denies he does nothing [sic] wrong & that his behavior is acceptable. As a result of Resident 3's behavior in the weeks preceding January 24, a psychiatric consultation was ordered by Resident 3's physician on January 26, 1998. The report of the consultation was dated February 5, 1998, and the psychiatrist reported that Resident 3's hypersexuality might be controlled by medication. It was also noted in the report that Resident 3 had been referred for a psychiatric consultation in 1995 as a result of sexually inappropriate, aggressive behavior. The Agency's surveyor did not discuss Resident 3's behavior with Ms. Bey or with Mr. Murray, the administrator of Edgewater Manor. Rather, she contacted the Florida Abuse Registry and the Martin County Sheriff's Department and reported her interpretation of Resident 3's behavior based on the information she had gathered from the documentation and her interviews with staff. As a result of suggestions by the Agency's surveyor and the adult protective investigator, Edgewater Manor placed a personal alarm, also known as a tether alarm, on Resident 3. This device would sound an alarm if Resident 3 moved from his chair, so that the staff would know where he was at all times. Although Ms. Bey investigated the reports regarding the sexual behaviors Resident 3 exhibited with Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20, she did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. No incident and accident reports relating to these events were prepared and no reports were submitted to adult protective services about Resident 3's behavior because Ms. Bey concluded from her investigations that there were no instances of suspected abuse, mistreatment, or neglect involving Resident 3. Had Ms. Bey suspected that abuse had occurred, she would have reported the incidents involving Resident 3 to the Florida Abuse Registry, pursuant to Edgewater Manor's policy of reporting all instances of suspected abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. During the survey, the Agency surveyor was provided with a copy of Edgewater Manor's policy and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and mistreatment. Although the policy addressed resident-to-resident abuse and sexual harassment, the survey team concluded that the policy had not been implemented to prevent what the team considered to be the abusive behavior of Resident 3 toward the female residents of the Protective Care Unit. Summary The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish that Resident 3 had a pattern of engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior directed to both female staff and female residents on the Protective Care Unit. The evidence presented by the Agency is not, however, sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 3 could, or did, formulate the intent to inflict physical or psychological injury that would be necessary for his behavior to constitute sexual abuse, as that term is defined in the State Operations Manual. Indeed, the evidence taken as a whole supports a finding that Resident 3 was an elderly man who, as a result of progressive cognitive impairment related to advanced Parkinson's disease, engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in response to the basic urge for sexual gratification but without any appreciable comprehension of the potential effect of his behavior on others. As derived from the evidence presented herein, the Agency charged that Edgewater Manor failed to prevent, investigate, document, and report Resident 3's sexual abuse of female residents on the Protective Care Unit. Because the Agency has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of fact that Resident 3 committed sexual abuse, Edgewater Manor did not breach its duty to prevent, investigate, document, or report abuse. Moreover, the evidence establishes that Edgewater Manor's staff promptly and appropriately intervened to interrupt Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior involving Resident 19 and Resident 20 and to confirm that Resident 3's relationship with Resident 18 was consensual. Additionally, the evidence is uncontroverted that Edgewater Manor had a written policy statement with procedures designed to prevent abuse, neglect, and mistreatment of residents7 and that investigations were done of the encounters between Resident 3 and Resident 18, Resident 19, and Resident 20 by both the Director of Nursing and the Assistant Director of Nursing. Because the investigations lead to the conclusion that sexual abuse had not occurred in any of the three encounters, no written reports were prepared, and the encounters were not reported to the Florida Abuse Registry. The evidence is, therefore, not sufficient to establish that Edgewater Manor violated the requirements that sexual abuse be prevented, investigated, documented, and reported. The evidence presented by the Agency is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Edgewater Manor failed to provide Resident 3 with the medically-related social services necessary for his physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Resident 3 was first sent for a psychiatric consultation in 1995 because he had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, but, notwithstanding the numerous instances of Resident 3's inappropriate sexual behavior toward staff and other residents from July 1997 through late January 1998, Resident 3 was not referred for another psychiatric consultation until January 26, 1998. The interventions identified in the care plans for Resident 3 were limited to correcting Resident 3 when he engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, observing and documenting such behavior, and discouraging such behavior toward staff. In addition, the social services director conducted one-on-one "supportive" visits with Resident 3. Edgewater Manor's staff, pursuant to policy, interrupted and redirected Resident 3 when he was observed engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior involving others.8 Resident 3's family members and physician were asked to talk with him after episodes of inappropriate behavior. Because it became obvious that none of these interventions resulted in anything more that a temporary hiatus in his inappropriate sexual behavior, Edgewater Manor should have developed a care plan designed to provide Resident 3 with the services he needed to control his inappropriate sexual behavior both to enhance his own well-being and to protect other residents of the Protective Care Unit. Resident 12 As a result of the January 28, 1998, survey, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for a Class II deficiency based on a violation of tag F314. The tag F314 violation and Class II deficiency cited by the Agency are associated with the requirement in Title 42, Section 483.25(c), Code of Federal Regulations, that facilities ensure that residents do not develop pressure sores which are not unavoidable and that residents with pressure sores be provided necessary treatment and services. A pressure sore is defined in the State Operations Manual as an "ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or shear." The seriousness of a pressure sore is described using a "staging system" in which the characteristics of the sore are classified by reference to four stages, two of which are relevant here: A Stage II pressure sore exists when "[a] partial thickness of skin is lost; may present as blistering surrounded by an area of redness and/or induration"; a pressure sore has reached Stage III when "[a] full thickness of skin is lost; exposing the subcutaneous tissue; presents as shallow crater; may be draining."9 Unrelieved, prolonged pressure on areas of dependency such as the heels and the buttocks and coccyx can cause the development of pressure sores, and pressure sores can develop and/or worsen as a result of various clinical conditions. Peripheral vascular disease contributes to the development and impedes the healing of pressure sores because blood vessels are constricted, blood flow is decreased, and skin integrity and healing are compromised because nutrients aren't delivered efficiently to the tissue and because the removal of waste materials is inhibited. Chronic bowel and urinary incontinence compromise skin integrity and contribute to the development of pressure sores, first, because the skin in the area of the buttocks and coccyx is continually being rubbed to clean the resident after each episode of incontinence and, second, because even with regular cleaning and the application of an ointment to provide a moisture barrier it is impossible to keep an incontinent resident's skin from coming into contact with urine and stool. Weight loss affects skin integrity because it is indicative of poor nutrition and hydration, which impede healing. At the time of the January 28, 1998, survey, Resident 12 was a ninety-six-year-old woman who was admitted to Edgewater Manor on October 30, 1990.10 Her diagnoses as of December 1, 1997, and January 1, 1998, included senile dementia, atrial fibrillation, organic brain syndrome, psychotic disorder, cerebral vascular accident, iron deficiency anemia, peripheral vascular disease, stasis ulcer on lower right leg, and impaired skin integrity. As of December 1, 1997, Resident 12 was, and had been for some time, incontinent of bowel and bladder and consistently had loose stool. Since at least August 13, 1997, Resident 12 had been totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living