The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, are correct and if so what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with responsibility for regulation of licensed nursing home administrators in Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed nursing home administrator. On or about April 13, 1998, the Respondent was hired as the administrator of the “Colonial Oaks” nursing facility (the facility) located in Ft. Myers, Florida. The facility was owned by Vencor and had been operating for about four years by the time the Respondent became the administrator. Prior to her move to Colonial Oaks, the Respondent had 20 years of experience as a nursing home administrator. The Respondent’s previous nursing home employment had been at facilities with superior ratings. She agreed to transfer to this facility because she believed that she could improve the situation and secure a superior rating for it as well. She has never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding prior to this case. Colonial Oaks had been through 12 administrators and 15 directors of nursing before the Respondent assumed the administrator’s position. There were considerable staff problems at the facility. Continuing management difficulties made if difficult to motivate staff members who apparently assumed that the managers would soon be gone and that new managers with new expectations would arrive. Further staffing problems were related to the type of patients who resided at Colonial Oaks. The facility drew a large population of private pay residents who expected high levels of service from the staff, which the staff was apparently unable or unwilling to provide. At the time of the Respondent’s employment at the facility, there was no director of social services and no director of activities. Additionally, resignations had been submitted by the medical records coordinator, the care plan coordinator, the staff development coordinator, the therapy director, the case manager, and the central supply clerk, all of whom were completing their resignation notice periods. Immediately upon beginning her tenure at the facility, the Respondent began to advertise the job openings in an attempt to fill the positions. She filled a number of open positions and began training new employees. She met with the staff frequently and made daily rounds to review the operation of the facility. Employees seeking to become Certified Nursing Assistants were offered classes to encourage them to complete their training. The Respondent also changed the resident care plan records program from a computerized system, which was allegedly disliked by survey teams from the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) responsible for inspecting the facility, to a paper-based system which provided for easier review by survey teams. There is no evidence that the Respondent failed to make an appropriate effort to address the problems existing at the facility when she assumed control. AHCA inspectors surveyed the facility on August 6 through 8, 1998. While the survey team inspected the facility, the Respondent spent much of the time in her office preparing a package she expected to submit to the survey team which she believed would lead to a superior rating. She also responded to requests for information from the survey team. According to the survey report, the survey team identified numerous deficiencies. The facility received a conditional rating. Among the cited deficiencies were instances where residents were allegedly left in soiled clothing for extended periods of time. Some of the allegations involved residents with skin irritation or sores which could be exacerbated by unsanitary clothing. The facility’s policy and procedure require that residents be “repositioned” every two hours and that incontinent residents should be changed every two hours. Based on the testimony of William Sullivan, the evidence establishes that in at least one case of an incontinent resident sitting in a wheelchair, the facility did not comply with the policy and procedure requirement that he be moved and changed every two hours. Based on the testimony of Joan Cagley-Knight, the evidence establishes that in at least one case of an incontinent resident with a “full diaper,” the facility did not comply with the policy and procedure requirement that the resident be changed every two hours. There is no evidence that the Respondent was aware that some employees of the facility failed to comply with the policy and procedure requirement that the resident be changed every two hours. According to the survey report, other alleged deficiencies included weight loss by some residents. There is no evidence that prior to the August survey, the Respondent was aware that some residents were losing weight. The weight of the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent should have known that some residents were losing weight. According to the survey report, other alleged deficiencies included random complaints voiced by some relatives of facility residents. The Respondent maintained an “open door” policy so that any person could meet with her and address matters of concern. There is no evidence that prior to the survey, the Respondent was aware of any unresolved relative complaints that had not been addressed. Colonial Oaks had been rated “conditional” previously and was described by the Vencor employee who followed the Respondent as a “yo-yo facility” which would sometimes improve and then falter. The Respondent prepared a plan of correction to address the deficiencies. The plan of correction was apparently approved by AHCA and was implemented by the Respondent. The corporate owner of the facility did not challenge any of the cited deficiencies through a procedure known as Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR). The Respondent was not involved in the decision not to utilize the IDR process. Subsequent to the August survey, the facility’s director of nursing resigned. The Respondent made attempts to hire a new director of nursing. She requested that the corporate owner assist in the search, which extended outside the State of Florida. Apparently the troubled reputation of the facility made it difficult to convince prospective nursing directors to accept the position. Regional nurses assigned by Vencor to assist in the situation resigned rather than work in the facility. Eventually, the Respondent’s immediate supervisor came in to assist with the problems. The supervisor brought in some additional corporate employees including nutritionists, but most refused to become involved in the turmoil. On October 6, 1998, an AHCA team resurveyed the facility. At the time of the October survey, the nursing director was still serving out her resignation notice period. Although as of the October 6 survey a number of deficiencies had been corrected, several deficiencies were again cited. The cited deficiencies included instances where residents were allegedly left in soiled clothing for extended periods of time. In at least one case, based on the testimony of Joan Cagley-Knight, an incontinent resident sat in urine- soaked sweatpants for more than two hours without being assisted by an employee of the facility, in violation of the applicable policy and procedure requirement. The weight of the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent knew or should have known that some employees of the facility failed to comply with the policy and procedure requirement that the resident be changed every two hours. Based on the testimony of William Sullivan, the evidence establishes that some residents continued to lose weight and that nutritional recommendations were not being implemented. There is no evidence that the Respondent was aware that the nutritional issues had not been addressed, after corporate nutritional specialists were brought in following the August survey. There was also an issue related to an injury suffered by a resident who fell while unrestrained. The issue related specifically to an apparently incorrect report made by the facility’s director of nursing to AHCA officials regarding the site where the accident occurred. There is no evidence that the Respondent attempted to mislead the AHCA employees about the incident in any manner. On October 9, 1998, the Respondent transferred to the “Windsor Woods” facility, a superior-rated facility also owned by Vencor, where she continued to achieve a superior rating until the rating program was discontinued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing Home Administrators, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint, as amended, filed against Janice Carol Reeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith & Grout, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Mary Denise O'Brien, Esquire Department of Health 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John Taylor, R.Ph., Executive Director Board of Nursing Home Administrators Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Petitioner was in violation of 42CFR 483.25(l)(1), 42CFR 483.60(d), Rules 59A-4.112(5) and 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, at the time of its annual survey in July 2000, and, if so, whether those violations were uncorrected at the time of resurvey in September 2000, in order to justify the issuance of a Conditional licensure rating.
Findings Of Fact Tampa Health Care Center (Petitioner) is a licensed nursing home in Tampa, Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, Respondent surveys Petitioner to determine whether it is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If there are deficiencies, it determines the level of deficiency. When Respondent conducts a survey of a nursing home, it issues a survey report, commonly called by its form number, a "2567." The particular regulation, and the allegedly deficient practices which constitute a violation of that regulation, are cited in a column on the left side of the paper. After receiving the 2567, the facility is required to develop a plan of correction which is put in the right hand column corresponding to the alleged deficiency. The facility is required to develop this plan regardless of whether it agrees that it is in violation of any regulations, and it is prohibited from being argumentative. Respondent conducted its annual survey of Petitioner, ending July 27, 2000, and issued a 2567 survey report noting certain deficiencies. The deficiencies are designated as tag numbers. Among those noted were Tag F329, which is the shorthand reference to 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.25 (1)(1), and Tag F431, which incorporates 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d). Respondent rated these deficiencies as Class III deficiencies. Respondent conducted a follow-up survey on September 5, 2000, and determined that the deficiencies under tags F329 and F431 were uncorrected, and, as a result, issued a Conditional rating to the facility. On December 2000, Respondent conducted another follow- up survey and determined that all deficiencies had been corrected and therefore issued a Standard license to Petitioner effective that date. The 2567 constitutes the charging document for purposes of issuing a Conditional license. No other document was offered to describe the offenses, or deficiencies, which resulted in imposition of the Conditional license. The parties stipulated at the hearing that Tags F329 and F431 were the only ones at issue in this proceeding. In conducting its survey, Respondent uses a document developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), called the State Operations Manual. It indicates guidance on how are to interpret regulations. TAG F 329 The 2567 from the July survey asserts, under Tag F 329, that the facility "failed to monitor psychotropic medications for 5 of 5 sampled residents." The regulation states that residents are to be "free from unnecessary drugs," and elaborates that a drug given without adequate monitoring is considered unnecessary. The