The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent should be subjected to discipline for the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner on July 28, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license no. ME 0031639 on October 26, 1977. Respondent is board certified in general surgery and has worked and trained as a general and vascular surgeon. Respondent has practiced medicine in Tampa since 1988. Respondent offered testimony establishing that his peers respect his ability as a surgeon. Until 1996, Respondent had not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine or by any other licensing entity. On January 26, 1996, the Board of Medicine issued a final order in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 95-3925, imposing discipline on Respondent’s license to practice medicine. Case No. 95-3925 involved two separate incidents in which Respondent performed surgical procedures that had not been specifically consented to by the patients. In the first incident, Respondent removed the severely diseased left leg of the patient when the signed consent to surgery was for removal of the right leg. The patient was well known to Respondent, and it was understood between Respondent and the patient that both legs would eventually require amputation. In the second incident, Respondent removed a toe that had become dislocated during a debridement of the patient’s foot. The toe was connected only by ligament and necrotic tissue, and Respondent removed it during the debridement procedure rather than waiting to obtain specific consent for its removal. In the final order, the Board of Medicine concluded that Respondent had violated Sections 458.331(1)(p) and (t), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain proper consent from a patient and by practicing medicine below the standard of care. Based on these conclusions, the Board of Medicine imposed the following relevant disciplinary measures: Respondent’s license to practice medicine is REPRIMANDED. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000 to the Board of Medicine, within one year of the date this Final Order is filed. Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is SUSPENDED for a period of 6 months including the time served under the emergency suspension. Respondent shall submit a practice plan prior to reinstatement to be approved by the Board’s probation committee. Within 6 months of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent shall have an independent, certified risk manager review Respondent’s practice. Specifically, this independent consultant shall review the Respondent’s practice concerning preoperative procedures including patient consent. This consultant will prepare a written report addressing Respondent’s practice. Such report, if necessary, will include suggested improvements of the quality assurance of Respondent’s practice. Respondent will submit this report to the Board’s Probation Committee with documentation that demonstrates compliance with the suggestions enumerated in the consultant’s report. Upon reinstatement, Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: Respondent shall comply with all state and federal statutes, rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of medicine, including Chapters 455, 458, 893, Florida Statutes, and Rules 59R, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent shall appear before the Probation Committee at the first meeting after said probation commences, at the last meeting of the Probation Committee preceding termination of probation, quarterly, and at such other times requested by the committee. Respondent shall be noticed by the Board staff of the date, time and place of the Board’s Probation Committee whereat Respondent’s appearance is required. Failure of the Respondent to appear as requested or directed shall be considered a violation of the terms of this Probation, and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. * * * 6. Respondent shall not practice except under the indirect supervision of a physician fully licensed under Chapter 458 to be approved by the Board’s Probation Committee.... The responsibilities of a monitoring physician shall include: Submit quarterly reports, in affidavit form, which shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Description of probationer’s practice. Brief statement of probationer’s compliance with terms of probation. Brief description of probationer’s relationship with monitoring physician. Detail any problems which may have arisen with probationer. * * * Respondent shall submit quarterly reports in affidavit form, the contents of which shall be specified by the Board. The reports shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Practice location. Describe current practice (type and composition). Brief statement of compliance with probationary terms. Describe relationship with monitoring/supervising physician. Advise Board of any problems. * * * 11. Respondent understands that during this period of probation, semi-annual investigative reports will be compiled by the Agency for Health Care Administration concerning his compliance with the terms and conditions of probation and the rules and statutes regulating the practice of medicine. On January 31, 1996, Respondent submitted to the Board of Medicine the practice plan required by the final order. The practice plan named Joseph Diaco, M.D., as Respondent’s monitoring physician, and stated that Dr. Diaco would review twenty percent of Respondent’s patient charts. The practice plan stated that Respondent would comply specifically with all the terms and conditions of the final order, and with the recommendations of the certified risk manager. The practice plan further stated: ... Dr. Sanchez will have specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered, wherein he will discuss the intended surgical procedure again, and will have the intended surgical site marked with indelible ink. The record does not document that the Board of Medicine’s Probation Committee formally approved Respondent’s practice plan, or addressed the terms of the practice plan in any way. Such approval is presumed from the fact that Respondent appeared before the Probation Committee on several occasions subsequent to filing the practice plan, and the record does not indicate that the Probation Committee registered any objection or suggested any modifications to the practice plan. Respondent made the required appearances before the Probation Committee. Respondent and Dr. Diaco submitted the required quarterly reports to the Board of Medicine, and Dr. Diaco fulfilled the monitoring requirements of the practice plan. Periodically during the probation period, Mr. Richard Hess, an investigator with the Agency for Health Care Administration, would contact Respondent and Dr. Diaco to inquire as to Respondent’s practice and compliance with the terms of probation. Mr. Hess would inquire regarding such matters as the submission of quarterly reports, the payment of the administrative fine, and the current locations at which Respondent was practicing. Mr. Hess would submit his reports to the Agency for Health Care Administration and to the Board of Medicine, and these reports were used to supplement the information submitted directly by Respondent and Dr. Diaco. Based upon the information he was provided by Respondent and Dr. Diaco, Mr. Hess never found Respondent out of compliance with the terms of his probation. On the morning of November 2, 1997, an order was entered at Vencor Hospital by the primary treating physician for placement of a central venous line for patient D.M., an 80 year- old female patient. A central venous line is most often placed for access to the circulatory system for the provision of medications and/or fluids when the peripheral venous system is not available for such use. A central venous line may be ordered if the patient has no veins remaining for the insertion of a peripheral catheter, or for extended access, such as when a patient requires a long-term cycle of antibiotics for a bone infection. Patient D.M. required the central line for antibiotics to treat infected ulcerations on her lower extremities. The placement of a central line may be performed by any licensed physician, though surgeons are often called in to perform the procedure for primary physicians. Two physicians who teach at the University of Miami testified that third-year residents are allowed to perform the procedure with only indirect supervision. Dr. Diaco testified that nurse practitioners may perform the procedure under the supervision of a physician. The procedure is performed at the patient’s bedside, not in an operating room. No general anesthesia is required. A local anesthetic is administered at the point of insertion. The entire procedure takes two to three minutes to perform. The central line may be placed in at least three locations in the body: the leg, the neck, or the collarbone. In the case of D.M., Respondent placed the line by way of the collarbone. A needle is inserted under the clavicle and into the vein that unites with the jugular vein to form the second largest vein in the human body, the superior vena cava. Using a guide wire, a catheter is threaded through the subclavian vein and placed inside the superior vena cava. Prior to performance of the procedure, the patient’s head is typically placed lower than her feet in what is called the Trendelenburg position. If the patient has a feeding tube, it is typically turned off prior to the procedure to prevent aspiration of tube material. Proper placement of the central line is confirmed by X- ray taken immediately after the procedure. Such confirmation of placement is necessary due to the risks associated with incorrect placement. The most immediate risk is pneumothorax, the puncturing of the patient’s lung. Other less common complications are blood loss, cardiac arrest, infection, and irregular heartbeat. The consensus of the experts who testified at hearing was that the procedure poses no greater risk of complication for elderly patients such as D.M., but that elderly patients who do suffer complications may have a harder time recovering than would younger, more robust patients. D.M. was an 80 year-old female patient who shared Room 218 at Vencor Hospital with J.P., an 89 year-old female patient. D.M. and J.P. were of the same general age, ethnic origin, and gender. They had similar medical problems, including bilateral lower extremity decubiti and ulcerations. D.M. was able to understand conversation and could verbally communicate with staff. D.M. signed on her own behalf the consent form for the insertion of the central venous line. The signature on the consent form was obtained by and witnessed by Elizabeth Rood, a registered nurse on duty during the day of November 2, 1997. Ms. Rood testified that she believed D.M. was rational enough to sign the form on her own behalf. Vencor Hospital policy dictated that informed consent be obtained from the patient by the surgeon who was to perform the procedure. The nursing employees of Vencor Hospital and Respondent all testified that, despite the stated policy, it was common practice at the time for nurses to obtain the signatures of patients on the consent forms. The express terms of Respondent’s practice plan also required Respondent to have “specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered. ” J.P. suffered from organic brain syndrome and was generally unable to communicate verbally. J.P. was unable to give consent for surgical procedures on her own behalf. Ms. Rood obtained D.M.’s signature on the informed consent form at about 10:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter, hospital staff contacted Respondent to inform him of the order and request that he perform the placement of the central line. Respondent replied that he was unable to perform the procedure at that time because of a more urgent consultation at St. Joseph’s Hospital, but would come to Vencor Hospital later to perform the procedure. Shortly before the start of the nursing night shift, the central line cart with supplies for the procedure was brought by the day supervisor to the second floor of Vencor Hospital and placed outside Room 218. Lisa Cotroneo was the night charge nurse. When she arrived for her shift, she received report from the day charge nurse. That report indicated that D.M. was to receive a central line placement at some time during the evening. The nursing staff at Vencor was divided into teams of two or three nurses assigned to particular rooms on the floor. Team three was responsible for Room 218. At the start of the night shift, Nurse Cotroneo informed two of the three nurse on team three, Donna Maranto and Fortune Ndukwe, that a central line was to be placed on patient D.M. that evening. Nurse Cotroneo did not inform the third nurse, Mary Shogreen, because Nurse Shogreen was a pool nurse called in to work on short notice and had not yet arrived for her shift. Nurse Shogreen was the nurse on team three who was assigned primary care duties for the patients in Room 218. Nurse Shogreen was later informed by Nurse Ndukwe that one of her patients would be receiving a central line placement that evening. Nurse Shogreen testified that she intended to check with the charge nurse to confirm the order for a central line placement, but that she never did so. At around 8:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned the nursing unit to inform the charge nurse that he was on his way to perform the placement of the central line. Nurse Cotroneo conveyed this information to Nurses Maranto and Ndukwe, and told them to be sure everything was ready for Respondent’s arrival. Respondent arrived at Vencor Hospital shortly after 8:00 p.m. and proceeded to the second floor nursing station, where he asked for and received the chart for patient D.M. He reviewed the chart, which contained the signed consent form and the order for placement of the central line. After reviewing the chart, Respondent inquired as to the location of D.M. and the nurse who would assist him in the procedure. Respondent was told that D.M.’s nurse was down the hall. Respondent walked down the hall and approached a group of three or four nurses. Respondent did not know any of them. He informed the group that he was Dr. Sanchez and was there to perform the central line placement. One of the nurses, later identified as Mary Shogreen, told him she was ready for him. She led him down the hall toward Room 218. Respondent paused at the central line cart outside Room 218 to pick up a pair of surgical gloves and the kit used for the central line placement. When Respondent entered the room, he observed Nurse Shogreen already at the bedside. The room was dark, save for a single light over the bed of the patient where Nurse Shogreen was working. Respondent saw that Nurse Shogreen was turning off the feeding tube to the patient, a common precursor to performance of a central line placement. Respondent walked to the other side of the patient’s bed and addressed the patient by the name of D.M. He told her that he was Dr. Sanchez and that her physician had asked him to insert a central venous catheter in her. Respondent looked into the patient’s eyes and realized she was not comprehending what he said. Nurse Shogreen was standing directly across the bed and could hear Respondent’s efforts to talk to the patient, including his addressing that patient as “D.M.” Respondent asked Nurse Shogreen if the patient was “always like this,” i.e., unresponsive. Nurse Shogreen answered that she had never had the patient before, but believed that was the usual condition of the patient. It would not be unusual for an elderly patient such as D.M. to be communicative and able to understand and sign a consent form at 10:00 a.m., but then be uncommunicative in the evening. The medical community informally refers to this phenomenon as "sundown syndrome." Respondent told Nurse Shogreen to assist him in placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position, and to get a rolled towel to place between the patient’s shoulder blades. While Nurse Shogreen was getting the towel, Respondent examined the patient’s neck and chest. Nurse Shogreen returned with the towel, but was unable to adjust the bed into Trendelenburg position. Respondent told her to go get another nurse who knew how to work the bed. She brought in Nurse Ndukwe, who was also unable to get the bed into the proper position. At length, they found a certified nurse assistant who was able to place the bed into position. Neither Nurse Shogreen nor Nurse Ndukwe expressed any concern to Respondent regarding the identity of the patient. Nurse Ndukwe had received an explicit report concerning the fact that patient D.M. was to receive a central line placement. Nurse Shogreen had heard Respondent address the patient as D.M. Respondent completed the procedure, which took about one minute. He proceeded to the nurse’s station and ordered the standard X-ray to confirm the proper placement of the central line, completed the consult form, and dicated both his consultation report and operative report. Nurse Shogreen remained behind in the room to clean up after the procedure. She made notations in the bedside chart of patient J.P., the mistaken recipient of the central line. Even at this point, Nurse Shogreen did not realize that the wrong patient had received the central line. The findings as to events in Room 218 on the evening of November 2, 1997, were based on the testimony of Respondent. Nurse Shogreen testified that it was Respondent who led the way into the room, Respondent who proceeded to the wrong bed, and Respondent who prevented Nurse Shogreen from going out to get the patient’s chart to confirm her mental condition after questioning by Respondent. Nurse Shogreen agreed with Respondent’s version of the problems with getting the bed into proper position, but testified that Respondent was so angry and in such a hurry that he performed the central line placement before the staff was able to place the bed in the proper position. Based on both the substance of the testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Respondent’s version of events is more believable, and that Respondent is a more credible witness than Nurse Shogreen. The undersigned is unable to credit testimony that a physician of Respondent’s skill and experience would plunge ahead into the room and commence a procedure on a patient he had never seen, without doing anything to ascertain her identity. The undersigned finds it more plausible that Respondent followed Nurse Shogreen’s lead, observed the visual cues she was providing, and assumed that the patient to whom Nurse Shogreen attended was in fact patient D.M. Respondent's proffer of testimony regarding inconsistencies in Nurse Mary Shogreen's testimony before the Peer Review Committee was disregarded in formulating these findings of fact. Several physicians offered expert testimony as to whether it is within the standard of practice for a surgeon to rely on his assisting nurse for patient identification. Dr. David Shatz, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that any surgeon must be absolutely sure he is working on the right person. He testified that once Respondent was unable to get a verbal response from the patient, he should have asked the nurse if he was speaking to patient D.M. Dr. Shatz concluded that it is a deviation from the standard of care to perform a procedure on a noncommunicative patient without checking the patient’s identification bracelet. Dr. Stephen Michel agreed that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by placing the central line in the wrong patient. Dr. Michel’s other conclusions regarding the events in question cannot be credited because he admitted he was assuming that Dr. Sanchez was not permitted by the terms of his probation to be working in Vencor Hospital at all. This assumption was incorrect, and colored the remainder of his conclusions. Dr. Enrique Ginzburg, also an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that a surgeon is usually unfamiliar with the patient in a central line placement, and stated that he could not remember the last time he checked an identification bracelet when the nurses were in the room with him. He agreed that it would be easy to check the armband, but that physicians simply do not check the armband if nurses are present to identify the patients. Dr. Jerry Diehr, an anesthesiologist at St. Josephs Hospital in Tampa, testified that a reasonably prudent physician would do what Respondent did. He stated that he relies on nurse identifications in similar circumstances, and that it is common practice for physicians to do so. Dr. Diehr testified that physicians rely on nurses for all manner of patient identification. He noted that care is often dictated by telephone calls. When a nurse calls him and tells him about the condition of his patient, the underlying assumption is that the nurse has correctly identified the patient and adequately reported the condition. Physicians may base their entire course of treatment on such reports from nurses, and must be able to rely on the nurses for such identification and reporting. Dr. Diaco strongly opined that physicians must be able to rely on nurses for patient identification. It is the nurse’s responsibility to identify the correct patient when the physician does not know the patient. Dr. Diaco testified that if physicians cannot rely on nurses for such basic information as the identity of their patients, they may as well live in the hospital and administer their own medications. Peter Shute, an expert in general nursing practice, opined that the three nurses on duty at Vencor Hospital on the evening of November 2, 1997, were negligent in their duty to know the patients on their assigned unit. He testified that Nurse Shogreen was particularly negligent, because she had not received full report on her patients, found out that one of her patients was to receive a central line placement that evening, but did not immediately obtain a full report and take steps to ensure that all preparations had been made. The weight of the evidence is that it was within the standard of care under the conditions and circumstances for Respondent to rely on Nurse Shogreen’s identification of the patient. This finding does not minimize the fact that Respondent bears ultimate responsibility for the performance of an invasive procedure on a patient who did not give informed consent. After Respondent dictated his notes and left the hospital, David Vallejo, the X-ray technician, came to the floor to obtain the X-ray ordered by Respondent. He discovered that the patient who received the central line was J.P., not D.M. Mr. Vallejo went to the nurse’s station and informed Nurse Cotroneo, who called the nursing supervisor to come to the room with her. Nurse Cotroneo and the supervisor confirmed that both patients in Room 218 were wearing their identification bracelets. The nursing supervisor called J.P.’s primary physician, who ordered an X-ray, which confirmed that J.P. suffered no ill effects from the placement of the central line. He also ordered removal of the central line, which was accomplished without incident. Respondent was informed of the error by telephone. He came to Vencor Hospital the next day, November 3, 1997, and documented the error in the medical records of both D.M. and J.P. On that day, a different surgeon performed the central line placement on D.M. All of the expert witnesses agreed that Respondent’s charting and recording of the incident, both before and after he learned of the error, were adequate and indicated no effort to conceal the facts of the situation. The experts also agreed that marking the intended surgical site with indelible ink serves no purpose in a central line placement. Petitioner's own expert, Dr. Shatz, stated that marking the site of a central line placement would be "silly." On November 3, 1997, Vencor Hospital suspended Respondent’s hospital staff privileges pending an investigation of the incident. Respondent immediately contacted Dr. Diaco, his indirect supervisor, as soon as he learned of the error. Respondent fully informed Dr. Diaco of the facts of the situation. Dr. Diaco told Respondent that he did nothing wrong and that “the nurse is in big trouble.” Respondent also sought the counsel of his attorney, Michael Blazicek. Mr. Blazicek conferred with Dr. Diaco, and also concluded that this was a nursing problem, not a standard of care problem for Respondent. The results of the hospital’s internal Peer Review Committee review seemed to bear out the opinions of Dr. Diaco and Mr. Blazicek. On November 26, 1997, Respondent was restored to full privileges at Vencor Hospital. Nurse Shogreen received verbal counseling and a one-day suspension for failure to render proper treatment to the correct patient. Vencor Hospital’s “Root Cause Analysis Team” found that nursing protocols should be changed to prevent a recurrence of patient misidentification. Patients would henceforth be identified by bed letter designation. Identification of the patient and consent to treatment would be verified by two people, one of whom must be a hospital employee. On November 17, 1997, the quality review manager of Vencor Hospital submitted an Adverse or Untoward Incident Report (Code 15) regarding the incident, pursuant to Sections 395.0197(6) and 641.55(6), Florida Statutes. A Code 15 Report is a report of serious adverse incidents in licensed facilities. The Code 15 Report identifies the physicians and nurses involved by their license numbers, and identifies the patient and facility. It describes the nature of the incident and all actions taken by the hospital in response to the incident. The purpose of the Code 15 Report is to notify the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Health within 15 days of a serious adverse incident so the Agency may review the incident and begin an investigation. Respondent appeared before his Probation Committee on November 13, 1997. At this time, Respondent knew that the hospital would be filing a Code 15 Report, though it had not actually done so. Respondent was still on summary suspension at Vencor Hospital, pending review. Prior to his Probation Committee appearance, Respondent conferred with his attorney, Mr. Blazicek, who counseled him to answer any questions forthrightly, but not to volunteer information about the incident to the Probation Committee. This advice was based on the facts that the incident was still under investigation, that there had been no finding of wrongdoing by Respondent, and that summary suspension was a standard procedure for such incidents indicating no conclusions as to ultimate responsibility. Mr. Blazicek testified that he knew Respondent still had one more written quarterly report to file in January 1998. He reasoned that if the hospital's investigation resulted in adverse findings, Respondent could report the incident in that later filing. The Probation Committee raised no questions as to the Vencor Hospital incident, and determined that Respondent’s probation would terminate as scheduled upon payment of the administrative fine. Respondent did not volunteer information about the incident or the summary suspension. Respondent and Dr. Diaco filed their final quarterly reports in January 1998. Neither of them reported the Vencor Hospital incident. Respondent reported that he was in full compliance with all probationary terms. By the time the final quarterly reports were received, the Department of Health was aware of the Code 15 Report. Nonetheless, the Department issued an Order of Termination on February 2, 1998, finding that Respondent had satisfactorily completed the term of his probation as of January 26, 1998.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine enter a final order determining that Rolando R. Sanchez has violated Section 458.331(1)(p), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license for a period of nine months from the date of the Order of Emergency Suspension of License, imposing a fine of $2,500.00 and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years from the date the suspension expires. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent, Dien Duong, violated the provisions of Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty would be appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following material and relevant facts are found: Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of physician's assistants pursuant to Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes, and Section 20.43, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician's assistant in the state of Florida, having been issued license number PA 0003211 in 1997. Respondent received a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Hope College, Holland, Michigan, in 1989 and thereafter received her physician's assistant degree from Western Michigan University in 1991, and became certified in Family Practice and in Surgery in Michigan upon graduation. Respondent has maintained her certification in Family Practice and in Surgery by successfully passing an examination every six years since 1991, in addition to taking a minimum of 100 hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) courses each year. In 1997 Respondent began working at South Florida Baptist Hospital Emergency Department and has maintained her employment in that department as a physician's assistant. During the course of her employment, Respondent has gained extensive experience in the practice of assessing lacerations and repairing lacerations of all types. Respondent is highly respected by her employing physician, Dr. Charles Eaves, and by her supervising physicians in the emergency department of the hospital. Respondent has never been the subject of discipline or corrective action regarding her professional job performance as a physician's assistant. A physician's assistant is a licensed health care professional who works under the supervision of a doctor. Typical protocol between the supervising doctor and the physician's assistant is for the physician's assistant to inspect and evaluate the patient, examine the injury, prepare the patient for treatment, consult with the supervising doctor, and thereafter administer treatment to the injury approved by the doctor, followed by after-care instructions to the patient. Based upon the testimony of the experts, the protocol between experienced physician's assistants and their supervising doctors is based upon the doctor's respect and confidence in the physician's assistant's abilities, competence, experience and work history. In these mutual trust and respect working relationships, protocol typically permits the physician's assistant to work relatively autonomously. Without involvement of the supervising doctor, the physician's assistant examines emergency room injuries; they often treat the injured patient, and thereafter present the patient's case treatment and the patient's medical record to the supervising doctor for approval and, when recommended, signature for prescribed medication. The protocol between Respondent and her supervising physician, Dr. Diaz, at South Florida Baptist Hospital on May 8, 1998, was that of mutual trust. Patient D.Z. was a 33 year-old male who had fallen from a ladder and, while attempting to break his fall with his right hand, suffered a blunt, T-shaped, tear-like laceration injury to his right hand. The injury was on the palmar aspect in the area of the fifth metacarpal of the hand-bone that extended to the small finger; a complex laceration, described by doctors as a "sort of bust or blunt type," as opposed to a clean knife cut type, approximately 3/4 centimeter in depth. On May 8, 1998, D.Z. presented himself to the South Florida Baptist Hospital (Hospital) emergency room for treatment of his right hand laceration that extended to the subcutaneous level with subcutaneous