and was severely impaired in decision- making. Based on Resident 12's diagnoses and her general condition as of December 1, 1997, Resident 12 had several of the primary risk factors for developing pressure sores identified in tag F314: She was immobile and depended on the staff for repositioning; she spent time in a wheelchair with a restraint to keep her properly positioned; and she suffered from peripheral vascular disease, chronic bowel incontinence, and continuous urinary incontinence. Resident 12 was identified by Edgewater Manor as a person at risk of the development of pressure sores, and a care plan dated August 20, 1997, was developed which provided generally for increased protein in her diet and directed that she be given a multivitamin and vitamin C. The care plan reflected that, as of August 20, 1997, Resident 12 had an open area on her right lateral calf,11 and the plan contained specific provisions to deal with the development of pressure sores and with impaired skin integrity. A soft tech mattress, which is like a large feather pillow, was placed on her bed to reduce pressure on the pressure points on her body; she was to be provided with clean dry linens; range of motion manipulation was to be done on her extremities every shift; she was to be turned and repositioned every two hours, her heels were to be off the bed at all times, and pillows were to be placed under her calves; she was to be encouraged to consume all the fluids on her food tray and 80-to- 100 percent of her food; pillows were to be used to keep any bony prominences from direct contact with each other; balmex ointment (bag balm) was to be used on her buttocks after each episode of incontinence; and she was to have a daily skin assessment. Much of the preventive care set out in the August 20 care plan was to be provided by certified nursing assistants. Specifically, because Resident 12 was dependent on staff for almost all activities of daily living, certified nursing assistants were responsible for, among other things, turning and repositioning Resident 12 every two hours, feeding, bathing and grooming, and cleaning her body and her bed after episodes of incontinence. The services provided were recorded daily for each shift on a form entitled "Nurse Assistant Care Records," which was completed and initialed daily by the certified nursing assistant caring for the resident during each shift. The Nurse Assistant Care Records completed for Resident 12 during October, November, and December 1997 establish that, each day, she was fed by the staff and ate her meals in one of Edgewater Manor's dining rooms; that she was repositioned; that she had frequent bouts of bowel and bladder incontinence; that she was cooperative and accepted assistance; that she received passive range of motion movement; and that she spent time sitting in a wheelchair, with restraints. Frequent turning and repositioning is a critical component of care to prevent the development of pressure sores. The Nursing Assistant Care Records for October, November, and December 1997 reflect that Resident 12 was turned and repositioned each shift. The records do not, however, show the frequency of turning and repositioning and variously reflect that Resident 12 turned and repositioned herself independently, that she turned and repositioned herself with assistance, and that she was fully dependent on staff for turning and repositioning. Enid Lue, a certified nursing assistant who provided care to Resident 12 during these three months, testified that she personally turned and repositioned Resident 12 every two hours whenever she cared for her and that she was routinely informed verbally by the certified nursing assistant who cared for Resident 12 during the shift preceding hers that Resident 12 had been turned and repositioned every two hours during that shift. Ms. Lue confirmed that Resident 12 was totally dependent on staff for turning and repositioning and testified that she had incorrectly indicated on the Nursing Assistant Care Records that she had merely assisted Resident 12 to turn and reposition herself. The wound care nurse who provided treatment to Resident 12 for the stasis ulcer on her leg and for the pressure sore which developed on her coccyx testified that whenever he provided treatment to Resident 12 and whenever he passed her room, which was several times each day, he observed that she had been turned and repositioned. Notations are included in the monthly summaries in the Nursing Care Notes for Resident 12 indicating that she was turned and repositioned every two hours in October, November, and December 1997. In addition, the daily Nursing Care Notes maintained for Resident 12 include entries indicating that Resident 12 was turned and repositioned every two hours; the entries in the daily notes appear with greater frequency after December 30, 1997. In September 1997, it was noted in the Dietary Progress Notes maintained by Edgewater Manor's dietitian for Resident 12 that she had problems with skin integrity. The amount of protein in her diet was increased, and it was noted that she received a multi-vitamin and vitamin C, both of which aid in promoting healing. In the quarterly dietary care plan review conducted on November 4, it was noted that Resident 12's weight had remained stable at 117 pounds since January 1997 and that she was on a mechanical soft diet. Resident 12 was to be continued on the current care plan, and staff was directed to encourage fluids. On December 5, the dietitian ordered that protein rich foods be sent on Resident 12's tray. Daily skin assessments for each resident are routine practice at Edgewater Manor, and they are completed by licensed nurses, with a certain number of residents being assessed each shift. Pursuant to a memorandum to all licensed nurses, dated July 8, 1996, the nurses are to note the results of the skin assessment on a Daily Skin Assessment form. The nurses are specifically alerted to watch for redness, tearing, sheet burns, friction, shearing, and pressure areas, among other things. On December 18, 1997, it was noted on the Daily Skin Assessment for Resident 12 that a blister, redness, and/or an open area was observed on her "cheeks." On December 19, Resident 12's physician discontinued the application of bag balm as a moisture barrier on her buttocks and ordered that Desitin ointment be applied instead. The change in the type of ointment to be used on Resident 12's buttocks was made because a reddened area had been detected. The appearance of the reddened area was not, however, charted in the Nursing Care Notes, as required by the Edgewater Manor internal memorandum dated July 8, 1996. On December 24, 1997, it was noted on the Daily Skin Assessment that Resident 12 had an open area on her buttocks. This is reflected in the Nursing Care Notes for December 24, and a new order was given by Resident 12's physician on that date. The new order directed that a hydrocoloid dressing12 was to be applied to the coccyx every three days and that, on the third day, the dressing was to be removed, the area cleaned with a solution of normal saline and dried, and a new dressing applied. The open area was located in a fold of Resident 12's buttock, and two people were required to treat the wound because the buttocks had to be separated to expose it for treatment. On December 29, Resident 12's physician visited her, but he did not issue any new treatment orders except to discontinue the "leg buddy," a type of restraint used to help maintain proper positioning for a person sitting in a wheelchair. The "leg buddy" had been ordered on December 9, 1997, to replace a "lap buddy," another, more restrictive, device used to maintain proper positioning in a wheelchair. The staff noted in the Nursing Care Notes of December 29 that the "leg buddy" had been tried but did not properly position Resident 12 in the wheelchair. It allowed her to slide down in the chair and to rock back and forth. This caused pressure on Resident 12's coccyx and irritated the area. Even so, it was not improper to prescribe use of the leg buddy for Resident 12 because it was important for her to sit up to improve healing, and the leg buddy is the least restrictive restraint for use with a wheelchair. On December 30, Dante Graziani, Edgewater Manor's wound care nurse, visited Resident 12 for the first time to treat both the pressure sore on the coccyx area and the stasis ulcer on the right lower leg.13 Mr. Graziani removed the hydrocoloid dressing which had been placed on the coccyx area pursuant to the treatment prescribed by Resident 12's physician on December 24, and he observed that the wound had worsened since it was first noted on December 24. Mr. Graziani was on vacation from December 24 through December 29 and did not observe the open area on December 24, when treatment began. Nonetheless, he was able to determine that the pressure sore was at Stage II14 on December 24 based on the information provided in the Nursing Care Notes and physician's order. In his experience as a wound care nurse, it is not unusual for pressure sores to worsen during the first days of treatment, and it is standard procedure to allow a week for each new treatment to see if the sore is responding. In Mr. Graziani's opinion, it was unlikely that the sore would have appeared worse when the hydrocoloid dressing was changed on the third day after treatment began and it was not inappropriate for that treatment to have been continued for an