guidelines establish that monitoring is expected only for residents on psychotropic medications. Therefore, for a violation to occur, there must first be a resident who is receiving psychotropic medications, and secondly, a lack of monitoring of the use of that drug. Respondent alleged and put on evidence that certain residents (numbers 1, 9, 19, and 21) identified in the July survey did not have "behavior monitoring records" in their files. Specific forms are not mandatory, and evidence of monitoring can be documented elsewhere in a resident's clinical record. Monitoring can be documented in nurses' notes, and those notes were not thoroughly reviewed, as Respondent's surveyors only had limited time for the survey. Respondent presented no evidence that Residents 9, 19, or 21 were receiving psychotropic medications. Petitioner presented evidence of numerous systems in place to monitor residents, including those receiving psychotropic medications. Residents are given a complete clinical assessment within 24 hours of admission; there is then a 14-day more thorough observation and assessment process, culminating in the development of care plans which address particular issues and direct staff to care for residents in particular ways. Nurses regularly document issues or concerns in nurses notes; a physician visits the residents at least once a month, which, as all drugs are ordered by the physician, includes review of the resident's medication. If necessary, a psychiatric evaluation is completed. Once a week a transdisciplinary team meets to discuss any residents "at risk," which includes those receiving psychotropic medications. Additionally, a consultant pharmacist reviews all residents' medications once a month. This review is to determine how well the resident is doing on the drug regimen. It includes reviewing nurses' notes, physicians' notes, the medication administration record, the record of dosages taken on an "as needed" basis, and discussions with nursing staff. The pharmacist reviews whether there are medications administered in excessive doses, in excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, or in the presence of adverse consequences. With regard to the September survey, Respondent alleged in the Form 2567 that "Residents numbers 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13 lacked Behavior Monitoring Forms in their records" and that all were on psychotropic medications which required monitoring. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara Bearden who stated that Residents 3 and 4 were on psychotropic medications, and that there were no behavior monitoring forms. With regard to Resident 4, Respondent asserted that there was no assessment of behaviors in any records after August 14. Bearden acknowledged that both Residents 3 and 4 received reasonable doses, and that there was no reason to believe the level of medication was too high. Respondent's witness also asserted that there was no "AIMS" assessments, no initial assessment, and no indication of the reason for or effectiveness of the medications. These matters were not alleged in the charging document, which only asserted the lack of behavior monitoring forms. During her testimony, Respondent's witness acknowledged that there was no standard to determine how often there should be behavior monitoring. Marie Maisel testified for Respondent regarding Residents 9, 11, and 13. With regard to Resident 9, she testified that the resident received Restoril, a sleeping medication, and also Zoloft, an anti-depressant, and that there was no "systematic behavior monitoring." Sleeping medications do not require behavior monitoring, according to the State Operations Manual, and at deposition, the surveyor indicated that the only medication the resident received was Restoril. Petitioner therefore had no notice of the additional allegation regarding Zoloft and this fact cannot be considered. With regard to Resident 11, Maisel testified that the resident received Risperdal, a psychotropic medication, and that, in her opinion, the behavior monitoring was not adequate. At hearing the surveyor testified that Resident 13 was receiving Haldol and there was no systemic behavior monitoring. However, the witness acknowledged that when her deposition was taken, she did not know why Resident 13 had been cited. Petitioner therefore had no notice of these allegations regarding Resident 13. Petitioner presented evidence, including excerpts from the resident's clinical record, that Resident 3 had been assessed for drug use, and that behaviors were monitored. The resident had been admitted less than three weeks before the September survey, which means that an initial assessment had been performed, as well as the complete 14-day assessment, just prior to survey. Respondent admitted that it would be inappropriate to reduce medication soon after admission. There was a care plan which addressed the resident's use of Risperdal, and another which addressed the resident's ability to function with the activities of daily living. These care plans directed staff to monitor the resident's condition and behavior. Numerous nursing notes documented the resident's condition and behaviors. Resident 3 was not noted in the pharmacist's monthly report, meaning the review revealed no problems with medications. Furthermore, the resident's medications were significantly reduced while in Petitioner's care, and her condition improved dramatically, from being nearly comatose, to being alert and oriented, and needing only limited assistance with mobility. Resident 4 had been admitted just a month before the survey and had also just undergone an extensive assessment process. Her medications were also reduced from those she had been receiving on admission, and nurses notes clearly documented her condition and behaviors throughout the period up to the survey. These notes document not only the monitoring of behaviors, but the reason and need for the medication, as she exhibited combative behaviors. Resident 4 also did not appear on the pharmacist's report. With regard to Resident 9, Petitioner presented evidence that there was a care plan specifically addressing the resident's use of Zoloft, that there were other care plans which addressed behaviors and condition which required that the resident be monitored, and that there was periodic consideration of reductions. Resident 9 did appear on the pharmacist's report, suggesting consideration of a reduction in dosage; thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the system. Resident 11 had a care plan addressing her use of Risperdal, which required monitoring and other interventions. Monthly nursing summaries reflected that she was monitored, as did nursing notes. Generally, nurses notes indicate when there are problems or unusual occurrences, not when everything is routine. Petitioner also presented evidence with regard to Resident 13's use of Haldol, which showed the reason for its use (wandering, verbal abusiveness), numerous efforts to reduce the dosage, review by the pharmacist, a care plan to address its use, which required monitoring, and monthly summaries summarizing her condition and behaviors. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to show that Residents 3, 4, 9, 11, and 13, cited in the September survey, were appropriately monitored and were not receiving unnecessary drugs. TAG F431 Respondent charged in the September 2000 survey that several insulin vials in the medication room were not marked with the date they were opened. The regulation under Tag F431, 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.60(d), requires that drugs be labeled "in accordance with currently accepted professional principles" and "the expiration date when applicable." The surveyor guidelines indicate that the critical elements of labeling are the name of the drug and its strength. Additionally, the guidelines advise that drugs approved by the Federal Drug Administration (F.D.A.) must have expiration dates on the manufacturer's container. Respondent's witness acknowledged that all insulin had the manufacturer's expiration date. Although there is a chance of contamination after opening a vial of insulin, it was acknowledged that it is customary to have a policy allowing use for six months after opening. Petitioner has a policy of discarding insulin 60 days after opening. While it is customary to write the opening date on the vial, a failure to do so will only reduce the amount of time it can be used, because of other systems in place. The pharmacy which dispenses the insulin puts a dispensing date on it, and the pharmacist reviews, monthly, stored medications. Within every three months, all medications are checked, and if there is no date of opening, the pharmacist looks to the dispensing date. If the vial was dispensed more than 60 days prior, it is given to the nurse for discarding. Instead of being able to be used for six months beyond the date opened, the medication is discarded sixty days, or at most ninety days, after it was dispensed. Writing the date opened on the vial is not an item encompassed by the regulation as explicated in the guidelines. Furthermore, there is no potential for harm, as there are redundant systems in place.
Recommendation Based of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revising the July 27 and September 5, 2000, survey reports by deleting the deficiencies described under Tags F329 and F431, and issuing a Standard rating to Respondent to replace the previously issued Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 22nd day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia J. Hakes, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Room 310J St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a nursing home administrator in the State of Florida should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violation of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed October 10, 1988. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with violating Section 468.1755(1)(g), Florida Statutes, because of alleged negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of nursing home administration, and Section 468.1755(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as a result of willfully or repeatedly violating any of the provisions of the law, code or rules of the licensing or supervising authority or agency of the state having jurisdiction of the operation and licensing of nursing homes. The charges are based on the allegation that Respondent was the Administrator in charge of a nursing home in Miami, Florida while also acting in the capacity of Administrator at another facility without having a qualified Assistant Administrator to act in his absence. This case was originally scheduled for hearing on March 26, 1989. That hearing was continued while the parties attempted to finalize a settlement agreement. On April 25, 1989, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Home Administrators entered a Final Order imposing a reprimand on Respondent. Respondent objected to the Final Order and contended that it was not in accordance with the settlement negotiations that took place. A Notice of Appeal was filed in connection with the Final Order. Subsequently, the parties agreed that the appeal should be dismissed and the case was remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal administrative hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner called two witnesses: James W. Bavetta, an inspector with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Licensure and Certification and William Carl Wheatley, Jr., a licensed Nursing Home Administrator in the State of Florida, who was accepted as an expert in the field of nursing home administration. The Petitioner offered three exhibits into evidence all of which were accepted. The Respondent testified on his own behalf and had fourteen exhibits marked, all of which were accepted into evidence except Respondent's Exhibit 2 which was not offered. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested and were granted an opportunity to brief certain legal issues raised during the hearing in order to obtain a ruling on those issues prior to submitting proposed recommended orders. However, the parties subsequently withdrew this request and by Agreed Order dated December 29, 1989, the parties were granted until January 29, 1990 to file their proposed recommended orders. The parties were also granted fifteen days after submission of proposed recommended orders to file a reply memoranda to the legal issues raised in the proposals. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders. In addition, Respondent filed a Memorandum Brief regarding certain legal issues raised. The Petitioner did not file a separate brief on the legal issues. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order was filed on January 30, 1990. By notice filed on February 5, 1990, the Respondent waived any objection to the late filing of Petitioner's Recommended Order. All submittals have been reviewed and considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. A ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact is included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order. Prior to the hearing, Respondent had filed a Motion to Compel Complete Response to Respondent's Request for Production of Documents. That Motion was related to the purported failure by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to produce documents requested pursuant to subpoena Duces Tecum issued August 16, 1989. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") is not a party to this action, but it filed a Response to Motion to Compel indicating that HRS's records were not kept in a manner which would allow the agency to isolate the documents requested without going through every licensure file kept by the agency. HRS offered the Respondent an opportunity to undertake such an investigation. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent advised that he was prepared to go forward with the hearing without a ruling on the Motion to Compel. However, counsel for Respondent requested the opportunity to revisit this issue, if necessary, at the conclusion of the hearing. During the hearing, an investigator from HRS testified and produced certain documents relating to Respondent's Florida facility. In addition, the HRS investigator testified regarding certain HRS policies and procedures. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Motion to Compel appears moot and Respondent has not addressed this issue in his proposed recommended order. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied. At Petitioner's request, official recognition has been taken of Rule 10D- 29.104(6)(c).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing and the entire record herein, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, is a licensed Nursing Home Administrator in the State of Florida, license number NH 0001018. He has been duly licensed in Florida since 1974-1975. At all times material hereto, the Respondent has been the nursing home administrator in charge at Riverside Care Center ("Riverside",) a nursing home located at 899 N.W. 4th Street, Miami Florida. Respondent has never been the designated nursing home administrator for any other facility licensed by or located in Florida. At all times material hereto, Riverside held and continues to hold a superior rating issued by Florida HRS pursuant to Section 400.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed nursing home administrator in the State of Kentucky, having been issued license number 420. Respondent has also been a licensed nursing home administrator in the State of Ohio since 1973. Other than the charges in this case, Respondent has never been the subject of disciplinary action or faced administrative charges in any of the states in which he is licensed. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the licensed nursing home administrator in charge of Garrard Convalescent Home, (`1Garrard") located at 425 Garrard Street, Covington, Kentucky 41011. In December, 1985, as a part of the re-licensure process, Riverside filed DHRS Form 109 with MRS. The information contained on that form disclosed that Respondent served as an Administrator for Garrard which is a superior rated nursing home located in and licensed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Prior to July 11, 1986, Riverside designated in writing, Richard Stacey and Riverside's Director of Nursing, as the persons in charge and responsible for the facility in the absence of Respondent from the facility. On July 11, 1986, Richard Stacey, Respondent's brother, was a nursing home administrator licensed by Kentucky. Thus, he had passed the national examination. He had applied for an administrator's license by endorsement in Florida. Such license was issued to Mr. Stacey in 1986, but not until after July 11, 1986. On July 11, 1986, Respondent was in Cincinnati, Ohio, at Riverside's central business office, working on payroll for the facility. Richard Stacey was physically present and in charge of Riverside on that date. However, he was not a licensed administrator in Florida at that time. Betty Ward, a licensed administrator, was physically present and in charge at Garrard. On July 11, 1986, as the result of comments received from the HRS Medicaid Office, Audit Division, in Tallahassee, an MRS representative went to Riverside and determined that Respondent was not present at the facility. During the inspection, Mr. Bavetta, the MRS representative, did not look for nor did he find any evidence that the residents were not being cared for or that their rights were not being protected. As a result of the inspection, the HRS investigator issued a Recommendation for Sanctions against the facility for a purported violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-29.104(6)(c) and/or 10D-29.104(6)(d). A violation of either of those sections would generally constitute a Class III deficiency pursuant to Section 400.238(4), Florida Statutes. Class III deficiencies do not present a direct or immediate threat to the safety or welfare of the residents. The existence of a Class III deficiency or deficiencies does not automatically establish negligence, incompetence or misconduct on the part of the Administrator of the facility. As a matter of general policy, HRS does not seek administrative sanctions if a Class III deficiency is corrected within the prescribed time. In this case, no time to correct the deficiency was prescribed and HRS sought administrative sanctions against the facility. Within six (6) days of receipt of the notice by Riverside of the alleged violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-29.104(6), a licensed assistant administrator was hired by Riverside. The decision not to hire a licensed assistant administrator at Riverside prior to July 11, 1986 was based upon the advice of Respondent's attorney that such was not a requirement under Florida law. For the period January 1, 1985 through September 21, 1989, Petitioner has not filed charges against any other licensed nursing home administrator in the State of Florida except Respondent for an alleged violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-29.104(6)(c) or 10D-29.104(6)(d). Respondent's conduct of nursing home administration at Riverside was in conformity with the standard of practice utilized by a normal, prudent, responsible nursing home administrator in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Nursing Home Administrators enter a Final Order finding Ralph L. Stacey, Jr., not guilty of violating Section 468.1755(1)(g) and Section 468.1755(1)(m) Florida Statutes, and dismissing all the charges in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEVEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12 day of April 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-6233 Both the Petitioner and the Respondent submitted Proposed Recommended Orders which include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The following rulings are directed towards the findings of fact contained in those proposals. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order were Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1 Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order were Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1 Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. 15. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. 17. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 18. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff Chief Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth S. Handmaker, Esquire Middleton & Reutlinger 2500 Brown & Williamson Tower Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easely, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue (1) Whether Respondent, Rockledge NH, L.L.C., d/b/a Rockledge Health and Rehabilitation Center, should be given a "Conditional" or "Standard" license effective February 12, 2002, or March 7, 2002; (2) Whether Respondent is subject to an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent operates a skilled nursing home located at 587 Barton Boulevard, Rockledge, Brevard County, Florida. Petitioner is the State of Florida agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing home facilities in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material to this matter, licensed by Petitioner and required to comply with applicable rules, regulations, and statutes, including Sections 415.1034 and 400.022, Florida Statutes. On or about March 7, 2002, Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of Respondent. Petitioner's surveys and pleadings assign numbers to residents in order to maintain the residents' privacy and confidentiality. The resident who was the subject of the Class II deficiency from the March 7, 2002, complaint survey has been identified as Resident number 1, with the initials "H.C." Resident number 1 is 82 years old and was admitted to Respondent's facility on January 19, 2002, with diagnoses of dementia, back pain from multiple falls, hypertension, osteoarthritis, recurrent bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. At all times material to this matter, Resident number 1 was a "vulnerable adult" as defined in Subsection 415.102(26), Florida Statutes. On February 5, 2002, at approximately 9:50 p.m., a certified nursing assistant employed by Respondent went into Resident number 1's room to see why Resident number 1 was yelling. Upon entering the room, the certified nursing assistant found Resident number 1's bed positioned in such a way that his head was down and his feet were up. A blanket had been tied across the "up" end of the bed securing Resident number 1's feet allowing him to be held in a "head down" position. The certified nursing assistant who investigated the yelling "pulled on the blanket to verify that it was tied down." There were no prescriptions or written orders justifying the restraint of Resident number 1. The certified nursing assistant who found Resident number 1 in the above-described position identified a different certified nursing assistant, one provided to Respondent by a staffing agency, as the caregiver for the shift in question. The alleged abusive act was perpetrated by the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency. The certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency placed Resident number 1 in a position that was contraindicated for a person with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respondent's certified nursing assistant waited approximately two days before reporting the alleged abusive act to the abuse hotline, Respondent's abuse coordinator or the Director of Nursing. A medical record review indicated that Resident number 1 was sent to the hospital on February 22, 2002, for shortness of breath and again on February 26, 2002, for difficulty in breathing and lung congestion. The History and Physical from the hospital, dated February 23, 2002, revealed that Resident number 1 was sent to the hospital because of progressive shortness of breath. Resident number 1's lower extremities were documented to have been severely edematous with "skin changes subsequent to chronic stasis and edema with excoriation, loss of circulation, blisters, etc." The certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency had a full resident assignment and cared for several residents the day of the alleged abusive act. After the discovery of the alleged abuse, the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency continued to care for Resident number 1 and other residents assigned to her for approximately one hour or until the end of her shift. Documentation, dated March 8, 2002, from the staffing agency, confirmed that the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency did have education in the current rules and regulations related to the abuse and neglect of the elderly. Petitioner's surveyor believed that the failure to immediately report the alleged abuse constituted a Class II deficiency because the certified nursing assistant provided by the staffing agency was allowed to continue to care for Resident number 1 and other residents until the shift ended and could have further abused Resident number 1 or other residents in her care.