tissue exposure. The Hospital's triage nurse, after completing preliminary patient information, directed D.Z. to First Care, that part of the hospital's emergency department where Respondent was working. Respondent, following protocol, examined D.Z.'s injured right hand and ordered x-rays to be taken. An x-ray was taken of D.Z.'s right hand and was reviewed by Respondent's supervising physician, Dr. Diaz, prior to treatment of the injury by Respondent. Dr. Diaz concluded that D.Z.'s x-ray was negative, with no broken bones or tendon involved. The medical records noted that D.Z. had the full range of motion of his fingers without numbness or tingling at that time. Respondent's treatment of D.Z. consisted of laying D.Z. on his back with his arm out to his side and using local anesthesia to numb the injured area. After numbing the hand, she infiltrated the wound with one percent plain Lidocaine, irrigated the wound with normal saline, and cleaned the wound with Betadine. She then debrided the tissue. Using sterile techniques, Respondent proceeded to suture the T-shaped laceration of D.Z.'s right hand. Because of the shape and depth of the laceration and because of the exposure of jagged-edge tears to the subcutaneous tissues, Respondent placed four subcutaneous sutures with 4.0 vicryl, an absorbable suture, in order to bring and keep the jagged-edged tears of D.Z.'s laceration together. For the type of wound suffered by D.Z., described as "bust-type-ripping-flesh tear," it is not possible to close a three or four centimeter wound with only surface sutures. Subcutaneous sutures are required for those wounds of this type and depth. For these reasons and acting appropriately within the scope of the practice of an experienced physician's assistant, Respondent determined to use subcutaneous sutures on D.Z., who is right-hand dominate. The experts who testified, Dr. Eaves, Dr. Solomon, Dr. Maddalon and Ms. Vergara, agreed that the process of using subcutaneous sutures helps to control bleeding, reduce tension within the laceration, and minimize potential "air pockets" within the wound, thereby promoting the healing process, and preventing potential, after-surgery, complications. In accord with protocol established between Dr. Diaz and Respondent, it was at the conclusion of her treatment care of D.Z. that she advised Dr. Diaz of her subcutaneous suture treatment and follow-up care plan. Respondent presented D.Z.'s record for his review, approval and signature. Dr. Diaz approved Respondent's subcutaneous suture treatment, her follow- up care plan of keeping the wound clean, taking the prescribed medication and having the sutures removed within a few days during his follow up a doctor of his choice. Dr. Diaz signed both the Emergency Room report and Respondent's suggested prescription medications for D.Z. On May 11, 1998, four days after his treatment and without obtaining and taking his prescription medications as instructed, D.Z. presented himself to Dr. Maddalon's office for a follow-up examination and evaluation of his injury. On May 14, 1998, Dr. Maddalon, who employed D.Z.'s mother as his office manager and had employed D.Z. for six years to clean his office and who had operated and treated D.Z.'s right hand for carpal tunnel syndrome some years earlier, examined D.Z.'s right hand following an earlier examination by his physician's assistant. On May 15, 1998, during exploratory surgery, Dr. Maddalon reopened the laceration of D.Z.'s right hand and observed that a subcutaneous suture had passed through the ulnar nerve and tied the ulnar digital nerve to the adjoining soft tissue. He removed the subcutaneous suture and removed the damaged part of the ulnar nerve. He then re-attached the exposed ends of the ulnar nerve. D.Z. recovered satisfactorily from Dr. Maddalon's surgery with most but not all of the sensation returning to the little finger on his right hand. According to his deposition, and without a review of D.Z.'s medical records from South Florida Baptist Hospital emergency room prepared by Respondent, Dr. Maddalon opined that certain protocol should be followed in treating "blunt-tear" type hand injuries like that suffered by D.Z. Dr. Maddalon went on to stress, however, that in his opinion placing subcutaneous sutures in such an injury as D.Z.'s was not below the standard of care for a physician's assistant. Deborah Vergara, a physician's assistant at Town and Country Hospital, Tampa, Florida, qualified as an expert in physician's assistants' duties, responsibilities and protocol, and after reviewing D.Z.'s medical records, opined that the care provided D.Z. by Respondent during treatment on May 8, 1998, was appropriate for a patient with D.Z.'s type laceration and was not below the standard of care for a physician's assistant. Deborah Vergara further opined that a suture passing through the ulnar nerve, in and of itself, is not a breach of the standard of care, and she was not aware of any textbooks for physician's assistants that prohibited ever placing subcutaneous sutures in a laceration. Dr. Charles Eaves, D.O., an expert in emergency medicine and an expert in supervising physician's assistants and who also has been the supervising doctor of South Florida Baptist Hospital for the past three years, opined that Respondent's placing subcutaneous sutures in a palmar laceration was absolutely within the standard of care. Dr. Eaves further opined that Respondent's entries in D.Z.'s medical records were within the standard of care. Dr. Barry Solomon, Board Certified expert and employed by the Physician Health Care Alliance in Clearwater, Florida, after review of all of D.Z.'s medical records from South Florida Baptist Hospital, the Administrative Compliant filed in this case, Dr. Maddalon's deposition, and records from Brandon Regional Medical Center, gave his opinions in the following areas: Protocol of supervising physician and physician's assistants working in specific areas of medicine. According to Dr. Solomon, physician's assistants generally operate with relative autonomy, based upon the experience of the assistant and the confidence of the supervising physician. Physician's assistants see low acuity patients, leaving the physician to see high acuity patients. Physician's assistants do check with the physician on duty as they proceed through treating a patient, checking to make sure what they are going to do is appropriate and have the physician review and sign the chart as the patient is being made ready for discharge. Protocol for physician's assistants suturing palmar lacerations. Dr. Solomon opined that Respondent's conduct when presented with a patient with a palmar laceration in a subcutaneous area with an abnormal, complex laceration, and after assessment for nerve damage, tendon damage, bone injury, and after obtaining an x-ray which was reviewed by the emergency room physician at the time, and then proceeding to place a two- layer closure consisting of four subcutaneous sutures and eleven external sutures to close the wound, was within the standard of care of physician's assistant, in this case, the Respondent. Dr. Solomon further opined that there is nothing wrong with placing subcutaneous sutures in a hand laceration and there is always a risk, with a deep wound that nerves, blood vessels, arteries and veins could potentially be hit or sutured. This risk is a recognized complication when one places subcutaneous sutures in that (hand) part of the body. He concludes that Respondent practiced within the physician assistant's standard of care in her subcutaneous suture treatment of Patient D.Z.'s right hand. Petitioner has failed to provide the opinion of an expert that establishes a standard of care for an experienced physician's assistant; has failed to provide evidence of standard of care for maintaining medical records; and has failed to provide an expert opinion in support of the allegation that Respondent's treatment of D.Z.'s right hand laceration fell below a physician's assistant standard of care for treatment of hand lacerations. The testimony of Dr. Charles Eaves, Dr. Barry Solomon and Deborah Vergara is credible in establishing that Respondent, Dien Duong, actions were not violations of Subsection 548.331(1)(m) and 488.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered nurse who began her employment at South Lake Memorial Hospital on August 29, 1977, and was terminated on April 23, 1980. During her employment, the Respondent received four poor evaluations and/or warnings for her nursing practice. The first warning occurred on August 1, 1979. This warning involved allegations of poor nursing performance by the Respondent. These allegations included the Respondent leaving her unit, failing to properly organize her work, failing to properly restrain a patient, wasting time by running too many EGG strips instead of performing her assigned functions, failing to take vital signs timely when coming onto shift, becoming hostile with the Director of Nursing, and failing to obey the direct order of the Director of Nursing to leave the hospital and go home after an argument on July 12, 1979. Although there was no direct evidence as to most of the allegations, the Respondent admitted to late charting, failing to timely take vital signs, spending time working with ECG strips, and failing to obey a direct order to-go home given by the Director of Nursing. The next evaluation occurred on November 26, 1979. The deficiencies in Respondent's practice as alleged by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent gave a patient whole blood instead of packed cells as ordered by the physician, failed to verify an error in transcription by the ward clerk which resulted in a patient's x-rays being delayed for a day, and improperly charting when the Respondent noted on the nursing notes that at 9:00 p.m. there was no significant change in a patient's condition, when in fact the patient had left the hospital at 8:30 p.m. The lack of direct evidence of these allegations was compensated for by the Respondent's admissions as she testified concerning the circumstances surrounding why the incidents occurred. The third warning occurred on March 19, 1980. The allegations in the warning concerned the Respondent having shouted at a supervisor, abandoning her patients, allowing two I.V.s to run dry, failing to carry out a doctor's orders, and failing to chart. Again, there was no direct evidence of the allegations, however, the Respondent admitted that she left her duty station because of sickness prior to relief arriving in the unit, failed to properly follow doctor's orders, and failed to chart for the time she was present in the unit prior to her reporting to the emergency room. The fourth and final warning, which resulted in termination, occurred on April 23, 1980. The allegations by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent hung one-fourth percent normal saline solution rather than the one- half percent normal saline solution ordered by the physician, and that the Respondent failed to administer the 5:00 p.m. medication. Again, the allegations were admitted by the Respondent as she attempted to explain why they occurred. The Director of Nursing testified that during each of these warnings, the Respondent's attitude was that she had done nothing wrong and, therefore, could not improve on her performance. The testimony of the Department's nurse investigator was to the effect that the Respondent's actions failed to meet the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The investigator also testified that, in her opinion, a nurse with Respondent's poor attitude could be extremely dangerous in a hospital setting. After many years of difficult and stressful work, many nurses suffer from what is commonly referred to as "burn out" and are no longer useful, and can be dangerous in a high stress area of nursing. Respondent testified in her own behalf and offered an explanation for each allegation presented by Petitioner. Respondent testified that relative to the first warning, even though she only had two patients, she did not have adequate time to do her charting during her shift and, therefore, had to stay two hours late. Respondent further testified that on one occasion she had not timely taken her vital signs because the Director of Nursing had delayed her with a needless confrontation. Respondent testified that she did not leave the facility as ordered on August 12, 1979, because she was afraid that she would be abandoning her patients, and could lose her vacation and sick leave benefits. With respect to the November 26, 1979 evaluation, the Respondent testified that she gave whole blood instead of packed cells because the whole blood was incorrectly labeled as packed cells. Respondent further testified that she became aware of the error after the solution had infused, and that had she looked at the solution earlier she would have been able to see that it was an incorrect blood product, and would have been able to correct the problem. As to the incorrect transcription resulting in a patient's x-rays being delayed, the Respondent stated that it was the ward clerk's responsibility, not hers, to transcribe the doctor's orders. With respect to the 9:00 p.m. nursing notes when the patient had left the facility at 8:30 p.m., the Respondent's response was that she had been aware that the patient was gone, but was summarizing the patient's condition during the entire shift up to the point the patient left. Respondent acknowledge that the nursing notes may have been misleading. As to thee warning of termination on March 19, 1980, the Respondent admitted leaving her unit prior to relief arriving. Her explanation gas that she had been attempting for one hour to get assistance, to no avail. Upon questioning, she admitted that she was-only "a little dizzy" and had diarrhea. On that day she did not chart any nursing care given by her while on duty. The Respondent was caring for twelve patients at that time. With respect to the April 23, 1980 termination, Respondent admitted that she hung the incorrect percentage saline solution, but that she did so because a prior nurse obtained the incorrect solution from a supply room. The Respondent then also admitted failing to give out the 5:00 p.m. medication as ordered, but stated the reason for her failure to administer the medication was her inability to obtain help from her supervisor which was necessary because she was overworked. Respondent also testified that during this time period, she went on rounds with a doctor, and also went to dinner. The Respondent testified that she felt she was a good and qualified nurse. Respondent also testified that she had been fired previously from Leesburg General Hospital. The Respondent believes her attitude to be good and indicated that the hospital was overreacting to a few isolated incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice nursing in the State of Florida, license number 39108-2, be suspended indefinitely. If the Respondent seeks reinstatement, it will be her responsibility to undergo counseling with a psychologist or psychiatrist, for an in-depth evaluation and treatment, the results of which shall be submitted to the Board of Nursing if and when the Respondent wishes to apply for reinstatement of her nursing license. If the Respondent applies for reinstatement of her license, it shall be her responsibility to demonstrate to the Board that she is able to engage in the practice of nursing in a safe, professional, proficient and legal manner. This demonstration shall include but not be limited to a report by her psychologist or psychiatrist, along with a recommendation from him that she be reinstated to the practice of nursing. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1982.