additional three days, until December 30. On December 30, Mr. Graziani made the first entry for Resident 12 on the Weekly Pressure Sore Progress Report, which is an internal Edgewater Manor report usually prepared by the wound care nurse. Mr. Graziani determined from his examination that the pressure sore had advanced to Stage III.15 He noted on the report that the open area measured two centimeters wide and three centimeters long, with a depth of two-tenths of a centimeter, about the size of a quarter. Mr. Graziani attributed the worsening of the pressure sore between December 24 and December 30 to Resident 12's continued incontinence, her failure to eat well, her weight loss, her iron deficiency anemia, and her peripheral vascular disease. On the basis of the information provided by Mr. Graziani, Resident 12's physician ordered a change in the treatment of the pressure sore on the coccyx on December 30. Because there was necrotic tissue in the wound, the hydrocoloid dressing was discontinued and a transigel pad was ordered. A transigel pad is a debriding agent and facilitates the removal of necrotic tissue from a wound. Mr. Graziani indicated on the Weekly Pressure Sore Progress Report that December 30 was the first day of treatment with the transigel pad. Also on December 30, Resident 12's physician ordered five days' bed rest and insertion of a Foley catheter until the open area on the coccyx resolved. A care plan for Resident 12 was prepared to address the pressure sore on her coccyx and the statis ulcer on her right leg. The alteration to the integrity of her skin was attributed to her immobility, peripheral vascular disease, and incontinence. The care plan incorporated the physician's orders for use of the transigel pad, insertion of the Foley catheter, and five days' bed rest. It also provided for routine preventive care such as continued use of the soft tech mattress, turning and repositioning every two hours, use of pillows to turn and reposition and to keep pressure off Resident 12's wounds, use of heel protectors, and range of motion to all extremities each shift. The Nursing Care Notes for January 3, 1998, reflect that Resident 12 was not chewing her food and, as a result, was choking. A notation was made that the speech therapist would be notified. In an entry on the Dietary Progress Notes dated January 7, 1998, the dietitian reported that Resident 12's diet had been changed to puree on the recommendation of the speech therapist because Resident 12 had exhibited a problem chewing her food, although the precise date the change was made is not recorded in either the Nursing Care Notes or the Dietary Progress Notes. On January 5, Resident 12's physician ordered a urine culture and sensitivity test because her urine had become dark and cloudy. On the same day, the physician prescribed the antibiotic Cipro for a week and ordered that Resident 12 be encouraged to take fluids. The urinary culture confirmed that Resident 12 had a urinary tract infection. Although fluids were encouraged, Resident 12 generally took them poorly during her illness. The urinary tract infection was resolved on or about January 12, 1998. Also on January 12, 1998, it was noted in the Dietary Progress Notes that Resident 12's weight had dropped to 110.5 pounds, a ten-pound weight loss since December 8, 1997, but still above her ideal body weight of 85-to-105 pounds. The dietitian noted that Resident 12 had been ill with a urinary tract infection but that she had improved and was again eating in the dining room. The dietitian also noted that Resident 12 continued to have skin breakdown and recommended that a protein supplement be prescribed to combat Resident 12's weight loss and to meet her need for increased protein in her diet. The protein supplement was ordered by Resident 12's physician on January 12 and was to be given twice each day. During the time she had the urinary tract infection, Resident 12 continued to receive treatment for the stasis ulcer on her leg and for the pressure sore on her coccyx. On January 8, 1998, the transigel pad was ordered discontinued because the sore on Resident 12's coccyx had been debrided; orders were given by Resident 12's physician that a hydrocoloid dressing was to be placed on the wound on the coccyx. Mr. Graziani noted on the Weekly Pressure Sore Progress Report that, as of January 8, the pressure sore was a Stage II sore. On January 15, Mr. Graziani noted that the pressure sore was improving with the use of the hydrocoloid dressing. However, by January 22, the sore was larger, although still a Stage II sore, and the treatment was changed back to a transigel pad to debride the wound. The record does not reflect the date the pressure sore to the coccyx was resolved, but it was present at the time of the January 30, 1998, survey. The Agency's surveyor based her conclusion that resident 12 developed an avoidable pressure sore while she was a resident of Edgewater Manor on the surveyor's review of documentation provided by Edgewater Manor; on interviews with staff, specifically with Doris Huey, a licensed practical nurse who cared for resident 12; and on an Edgewater Manor internal memorandum to licensed nurses dated July 8, 1996, regarding daily skin assessments. There is no evidence in the record that the Agency's surveyor actually observed resident number 12 during her review of the resident's condition. It is uncontroverted that Resident 12 developed a pressure sore while a resident of Edgewater Manor. The evidence is, however, sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 12's clinical condition was such that she was at risk for developing pressure sores and that the care plan for Resident 12 included appropriate routine preventive care measures. In addition, the evidence is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Edgewater Manor's staff provided the prescribed routine preventive and daily care, such as turning and repositioning every two hours; cleaning and drying Resident 12 after episodes of incontinence, including applying ointments to her buttocks which acted as a moisture barrier; using a soft tech mattress to decrease pressure on areas of dependence and bony prominences; and increasing the amounts of protein in Resident 12's diet, changing her food to puree, and encouraging Resident 12 to take fluids. Although weight loss puts a resident at risk of slow healing, nothing in this record associates the development or worsening of Resident 12's pressure sore with her ten-pound weight loss between December 8 and January 8. Finally, the evidence is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Resident 12 received proper treatment to promote healing of the pressure sore, to avoid infection, and to prevent development of new sores. Routine preventive care was continued, and orders were issued for a change from bag balm to Desitin ointment when a reddened area was discovered on Resident 12's coccyx, for use of a hydrocoloid dressing as soon as the sore developed into an open area, and for insertion of a Foley catheter to minimize moisture in the area. In light of all of the evidence of record, the failure of Edgewater Manor's staff to document in the Nursing Care Notes the treatment of the pressure sore from December 24 through December 29 cannot support the inference that such treatment was not given. DOAH Case No. 98-2553: March 30, 1998, survey When the Agency's survey team conducted the March 30, 1998, follow-up survey, Edgewater Manor was found to have corrected the two Class II deficiencies identified in the January 28 survey involving Resident 3 and Resident 12. However, as a result of the March 30 follow-up survey, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor for a Class II deficiency based on a violation of tag F224. The tag F224 violation and Class II deficiency cited by the Agency are associated with the requirements in Title 42, Section 483.13(c), Code of Federal Regulations, that facilities develop and implement written policies prohibiting the mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents. Resident 8, who was born on October 7, 1914, was admitted to Edgewater Manor on February 22, 1996, with a primary diagnosis of a fracture of the femur intertrochanteric, that is, a fractured hip. In a Minimum Data Set completed January 12, 1998, Resident 8's diagnoses were listed as hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, non-Alzheimer's dementia, transient ischemic attack, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis. She had both short- and long-term memory problems and was severely impaired in her decision-making ability, with a deterioration of her cognitive status having occurred since the previous assessment. She was totally dependent on staff for personal hygiene, locomotion in a wheelchair both on and off her unit, dressing, eating, and toilet use. She was frequently incontinent of bowel and always incontinent of bladder. She had two areas on her skin which exhibited redness which did not disappear when pressure was relieved, and she had a pressure ulcer in which a partial thickness of skin was lost, presenting as either an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater. She also had skin tears or cuts and was receiving protective and/or preventative skin care. She could reposition herself in her bed with limited assistance from one staff member.16 On the other hand, Resident 8 needed extensive assistance to transfer from her bed to a chair or wheelchair, with two staff