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints in this matter be dismissed and Respondent's licensure status be returned to Standard for the period it was Conditional and that no administrative fine be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanna Daniels, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alex Finch, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the allegations in the notice of intent to assign a conditional license and, if so, whether Petitioner should have changed the rating of Respondent's license from standard to conditional for the period June 14 through August 10, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the state. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 1120 West Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida (the "facility"). Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility from May 7, through May 10, 2001 (the "May survey"). Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey of the facility on June 14, 2001 (the "June survey"). The May survey cites one Class III violation. The June survey cites a repeat deficiency of a Class III violation. Subsection 400.23(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), refers to deficiency classifications as Class I-III deficiencies. All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Section 400.23(8)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those deficiencies . . . which the agency determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than class I or class II deficiencies. The statutory definitions of Class I and II deficiencies are not relevant to this case because this case involves only a Class III deficiency. Florida Administrative Code Rule Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the State of Florida to adhere to federal regulations in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"). All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on the date of this Recommended Order. In relevant part, Rule 59A- 4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. Applicable federal regulations require Petitioner to assign a scope and severity rating to the deficiencies alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner assigned a "D" rating to the deficiencies alleged in the May and June surveys. A “D” rating means that there is no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not actual jeopardy. When Petitioner alleges that the Class III deficiency from the May survey was not corrected within the time established by the agency, the agency may change the rating of the facility license from standard to conditional. Petitioner determined in the June survey that the facility had not corrected the deficiency alleged in the May survey. Effective June 14, 2001, Petitioner changed the rating of the facility's license from standard to conditional. Petitioner noted the results of the May and June surveys on a Health Care Federal Administration form entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." The parties refer to the form as the HCFA 2567-L or the "2567". The 2567 is the document used to charge nursing homes with deficiencies that violate applicable law. The 2567 identifies each alleged deficiency by reference to a tag number (the "Tag"). Each tag on the 2567 includes a narrative description of the allegations against Respondent and cites a provision of relevant state rules violated by the alleged deficiency. There is only one tag at issue in the May and June surveys. It is Tag F282. In order to protect the privacy of nursing home residents, Tag F282, the 2567, and this Recommended Order refer to each resident by a number rather than by the name of the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the May and June survey that the facility failed to satisfy the requirements of 42 CFR Section 483.20(k)(ii). In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Comprehensive Care Plans. (3). The services provided or arranged by the facility must— (ii) Be provided by qualified persons in accordance with each resident’s written "plan of care." This standard is made applicable to nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Rule 59A-4.1288. Tag F282 does not allege that the facility provided care to residents by unqualified persons. Rather, Tag F282 alleges that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for two residents. Tag F282 alleges in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for Residents 3 and 1. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that Respondent failed to follow the plan of care for Resident 1. The resident identified as Resident 1 is not the same resident in the May and June surveys. Before proceeding to the merits of the allegations in Tag F282, two policy issues must be resolved in order to make findings of fact in a manner that is consistent with Petitioner's officially stated agency policy. One issue is procedural and the other involves the definition of terms. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the "Manual"). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The Manual authorizes surveyors to determine whether a facility has complied with Tag F282 only after surveyors have identified violations of standards relating to: quality of care, defined in 42 CFR Section 483.25(a)–(m); quality of life, defined 42 CFR Section 483.15(a)–(h); or residents rights, defined 42 CFR Section 483.10(a)–(o). The state agency's written policy set forth in the Manual requires its surveyors to identify an issue of quality of care, quality of life, or residents’ rights before proceeding to a determination of whether the facility has violated Tag F282. The second issue involves the interpretation of the terms "inadequate", "incorrect", and "consistent." The Manual indicates that violations occur if surveyors can demonstrate inadequate or incorrect implementation of the care plan. The Manual does not define the term “inadequate.” The common meaning of the term suggests that something less than perfect implementation satisfies the requirements of the regulatory standard. That construction is consistent with other provisions in the Manual. The Manual further provides that violations of standards occur only if a facility fails to “consistently” implement the plan of care for a resident. Petitioner's surveyors acknowledged in their testimony that the goal for the quality of care regulations is to achieve positive resident outcomes and is identical to the goal of Tag F282. Petitioner offered no credible reason, within the meaning of Section 120.68(7)(e)3, why the standard for implementation of a resident’s care plan under Tag F282 should be stricter than that required by the quality of care regulations. Resident 3 had many compromising conditions and was near death at the time of the May survey. Resident 3 had 10 to 12 care plans to address his various medical problems and conditions. Each care plan contained an average of 15 separate interventions. One of the care plans for Resident 3 addressed the risk of developing pressure sores and contained 20 separate interventions for staff to implement. One intervention required staff to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. On May 7, 2001, a surveyor stationed herself outside of Resident 3’s room from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon to observe who entered the resident’s room and what care was given to the resident. During that time, the surveyor observed that no staff member entered the room to turn and reposition the resident. The care plan required staff to turn the resident once during the three-hour period. The allegations in Tag F282 pertaining to the failure to reposition Resident 3 during a three-hour period on May 7, 2001, deviate from Petitioner's written agency policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not cite the facility for any violation relating to quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Second, a single isolated failure to implement one intervention prescribed in one of 12 care plans for Resident 3, during a three-hour period, on one of four days of a survey, does not demonstrate inadequate care by failing to consistently implement a care plan. Petitioner failed to explain by a preponderance of the evidence why it deviated from its official written policy in its determination that Respondent violated the standard prescribed in Tag F282. The surveyor provided no credible explanation to justify a deviation from agency policy with respect to Resident 3. Nor did Petitioner present any evidence that Resident 3 developed any pressure sores or had any pressure sores worsen as a result of the failure to turn and reposition the resident on May 7, 2001. The evidence shows that the failure to turn and reposition Resident 3 presented nothing more than a minimal chance of negative impact. Tag F282 alleged in the May survey that the facility failed to provide care for Resident 1 in accordance with the care plan. Resident 1 suffered from a condition that caused his chin to droop toward his chest. The condition caused positioning problems for the resident while he was in his wheelchair. The physical therapist for the facility examined Resident 1 and recommended periodic placement of a Futuro cervical collar while the resident was in his wheelchair in order to elevate the resident's chin. The recommendation required staff to place the collar on the resident when he was in his wheelchair for two hours and then to remove it for two hours. Staff was not to place the collar on the resident during meals or while the resident was in bed. The resident would sometimes remove the collar after it was placed on him. On May 8, 2001, Petitioner’s surveyor made five observations of the resident between 10:45 a.m. and 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not see the resident wearing the collar during any of the observations. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:45 a.m. until 1:50 p.m. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during the observations on May 8, 2001. It is uncontroverted that the resident would have eaten lunch for one hour during the time that the surveyor observed the resident and that the care plan did not require staff to place the collar on the resident during meals. Petitioner offered no evidence that the failure to put the collar on the resident during the observed instances presented potential for any harm to the resident. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the facility failed to implement Resident 1’s care plan. Even if it were determined that the facility failed to consistently implement the care plan or inadequately implemented the care plan, Tag F282 deviates from Petitioner's officially stated agency policy because the tag does not charge the facility with any violation of quality of care, quality of life, or resident rights. Petitioner failed to explain why it deviated from its policy. Finally, the observed circumstances presented no more than a minimal chance of minor negative impact to Resident 1. On May 9, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 on three different occasions between 10:00 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. without the collar. The surveyor did not know if or when the collar should have been placed on the resident during that time-period. The observations of the surveyor were intermittent. The surveyor did not observe Resident 1 continuously from 10:00 a.m. until 11:05 a.m. The preponderance of the evidence failed to sustain the charge that the facility did not implement Resident 1’s care plan on May 9, 2001. The observations are insufficient to demonstrate a consistent failure to implement the care plan. Petitioner provided no credible explanation for deviating from its officially stated agency policy. Finally, the circumstances presented no chance of any harm other than minimal negative impact to the resident. Tag F282 alleges in the June survey that the facility failed to follow doctor’s orders for Resident 1 that required multi-podus boots to be applied every shift. Resident 1 in the June survey is not the same resident identified as Resident 1 in the May survey. Resident 1 in the June survey had pressure sores on his feet, and one of the interventions prescribed in the care plan required Resident 1 to wear multi-podus boots. On June 13, 2001, at 2:45 p.m., Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 lying in bed without the required multi- podus boots. Resident 1 was lying on a pressure-relieving mattress so that his heels were receiving pressure relief without the need for multi-podus boots. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner's surveyor observed Resident 1 in his wheelchair in the activities room with black, hard-soled shoes on his feet instead of the multi-podus boots. The resident had dressings on his heels that protected them and was sitting so that his heels bore no weight. The facility maintained medical records that described the size and appearance of the pressure sores on Resident 1's heels. The records indicated that the pressure sores healed progressively after Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility. The area on the right heel was completely healed by June, 2001, and the area on the left heel was closed by July 2001. Petitioner deviated from its officially stated policy in two respects. First, Petitioner did not charge the facility with any violation of a quality of care, quality of life, or residents rights. Second, the instances observed by the surveyor do not demonstrate a failure to consistently implement the plan of care or a failure to provide adequate care. Petitioner offered no credible explanation for deviating from its policy. The events observed by Petitioner's surveyor, at most, presented the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration should enter a final order revising the May 10 and June 13, 2001, survey reports to delete the deficiency described under Tag F282, and replace the previously issued Conditional rating with a Standard rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis L. Godfrey, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Room 310L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Should Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, rate Petitioner, Capital Health Care Center's nursing home facility license "conditional" for the period March 9, through May 4, 2000? Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. In particular, has Petitioner violated the requirements of Tag F324 as determined in Respondent's periodic survey concluded on March 9, 2000? Is Tag F324 a "Class II" deficiency? Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes. In the event that Petitioner is shown to have violated Tag F324 and the Tag is found to be a Class II deficiency, the parties agree that Petitioner was subject to a "conditional" license from March 9, through April 10, 2000. Did the results of the Respondent's survey concluded on March 9, 2000, reveal violations of Tags F371 and/or F372, "Class III" deficiencies that were not corrected before April 10, 2000, the date upon which Respondent resurveyed Petitioner's nursing home facility? If the alleged violations of Tags F371 and/or F372 were proven as of the survey that concluded on March 9, 2000, and were not corrected by April 10, 2000, when the facility was resurveyed, the parties agree that Petitioner held a "conditional" license from April 10, 2000, until such time as the last of Tag F371 of Tag F372 deficiencies were corrected. Further, the parties agree that failing Petitioner's proof of the date upon which the Tag F371 and/or Tag F372 deficiencies as established were corrected, Petitioner's license was properly rated as a "conditional" license until May 4, 2000, the date upon which Respondent conducted a third survey in the series of surveys directed to the Petitioner and found no further violations?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner is a nursing home licensed by Respondent pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is located at 3333 Capital Medical Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. On March 6 through March 9, 2000, Respondent conducted a survey at Petitioner's facility. As a result of that survey, Respondent alleged that Petitioner was not in compliance with the requirements of Tag F203, Tag F324, Tag F371, and Tag F372. On April 10, 2000, Respondent conducted a revisit survey at Capital. As a result of that survey, Respondent determined that Petitioner had corrected the deficiencies alleged under Tag F203 and F324. Respondent alleged that Petitioner had failed to correct the deficiencies alleged under Tag F371 and Tag F372. On May 4, 2000, Respondent conducted another revisit survey at Capital and determined that all alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Tag F324 requires "the facility must ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents." Respondent alleges that this requirement was not met during the March 6-9, 2000, survey, and that the deficiency had a scope and severity of "G" and constituted a Class II deficiency. Tag F371 requires "The facility must store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions." Respondent alleges that this requirement was not met during the March 6-9, 2000, and the April 10, 2000, surveys and that the deficiency had a scope and severity of "F" during the March survey, a scope and severity of "D" during the April survey, and constituted a Class III deficiency at both surveys. Tag F372 requires "The facility must dispose of garbage and refuse properly." Respondent alleges that this requirement was not met during March 6-9, 2000, surveys and that the deficiency had a scope and severity of "D" and constituted a Class III deficiency at both surveys. Tag F324 At times relevant to the inquiry Resident 21 has lived in Petitioner's nursing home. On February 16, 2000, Resident 21 left the nursing home and visited her sister at the sister's home. To prepare the resident for her outing, two CNAs got Resident 21 up from her bed in the nursing home and placed her in a wheelchair. A lifting hoist was not used for this transfer. On this morning the two CNAs did not use the mechanical lift, being unable to locate the lift device. Therefore they opted to manually lift Resident 21 from the bed to the wheelchair. A sheet was used to lift Resident 21 into her wheelchair. At the time Resident 21 was paraplegic. She had had a knee cap removed and that leg was stiff. When referring to the one leg as stiff, it describes the fact that the leg will not bend at the knee. On February 16, 2000, once in the wheelchair, Resident 21 was transported to her sister's house by van or bus. Resident 21 remained seated in her wheelchair for her visit with her sister. Resident 21 was transported from the sister's home back to the nursing home by van or bus, again remaining in the wheelchair. Resident 21 was taken in and out of the van or bus during the trips to and from her sister's home by use of a lift in the vehicle. On February 16, 2000, while visiting with her sister Resident 21 offered no complaint about pain or discomfort in her legs. When Resident 21 returned to her room following her visit with her sister, two CNAs transferred her from the wheelchair to her bed. The two persons who made this transfer were not the same persons as had placed Resident 21 in the wheelchair earlier in the day. At the moment there was no lift pad under Resident 21 to facilitate the transfer by using the mechanical lift. The lift device attaches to the pad under the upper thigh of a resident, and with the use of the hoist elevates the resident from the wheelchair to the bed or from the bed to the wheelchair. One of the CNAs determined to manually transfer Resident 21 from the wheelchair to the bed. This followed the request of Resident 21 to be placed in her bed. Before Resident 21 was lifted from the wheelchair to the bed she complained that her legs hurt. At the time that the CNAs moved Resident 21 from the wheelchair to the bed there was a fitted sheet under Resident 21. When Resident 21 was returned to her bed from the wheelchair, one CNA grasped Resident 21's upper torso under her arms, while the other CNA lifted Resident 21 by grasping her in the area behind her knees. On this occasion in returning Resident 21 to her bed, the arm of her wheelchair was taken off and the foot rest adjusted. During the transfer from the wheelchair to the bed and after the resident was placed in the bed she offered no complaint about her condition. The CNAs in Petitioner's nursing home are trained to use the pad with the hoist or to have two CNAs pick a person in Resident 21's condition up by the upper torso and legs in making a transfer from the wheelchair to the bed. In the event the pad is not available, under Petitioner's policy, the CNAs may make a manual lift. The CNA who normally worked with Resident 21 looked for the lifting pad before seeking the assistance of the other CNA to make a manual lift. Having not located the pad, she determined to seek the assistance of the other CNA to conduct the manual lift from the wheelchair to the bed. On February 17, 2000, Resident 21 complained of leg pain. This led to an X-ray being performed revealing a fracture to the right ankle. As revealed in the nurses' notes for Resident 21 in explaining the physical condition, Resident 21 refers to her foot being caught under the CNA's arm when the transfer was made from the wheelchair to the bed. With this in mind, and the description by Resident 21 in the nurses' notes that an accident had taken place at that time, it is inferred that the fracture occurred to the resident's right ankle when being lifted from the wheelchair to the bed upon the return from her visit with her sister. Notwithstanding the attempt by the CNAs to use an appropriate technique in the manual lift from the wheelchair to the bed, the resident's foot was caught under the CNA's arm and sometime during the process the ankle was fractured. Results of in-service counseling provided to the CNAs who manually lifted Resident 21 on February 16, 2000, reveal Petitioner's intent to rely upon the use of mechanical lifting devices in contrast to manual lifts as a policy matter. During the March 6-9, 2000 licensing survey conducted by Respondent at Petitioner's facility, a Tag F324 citation Class II deficiency, was noted in relation to non-compliance with the facility expectation that the preferred patient transfer technique would be to employ a mechanical assist, not a manual assist when lifting residents. As described, the circumstances were different for Resident 21. According to the summary of deficiencies in survey Form 2567 executed during the