The Issue Is proposed rule 64B9-4.009 of the Board of Nursing an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Stipulated Facts The Joint Practice Committee (the Committee) was created by Section 464.003(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The statute charges the Committee to approve those acts of medical diagnosis and treatment, prescription, and operation that may be performed by Advance Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNPs) under the general supervision of a practitioner licensed under Chapters 458, 459 or 466, Florida Statutes, within the framework of standing protocols. On October 24, 1998, the Committee met to consider whether prescription of controlled substances was an appropriate medical act to be approved for ARNPs under proper protocol. [See minutes of meeting, Exhibit A.] The Committee was asked to review the report by the Statewide Task Force Committee (a separate committee) mandated by the 1996 legislature. Members of the Committee requested additional information before voting on the issues, including the following: A summary of votes taken at the Statewide Task Force meetings Testimony by physician members of the Task Force Committee on the safety of prescription of controlled substances by ARNPs. ARNPs protocols, including samples from practicing Florida ARNPs and protocol requirements from other states. National information on ARNP prescriptive practice for controlled substances, including the annual report from the Nurse Practitioner Journal, information on prescriptive practice from the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, and a state-by-state summary of prescriptive practices. Pharmacology syllabi from medical schools and ARNP programs. National Practitioner Data Bank information on safe practice. Copy of correspondence from the state pharmacy association. DEA Handbook for Mid-Level Providers. On December 8, 1998, the Committee met to consider the prescriptive authority and to review information requested at the October 24, 1998 meeting. [See Exhibit C, minutes of the December 8, 1998 meeting and Composite Exhibit D, materials provided to the Committee]. The Committee also took testimony from persons attending the Committee meeting. After review of the material and consideration of the testimony, the Committee voted as follows: To request the Department of Health to seek a written opinion from the Attorney General on the question: Can the prescribing of controlled substances by Nurse Practitioners under protocol be authorized by rule or must there be a legislative change. To authorize prescription of schedule II-V controlled substances by ARNPs under protocol. To require continuing education on prescribing, record-keeping, discouraging diversion of dangerous drugs approved by the Board of Nursing prior to prescribing controlled substances under protocol. On January 25, 1999, the Department of Health requested an opinion from the Attorney General on the following questions: Whether the Board may adopt a rule pursuant to section 464.003(3), Florida Statutes, authorizing the prescription of controlled substances by Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners without conflicting with the prescribing requirements found in chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Whether it is necessary to obtain a legislative change to add Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners to the list of 'practitioners' authorized to prescribe controlled substances under chapter 893, Florida Statutes, prior to adoption of a rule that would allow prescriptions of controlled substances by Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners? At its regularly scheduled Board meeting on April 14, 1999, the Board voted to proceed with promulgation of a rule to implement the decision by the Committee. On May 17, 1999, the Attorney General's Office responded to the Department of Health by stating that a formal opinion would not be given. In Volume 25, Number 21 of the Florida Administrative Weekly, which was issued May 28, 1999, the Board published its notice of development of proposed rule 64B9-4.009. No rule development hearing was requested. The Board set a rule workshop for June 26, 1999, to discuss changes to Chapter 64B9-4, Florida Administrative Code. At the rule workshop, the Board received a letter dated June 14, 1999, from the FMA, presented to the Board, containing written objections to proposed rule 64B9-4.009. On June 25, 1999, the Secretary for the Department of Health advised the Board that the Department's General Counsel would be preparing a legal opinion on whether current law would allow the rule to be adopted. On July 23, 1999, General Counsel for the Department of Health issued his legal opinion to the Secretary that absent amendment to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, neither the Joint Practice Committee nor the Board of Nursing can authorize ARNPs to prescribe controlled substances. In Volume 25, Number 29 of the Florida Administrative Weekly, which was issued July 23, 1999, the Board published its notice of proposed rule 64B9-4.009. The rule hearing was set for October 12, 1999. As voted by the Committee, the rule provides that an ARNPs' prescriptive authority includes the prescription of Schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances after appropriate continuing education. On August 17, 1999, the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee issued a letter to the attorney for the Board commenting that the proposed rule appears to contravene Section 893.05, Florida Statutes. On September 25, 1999, the Committee held a telephone conference. (See Exhibit F, Joint Committee Minutes, Conference call September 25, 1999.) The Committee declined to reconsider the decisions made at the December 1998 meeting. On October 12, 1999, a public hearing requested by FMA was held, at which the Board accepted written and oral testimony. (See Exhibit G, the transcript of the public hearing and Composite Exhibit H, the written comments provided on or before the date of the public hearing including a letter dated October 11, 1999, from the FMA and numerous specialty medical societies presenting written objections to the rule.) On December 8, 1999, the Board held an additional public hearing to consider the transcript of rule hearing on the proposed rule. The Board voted to proceed with promulgation of the proposed rule. Other Facts Agreed Upon The Board admits for purposes of consideration of this case that FMA et al. have standing to bring this rule challenge. The only state agency affected is the Board, 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The Board is responsible for the administration of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes, and has implemented its provisions, in part, through the adoption of rules set forth in Chapter 64B9, Florida Administrative Code. Facts Related to Standing The respective parties have not contested the veracity of the factual statements pled concerning standing of the respective parties. Therefore, it is accepted that the factual information concerning the organizations and their purposes, as pled, are accurate for fact-finding purposes. Those facts as pled are as follows: The only state agency affected is Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health, Florida Board of Nursing ("the Board"), 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The Department and the Board are responsible for the administration of Chapter 464, and have implemented its provisions in part through the adoption of rules set forth in Chapter 64B9, Florida Administrative Code. The address of the Florida Medical Association (FMA) is 113 East College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The FMA is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 16,000 licensed Florida physicians who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FMA is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association (FOMA) is 2007 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. The FOMA is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 1,800 licensed Florida osteopathic physicians who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FOMA is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians (FAFP) is 6720 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32211. FAFP is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 3,800 licensed Florida family physicians who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FAFP is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Chapter, American College of Physicians - American Society of Internal Medicine (FCACP-ASIM) is 2589 Park Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32204. FCACP-ASIM is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 4,500 licensed Florida internists who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FCACP-ASIM is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Chapter, American College of Surgeons (FC-ACS) is 2589 Park Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32204. FC-ACS is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately l,000 licensed Florida surgeons who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FC-ACS is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Surgical Society (FSS) is Post Office Box 536544, Orlando, Florida 32853. FSS is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 200 licensed Florida surgeons who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FSS is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Psychiatric Society (FPS) is 524 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The FPS is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 800 licensed Florida psychiatrists who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FPS is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Academy of Pain Medicine (FAPM) is 335 Beard Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. The FAPM is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 100 licensed Florida pain management physicians who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FAPM is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Society of Anesthesiologists (FSA) is 355 Beard Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The FSA is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 1,800 licensed Florida anesthesiologists who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FSA is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Society of Ophthalmology (FSO) is 1133 West Morse Boulevard, Suite 201, Winter Park, Florida 32789. The FSO is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 400 licensed Florida ophthalmologists who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FPS is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida Ob-Gyn Society (FOGS) is 355 Beard Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. The FOGS is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 700 licensed Florida ob-gyns who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FOGS is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. The address of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians (FCEP) is 3717 South Conway Road, Orlando, Florida 32812. The FCEP is organized and maintained for the benefit of the approximately 800 licensed Florida emergency medicine physicians who comprise its membership. One of the primary purposes of the FCEP is to act on behalf of its members by representing their common interests before the various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its Boards. Intervenor, Florida Nurses Association (FNA), is a professional association located at 1235 East Concord Street, Orlando, Florida 32803-5403 representing over 7,000 Registered nurses (RNs) licensed by the State of Florida, of which more than 1,000 are certified as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNPs). FNA's members are directly regulated by the Respondent and substantially affected by proposed rule 64B9-4.009, which grants additional prescriptive authority to certain ARNPs under protocol with licensed physicians. On behalf of its members, FNA serves as a professional advocate before several governmental bodies, including the Board, and actively participated in support of the rule- making process which produced proposed rule 64B9-4009. Intervenor, Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists, is a Florida nonprofit corporation and professional organization representing the legal, legislative, and professional practice interests of more than 1500 Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) practicing throughout Florida, all of whom are Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNPs). The address of the Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists is Post Office Box 150127, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32715-0127. CRNAs are expressly authorized by Florida law to order and administer anesthetic agents. Nearly all the anesthetic agents utilized by CRNAs are controlled substances. Under current law, Florida CRNAs cannot prescribe controlled substances, and are unable to obtain a registration number from the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). A DEA registration number is a prerequisite to prescribing controlled substances. The proposed rule would permit Florida CRNAs to prescribe controlled substances, and obtain a DEA registration number. The ability to prescribe controlled substances would have a direct impact on the practice of Florida CRNAs, in that it would allow CRNAs to prescribe anesthetic agents and post- operative medications for patients. The Proposed Rule 64B9-4.009 Functions of the Advanced Registered Nurse. All categories of Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner may perform functions listed in Section 464.012(3), Florida Statutes. The scope of practice for all categories of ARNPs shall include those functions which the ARNP has been educated to perform including the monitoring and altering of drug therapies, and initiation of appropriate therapies, according to the established protocol and consistent with the practice settings. Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners' prescriptive authority includes the prescription of Schedule II, III, IV and V controlled substances under appropriate protocol. Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners may prescribe controlled substances only after the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner demonstrates completion of a Board-approved course in prescribing controlled substances. The Board approves 'Clinical, Legal, & Ethical Issues in Prescribing Abusable Drugs,' sponsored by the University of South Florida College of Medicine, Courses meeting the following criteria will also be approved: The course must consist of 22 contact hours of formal classroom instruction; The course must include the following education objectives; understand basic pharmacokinetic principles relating to pharmacological agents. describe basic pharmacology of drugs subject to abuse, including opiates, sedative-hypnotics, psychotropic agents, steroids and stimulants. assess the need for and proper use of drugs subject to abuse in managing both acute and/or chronic pain or mood disorders. achieve an improved understanding of drug abuse, drug dependence and addiction. identify the legal basis of ration and state drug control policies. discuss record keeping, enforcement agency practices and problem avoidance. Specific Authority 464.003, 464.006, 464.012, Florida Statutes. Law implemented 464.003, 464.012, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issues for consideration are those allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation (Department), in which the Respondent, Scarlett Jones, R.N., is accused of various violations of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Through Count One it is said that the Respondent transcribed an order for Heparin to be administered to the patient K.W. as 15,000 units when the physician's order quoted the dosage as 5,000 units, and that the patient was given two dosages at 15,000 units as opposed to the required 5,000 units. In an additional accusation against the Respondent, related to patient care, Respondent is said to have failed to indicate in the patient K.W.'s nursing notes, on or about May 16, 1988, that an administration of Aminophylline was to be restarted during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Further, it is alleged that this substance was not restarted until 8:00 a.m. on the next day as discovered by a subsequent shift employee. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1) (f), Florida Statutes, related to alleged unprofessional conduct. Count Two to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about June 4, 1988, the Respondent who was assigned to care for the patient E.J., was told by a co-worker that the patient had fallen out of bed and soiled himself and that the Respondent failed to respond to the patient's needs after repeated requests. Eventually, it is alleged that the patient's wife assisted him back to bed and the co-worker took care of the patient's hygiene. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, related to unprofessional conduct and that she violated Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for knowingly violating a rule or order of the Board of Nursing. Finally, the third count of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent, on or about June 14, 1988, was found asleep while on duty in violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, an act of unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to, the failure to conform to minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. For these alleged violations, the Department seeks to impose disciplinary action which could include revocation or suspension, the imposition of an administrative fine and/or other relief which the Board of Nursing might deem appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the relevant periods under consideration in this Administrative Complaint the Respondent was licensed by the Department as a registered nurse and subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Nursing in disciplinary matters. The license number was 1702172. On April 11, 1988, Respondent took employment with Gadsden Memorial Hospital in Gadsden County, Florida, in a position of charge nurse on the Medical-Surgical Pediatrics Unit, also known as "Med-Surg. Ped." That unit provides short term acute care for post-operative patients, acute medical patients, and acute pediatric patients, some of which require 24-hour observation. Response to the needs of the patients is given by three nursing shifts in each day which begins with shifts of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., followed by the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and then 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following morning. Upon hiring, Respondent was assigned to the work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and was the only registered nurse on duty during that shift. Among the responsibilities of the charge nurse at the time under examination here, was the assessment of patients on the unit as well as an awareness of the abilities of those other employees who were working in this shift. This was in an effort to provide direct supervision of critical care patients and included supervision of activities performed by a Nurse Technician. Respondent was more directly responsible for critical patients. Other duties included making frequent rounds and checking vital signs in an attempt to insure that the patients were stable. Respondent as charge nurse on "Med-Surg. Ped." could not leave the floor without notification of the house supervisor, another registered nurse. This person would replace the Respondent on those occasions where the Respondent would need to vacate the floor. In addition it was expected that the Respondent would notify those personnel who were working with her on the unit, where she intended to go and how long she would be gone. Before departing it was expected that the Respondent would check the stability of patients. physician's Orders were written on March 2D, 1988, in anticipation of the admission of patient K.W. to Gadsden Memorial Hospital to "Med. Surg Ped." The admission was under orders by Dr. Halpren. Among those orders was the prescription of Heparin, 5,000 units, subcutaneously every 12 hours. The Physician's Orders in terms of legibility are not immediately discernible but can be read with a relatively careful observation of the physician's orders. A copy of those may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The problem that tends to arise is that on the line which immediately follows the orders related to Heparin 5,000 units, is found the word hysterectomy written in such a fashion that the initial portion of the letter "H" might be seen as being placed on the prior line giving the unit dosage of the Heparin the appearance of being 15,000 units as opposed to 5,000 units. On April 11, 1988, K.W. was admitted to Gadsden Memorial Hospital as anticipated. At the time of admission the Physician's Orders previously described were provided. Surgery was scheduled and the patient file was made on "Med-Surg. Ped." Under the practices within this hospital, the ward clerk was responsible for transcribing physician's orders onto the patient's Medication Administration Record. This was done here by the ward clerk, S. Diggs. This is to be checked for accuracy by the charge nurse, to include Respondent, with the fixing of the signature to this Medication Administration Record verifying the accuracy of the clerk's entries. Respondent initialed the Medication Administration Record for the patient designating that Heparin in the amount of 15,000 units Q-12, meaning to be given every 12 hours was the requirement, and had been administered in that dosage. This may be seen in a copy of the Medication Administration Record which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. The patient was to undergo extensive abdominal surgery, to include the possibility of a hysterectomy and the incorrect administration of Heparin might promote problems with bleeding. The incorrect amount of Heparin as a 15,000 unit dosage was given to K.W. on two occasions. Another patient who was admitted to the ward which Respondent was responsible for as charge nurse was the patient A.W. Physician's Orders were written for that patient by Dr. Woodward on May 16, 1988. A copy of the Physician's Orders may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. Among the substances prescribed was Aminophylline drip 20 milligrams per hour I.V. This patient had been admitted to the pediatric unit with a diagnosis of asthma and prescribed the Aminophylline to aid the patient's breathing. It was expected that patient A.W. was to be administered two dosages of Aminophylline, an intermediate dosage to be given every few hours in a larger quantity, and a continuous drip to run at 20 milligrams per hour. Within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 are nursing notes made by Respondent concerning A.W. On May 17, 1988, between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. it is noted that Respondent was having trouble with patient A.W.'s I.V. She states that the I.V. site was assessed and had to be pulled and that she was not able to reinsert due to the uncooperative nature of this child. The I.V. was restarted by the house supervisor nurse. An entry at 6:30 a.m. made by the Respondent describes the I.V. position as acceptable. When the shift changed at 7:00 a.m. the new charge nurse did not find the Aminophylline drip in progress, as called for, and this is noted in a 7:30 a.m. entry made by this registered nurse, Sherry Shiro. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a Confidential Incident Report prepared by the Gadsden Memorial Hospital concerning allegations against the Respondent. They have to do with an alleged incident that occurred around 5:00 a.m. and contain the purported observations by Lucinda Mack, a licensed practical nurse on duty at that time, and they were received on June 15, 1988, by Carol Riddle, R.N., Director of Nursing at Gadsden Memorial Hospital, and the person responsible for investigating this matter. The copy of the Confidential Incident Report contained observations about the alleged failure of treatment by the Respondent directed in the matter of the patient E.J. These remarks are hearsay. They do not corroborate competent evidence at hearing concerning any oversight by the Respondent in the treatment of the patient E.J. On or about June 14, 1988, the Director of Nursing, Carol Riddle, called the night supervisor Michelle Warring at 2:00 a.m. to ascertain if the Respondent was on duty. Respondent was working on that date. At 2:15 a.m. Warring advised Riddle that the Respondent could not be found and Riddle went to the hospital at that time. When she arrived at the facility at 3:00 a.m. she went to "Med-Surg. Ped." where she was informed by the communications clerk that Lucinda Mack, LPN, was the only nurse on duty in that unit, and that the clerk did not know where Respondent could be found. Riddle and Warring then looked through the patient rooms in "Med-Surg. Ped." but could not find the Respondent. One and a half hours after commencing the search Riddle located the Respondent in a different wing of the hospital which contains a respiratory therapy manager's office. Respondent was there with her husband asleep, with the door locked and lights off. At that time she was the only registered nurse on duty in "Med-Surg. Ped." which had six patients receiving care on that evening. Respondent was not performing her duties or supervising those other persons who worked with her on the unit. Respondent had been observed asleep at her nurses' station desk on several other occasions by Dale Storey, a registered nurse working at the Gadsden Memorial Hospital. Linda Reed, a nurse technician at Gadsden Memorial Hospital had observed the Respondent asleep on duty. As commented on by nurse Riddle, who is qualified to give expert opinion testimony about the performance of the Respondent in her nursing practice, the conduct set out before in these findings of fact constitutes unprofessional conduct in the practice of nursing, in a situation which the Respondent knew what her duties were as charge nurse and failed to perform them at an adequate level.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which fines the Respondent in the amount of $1,000 for the violation related to the care of patient K.W. as set out in Count One and for sleeping on duty as set out in Count Three. And, finds that the violation related to patient A.W. as set out in Count One and the violation alleged in Count Two related to the patient E.J. were not proven. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 19 day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5719 Petitioner's fact finding is subordinate to the finding in the Recommended Order with exception of paragraph 16 which is not relevant and reference within paragraph 34 to the date June 24, 1988, which should have been June 14, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Scarlett Jones 2636 Mission Road, #138 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Judy Ritter, Executive Director Florida Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to its Administrative Complaint filed July 12, 1982, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, seeks to revoke, suspend or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent as a licensed physician in the State of Florida. It was stipulated by the parties that the Respondent is a physician licensed by the State of Florida. The petitioner is an agency charged with the licensure and regulation of licensure status, professional practice and discipline of physicians licensed in Florida. The Respondent is licensed to practice medicine also in the states of Virginia and North Carolina. He graduated from medical school at the University of Virginia in 1949 and has been in active practice in Florida since 1959, when he began practice at Fernandina, Nassau County, Florida. The Respondent maintains an office at Fernandina, as well as one in Jacksonville. He is 63 years of age and practices in the area of family practice. He has been a member of the American Academy of Family practice since 1973. He is also a member of the Duval County Academy of Family Practice and has served as an officer of that organization and an active participant. The Respondent has been on probation pursuant to a stipulation entered into with the Board of Medical Examiners in December, 1981. The Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years, effective January 4, 1982, after having admitted, by stipulation, that he issued a pre-signed prescription for Sultrin Creme for use by a nurse midwife in 1980; and that he prescribed Percocet and Percodan inappropriately to a patient in 1980. The Respondent's practice is primarily an office practice with practice at clinics around the state to which he devotes a certain number of days per month. The St. Augustine Maternity Clinic, Inc., apparently owned and operated by Carolle Baya (the evidence does not establish her precise relationship to the clinic) is one type of such clinic. Carolle Baya is a lay midwife, who at times pertinent hereto was not licensed to practice lay midwifery in the State of Florida. Because of her continuation in the practice of lay midwifery in St. Johns County, she was prosecuted in 1979 by the State Attorney for St. Johns County, which criminal charges were later dropped. She was then sued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in an attempt by that Department to enjoin her from practicing lay midwifery without a license. Carolle Baya obtained a favorable judgment in that civil action when the lay midwifery statute, then in effect, was declared unconstitutional by the Circuit Court in and for St. Johns County, Florida. Thus, Carolle Baya, at times pertinent hereto, was practicing lay midwifery, although without a license, under the legal aegis of the Circuit Court of the 7th Judicial Circuit, pursuant to that final judgment entered on October 10, 1979, in Case No. 79-313 (Respondent's Exhibit 4). Under the law as it existed at times pertinent to this case, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services required lay midwives to associate themselves with physicians, at least for purposes of providing examination of their patients prior to home births. (Rule 10D-36.25(a), Florida Administrative Code, "Supervision") Nevertheless, no physician in St. Johns County undertook to provide an association or "backup" to Carolle Baya for examination or backup care for her patients. Indeed, as established by Dr. Mussallem (for the Petitioner), the obstetricians in St. Johns County were responsible in general and Dr. Mussallem in particular, for the complaint lodged against Carolle Baya regarding her practice as a lay midwife. Thus, it was that Carolle Baya formed some sort of "backup" examination arrangement for her patients with the Respondent. On or about January 25, 1982, a newspaper advertisement was placed in the St. Augustine Record, stating that the Respondent was associated with the St. Augustine Maternity Center, Inc. The Respondent's name at the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint on July 12, 1982, apparently appeared on the front of the St. Augustine Maternity Center, Inc., on a sign, although no evidence established that it was present on that facility at any earlier pertinent date. It was not established how the newspaper advertisement came to be published in the newspaper, and it was not shown for what purpose the Respondent's name appeared on the sign on the front of the St. Augustine Maternity Center, Inc. (either owned or operated by Carolle Baya) At the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, the Respondent was visiting that maternity clinic once a month for purposes of performing examinations of Carolle Baya's patients