members required to assist her by providing weight-bearing support or, at times, full support. Her ability to perform activities of daily living had deteriorated since the previous assessment, and Edgewater Manor staff's predicted that Resident 8's condition would continue to decline. A care plan was developed January 18, 1998, in which the care to be given to Resident 8 in light of the January 12 assessment was specified.17 On February 25, 1998, at approximately 10:00 a.m., a hematoma (bruise) of moderate size was found on Resident 8's left upper arm. Edgewater Manor's Director of Nursing, Janice Bey, was notified of the hematoma through an incident report, conducted an investigation to determine the cause of the injury, and concluded that the hematoma resulted from a blood-draw done on February 23 and not from abuse, neglect or mistreatment. Ms. Bey did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation into the cause of the hematoma on Resident 8's arm. Also on February 25, 1998, at approximately 3:30 p.m., the registered nurse on duty was called to Resident 8's room by a certified nursing assistant to observe that Resident 8's left great toe was swollen and looked inflamed. The wound care nurse and a podiatrist were called to evaluate the wound. On February 27, at approximately 4:00 p.m., a certified nursing assistant reported that there was some bleeding on Resident 8's left great toe and that the toenail had come off. The toe was rinsed with normal saline solution and loosely wrapped with gauze; there was no indication that the toe had received any previous treatment. Ms. Bey was notified of the bleeding toe and of the missing nail through an incident report. She was already aware that the toe was swollen and inflamed. Ms. Bey investigated the cause of the injury by interviewing the staff members who cared for Resident 8, and she personally examined Resident 8's toe. She concluded that the swelling and inflammation of the toe, with the subsequent loss of the toenail, was the result of Resident 8's peripheral vascular disease, exacerbated by the fact that she was not ambulatory. Ms. Bey found no bruising or skin tears around the toe and, therefore, determined that no abuse, neglect, or mistreatment had occurred. Ms. Bey did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on March 4, 1998, an aide reported that Resident 8 had an "ecchymotic" area (bruise) above her right eye. The licensed practical nurse on duty at the time completed an incident report and noted that the cause of the bruise and the place and time it occurred was unknown. On March 17, 1998, Resident 8 received two skin tears as she was being transferred from her bed to a wheelchair. The tears were on the right shin area, at right angles to one another, and were approximately one centimeter long by one centimeter wide. A small amount of redness was noted. The skin tears were cleansed and wrapped. Resident 8's son was notified of the skin tears, and an incident report and treatment request were sent via facsimile to Resident 8's physician. Ms. Bey was notified of the skin tears, and she investigated the cause of the injury. Ms. Bey found no evidence that the skin tears were caused by neglect or mistreatment, especially since Resident 8's skin was extremely fragile and paper-thin. Ms. Bey did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. On March 21, 1998, at approximately 7:45 p.m., the nurse on duty was called to Resident 8's room to examine her left lower leg, which had a bruised area and was hot to the touch. An incident report was prepared, and Ms. Bey was contacted at her home. She directed the nurse to contact Resident 8's physician. The physician was notified of the condition of the leg at approximately 9:30 p.m. He initially diagnosed Resident 8's condition as cellulitis and issued new orders for treatment of this condition. By 6:00 a.m. on March 22, antibiotics were being administered, and shortly thereafter, Resident 8's temperature was recorded at 100.4 degrees. By 2:30 p.m. on March 22, the left lower leg was not quite as swollen but was still hot to the touch. Ms. Bey visited Resident 8 when she returned to work on Monday, March 23. She observed that the leg had edema and that it was no longer red but was dark bluish in color. Based on her observation, Ms. Bey doubted that the diagnosis of cellulitis was accurate. Ms. Bey directed that Resident 8's physician be called, and she recommended that an x-ray be taken of the leg. On March 23, Resident 8's physician visited her and ordered an x-ray of the left lower leg and ankle. The x-ray of the left ankle, which was read by a radiologist at the Martin Memorial Diagnostic Center on March 23, 1998, showed that Resident 8 had a "trimalleolar fracture with significant displacement and disruption of the mortise," with "generalized soft tissue swelling" noted. An x-ray of the tibia and fibula taken at the same time revealed evidence of "the distal fracture" but no others, and the report contained the observation that Resident 8's bones were demineralized and vascular calcifications were noted. On March 25, Resident 8 was transported to the office of a Dr. Fraraccio for examination and treatment. He concurred that Resident 8 had an old "fracture of the left distal femur" and that she also had "a fresh fracture of the left ankle." He put a short cast on the leg, and she was returned to Edgewater Manor. Resident 8's left lower leg was still in the cast when the March 30, 1998, survey was conducted. When Edgewater Manor received the reports which indicated that Resident 8's ankle was fractured and displaced, Ms. Bey spoke with the staff to determine the cause of the injury. As a result of this investigation, Ms. Bey concluded that Resident 8 had not been dropped when being transferred and that the fracture could not be associated with any particular event. Ms. Bey's clinical impression was that Resident 8 had very fragile bones and a history of fractures, as set out in reports of x-rays taken in May 1997, which were maintained as part of Resident 8's chart. In her opinion, Resident 8's ankle could have been fractured when she was transferred from the bed to a chair or turned and repositioned in the bed or by the pressure of a wash cloth when she was bathed. Ms. Bey relied during her investigation on the opinion of Dr. Fraraccio, which she solicited, that he believed the fracture was unavoidable and that it "could have occurred during normal transfer or by any other maneuver, such as turning the patient in bed." Ms. Bey ultimately concluded that the fracture was not caused by abuse, neglect, or exploitation, but she did not reduce to writing the results of her investigation. The Agency's surveyor determined that each of Resident 8's bruises, the inflamed toe, and the ankle fracture were caused by mistreatment or neglect by the staff. This determination was not based on any independent investigation by the surveyor but solely on her conclusion that Resident 8 could not have injured herself because she was cognitively impaired, was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living, and required the assistance of two people for transfers from her bed to a chair or wheelchair. Even if it such a determination were relevant to the violation alleged, the Agency presented no evidence from which it could be found, with any degree of confidence, that Resident 8 was the victim of abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. The Agency did not, however, cite Edgewater Manor with a tag F224 violation for having abused, mistreated, or neglected Resident 8 or with a tag F225 violation for having failed to investigate incidents involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment.18 Rather, the Agency cited Edgewater Manor with a tag F224 violation for failing to develop and implement written policies and procedures to prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents.19 The evidence conclusively establishes that Edgewater Manor had indeed developed such written policies and procedures for the protection of all of its residents from abuse, mistreatment, or neglect and provided a copy to the Agency surveyor. Furthermore, the Agency presented no evidence to establish that these policies were not implemented with regard to Resident 8. The survey team apparently based its decision to cite Edgewater Manor for a tag F224 violation and Class II deficiency related to Resident 8 on the lack of documentation of Ms. Bey's investigations into the causes of Resident 8's bruises, inflamed toe, and fractured ankle. 20 The team apparently applied the following reasoning: Because there were no written reports of Ms. Bey's investigations, no investigations had been conducted; because no investigations were conducted, it was not possible for Edgewater Manor to develop written policies and procedures to prohibit abuse, neglect, or mistreatment or to develop a care plan for Resident 8 to avoid future injuries.21 These inferences lack any foundation in logic and, as noted above, are not supported by the evidence presented in this case. Finally, the evidence is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the care plan developed for Resident 8 failed to specify the means by which she was to be transferred from her bed to a chair or wheelchair,22 even assuming that the inclusion of such instructions would be necessary to protect her from abuse, mistreatment, or neglect.