survey, the subsequent lift from the wheelchair to the bed eventuated in a fracture to Resident 21's lower extremity. The referenced deficiency for Tag F324 corresponds to 42 C.F.R. Section 43.25(h)(2). Tag F371 Tag F371 is in relation to 42 C.F.R. Section 43.35(h)(2). This provision requires the nursing home facility to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions. During the March 2000 survey conducted by Respondent at Petitioner's facility, it was noted on the survey Form 2567 that Tag F371 alleged deficiencies were discovered in the facility kitchen. On March 7, 2000, it is alleged that six dessert bowls and two plates were dirty with food residue on the surfaces of those items. Ms. Myra Flores was a survey team member. She is a public health nutrition consultant for Respondent. She holds a bachelor of science degree in food and nutrition, a master of public health and nutrition and is a doctoral candidate. She is a registered dietitian licensed in the State of Florida. She had undergone the Surveyor Minimum Qualifications Test allowing her to evaluate complaints of health care facilities within federal regulations. In her inspection in March 2000, Ms. Flores found dessert bowls and plates that were stored, indicating that they had already been washed. Nonetheless the items had food residue on their surfaces. From her perspective as a public health nutritionist, contamination of utensils in facilities that house residents who have compromised immune capacity is a concern. There is an issue with food-borne illnesses. It can be inferred that a nursing home is a place in which residents have compromised immune capacity. Ms. Ann McElreath was assigned by Respondent to re- survey Petitioner's facility. That re-survey was conducted on April 10, 2000. Ms. McElreath holds an A.S. degree in nursing and a bachelor of science degree in psychology. Her observations concerning the re-survey were recorded on a Form 2567 dated April 10, 2000. That form notes an alleged repeat Class III deficiency Tag F371 pertaining to observation of pans in a drain rack with food particles on them. According to the report, discussion was had with staff members in which it was stated that the pans were items waiting to be re-washed. Inspection of other pans identified to be cleaned and ready for use again revealed two out of four having food particles on the surface, according to the report. When McElreath inspected the facility kitchen on April 10, 2000, she entered the kitchen and was standing by the dish-washing area where a staff member at the facility had just completed "doing the dishes" and there were aluminum-type banking pans draining. Ms. McElreath inquired of the attendant if those pans had been finished, to which the employee replied "yes." Ms. McElreath picked up the pans and examined them and some had food particles on them. This was pointed out to the employee. Mr. Paul Kobary, Petitioner's nursing home administrator, was in the kitchen at that time. In reference to those pans he stated that those were pans that were going to be re-washed. After a moment's hesitation, the other employee at the facility agreed with Mr. Kobary's comment concerning the re-wash. Ms. McElreath asked that the unnamed employee identify items that were clean. That woman pointed to a rack. Ms. McElreath pulled four additional pans identified as being clean and found two of the four to have food particles attached. Tag F372 Under 42 C.F.R. §483.25(h)(3) is the reference to Tag F372. This provision requires the nursing home facility to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. As noted in Form 2567 for the March 200 survey, Petitioner was alleged to have violated Tag F372. During the March 2000 survey Ms. Flores observed facility practices in connection with disposing of refuse. She observed a garbage bin being transported from the facility kitchen to the dumpsters that serve the facility. The material being transported was not covered. There was trash inside the bin being removed from the facility and boxes were piled on top of the bin. Petitioner's employee took the boxes and placed those in one of the dumpsters. The dumpster in which the boxes were placed through a side opening was then closed. An untied plastic container with garbage inside was then removed from the bin used for transport and then placed through a door on the side of another dumpster. After which the dumpster where the untied container of garbage was located was left partially open in that the door providing access to the dumpster was not completely closed. At hearing Ms. Flores expressed the concern that by leaving the side door opened to the dumpster in which the garbage bag had been placed invited the harborage and the feeding of pest and varmints because that dumpster contained food refuse from the kitchen. The dumpster was located outside of the facility in the vicinity of the woods and grass making the discarded food available to those pests. Based upon the incident in which the dumpster had been left open following the disposal of the garbage bag, a Tag F372 incident was recorded on Form 2567 corresponding to a Class III deficiency. In response Petitioner committed to a plan of correction to be concluded by April 8, 2000, concerning the maintenance of refuse in closed containers. This refers to closed dumpsters. Since that survey Mr. Paul Kobary the nursing home administrator checks twice a day to see that the dumpsters are closed. Other staff members are assigned to check throughout the day to assure that the dumpsters are closed. In the re-survey conducted on April 10, 2000, another alleged Class III deficiency was cited under Tag F372. This citation was made by Ms. McElreath based upon the fact that one of the dumpsters behind the facility allowed liquid substances within the dumpsters to leak out the bottom. Ms. McElreath was concerned that the substance that had leaked out under the dumpster and in the immediate vicinity might have been picked up on the wheels of wheelchairs. The wheelchairs were off to the side being washed down by the staff. Ms. McElreath worried that once the wheelchairs were returned to the facility the unidentified liquid attached to the wheels would be introduced into the facility proper. The problem with the leaking dumpster was reported as an uncorrected Class III deficiency associated with the problems experienced with the dumpster with uncovered garbage described in the March 2000 survey. Nursing Home Scope and Severity Chart The parties are bound by the Nursing Home Scope and Severity Chart which characterizes the severity of the alleged deficiencies. Respondent's Exhibit 15. Under this scheme a severity of "G" represents actual harm but not immediate jeopardy. Alleged deficiencies with a severity of "D" and "F" represent a potential for more than minimal harm.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of facts and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered in which Respondent assigns Petitioner a conditional license for the period March 9 through May 4, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 14th day of December, 2000.
The Issue Was Petitioner's license rating lawfully changed from Standard to Conditional.
Findings Of Fact Cross Creek is a nursing home located in Pensacola, Florida, which is duly licensed under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency which licenses and regulates nursing homes in the state. As such, it is required to evaluate nursing homes in Florida, pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. 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 which receive Medicaid or Medicare funds. On March 8, 2001, an AHCA team completed a survey of the facility. The surveyors included Jackie Klug, Paula Faulkner, Norma Endress, and Sandra Corcoran. All of the surveyors are trained in the business of surveying nursing homes. Ms. Klug is a registered and licensed dietician. Ms. Faulkner is trained in social work. Norma Endress and Sandra Corcoran are registered nurse specialists. Nurse Corcoran was the team leader. Resident 1 Ms. Corcoran observed that Resident 1 had experienced weight loss. This resident was admitted to the facility on July 7, 2000. On October 9, 2000, the resident weighed 115 pounds. In a care planning meeting it was noted that the resident was combative and was refusing to eat. A care plan was not formulated but it was decided that the resident was to be provided a dietary supplement. On January 4, 2001, the resident's weight was 97 pounds. Eventually a care plan was devised which provided for dietary supplements in the form of "shakes." The resident was to consume shakes with meals. On multiple occasions during the survey the facility failed to provide dietary supplements to the resident. This resident could not feed himself and could only consume food which was pureed. The resident could only minimally engage in activities of daily living. Resident 1 had a lung lesion and was expected to lose weight. Despite this expectation, during January, records revealed the resident weighed 103 pounds, in February he weighed 102.3 pounds, and in March he weighed 107.2 pounds. Resident 1 was terminally ill and was being provided what was essentially hospice care. Upon considering all of the circumstances, the resident's weight was satisfactory. Resident 2 Ms. Faulkner observed Resident 2 on two occasions. This resident was totally dependent on the facility staff for feeding. On one occasion during the survey, the resident was provided potatoes which were cold and too hard for her to masticate. On two occasions during the survey, the resident's dentures were not put in her mouth. Ms. Faulkner was concerned with the resident's weight. Interventions which were on the care plan were not consistently provided. For instance, the resident's preferences for various types of food were not considered. Resident 2 was a dialysis patient. Dialysis affects a patient's weight. Patients are typically weighed prior to the administration of dialysis and then are weighed subsequently. In the usual case a weight loss is expected subsequent to dialysis. With regard to this resident, no credible evidence was adduced as to what the resident weighed at any given time. No credible evidence was adduced which would indicate that the resident experienced a weight loss, despite Ms. Faulkner's concerns. Resident 3 Resident 3 was receiving a pureed diet when observed by Ms. Faulkner. The resident ate between 75 and 100 percent of this food. The resident weighed only 87 pounds at this time. The resident was supposed to be fed two "206 shakes" which are supplements designed to promote weight gain. On at least two occasions during the survey, the resident was not provided with these supplements. On March 6, 2001, at 6:35 p.m., Ms. Faulkner observed the resident eating and the resident had not been provided the supplements. Ms. Faulkner informed LPN Pat Nelson, of the facility staff, of the absence of supplements. Nurse Nelson commented that the supplements should have been on the resident's tray. Resident 3 had dirty fingernails and generally was not clean. Moreover, she had multiple bruises and skin tears to the outer ankles. The resident's upper arm had a four centimeter bruise that was reddish brown. This resident was totally dependent on the staff for care. Consequently, Ms. Faulkner concluded that facility staff had caused or permitted the acquisition of these wounds and bruises. Nurse Corcoran observed a wound on the resident's right ankle. She also observed multiple skin tears and bruises on both legs. She also observed an open area on the resident's coccyx. She did not, however, believe that these were pressure sores. Patricia Powell is the assistant nursing director of the facility. She reviewed the medical records of the resident and determined that the resident had been evaluated three different times and that she suffered no skin breakdown. She noted that the resident, at the time of the survey, had been readmitted to the facility subsequent to a hospital