and general gynecological consultation and/or treatment. Dr. Mussallem, the only witness with any knowledge of the contents of the newspaper advertisement and the supposed sign, could not show whether or when the unintroduced newspaper advertisement was actually placed in a newspaper, nor the person responsible for its publishing, nor did he have any direct knowledge regarding whether the sign was actually displayed on the front of the clinic, nor who might have been responsible for doing so. His testimony in this regard is thus entirely hearsay and not creditable herein. Crystal Mull was a patient of Carolle Baya's throughout the entire term of her pregnancy, with a view toward having a midwife perform home delivery of her baby. Her entire prenatal care was under the direction of Carolle Baya. The Respondent, however, did examine Crystal Mull in approximately the eighth month of her pregnancy, October, 1981, with her mother present. Crystal Mull's mother, Mrs. Luellen McNairy, was of the belief that Dr. Britton was "like a sponsor or something like that." She admittedly was not sure what his relationship was with Carolle Baya, but that she "felt" that Carolle Baya referred to him for any medical questions she was unable to answer concerning a patient. The testimony of Mrs. McNairy and the testimony of Dr. Mussallem concerning what they "understood" the relationship between Britton and Baya to be (they admittedly had no direct knowledge), is the only testimony or evidence adduced by the Petitioner to show any sort of association of the Respondent with Carolle Baya's midwifery practice. The Respondent only went to Carolle Baya's clinic one day a month to perform gynecological examinations of her patients and was not present at the clinic supervising or advising Carolle Baya as to the care of her patients on a day-to-day or even a weekly basis, particularly the patients who are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. In any event, Carolle Baya wanted the doctor to meet her patient, Crystal Mull, to examine her so he could be familiar with her medical history. When he examined her he noted that the baby was quite large and he made a statement, according to Mrs. McNairy, to the effect that she might not be able to have the baby regularly and might have to be transported to the hospital. In the words of Mrs. McNairy, the Petitioner's witness herself, "It seemed to me that he was alerting us to the possibility that she might have to go to the hospital; there might be a difficult labor." Ultimately, Crystal Mull did have to be transported to the hospital for her delivery, although she had a normal, uneventful delivery and healthy baby. On the morning of her delivery, however, after progressing with her labor to a point, she failed to progress further and ceased to dilate. At approximately 1:30 or 2:00 on the morning of November 22, 1981, Ms. Baya came to the residence of Crystal Mull and her mother Luellen McNairy. Ms. Baya did a vaginal examination and periodically checked the fetal heart rate. The fetal heart rate was closely monitored to determine if any fetal distress was indicated by the baby's heartbeat. At approximately 10:00 the following morning, Carolle Baya called an unidentified person supposedly to consult with regarding doing something to relieve her patient's discomfort and pain, after she had been in labor for approximately 10 hours. Witness McNairy "believed" that Carolle Baya called Dr. Britton, however, the witness had no direct knowledge of who was on the other end of the telephone conversation with Carolle Baya and she is unaware of the substance of that conversation. A short time after the end of the telephone conversation, Mrs. McNairy observed Carolle Baya give Crystal Mull an injection in the hip and she seemed to relax some after that. Mrs. McNairy has no knowledge of the nature of the substance which was injected (although she surmised it might be Demerol). At about 12:30 pm on November 22, the membranes were ruptured, but the patient had not yet dilated as far as 8 centimeters. Thus, it was that Carolle Baya suggested that her patient and the patient's mother decide what they wished to do, that she did not want to make the final decision herself. Accordingly, the patient was admitted to the hospital at about 1:00 that afternoon. Ultimately, Crystal Mull experienced a normal delivery and she and her baby are currently in good health. On January 2, 1982, Dr. Anthony Mussallem saw Susan Thompson at around 6:30 or 7:00 in the evening. Her sister-in-law brought her in to see him at that time, at which she had reached in essence the full term of her pregnancy with her child being due on approximately January 7 or 8, 1982. The patient reported to Dr. Mussallem that Carolle Baya had been taking care of her prenatal course of care up until that point. While Carolle Baya was examining her that day in the St. Augustine Maternity Center, Inc., the patient's amniotic fluid began leaking and, inasmuch as labor usually begins within 24 hours of such an event, but in her case did not commence within 24 hours, the patient became worried and ultimately came in to see Dr. Mussallem. Dr. Mussallem did not speak with Carolle Baya concerning the condition of Susan Thompson nor did he see any medical records which had been maintained by Carolle Baya's maternity center concerning that patient. The doctor never talked to Dr. Britton concerning this patient. The patient informed him that she was given some tablets, supposedly to stimulate her labor and did not go into labor, but the doctor could not say what type of tablets were administered to the patient and, indeed, had no direct knowledge whether they were administered and, if so, who had administered them. Neither Dr. Mussallem nor Dr. Larroude have ever met the Respondent and neither could establish in any way the Respondent's connection, if any, with the maternity center owned or operated by Carolle Baya, nor with her practice as a lay midwife as any such relationship might have related to either patients Mull or Thompson. The most Dr. Mussallem, and indeed Dr. Larroude, could establish (in a "hearsay on hearsay" fashion), was that they "understood" that Dr. Britton provided "backup" to Carolle Baya in her midwifery practice. Dr. Mussallem could not say whether Pitocin or any other drug had actually been given Susan Thompson before he saw her as a patient on January 2. In any event, there was also no demonstration that the Respondent was aware at all that any medication had been prescribed either of the above-named patients or administered to them by Carolle Baya or anyone else. If indeed the patients were administered the drugs alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent did not support this activity nor have any knowledge of it. Susan Thompson was ultimately delivered of her baby on January 2, at 11:54 p.m., and both mother and child had a normal, uneventful birth. Susan Thompson could have been delivered of her baby by a trained midwife, inasmuch as she had a normal delivery, with no problems arising. In summary, the testimony of Drs. Mussallem and Larroude was predicated in all portions related to the charges in the Administrative Complaint on hearsay and those witnesses had no direct knowledge of the care given the patients in question at Carolle Baya's clinic by Carolle Baya and no knowledge of what type medication, if any, Carolle Baya or others unknown may have administered to those patients. Further, these witnesses do not know the Respondent, have no knowledge of the character and nature of his practice and have no direct knowledge regarding his professional relationships with Carolle Baya or her clinic, if any. These frailties render it impossible to accord significant weight to the testimony of these two witnesses. Ruth Hunter, Patricia Elaine Martin and Mary Ruth Ann Arick are all owners or supervisors of various women's health clinics. Dr. Britton is employed as a contract physician at each of these clinics and works at each clinic one or more times a month. The clinics are in Gainesville, Orlando and Holly Hill. The doctor is employed to perform first trimester abortions, vasectomies, insertion of IUDs, fitting of diaphragms and to provide miscellaneous gynecological care. All three of these witnesses established that the doctor is the best of any of the physicians employed by them, competently and professionally performing such procedures with a high degree of care and interest in the patient's condition. His practice at these clinics is characterized by his spending a great deal of time conversing with his patients and generally taking an interest in their condition and problems. They have all experienced that Dr. Britton has the lowest "complication rate," that is, problems arising after he performs various procedures, of any doctor who practices at their clinics. The testimony of these three witnesses was corroborated by that of Dr. John Freeman, a full-time physician with the Gainesville Women's Health Center, who established that the Respondent easily meets the appropriate standard of practice in all the work that he has performed for the Gainesville health center and excels above that standard of practice in most cases. Dr. Freeman was aware of the charges against Respondent in a general sense and established that injudicious use of drugs is totally out of character for the Respondent and that the Respondent is very conservative in prescribing any drugs, especially pain medications. Dr. Freeman is the staff physician at the clinic who reviews all procedures performed by other physicians. Ruth Hunter is a registered nurse, employed with the Gainesville Women's Health Center, who has worked with the Respondent in the vasectomy clinic at that facility. She has been an operating room nurse for approximately 15 years, and, based upon her experience with such duties and with physicians, she demonstrated that the Respondent is very capable in performing the procedures he was retained to perform for the clinic, with a very low complication rate and a very low incidence of prescribing any drugs at all during his practice at the clinic. Dr. Willard R. Gatling testified by deposition as an expert witness on behalf of the Respondent. He has known the Respondent professionally for approximately 15 years and the two of them have regularly attended educational and other meetings of the Duval County Academy of Family Practice on numerous occasions. Dr. Gatling has practiced medicine in the Jacksonville area for over 35 years as a family practitioner and obstetrician. He has seen the Respondent's patients on a number of occasions and the Respondent has seen Dr. Gatling's patients on a number of occasions since 1967. He is aware of the Respondent's current level of care for and treatment of his patients and based upon his experience with seeing patients who have previously seen Dr. Britton, his treatment of patients appears to be appropriate and proper and complies with the standard of care of a competent medical doctor as is accepted and practiced in northeast Florida. Dr. Gatling is aware of the Respondent's current probation and his past disputes with other physicians in Fernandina which resulted in those physicians voting him off the staff of the hospital there. Neither these problems nor the current charges have changed his opinion of the Respondent's competency. Raymond Michael Eichorn was director of the Nassau County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council from November, 1975, to November, 1979. He became acquainted with the Respondent during that time because the Respondent was on the board of directors of that council until the council was disbanded two years ago. Dr. Britton was very active during those years in the council's work with the court and school systems in the area of drug education and combating drug abuse. He performed voluntary free physicals for alcoholics who were entering the antabuse treatment program. He performed this service despite the fact that he received no compensation and that the program provided him with no malpractice insurance coverage for this work. Since 1979, witness Eichorn has been employed in the personnel department of Container Corporation at its paper mill in Fernandina. He has continued to refer mill employees with alcohol problems to the Respondent for him to perform physicals for purposes of their entering the antabuse program. He has found the Respondent to be civic-minded and to continue to be interested in and working with the current drug abuse program in Nassau County. J. Chandler McLauchlan is, by training, a psychologist. He operates a cabinet making business and also works as a sculptor. He and Charles W. Howard and their families are patients of the Respondent. The Respondent, at all times, has proven to be a compassionate, conservative physician with regard to his care and prescription of drugs for these witnesses and their families. The Respondent frequently has charged substantially lower fees than other physicians for the same services and has generally shown himself to he a competent, caring physician, more concerned with patients' welfare than financial remuneration. He is strictly conservative regarding prescriptions of medicines and, in the words of Charles Howard, "he likes us to rough it."
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses of the Respondent, who testified in person, as well as the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlie L. Adams, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen P. Smith, Esquire Smith and Smith, P.A. 2601 University Blvd., West Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of failing to meet the applicable standard of care with respect to acts and omissions involving two patients, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed registered nursing in Florida, holding license number RN 2732432. At all material times, he was employed as a registered nurse at Integrated Health Services in Vero Beach, Florida. In June and July 2002, R. F. was a resident of Integrated Health Services. She had wounds to both buttocks. On June 7, 2002, her physician ordered the application of duo derms to each wound and ordered that the dressing be changed at least every three days, or more frequently, if needed. The wound treatment and progress records for both wounds are identical forms that require the nurse tending the wound to describe it, by abbreviations, in terms of drainage, general appearance, and surrounding skin and then to initial the notes. The initialing of the form signifies that the nurse also has changed the dressing, not just described the wound, as it would be impossible to view the wound without removing the old dressing. The form on which this information is recorded is divided into days, so that the date of the activity is clear on the completed form. The forms in this case for the June treatments of these wounds show that licensed practical nurse Kathleen Ertle described each wound on June 7. The only difference between them was that the wound on the right buttock was dry and pink, and the wound on the left buttock was moist and red. Three days later, on June 10, Respondent changed each dressing, and described each wound appropriately--by now, both wounds were moist, red, and macerated. Two days later, Nurse Ertle changed the dressings and described the wounds as unchanged from two days earlier. The following day, June 13, Respondent changed the dressings and described the wounds as unchanged. Three days later, on June 16, Respondent changed the dressings and described the wounds as unchanged. On June 18, he changed the dressings, and this time described the left wound as dry, but the right wound as moist. Three days later, on June 21, Respondent changed the dressings and described both wounds as dry and pink, not red. The June 24 entry on wound treatment and progress record for both wounds is a little confusing, but the confusion does not appear to have contributed to the violations in this case. Respondent entered a description of each wound--again, dry, pink, and macerated--but overwritten on this entry are: "healed" and "ERROR." It is unclear who wrote these entries or what is identified as erroneous--Respondent's initial description or that the wounds are healed. The next entry for either wound is by Nurse Ertle who, on June 27, described the left wound as macerated, red, and reddened. On June 28, Nurse Ertle made entries for both wounds, describing each as macerated, red, and reddened. There are no more entries for June. The next entry is July 1 and is made by Respondent, who described the wounds as dry, pink, and macerated. On July 3, each wound bears two entries. At the top is an entry by Respondent, describing each wound as dry, pink, and macerated. Beneath these entries are entries by Nurse Ertle, describing each wound as dry, red, and reddened. The next entry for each wound is July 5, on which Respondent described each wound as unchanged from his preceding description. The last entry for each wound is July 8, at which time Respondent described each wound as still unchanged. The wound treatment and progress record for the left wound bears an additional notation to discontinue wound treatment. Neither record, though, bears additional entries as to wound care, and both wounds were subsequently treated by a special air-pressure mattress. The problems as to R. F. arose when, on July 3, Nurse Ertle examined the wounds and the dressings. Nurses routinely mark the date of application on the exterior of the dressing. Instead of finding "July 1" on the dressing on the right-buttock wound, Nurse Ertle found the date, "June 28." This finding was inconsistent with the above-described entries in the records. Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to change the right-buttock dressing on July 1. As evidenced by his notation on the record, Respondent had undertaken the duty to change the dressing on July 1, and the evidence is clear that he failed to do so, at least as to the right buttock. Petitioner also proved that Respondent made the July 1 entry in an attempt to falsify or alter the records. Initially, it seemed at least as likely that Respondent made the entry in advance of changing the dressing, intending to do so, and merely forgot to do so. (Even if such advance recording of nursing activity is improper, it is not an act with which Respondent is charged.) However, Petitioner's nursing expert, Katherine Johnson, pointed out that the charting could not have been an innocent mistake, such as by charting before changing the dressing, because Respondent charted the condition of the wound, which he could not have seen without removing the dressing. Although Petitioner charged Respondent with falsification of the records that he changed the dressing, not that he falsely described the wound, evidence of fraudulent intent in describing the wound tends to establish fraudulent intent in recording that he had changed the dressing. However, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's act and omission caused significant harm to R. F. Nurse Ertle testified on direct that the wound deteriorated from Stage I to Stage II between June 28 and July 3, but later testified, on cross-examination, that the deterioration had taken place before June 27. Shortly after the introduction of the special mattresses, both wounds healed. At 3:00 p.m. on October 24, 2002, an advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) ordered the intravenous administration of potassium to J. R., who was a patient at Integrated Health Services. The purpose of the order was to treat hypernatremia. This order was received by a nurse working the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. However, neither she nor any other nurse on this shift attempted to start the IV, which was only started at 6:45 a.m. on October 25. Respondent arrived at Integrated Health Services at 11:00 p.m., at which time he served as the shift supervisor. The record fails to establish that any nurse on the preceding shift had documented the ARNP's order, such as in the nurse's notes, in such a way that Respondent reasonably could have found it and taken appropriate action on the order, either starting the IV or calling the ARNP and explaining what had happened and stating when the IV could be started. Furthermore, Petitioner's nursing expert, Katherine Johnson, testified that the duty of ensuring that the IV had been started or the ARNP informed of the failure fell to the nurse who took the orders and her shift supervisor, and the duty of auditing the records to ensure that orders were carried out by the preceding shift belonged to the nurse assigned to the patient. In no instance did Ms. Johnson assign the duty of auditing as belonging to the subsequent shift supervisor, Respondent.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of two violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.006(2) and imposing an administrative fine of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dan Coble, RN, Ph.D., CNAA, C, BC Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Ellen M. Simon Assistant General Counsel Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way--Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 David Carpenter 419 Sandpiper Drive Satellite Beach, Florida 32937
The Issue The issues concern allegations set forth in an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent alleging violations associated with the Nurse Practice Act. See Chapter 464, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact According to the official records held by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Respondent holds license no. RN38437-2, which lapsed on March 31, 1989. On that date the license became inactive as envisioned by Section 464.013, Florida Statutes. Karen Gushlaw, a resident of Ocala, Florida, went to a business in that same community known as Cardio-Check, Inc. Ms. Gushlaw and her mother had decided to go there to have physical examinations made. This was based upon an advertisement which the mother had seen in the phone book or the newspaper which advertisement had a coupon associated with it. Once at the Cardio-Check, Inc. premises, Ms. Gushlaw met Ralph McCawley. He introduced himself as Ralph McCawley. He did not indicate his professional position by describing what that position was. The only other person in the building at that time was a secretary. Ms. Gushlaw was taken into an examining room. Respondent conducted a medical history asking questions about Ms. Gushlaw's family. Respondent then left the room and he gave a paper robe to Ms. Gushlaw and told her to take off her shirt and bra and that he would be back. Respondent returned and in the presence of the secretary did a breast examination. He had Ms. Gushlaw sit up on a table and he did a circulation test. He tested her fingers and toes. He took Ms. Gushlaw's blood pressure. He conducted an E.K.G. Respondent told Ms. Gushlaw that the E.K.G. was fine and that she looked fine and healthy but that she needed to lose weight. While at this business premises Ms. Gushlaw gave a urine sample. Respondent sent Ms. Gushlaw to another premises known as the Physicians Lab to have a blood test done. Given that the urine sample that was presented at the office showed blood in it, Ms. Gushlaw went back a week and a half later to give another urine sample. That sample did not show the presence of blood. During the first visit to Respondent's office he never told Ms. Gushlaw what credentials or professional licenses he held. On that date no one in the premises identified themselves as either a registered nurse or a licensed physician. Margaret Hunt is an Investigator for the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation. Acting on a complaint Ms. Hunt was assigned to make contact with the Respondent at Cardio-Check, Inc. to ascertain his activities as they pertain to that organization. Ms. Hunt's initial contact with Cardio-Check, Inc. was by telephone in response to a yellow page advertisement in the Ocala, Florida telephone directory. A copy of the advertisement that she saw in arranging for the telephone call may be seen as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. She used the telephone number provided and would eventually go to the address indicated in that advertisement. When Ms. Hunt made her call a male voice answered the phone. She stated that she was making the call in response to a yellow page advertisement and wanted to know what services were offered and how much money it would cost to have the examination. The voice on the other end said that the cost was $55.00 and that she could get a physical examination, blood testing, urinalysis and also an E.K.G. exam. An arrangement was made for an examination on May 21, 1990, following the telephone conversation which take place on May 17, 1990. Ms. Hunt carried out the appointment. When she arrived at Cardio- Check, Inc. there was a white male sitting in the reception area and a white female there as well. Ms. Hunt identified the fact that she was there for purposes of her appointment. The white female who was a secretary identified herself as Melody Williams. She took certain information from Ms. Hunt and gave Ms. Hunt forms to fill out. One of those forms was a medical history type form requesting general patient information. The other item was related to information about Cardio-Check, Inc. or a release that had to be signed. The white male did not identify himself at that time and left the office. The white male left the office in the presence of a black male. This left Ms. Hunt in the company of Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams referred to the white male who had left as "Ralph." Ms. Williams stated that "when Ralph returns, we can do your exam." Ms. Williams took the information which Ms. Hunt had filled out on the forms. Ms. Williams then stated "you may as well go ahead and get a urine sample." Ms. Hunt went into a bathroom located off the waiting area and gave the urine sample and left it in a cup on the counter upon the instructions by Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams took Ms. Hunt into an examination room and told Ms. Hunt to completely undress except for her panties. Ms. Williams told Ms. Hunt that there was a paper towel that she was told to cover herself with. Shortly thereafter Respondent entered the examining room and sat on a stool at a counter in the room and proceeded to take basic background information in the way of medical history from Ms. Hunt such as her illnesses and her family history. Respondent had not identified himself as being a nurse or a physician nor indicated in any way what his profession was. When Ms. Hunt had called on May 17, 1990 for an appointment, she had asked whom she would be seeing, specifically what physician she would be seeing at her scheduled appointment. The person answering the phone was vague and said "you will be seeing me." In that phone conversation he did not identify himself as Ralph McCawley. He did say that he was a certified practitioner. While in the examining room Respondent took Ms. Hunt to the examination table and proceeded to do a physical exam. He looked at her eyes, ears, nose and throat and used a tongue suppressor. He used a small light to look in her eyes, ears, nose and throat. He took blood pressure using a blood pressure cuff. He checked both Ms. Hunt's arms. He checked her reflexes by tapping her with a small rubber hammer on her knees. He then laid her down flat on her back on the examining table and checked the circulation in her fingers on each hand and checked the toes and ankles. He pressed on her abdomen with his hands doing a manual examination. He asked her to remove her bra and he moved the paper towel down to her waist while he used a stethoscope and checked her heart and chest area. He checked Ms. Hunt's back and sides. In those checks he used a stethoscope. He mentioned that Ms. Hunt had a slight heart murmur. He made further explanation to Ms. Hunt because of her concerns. When she questioned him about the nature of the murmur he said, "you have what is called a slight mitral valve prolapse." When questioned further Respondent stated, "let me listen to your heart some more and then I will explain it." He listened further with the stethoscope and made the comment that she did have a slight heart murmur. Respondent also indicated on this visit that Ms. Hunt's blood pressure was high and needed to be rechecked. Concerning the licenses which Respondent held, no licenses were displayed in the reception area or in the examination room of Cardio-Check, Inc. when Ms. Hunt made her visit of May 21, 1990. When Respondent concluded his physical examination of Ms. Hunt he placed leads on her chest area and arms connected to an E.K.G. monitor. He then turned the E.K.G. machine on and ran a printout. This took a few minutes. Ms. Hunt asked Respondent what the results were and he looked at the tape briefly. He responded "it looks normal." After the examination was concluded and Ms. Hunt was getting dressed, she asked Respondent more about the E.K.G. results given the fact that he had said that she had a heart murmur. At that point Respondent pulled the E.K.G. tape out and put it on the examination table and said, "see it's just normal." He pointed to some of the lines on the E.K.G. tape and said, "it's normal." After that point he took tissue paper on the examination table and drew a picture of a heart and tried to explain to Ms. Hunt what a mitral value prolapse is in lay terms. He told her that the problem could be congenital. She mentioned that as a child she had had tonsillitis. Respondent said, "your heart murmur could be congenital or could be from staph infections relating to tonsillitis that has affected your heart, that may have caused the murmur." In the course of these conversations, on the date of the examination, Ms. Hunt was asking the Respondent what type of educational training he had to have to be doing the work that he was doing. He told her that basically he had fourteen years of post-secondary education and he had mentioned that he had three different degrees, referring to college degrees. He also stated that he had four certifications and that he had taken up to 25 continuing educational credits per year. She asked him, "well, are you a nurse or a physician?" His response was he was a cardio pulmonary practitioner. He mentioned that he had worked in various areas in cardio pulmonary matters to include director of a cardio pulmonary unit at a hospital. He said that his goal was to be a cardio pulmonary surgeon. Ms. Hunt paid $55.00 for the examination. She refused to take the blood test. Respondent stressed that, "this really needs to be done because it checks so many different parameters." He told her that there was a laboratory down the street and they would do the blood testing at that site. As Ms. Hunt was leaving Respondent identified himself as Ralph McCawley. Ms. Hunt saw no one else on the date of her examination for purposes of the examination and no one else was in attendance other than Melody Williams and the Respondent. Ms. Williams' participation in the process was as a female attendant while Respondent conducted the examination. Ms. Hunt was instructed to call back to see the results of the urine screen and she did this. She telephoned on May 24, 1990 and talked to the Respondent. He went over the results of the physical examination. He told her what her pulse was, what her blood pressure was, he told her that he respiration was normal. He told her that her circulation was good and normal. He told her that the urine screen came out fine. He again mentioned that he wanted her to have blood work done. He also said that she should come back into his office as soon as possible. He was trying to get her to come back the next day to recheck blood pressure. He wanted this done because he said that it was high. He said he would recheck it