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 in DOAH Case No. 98-1270 Finding that Hobe Sound Geriatric Vill., d/b/a Edgewater Manor, violated the requirements of Title 42, Section 483.15(g), Code of Federal Regulations; Citing Edgewater Manor with a Class II deficiency at the time of the January 1998 survey based on a violation of tag F250; and, Denying Edgewater Manor's request to change its conditional rating for the period from January 28, 1998 through March 30, 1998. 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 in DOAH Case No. 98-2553 Rescinding the conditional rating for the period from March 31, 1998, through February 28, 1999; and Issuing the appropriate rating to Edgewater Manor effective March 31, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1999.
Findings Of Fact North Shore is licensed in the category of Nursing Home pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Funds belonging to residents of the Home are treated as trust funds and kept separate from the funds of the facility. Individual ledgers are maintained for each resident while all resident trust funds are aggregated in a single bank account, in accordance with the requirements of Section 400.162(5), Florida Statutes. On September 14, 1977, Mr. Schneider, North Shore's Administrator, received word that the facility's operating funds were insufficient to meet current needs. Ordinarily, in such a situation, Schneider would have obtained additional funds from Morris Bickey, President of North Shore, but on this particular day could not get a hold of Mr. Bickey because he was out of town. Accordingly, Schneider withdrew $5,000.00 from the patient trust fund to cover the needed balance in the facility's operating account. On September 21, 1977, North Shore received further operating funds at which time Schneider drew a check in the amount of $5,000.00 plus $4.79 interest and replaced that amount in the patient trust fund. During Schneider's several years association with North Shore, this was the first time such a situation had occurred. Mr. Bickey, upon learning of the situation, admonished Schneider for his conduct. North Shore does an annual gross business of approximately $900,000.00.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly changed Petitioner's licensure status to conditional on June 23, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a nursing home in Venice, Florida. Respondent conducted a relicensure survey of Petitioner's nursing home on June 12, 1997. On June 23, 1997, Respondent issued Petitioner a new license, effective June 12, 1997, through October 31, 1997, for a skilled nursing facility. However, as a result of the deficiencies found in this survey, Respondent rated the renewal license as conditional. A resurvey on August 6, 1997, revealed that Petitioner had corrected all of the cited deficiencies, so Respondent issued a standard license, effective August 6. There are three ratings for a license: superior, standard, and conditional. Prior to the June 12 renewal, Petitioner's license was rated superior. The issuance of a conditional license adversely affects a licensee in one and possibly two ways. First, the conditional license hinders marketing and employee recruiting and retention. Second, the conditional license may affect Medicaid reimbursement levels. Even though Respondent rerated the nursing home as standard, the earlier conditional rating remains meaningful because it means that Petitioner cannot gain a superior rating for the next licensing period. Another factor militating against a determination that the present proceeding is moot is Respondent's procedure by which it does not provide licensees with an opportunity for a hearing prior to changing the rating of their nursing home licenses. As an incidental complaint to the issuance of a conditional license, Petitioner also complains of the procedure by which this Respondent issues this conditional license. Without having given Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing based on a proposed or tentative decision to change Petitioner's rating, Respondent simply issued the conditional license and gave Petitioner an opportunity to challenge this action, after the fact, in a formal administrative hearing. A mootness determination on these facts would insulate Respondent's initial action from effective challenge, despite the obvious economic impacts of the initial action. The June 12 survey reports cites three sets of Class II deficiencies, which were identified as Tags F 225, F 309, and F 314. These three tags were the sole bases for the issuance of a Conditional license. Tag F 225 concerns the investigation and documentation of an alleged incident of abuse of a resident by one of Petitioner's employees. The survey report asserts that Petitioner did not satisfy applicable legal requirements by failing, in violation of its own policies, to document in the resident's file the results of an abuse investigation report. Tag F 225 and the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing are vague as to whether the issue under Tag F 225 is that Petitioner failed to conduct an appropriate investigation or failed to document adequately that it had conducted an investigation. When pressed, Respondent's witnesses chose failure to document, perhaps in deference to the fact that Petitioner's employees clearly conducted an investigation. The alleged incident underlying this issue did not constitute abuse. A staffperson grabbed a resident's arm for an appropriate purpose and did not injure or harm the resident. Petitioner's investigation properly concluded that there was no abuse. As discussed under the conclusions of law, the subsubsubparagraph of the federal regulation allegedly violated under this tag requires only that Petitioner report to appropriate authorities any knowledge of actions by a "court of law" against an employee suggestive of unfitness to serve as facility staff. There is no proof of action by a court of law; this missing fact alone ends the inquiry under this tag. Additionally, Petitioner nonetheless reported the unfounded allegations to the state agency charged with investigating allegations of abuse, and the state agency concluded that the charge was unfounded. Tag F 309 concerns the quality of care received by six residents. As to Resident Number 6, who was in the final stages of a terminal illness, the survey report asserts that Petitioner kept him in isolation and did not offer him opportunities for socialization. Testimony at the hearing revealed that the resident was dying and did not want to socialize, but Respondent's witness opined that this was not an appropriate option. No evidence suggested that the dying resident suffered any diminution of ability to eat or use language. Respondent's witness labored under the misconception that the cited federal regulation addresses socialization (as opposed perhaps to the role of socialization in facilitating the more specific activities actually mentioned by the regulation, which is discussed in the conclusions of law). Even if the federal regulation were so broad, which it is not, the evidence certainly suggests that any diminution in socialization was unavoidable due to the resident's terminal clinical condition. The evidence reveals that Resident Number 6, who had had a gangrenous foot, suffered a staph infection of his gangrenous right foot. He was depressed, fatigued, and in pain; however, he was freely visited by staff and family. As to Resident Number 8, who had had a stroke, the survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide him his restorative therapy of walking and failed to document this therapy. At the time of the survey, Petitioner was short of restorative staff due to a scheduled vacation and an unscheduled bereavement absence due to the suicide of an employee's brother. When a restorative aide, who was on vacation, appeared at the nursing home and attempted to provide Respondent's surveyor with documentation concerning the therapy administered to Resident Number 8, the surveyor rejected the documentation on the grounds that it did not sufficiently identify the resident or therapist. Resident Number 8 suffered some loss of functioning--i.e., the ability to walk 400 feet--but the record does not link this loss of functioning to any brief interruption in his restorative therapy. As to Resident Number 9, the survey report states that, during the two days that surveyors were at the facility, she did not ambulate, even though her restorative nursing plan called for daily ambulation. However, she suffered no harm during this insignificant interruption in her program, from which she was successfully discharged a couple of weeks after the survey. As to Resident Number 13, who was 102 years old, the survey report notes that he was supposed to ambulate in a wheelchair. One of Respondent's surveyors noticed that a staffperson was pushing this resident's wheelchair. However, staff had assumed the responsibility of pushing this resident's wheelchair for him after he had developed pressure sores on his heels. The evidence fails to show that Petitioner's care for the treatment of Resident Number 13 had anything to do with his loss of function. As to Resident Number 26, the survey report asserts that his physician had ordered an increase in dosage of Prilosec, which aids digestion by treating the acidity associated with peptic ulcers. Three weeks passed before Petitioner's staff noticed that the change, which was on the resident's chart, had not yet been implemented. They implemented