stay and that upon readmission, the resident was afflicted with three stasis ulcers including one on her lower left extremity and one on her right lower extremity. Nurse Powell also noted that the resident had bruises on her upper and lower extremities. She stated that the hospital records reflected information from her granddaughter stating that the resident repeatedly bumped herself into the walls in the nursing home and bled from the wounds she received as a result. Nurse Powell stated that hospital records demonstrated that the resident gained weight in 2000. Records at the time of the visit noted that the resident's weight was stable. Linda Gunn is a staff member of the facility and is a LPN. She was a treatment nurse and she was responsible for the care of Resident 3 during times pertinent. She observed that the resident had abrasions and skin tears. She stated that the resident was a fragile patient who required total care. The resident had sores which were caused by vascular problems. Pressure sores were not present. Nurse Gunn checked the resident daily and each time she left the resident she made sure the resident was clean and dry and in a comfortable position. Resident 4 Ms. Faulkner observed Resident 4 during the survey and suspected that the resident might have pressure sores because the resident was not consistently found to have positioning devices which had been determined to be necessary. A record review revealed that the resident had two stage II pressure sores in January of 2001, but that they had healed by the time of the survey. Ms. Faulkner stated that at the time of the survey she observed the resident to have a stage III pressure sore on the right ankle, but she relied on Nurse Corcoran's expertise to make that determination. Ms. Faulkner observed that positioning devices were not used on the resident's legs, as they should have been, on March 1, 5, and 6, 2001. Ms. Faulkner noted that, according to the resident's medical record, the resident often kicked off protective devices and padding. Nurse Powell stated that the resident's medical record reflected that the resident had excoriations on the coccyx and between her leg folds. Excoriation is a break or redness in the skin that is caused by urine or feces. It is not a pressure sore. She also noted that the resident had constant involuntary movements of the left leg against the right leg, and that she was provided padded side rails but the resident removed them. Nurse Powell stated that the resident moved her legs in a scissor-like action all day long and that she removed the side rails, pillows, and foot pads which facility staff used to attempt to ameliorate the damage caused by the leg movement. Ms. Gunn, a staff nurse, also observed the resident frequently. She noted that the resident was diabetic, incontinent of her bowel and bladder, was immobile and needed total assistance to be turned and positioned. She had to be fed and otherwise required total care for all of activities of daily living. Ms. Faulkner additionally observed the resident on March 7, 2001, and noted that during the four times she observed the resident there was no splint or other device or treatment being used to address the resident's contracted right hand. There was no care plan to address this condition. Willa Gilliam is a certified nursing assistant employed at Cross Creek. Specifically she was a restorative aide. It was her duty to provide Resident 4 with range of motion exercises. She accomplished this. After the exercises a towel roll was to be placed inside the resident's hands. Ms. Gilliam placed the towel roll inside of the resident's hands but noted that the resident often removed the towels. Resident 8 Norma Endress is a nurse specialist. She observed Resident 8. The resident was assessed on September 5, 2000, to be at high risk for skin breakdown because he was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident was also dependent on staff for turning. The resident had a care plan which required that the resident be removed from bed and placed in a geri chair for positioning. Nurse Endress observed on March 6, 2001, on ten different occasions during the day, that the resident was lying on the resident's left side and was not being turned or placed in the geri chair as the care plan required. On March 7, 2001, the resident was observed to have a stage I pressure area on his right foot, ankle and heel. The resident had no positioning devices or heel protectors in place, as he should. When Nurse Endress inquired as to why the resident was not being put in a geri chair, a staff nurse informed her that the facility had a shortage of geri chairs. Nurse Endress did not see this resident move during the entire four days that she was present at the facility. Nurse Gunn confirmed that the resident required total care and that he was receiving wound care to his heel. She stated that the resident was supposed to be supplied with pillows and a wedge or wedges and that his feet were required to be elevated on pillows. Resident 9 Nurse Endress observed Resident 9 for four days during the survey. This resident had a history of heart problems. The resident was capable of walking when he reached the facility and he did walk. The resident's physician ordered continued ambulation. However, during the four day survey, the resident was not ambulated. The resident reported to Nurse Endress that he had not been walked for the prior three months and stated that he wanted to walk, if facility staff would help him. Nurse Powell stated the patient had diabetes and that the sore on his right foot was a decubitus ulcer caused by vascular insufficiency. The ulcer generated pain when the resident attempted to walk. Accordingly, the staff of the facility did not provide assistance in ambulation to this resident because it would be too painful for the resident. The resident was also required to wear a splint on his right hand to deter contraction. During the survey Nurse Endress visited the resident and observed the splint resting on the foot of the resident's bed. The splint was soiled. On March 5, 2001, Nurse Endress observed the resident five times during the day and at no time was he wearing a splint. Ms. Gilliam was the staff member charged with placing the splint on the resident. She claimed that she was to install the splint at 10:00 a.m. and to remove it at 2:00 p.m. and that she had in fact accomplished this every day. Her testimony, with regard to this, upon consideration of all of the other testimony, is determined not to be credible. Nurse Endress believed that the resident had a stage I pressure sore on his right foot but she was not allowed to touch the resident to actually make a determination that the observed redness was a pressure sore or was present due to some other cause. Resident 10 Resident 10 was observed by Dietician Klug during the survey. During various times the resident was observed sitting in a geri chair which sported duct tape on both armrests. Resident 10 was cognitively impaired and required extensive to total assistance in activities of daily living. The resident could not move from bed to chair, or chair to bed. Consequently this movement was necessarily accomplished by staff. The care plan determined that a minimum of two people be employed to properly transfer the resident. The resident had very fragile skin and was prone to skin tears, bruises and abrasions. On January 22, 2001, the resident experienced a skin tear to the left lateral leg. On February 4, 2001, the resident acquired a skin tear to the right arm. On February 19, 2001, the resident manifested a blood blister to the lower back. On March 5, 2001, a large skin tear to the right lower leg was observed. Ms. Klug said there was no evidence of competency check lists or records of training of staff in the area of transfers. However, there is no evidence in this record that Ms. Klug checked to see what, if any, evidence was available in the facility which might demonstrate that such training had occurred or that there was a deficiency in the training. Despite her belief that the injuries experienced by the resident were the result of rough or inexpert handling by staff, a causal connection was not demonstrated by the evidence. Cleanliness and grooming Ms. Klug observed resident 11 during the survey. At the time of observation the resident had long dirty fingernails and was emitting an unpleasant odor. This caused Ms. Klug to conclude that the resident needed a bath. This resident needed total assistance with the activities of daily living and this assistance was not being adequately provided. Residents F, G, M, and 14 were observed by Nurse Corcoran during the survey. Resident F was sitting in the day room in the morning with dried food smeared upon his mouth. Resident G was sitting in a wheelchair while wearing soiled pants and a soiled shirt. Resident M was seen in the main dining room during one afternoon of the survey and on that occasion the resident's fingernails were long and jagged, and a dark substance was present under the resident's nails. The resident's false teeth were caked with food. Resident 14's hair was greasy and disheveled. Ms. Faulkner observed residents number 3, 4, 21, and 22 to have dirty fingernails and noted that they were, "not clean, in general." Resident 19 Ms. Klug observed Resident 19. This resident was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Both of her hands were severely contracted. She had received physical therapy from September 26 to October 25, 2000, for the purpose of promoting comfort and preventing further contraction or deformity of her hands. Splints were applied to her hands at that time and the resident could tolerate them for four hours a day. In December 2000, the resident complained that the splints were causing more pain than she could bear. As a result, the use of splints was discontinued. Instead, the resident was to have a washcloth placed in the hands to prevent further deformity. Some members of the therapy staff informed Ms. Klug that the real reason the splints were not being used was because they had gone missing. On March 8, 2001, Ms. Klug interviewed a restorative aid who stated that the resident had not been treated for the prior month. The increase in contraction of the resident's hand resulted in the resident being unable to feed herself. The resident's record reflects that the splints were discontinued due to severe pain secondary to arthritis. A "Restorative Progress Note-Splinting" dated December 2, 2000, states that splints should be discontinued. It further states, that range of motion exercises should continue but, "We'll use washcloth for hand." Based on all of the available evidence of record, it is determined that the resident was receiving the best possible care for her hand contractions. Resident 19 was observed on March 6, 7, and 8, 2001, being fed pureed food. This was contrary to her then current diet order which called for a mechanical soft diet. The resident informed Ms. Klug that she did not like the taste of the pureed diet and claimed that she could masticate sufficiently well to subsist on a mechanically soft diet. Inquiry to the dietary manager revealed that a unit nurse had changed the diet order on December 18, 2000, because the resident had a sore mouth and missing teeth. Between January and March the resident suffered an 11-pound weight loss. The resident weighed 118 pounds in January of 2000. The resident was programmed to maintain a weight of between 113 and 118 pounds but only weighed 104 pounds at the time of the survey. Ms. Klug reviewed documentation in the resident's record which, as recently as March 2, 2001, reflected that the resident had a physician's order for a mechanically soft diet. Through observations and interviews she determined that facility staff were unaware of the discrepancy in the texture of the resident's diet. A change in a diet order, with regard to consistency, may come only from a physician. Resident 21 Ms. Faulkner observed Resident 21 in the resident's bed. She observed the head nurse attempt to do a range of motion on the resident's left hand. This resulted in the resident crying out in pain. The resident's left hand was moist and emitted an odor. Her care plan required interventions to keep her nails cleaned and trimmed and to decrease irritation through her palms. During the survey there were at least two times when the resident had no supportive devices in her hands. Ms. Faulkner discussed this with the facility occupational therapist on March 8, 2001, and the therapist stated that he was unable to splint the resident's hand. Ms. Gilliam was assigned to provide restorative assistance to Resident 21. She noted that after the motion exercises a towel roll was required to be placed in her hand. However, she stated that range of motion was impossible to conduct because of the pain and that the insertion of a towel roll into her hand might result in breaking the resident's fingers. During the time Ms. Gilliam was assigned to resident 21, she observed that her condition had worsened. Resident 22 Resident 22 also had range of motion issues. This resident had contracting of the arm, hand, leg, and foot. Ms. Faulkner sought from the facility a plan of care addressing the contracting of the resident's left hand. Facility staff informed her that none existed. The resident was admitted to the facility with contractures. No evidence was adduced as to whether or not the resident's contractures had become worse because the facility presented no documentation which would permit that determination. Staffing Staffing at the facility was in substantial compliance with AHCA requirements in terms of quantity and training.