the change prior to the survey, and notified the resident's physician of the error in medication administration a couple of days later. The survey report states that Petitioner's staff documented, on May 30, 1997, that Resident Number 26 had lost 4.8 pounds, or 5.7 percent of his body weight, in one week. This weight loss occurred during the latter part of the period during which Resident Number 26 was receiving less than his prescribed amount of medication. Two of Petitioner's witnesses testified, without elaboration, that the medication error did not cause the weight loss. The survey report implies otherwise, although Respondent's witnesses were not as pronounced as Petitioner's witnesses in dealing with any link between the medication error and the weight loss. Absent the weight loss, the medication error-- consisting of a failure to raise a digestive medication--would have been insignificant and insufficient grounds for a Class II deficiency on the cited basis. However, there was a serious weight loss while the resident was undermedicated. The lack of evidence in the record proving that there was or was not a causal link between the weight loss and undermedication means that the party bearing the risk of nonpersuasion loses on this issue. As discussed in the conclusions of law, Respondent has the burden of proof; thus, for this reason alone, Petitioner prevails on this issue. As to the last resident under Tag F 309, who was not identified, the survey asserts that a restorative aide commented that he used to walk 440 feet, but does not anymore because he thinks that he does not have to. This scanty allegation provides no basis for citing Petitioner with a deficiency, even if it applies to Resident Number 8, as appears probable. Tag F 314 also concerns a quality-of-care issue-- specifically, the development and treatment of pressure sores in three residents. As to Resident Number 1, who had been in the nursing home for three years, the survey report states that, on May 12, 1997, he had developed a Stage II pressure sore on his right outer ankle. The survey report asserts that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient care to prevent the development of this pressure sore, that Resident Number 1 had suffered pressure sores in 1995, and that Petitioner should have known and treated Resident Number 1 on the basis of his being at risk for developing pressure sores. Despite a failure to document, Petitioner's staff adequately treated Resident Number 1 once the pressure sore developed. Nursing assistants required that he wear silicone pressure booties and that lotion be rubbed on the irritated skin. In addition, Petitioner has shown that the clinical condition of Resident Number 1 made pressure sores unavoidable. One of Petitioner's Assistant Directors of Nursing testified that Resident Number 1 had poor pedal pulses, indicative of poor circulation, and a history of peripheral neuropathy. The resulting decreased sensation in his feet would prevent him from feeling increased pressure and thus the need to move his feet. Despite preventative measures, Resident Number 1 developed pressure sores due to these clinical conditions. As to Resident Number 7, who had been in the nursing home for six years, the survey report asserts that she had a Stage II pressure sore--meaning that the skin was broken--but was allowed to remained seated in the same position for two hours in a position in which the pressure on the sore on her buttock was not relieved. The survey report does not allege that this pressure sore developed while Resident Number 7 resided in the nursing home. Resident Number 7 had severe dementia and was a total-care patient. She could not move independently. In fact, she sat, unmoved, in a chair for at least 4 and 3/4 hours on one of the days of the survey. The failure to move Resident Number 7 raises serious questions about the adequacy of Petitioner's treatment. However, Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing answered these questions when she testified that the one- centimeter pressure sore healed five days after the survey. Thus, Petitioner provided Resident Number 7 with the necessary treatment and services to promote healing. As to Resident Number 13, who had been in the nursing home for less than three months, the survey report alleges that he had developed pressure sores while in the nursing home. Resident Number 13 was the 102-year-old resident who is also discussed in Tag F 309. The survey report alleges that, on April 24, 1997, Resident Number 13 had a red left heel, red right foot, and pink right heel; on May 1, 1997, he had soft and red heels; on May 7 and 14, 1997, his pressure sores could not be staged due to dead tissue surrounding the sores; on May 20, 1997, his left heel was documented as a Stage II pressure sore, but the right heel could not be staged due to dead tissue; and Petitioner's staff did not implement any treatment until May 12, 1997. Respondent proved the allegations cited in the preceding paragraph except for the last concerning a failure to implement any treatment until May 12. Petitioner's Assistant Director of Nursing testified that Patient Number 13 was frail and debilitated. If this is a clinical condition, it is the only statement of Patient Number 13's clinical condition contained in the record. The Assistant Director of Nursing testified that the pressure sore on the left heel healed by June 3 after the usual treatment measures of turning and repositioning and heel protectors. She testified that the pressure sore on the right heel improved somewhat, but had not healed by the time of his death in January 1998 of presumably unrelated causes. The testimony of the Assistant Director of Nursing rebuts any evidence concerning inadequate treatment of Resident Number 13, but does not establish that the development of his pressure sores was clinically unavoidable. Her testimony as to Resident Number 1 identified clinical conditions that, when coupled with the early implementation of preventative measures, established that Resident Number 1's pressure sore was unavoidable. As to Resident Number 13, the Assistant Director of Nursing also testified of early implementation of preventative measures, but, in contrast to her testimony concerning Resident Number 1, she described little, if anything, of any clinical condition making the pressure sores unavoidable. If the intent of the Assistant Director of Nursing was to imply that old age coupled with frailty and debilitation provide the necessary clinical justification, she failed to establish the necessary causal relationships among pressure sores, advanced age, and frailty and debilitation-- even if the frailty and debilitation were relative to other 102-year-olds, which the record does not reveal, as opposed to the frailty and debilitation, relative to the general population, that one might expect in a 102-year-old. Without more detailed evidence concerning Resident Number 13's clinical condition, Petitioner effectively invites the creation of a safe harbor from liability for the development of pressure sores in 102-year-olds or even 102-year-olds who are frail and debilitated for their age, and the administrative law judge declines either invitation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner and rating Petitioner's license as conditional for the relevant period. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson Broad and Cassell Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration State Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was properly issued a conditional license on March 24, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Survey Background Rio Pinar (Petitioner) is a 180-bed nursing home in Orlando, Florida, licensed by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to its licensing authority the Respondent conducts surveys of nursing homes to determine compliance with statutes and regulatory standards that are established by the state, as well as the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. On February 13, 1997, the agency conducted an annual re- certification survey of Petitioner. The multi-disciplinary survey team was comprised, in part, of Sharon Hudson, Zola Whitmore, James Lang, and Lisa Privett. The team met with facility staff, then toured the facility to develop a sample of residents on which to conduct an in-depth review. Two of the issues on which the team focused were falls and restorative care by patients. The information was obtained by the team from patient examinations, records' review, and discussions with staff. At the conclusion of the survey inspection, Respondent issues a survey report which sets forth the factual findings made by the surveyors (which are organized as deficiencies by Tag numbers), the applicable federal and state regulations which the surveyors believe have been violated by the facility, and a federal scope and severity rating and state class rating for each tag numbered deficiency. Respondent issues a nursing facility a conditional license anytime it finds a state Class I or II deficiency or anytime it finds a Class III deficiency that is not corrected within the time frame mandated by AHCA. (Section 400.023, Florida Statutes.) In each of the nine annual surveys preceding February 1997, Petitioner received a Superior licensure rating. Falls The nursing home is required to ensure that each patient receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. An accident is an