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assigning a Conditional license to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 27th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Mail Stop No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the duly promulgated rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services by designating and continuing to designate the same person as the Assistant Administrator and the Director of Nursing of the Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., after having been cited for such deficiency and allowed sufficient time to correct the deficiency.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed by Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 27, 1980 notifying Respondent Bonifay Nursing Home, Inc., a skilled nursing care home, that Petitioner intended to impose a civil penalty of $100 for violating duly promulgated rules by designating the same person to act as Assistant Administrator and Director of Nursing of the nursing home. At the formal administrative hearing the Administrator admitted that he served more than one health facility, that at all times pertinent to the hearing the acting Assistant Nursing Home Administrator was also designated as the Director of Nursing, and that she was the only registered nurse on duty. It was admitted that no change had been made after the inspector for the Petitioner Department had called attention to this alleged violation until after the time period allowed for correcting this situation had expired and after the Petitioner had informed Respondent it intended to impose a $100 civil penalty. In mitigation Respondent presented testimony and adduced evidence showing that as the owner and operator of the nursing home he had made an effort to employ registered nurses at the home and that on the date of hearing the nursing home was in compliance with the statutes, rules and regulations. It was evident to the Hearing Officer that the nursing home serves a need in the community and that the residents appreciate the service. Petitioner Department submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order, which were considered in the writing of this order. Respondent submitted a memorandum. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered by the Petitioner assessing an administrative fine not to exceed $50. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. J. E. Speed, Administrator Bonifay Nursing Home 108 Wagner Road Bonifay, Florida 32425 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue As stated in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, the "issue to be litigated is whether Petitioner is entitled to a Superior or Standard rating on its license for the period September 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987"?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, The Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, is a 210-bed nursing home located in a four-story building in Pensacola, Florida. It is licensed as a nursing home by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Howard Bennett and his wife have been the owners of the Petitioner since it was built in 1978. On April 28-30, 1986, and May 1-2, 1986, the Department conducted an annual Licensure and Certification survey (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Survey") of the Petitioner's nursing home as required by Section 400.23, Florida Statutes. Based upon the Annual Survey conducted by the Department, the Department determined that the Petitioner's facility failed to meet nursing home licensure requirement numbers (NH) 100 and 102, as identified on the Department's Nursing Home Licensure Survey Report, DHRS exhibit 2. The deficiencies found by the Department and which in fact existed during the Annual Survey relating to NH 100 and 102 were as follows: The charge nurse for each shift on each of the four floors of the facility is responsible, under direction from Director of Nursing, for the total nursing activities in the facility during each tour of duty. The charge nurses are thus responsible for ensuring that nursing personnel carry out the direct nursing care needs of specific patients and assist in carrying out these nursing care needs. This responsibility is not always met in that: On the day of the survey, there were urine odors noted on the halls, rooms of fourth and third floors, indicating lack of attention by nursing. Other instances of lack of personal attention by nursing on the above mentioned floor in that: One patient required oral hygiene. Fourteen residents required fingernail care, one resident's fingernails were long, thick, and black indicating a need for attention. Two residents had redden buttocks, three residents were wet, three residents needed shaving, three residents needed hair cuts. One resident needed colostomy bag changed. One resident had a small amount of feces on backside, and was not properly cleaned around the rectum and scrotum. Several residents had on clothing that was too tight, zippers open, buttons not fasten, soil wrinkled and threads hanging around the bottom. It is also noted, that there are 116 total care, and 17 self care residents in the facility indicating a need for constant intensive nursing care to the residents. Ref. 10D-29.108(3)(d)(1) Based upon the totality of these deficiencies, it was concluded that the Petitioner failed to comply with the standard of care to be provided by the charge nurse. The deficiencies cited by the Department during the Annual Survey were classified as Class III deficiencies. The Annual Survey was conducted by Christine Denson. Ms. Denson had conducted nine to ten annual surveys of the Petitioner prior to the survey which is the subject of this proceeding. During Ms. Denson's inspection of the Petitioner's nursing home, Ms. Denson pointed out the deficiencies which are noted above to the director of nursing who accompanied Ms. Denson during her inspection. Ms. Denson normally records in some manner the identity of a resident to whom a deficiency relates; by noting the room number or bed number. Ms. Denson did not follow this procedure during the Annual Survey. Ms. Denson met with Howard Bennett, the owner of the Petitioner, at the conclusion of the Annual Survey. After Ms. Denson had explained the deficiencies she had found during her inspection, Judge Bennett stated to Ms. Denson: "I know the place is going down hill. We are letting it slide. Judge Bennett did not ask Ms. Denson for any information concerning the identity of the residents to which deficiencies related. The Petitioner had policies in effect at the time of the Annual Survey which addressed each of the deficiencies cited by the Department. Those policies were not, however, followed. Ms. Denson did not know when the residents to which the deficiencies she found related had been admitted to the Petitioner, their medical condition, how long the fingernail problems had existed or how long the residents had resided at the Petitioner. Ms. Denson did not speak to the residents about the problems she noted, review their medical or dental records or talk to any residents' physician. Finally, Ms. Denson did not remember whether any of the residents were continent or incontinent. On August 13, 1986, a letter was issued by the Department informing the Petitioner that its license rating was being converted from a superior rating to a standard rating. The August 13, 1986, letter from the Department also indicated that the deficiencies noted in the Annual Survey had been corrected based upon a July 31, 1986, follow-up inspection conducted by the Department. The Petitioner requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed rating of its license by letter dated September 24, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued assigning a standard rating on the Petitioner's license for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4182 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Accentance or Reason for Rejection 1-3, 6-7, 81 These are matters included in the Prehearing Stipulation. They are hereby accepted. 4-5 Statement of the issue in this case 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Ms. Denson testified at pages 48-49 of the transcript that whether a nursing home was considered to be out of compliance depended on the totality of the deficiencies and that she considered all of the deficiencies she found at the Petitioner's facility. 9 12. 10-11 10. 12-13 7. 14 Irrelevant. 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 29-31 10. 17 Hearsay. 18, 28, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 41-43, 45 Hereby accepted. 21, 24, 26-27, 32, 48, 54-66, 71, 73-77 These proposed findings of fact are generally true. They all involve, however, possible explanations for the deficiencies found at the Petitioner's facility. In order for these proposed findings of fact to be relevant it would have to be concluded that the Department had the burden of dispelling any and all possible explanations for the deficiencies. Such a conclusion would not be reasonable in this case. The Department presented testimony that the deficiencies cited existed and that, taken as a whole, they supported a conclusion that the Petitioner was not providing minimum nursing care. This evidence was credible and sufficient to meet the Department's burden of proof and to shift the burden to the Petitioner to provide proof of any explanations for the deficiencies. 35 9. 38, 40, 49-51, 53, 82-83, 86-87 Irrelevant and/or argument. 43-44 1. 46-47, 51, 56, 66-67, 71-71 These proposed findings of fact are true. They are not relevant to this proceeding, however, because they involve situations at the Petitioner's facility which may explain the deficiencies. The Petitioner failed to prove that they actually were the cause of any of the deficiencies. 70, 78-80, 84-85 Conclusions of law. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2-3. 2 11-12. 3 4 and 6. 4 4. 5-7 Irrelevant, summary of testimony, conclusion of law. 8 9. 9 8. 10 Irrelevant. 11 8. 12 Summary of testimony and facts relating to the weight of Ms. Mayo's testimony. 13-14 Hereby accepted. 15 Argument. 16-17 Conclusions of law. 18 4. 19-20 Conclusions of law, argument and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael O. Mathis Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