unexpected, unintended event that can cause bodily injury. It does not include adverse side effects or reactions to drugs. The most common accidents in nursing homes are falls by patients. The facility is expected to provide the supervision necessary to prevent those falls, and each patient must be assessed for being at risk. Tag F324 of the survey report alleges that Petitioner violated 42 CFR s. 483.25(h)(2), which provides that a facility "must ensure that a resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents." Respondent's surveyors testified that 11 residents: residents numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 23, 27, and 30 identified under Tag F324 of the survey report did not receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents because the facility did not timely assess these residents for interventions to prevent falls. They also testified that one of the residents, Resident number 4, did not receive appropriate restorative training that could have prevented a fall suffered by that resident. Finally, Respondent alleged that the number of surveyed residents at Rio Pinar who had fallen was exceptionally high and reflected inappropriate care. Petitioner comprehensively assesses each of its residents for their risk for falls and, where appropriate, provides a preventive care plan for those residents. An assessment is a thought process designed to lead a care-giver to determine the appropriate plan of care for a resident. Each resident is assessed for his or her risk for falls through a variety of assessment mechanisms. Resident 1 fell on November 24, 1996, after having been admitted to the facility on October 28, 1996. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Resident 1 was assessed by Petitioner upon admission for her risk for falls using the MDS assessment and Physical Therapy Assessments. She was determined to be independently ambulatory but cognitively impaired so that there was no care plan to prevent falls that could have been written or implemented for her other than "common sense" nursing. While sitting in a chair in her room, Resident 8 fell asleep, slumped over and hit her head on the windowsill next to her chair. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Resident 8 had been comprehensively assessed for her risk of falls by Petitioner, was determined to be totally dependent upon the facility for assistance in transfers and ambulation, and had a written care plan in place to prevent falls at the time she slumped over and hit her head on the windowsill. The resident was not considered to be at risk for falls while sitting in her chair, and there were no care plan interventions written to address that risk. The use of a helmet would be highly intrusive and is not a viable preventative measure in this case. Resident 14 fell on January 15, 1997. No preventable cause of the fall was found. Prior to her January 15, 1997, fall, Resident 14 had been at Petitioner for four years and had not fallen. However, she had been assessed for her risk for falls and was determined to be independent in her ambulatory skills so that she needed no care plan to prevent falls. There was no evidence submitted by Respondent regarding Resident 30. Resident 5 fell on December 7 and December 17, 1996. Resident 5 had been assessed by Petitioner using the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Physical Therapy Assessments. Like many of the other cited residents, she was independently ambulatory and had dementia. She had a tendency to wander and thus a specific care plan was in place to address that problem. However, her other conditions did not merit a specific care plan to prevent falls. Resident 5's fall on December 7, 1996, was investigated and no cause was found. However, because the Resident fractured her femur and suffered a decline, the facility re-assessed her and properly deemed her to be at risk for future falls. A care plan to prevent falls was drawn up by the physical therapy department that included providing the Resident with assistance in all transfers and ambulation, putting the side rails up while the Resident was in bed, and providing the Resident with a wheelchair and a walker. Her fall of December 17, 1996, was investigated and no cause was found, nor was there any supervision or assistive device that was lacking. Resident 11 did not fall during this period. Petitioner assessed Resident 11 for her risk for falls and had a care plan in place to address her need for assistance in transfers and ambulation. In addition, she was put on an ambulation program, was given a wheelchair and had a "lap buddy" to use to prevent falls from the wheelchair. Resident 3 fell twice over the course of four months, once on August 5, 1996, and once on November 10, 1996. Resident 3 was assessed by Rio Pinar when she was admitted to the facility and four days prior to her initial fall. Those assessments determined that the Resident was independent in ambulation and transfers and had dementia. Accordingly, there was no written care plan to prevent falls prior to August 5, 1996. After her fall on August 5, the incident was investigated and no preventable cause for the fall was identified. However, the facility prepared a written care plan to prevent falls that essentially emphasized common sense preventative measures because the Resident's assessed conditions did not merit additional supervision or assistive devices. Likewise, the November fall was investigated and no preventable cause was found that merited a change in this Resident's care plan. Resident 2 wore a halo device and was found sitting on her floor on December 4, 1996. The Resident's fall was investigated by nursing but the investigation did not identify any preventable cause that merited a change in the care plan approaches. The Resident had been assessed for falls and a care plan had been in place to prevent falls since November 19, 1996. That plan included physical therapy, a wheelchair and walker, assistance in ambulation, and side rails while in bed. Because the halo device was heavy, the Resident was also instructed to be careful; however, she would frequently ignore those warnings. Resident 10 was found sitting on the floor on January 21, 1997, and slipped on February 1, 1997. No preventable causes were identified for either fall. The first fall was caused by the Resident being startled by another resident in the facility. The second fall occurred because the Resident slipped while wearing shoes with slippery soles. Neither of the falls could have been prevented by Petitioner with interventions that were not already addressed in the Resident's plan of care. The Resident had been assessed for her risk for falls and, even though she was independent in her ambulation, had a care plan in place in September of 1996 to prevent falls. The facility was particularly concerned that the Resident, who was capable of dressing herself, would put on shoes that had slippery soles. Accordingly, the care plan provided that the facility would encourage the Resident to wear shoes with non-slip soles. The facility could do nothing more than encourage the Resident to wear appropriate shoes since the Resident could dress herself and her choices had to be respected by the facility. Resident 27 fell on December 8, 1996. No preventable cause of the fall was identifiable. Resident 27 was assessed upon admission to the facility in November 1996, and was determined to be at high risk for falls. A care plan to address falls was developed for this Resident that included assistance with ambulation, a daily ambulation program and side rails up while the Resident was in bed. Resident 4 fell twice on February 1, 1997. The February 1st fall was investigated by nursing and was determined to have been caused when the Resident attempted to get in bed by herself and missed the bed. The Resident was cognizant enough to know that she should call for assistance when needed so that it was determined that there was no additional supervision or assistive device that could have prevented the fall that was not already in place. This Resident had a care plan in place to prevent falls that was based on common sense preventative measures. The common sense approach was used because the Resident was independent in ambulation. Because of that independence, there was never any recommendation made by physical therapy or nursing that the Resident receive gait or balance programs, and none was given. Resident 23 fell on January 29, 1997. The Resident fell while going to the bathroom. No preventable cause of the fall was determined. This Resident had been assessed for her risk for falls, and her fall on January 29, 1997, was thoroughly investigated. The Resident had been initially assessed as being at risk for falls, but that risk was addressed through physical therapy and restorative ambulation. Respondent suggested that deficient care was given at Rio Pinar to prevent falls because there was an unusually high number of residents at Rio Pinar who experienced falls. Respondent surveyed 30 residents at Rio Pinar and 12 of them -- 40 percent of the sample -- had fallen. However, the sample pool of residents was compiled from the files of residents who had fallen. The sample used by the surveyors -- and the percentage of residents who fell -- was not randomly created but produced a high percentage of residents who had fallen. Petitioner experiences approximately 360 falls per year by its residents. Three hundred and sixty falls a year by its residents is within the average number predicted by one clinical study. Respondent proposed that a facility must provide one- on-one care, 24-hours a day to residents who are at risk for falling if that is the only way to ensure that a resident will not fall. This type of staffing would significantly exceed the staffing requirements set forth in the state regulations and is unreasonable. Petitioner was not cited as being in violation of any minimum staffing requirements. Such a high level of supervision would require a tremendous increase in staff which would, in turn, result in a tremendous cost to the facility and its residents. Petitioner would be required to double its current staff. Providing that level of care is neither feasible nor consistent with generally accepted standards of care. Restorative Care Tag F311 of the survey report alleges that Petitioner violated 42 CFR 483.25(a)(2), which provides that a facility must ensure that "a resident is given appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve" his or her activities of daily living ("ADLs"). Specifically, Respondent alleged that five residents did not receive restorative ambulation programs, two residents did not receive bowel and bladder programs, and one resident did not receive a restorative feeding program. A resident's ADLs include ambulating, feeding, toileting, grooming and bathing. When a resident's ability to do these activities has declined, the facility will frequently implement a restorative care program to address the decline, or will implement a maintenance program to maintain the resident's status if the resident's decline cannot be improved. At Petitioner Rio Pinar restorative or maintenance programs are developed by one of the therapy departments in the facility after an assessment of the resident's needs by the appropriate therapist. The programs are implemented by the nursing staff based upon instruction from the therapist who developed the program. Programs dealing with ambulation are developed by the Physical Therapist. Programs dealing with feeding are developed by the Occupational Therapist. The bowel and bladder program at Petitioner is developed and implemented by the nursing staff. Most bowel or bladder programs which are implemented for residents in a nursing home are for residents who have suffered irreversible declines in their bowel or bladder functions. In these cases, there is little prospect that they can be restored to independent status. The objectives for those residents are preventing incontinent episodes from occurring, keeping the resident dry and free of skin breakdown, and maintaining the resident's dignity. At Petitioner, the preferred toileting program for incontinent residents is a program that requires a staff member to check on a resident every two hours and toilet the resident if appropriate. An alternative program for residents is a "patterning program" which attempts to determine the resident's bathroom pattern and uses that pattern to schedule when a resident should be toileted. Either of these programs can meet the needs of an incontinent resident, and neither program is a demonstrably better program than the other. Although the program of choice at Petitioner is the two-hour program, Petitioner does attempt to ascertain toileting patterns for residents, and will follow those patterns instead of the two-hour system where the patterns can be ascertained. Respondent alleged that three Certified Nursing Assistants ("CNAs") at Petitioner had not completed a restorative training course offered at the facility and implied that they were inadequately prepared to give restorative care. The training course the CNAs missed was only an in-house refresher course of restorative care techniques which the CNAs had previously been taught during their certification training. The course was not required by any state or federal regulation. Furthermore, the CNAs received individualized instruction for restorative care from the Physical Therapy department for each resident for whom restorative care was ordered. Respondent alleged that Resident 1 had an unsteady gait and did not receive any restorative ambulation program for that problem. This was based upon an assessment done when the Resident was admitted to the facility which indicated that the Resident's gait was "wide based." That assessment was interpreted to mean that the Resident was unsteady when she walked. Resident 1 was assessed by the Physical Therapy Department upon her admission to the facility and it was that Department which determined that the Resident had a wide-based gait. A wide-gait is a steady gait. Resident 1 was further assessed to be independent and at her optimal level of ambulation. No restorative ambulation program was needed by or ordered for the Resident. It was alleged that Resident 7 did not receive required restorative ambulation, and that he had family members who were concerned about their ability to ambulate this Resident as a result of the absence of that program. Resident 7's ambulation program was daily ambulation with hand-held assistance from the nursing staff. It was not a restorative program but was designed to maintain the Resident's ambulatory abilities because he was ambulating at his highest capability. Resident 17 was admitted to Petitioner with orders for physical and occupational therapy. She began taking her occupational therapy; however, due to a bad experience she had with physical therapy while in the hospital, she refused to take physical therapy while in the hospital. She also refused to take physical therapy at Petitioner. She was given a psychiatric evaluation which recommended that the physical therapist go by and say "hello" to the Resident to try and help increase the Resident's confidence. Petitioner was required to honor the Resident's choice not to participate in physical therapy. It was alleged that there was no evidence to indicate that the physical therapist acted on the psychiatrist's recommendation. Going by and saying hello to a resident is not part of physical therapy or restorative care. Nonetheless, the physical therapist went by and visited with Resident 17 in an effort to build rapport with her. Because she was not giving physical therapy to this Resident, the physical therapist did not document these visits in her notes. Furthermore, the Resident's restorative needs were being met by the Occupational Therapy department at Petitioner. The Resident was in need of upper body strengthening, and the therapy provided by the Occupational Therapist was addressing that need. The Resident was not deprived of any ADL by her failure to participate in a physical therapy program. Resident 28 had declined, but maintained some ability to feed himself with assistance. He was discharged to a restorative self-feeding program. It was alleged that there was no evidence that the program was ever implemented for this Resident. Resident 28 had only minimal ability to feed himself, and the Occupational Therapist who developed his restorative feeding program was not optimistic that the program could improve the resident because he had declining dementia. The prescribed program was started but had to be discontinued almost immediately. The Resident suffered a significant weight loss, and the nurses were instructed to discontinue the feeding program in that event. Thereafter, the program was not re-started because the Resident suffered a further decline due to his dementia and could not have any of his feeding abilities improved. In the brief time between the implementation of the program and its termination, the Resident's wife attempted to feed the Resident by herself. This act, motivated out of an understandable difficulty in watching her husband struggle to feed himself in the restorative program, was counter-productive to the goal of the program that the Resident learn to feed himself. The wife had been involved in the training instructions for the program and had been reminded frequently of the need for the Resident to feed himself, but she fed him anyway. The Occupational Therapist was not interviewed prior to citing this deficiency. There was no deficiency if the Occupational Therapist determined that the Restorative Program for this Resident should be discontinued. The Occupational Therapist made that determination for this Resident. Resident 27 was discharged from physical therapy to a restorative ambulation program. It was alleged that there was no evidence that the ambulation program was administered in December. However, the program was given for 14 of the 17 days that the Resident was in the facility. Respondent claimed that Residents 19 and 30 suffered declines in bowel and bladder functions and were not further assessed to determine if they could be placed in a retraining program. The Residents were not observed to be wet or otherwise unattended regarding their toileting needs. Both Residents were assessed using the MDS, which contains a comprehensive assessment (including a RAP key) for incontinence. Neither Resident could be restored to continence or independent status. They were both placed on a two-hour toileting program.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter its Final Order granting Petitioner's request to change its conditional license rating for the period contemplated by the February 1997 survey. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel Post Office Box 11300 DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