for free. He also offered her a position working as a receptionist replacing Melody Williams who was only filling in temporarily. Several days after the telephone conversation Ms. Hunt returned on June 1, 1990 in the presence of Jim Cooksey another investigator with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation. On this visit Respondent was present and Melody Williams was present. Respondent rechecked Ms. Hunt's blood pressure and said it was a little bit high. At that time he said the reading was 158 over 98. Respondent made further mention about the heart murmur because Ms. Hunt kept asking him, "well, can you refer me to a physician? Is there anyone else I can see about this?" To this remark Respondent stated "it is something you really don't have to worry about. You should have it checked periodically, but it's nothing to be really concerned about." He never provided the name of a physician for referral. Ms. Hunt stated can you refer me to your own physician and Respondent said, "well, I treat myself." Ms. Hunt on the June 1, 1990 visit asked that in view of the literature of Cardio-Check, Inc. that was available stating that there was a medical directory, could Respondent give her the name of a medical doctor or refer her to anyone else associated with Cardio-Check, Inc. Respondent never referred her or gave her any name in response to this inquiry. Ms. Hunt asked for a copy of the EKG and physical examination. These matters were turned over to Ms. Hunt and she in turn gave them to the local state attorney's office. No copies were retained. When Ms. Hunt left the premises on her first visit, she was provided with a brochure and a business card associated with Cardio-Check, Inc. The business card and brochure may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. Grace Gil is a registered nurse licensed in Florida. She has a B.S. in nursing and a masters degree in nursing. She has been a director of nursing in two hospitals in Miami. She was a faculty member at Central Florida Community College for five years, to include chairman of the nursing department at that community college. She has been director of nursing at HCA Marion Community Hospital in Ocala, Florida. At present she is director of inpatient services at HCA Grant Center Hospital which includes nursing and therapy, and is a psychiatric facility for adolescents and children. Her speciality in nursing practices is medical/surgical nursing and nurse orientation. She has taught courses on nursing ethics and courses preparing students to take the state board examination for licensure as a nurse. She was received as an expert in nursing practice and procedures. In preparing to offer her testimony at hearing Ms. Gil received copies of the investigative reports of the Petitioner, as well as copies of the advertisement and brochures that have been referred to as exhibits, and from those observations has arrived at certain opinions concerning the propriety of Respondent's practice. This summation of her opinion is set out in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence, a report made on December 3, 1990. Ms. Gil also spoke to the issue of the Respondent's conduct in her remarks at hearing. Although the investigative file which Ms. Gil examined was not produced at hearing, from her remarks at hearing and her comments in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 it is clear that she was addressing the same incidents with patients as set forth in the findings of fact related to this recommended order. The belief is held that the investigative report coincided with the testimony at hearing of the patients Gushlaw and Hunt and that Ms. Gil was commenting on matters which are the same as reflected in the investigative report as testified to by those patients. Furthermore, Ms. Gil sat through the testimony of the patients Gushlaw and Hunt before offering her remarks about the Respondent's conduct. In her report of December 3, 1990, she found that Respondent's conduct was not in keeping with what is expected of a nurse under the Nurse Practices Act when he conducted physical examinations and made diagnoses based on those findings; and interpretation of E.K.G.s, which is within the realm of a licensed physician. (As evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence, records of the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, Respondent is not licensed to practice medicine in Florida.) Diagnosis of a heart murmur and mitral valve prolapse are matters which are difficult to ascertain in that the prolapse usually requires further diagnostic testing, such as an ultrasound or echocardiogram. The detection of a heart murmur requires the training and experience of a physician. In her remarks set out in the December 3, 1990 report Ms. Gil also faults the Respondent for failing to refer the patients to a physician for conditions which would ordinarily require further evaluation and treatment that is to say, cardiac problems might have required medication and the elevated diastolic blood pressure of Ms. Hunt definitely should have been evaluated by a physician since failure to get the diastolic pressure under control could lead to a variety of cardiovascular problems. Accordingly to the December 3, 1990 report nurse practitioners could be expected to realize that readings on the systolic side of 140 or better and on the diastolic side of 90 or better are indications of hypertension which may or may not be medically significant. As reported in these facts, Ms. Hunt's reading on the second visit exceeded these levels. Ms. Gil also makes mention of the fact that Mr. McCawley was practicing without a nursing license which was in good and current standing which is contrary to acceptable standards for conduct by nurses. In the testimony at hearing there were two areas of major concern by Ms. Gil. The first was the practice of nursing without an active license which is contrary to nurse practicing standards. The second concern was, even if his license had been valid,he exceeded the authorized level of practice by a nurse and did things that constituted the practice of medicine. These items beyond his practice level constituting the practice of medicine were items which a nurse would be aware that he or she is not permitted to do. Ms. Gil was also concerned that some of the findings that the Respondent made in his examinations were items of great potential for harm if they were not adequately studied by way of other tests. More specifically, the conduct of physical examinations is not in the realm of practice of a registered nurse. Further, it was inappropriate to make diagnosis based on these examinations which is not within the realm of practice of a nurse. In her testimony Ms. Gil was especially concerned about the diagnosis of a heart murmur and mitral valve prolapse which requires treatment or nontreatment depending upon what tests would reveal and choice a physician would make in conjunction with those tests. Ms. Gil also said that the interpretation of the EKG is strictly within the realm of a licensed physician. She went on to say that in most hospitals there is a rotating list of physicians who are qualified to interpret E.K.G.s and they are not just persons who are internal medicine specialists, there are usually board certified cardiologists. Back to the remarks about the heart murmur and mitral valve prolapse, Ms. Gil says that it takes a very trained ear to hear a heart murmur and this must be done by an experienced coronary care nurse or a cardiologist to confirm the murmur. The mitral valve prolapse requires further diagnostics testing to include ultrasound or at least an echo-cardiogram or a stress test. It may even require cardiac catheterization depending on how serious the prolapse is. It has not been shown that the Respondent has the necessary experience of a coronary nurse to detect a heart murmur, and even if he had that experience he would not be in a position to decide the significance of that finding and would be required to report to the finding to a physician who would then become responsible. In her testimony Ms. Gil was concerned about the blood pressure reading which is a key indicator of a lot of possible health risks which should be reported to a physician. This referral of the blood pressure problems experienced by Ms. Hunt was not made by Respondent. Ms. Gil's remarks in her December 3, 1990 report as commented on in the fact finding here and her testimony at hearing as commented on in the fact finding are accepted by way of expert opinion.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and the conclusions of law, it is, recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses Counts I and III and finds Respondent in violation of Count II and suspends his license for a period of two years and imposes a $1,000 fine. Reinstatement following the service of the suspension should be subject to the requirements of Section 464.018(3), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5330 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-21 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is not accepted in that it was not shown that Respondent was responsible for the brochure, likewise it has not been shown by competent evidence that the Respondent placed the advertisement in the Ocala yellow pages. Therefore, Paragraph 23 is not accepted. Paragraphs 25-30 are subordinate to facts found, except for Paragraph 27 in the phrase that says that the Respondent told Ms. Hunt that her blood pressure was high because of stress and that she didn't need to worry about it is contrary to the evidence presented and the facts found. No testimony was offered to this affect by Ms. Hunt. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ralph McCawley Post Office Box 2191 Valdosta, GA 31604-2191 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Dirtector Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is "[w]hether obstetrical services were delivered by a participating physician in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital," as required for coverage to be accorded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact At or about 7:50 p.m., June 12, 1995, Ms. Fluet presented to Morton Plant Hospital in active labor. At the time, history revealed Ms. Fluet's estimated date of delivery as June 6, 1995, the fetus at 40 6/7 weeks gestation, spontaneous rupture of the membrane at 6:15 p.m., and the onset of regular contractions at 6:45 p.m. A physical examination by Cheryl Ewing, a certified nurse midwife (CNM) associated with the hospital's Nurse Midwifery Service, revealed the cervix to be 4 to 5 centimeters, effacement complete, and the fetus at station -1. Fetal heart tone (FHT) was noted in the 140-beat per minute range, reactive and contractions were noted at 1 1/2 to 2-minute intervals. Nurse Ewing's impression was "IUP [intrauterine pregnancy] term, active labor." Nurse Ewing admitted Ms. Fluet to labor and delivery under the hospital's nurse midwifery service protocol for an anticipated normal vaginal delivery, and managed her progress until approximately 8:00 p.m., when she was replaced by Carol Kitchen, CNM. At the time, John Brady, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN), was on call, as supervising physician for the Nurse Midwifery Service to provide direct medical care (management) for any medical or obstetrical complication beyond the capabilities of the CNM (such as cesarean sections and forceps or vacuum extractions) and to consult with the CNMs by telephone, as needed. 1/ At the time of Ms. Fluet's labor and delivery, Dr. Brady was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the "Plan"); however, neither Cheryl Ewing nor Carol Kitchen were "participating physicians" since they had not paid the assessment required for participation in the Plan. Sections 766.302(7) and 766.314(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Moreover, Morton Plant Hospital was not a "teaching hospital," as that term is used in the Plan. Section 766.309(1)(b), Florida Statutes. 2/ The Morton Plant Hospital Nurse Midwifery Service Protocol (the "Protocol") provides the following definition of Nurse Midwifery Service: Nurse Midwives are employed by Morton Plant Hospital and function under the supervision of the attending OB/GYN physician. They are never independent practitioners and accept responsibilities delegated to them by the attending OB/GYN physician. As team members, the Nurse Midwives work in cooperation with the Medical Staff of the Hospital, Nursing Staff and community health personnel in planning for and providing comprehensive obstetrical care for the patient and her family throughout the maternity cycle. The Nurse Midwife, under the supervision of the attending OB/GYN consultant, will be responsible for the care of mothers and neonates (while in the Delivery Room) throughout the maternity cycle, obtaining consultation when indicated. The Nurse Midwife is prepared to make obstetrical value judgements within her role and to accept responsibility for managing obstetric care throughout the maternity cycle in association with the attending OB/GYN and Pediatric Physicians. She offers as well her special contributions of support and health education. The protocol includes the following labor and delivery policies: II. Admission Policies . . . Labor Room Policies The Nurse Midwife is responsible for managing patients during labor and delivery, and will document same on patient's medical record The Nurse Midwife: Will request a pelvic evaluation by physician whenever necessary during labor; Will request medical consultation and/or management for any medical or obstetrical complication; Will turn the patient over to medical management if she feels the condition of the patient is beyond her capabilities of managing . . . . * * * Pitocin Augmentation or Induction CNM will order IV Pitocin when indicated and consult with physician when necessary; Pitocin will be administrated according to OB/GYN Department Section Protocol; CNM will be present when Pitocin is begun and will be in the department after 4 cm of dilatation or active labor has been established. * * * B. [Sic] Second Stage Management . . . Delivery Management Physician will be called in to apply forceps or vacuum extraction if the need arises; Physician will be called to manage all breech deliveries; Physician will be called to manage all twin deliveries; CNM/physician will manage shoulder dystocia; CNM may manually remove placenta in the presence of hemorrhage. For retained placenta longer than 30 minutes without hemorrhage, the backup physician will be consulted. Under the protocol, the CNM may augment or induce labor with Pitocin with the approval of the supervising physician. Accord, Section 467.015(3), Florida Statutes. At 9:50 p.m., vaginal examination revealed no progress in labor (with the cervix still anterior lip occiput posterior, effacement complete, and the fetus at station +1) despite pushing for one hour. Lack of progress was attributed to hypotonic contractions (contractions of only 30 seconds duration, which were inadequate to expel the fetus), a condition frequently remedied by augmentation with Pitocin (to strengthen the contractions and rotate the head). Consequently, Nurse Kitchen telephoned Dr. Brady for consultation, explained the circumstances, and received authorization to augment labor with Pitocin. Such was the limit of Dr. Brady's participation in Nurse Kitchen's management of Ms. Fluet's labor and delivery. Labor was successfully augmented with Pitocin, and at 11:07 p.m., Tano Niles Jokela (Tano) was delivered. At delivery, meconium stained fluid was noted and cord pH was 6.73 (acidotic). Apgars of 1, 3, and 3 were assigned a one, five and ten minutes respectively. Tano was pale, nonresponsive with a heart rate of 80 beats per minute. Cords were viewed, and a small amount of meconium was observed below the cords, with thick meconium in the oropharynx and nares. Tano responded to positive pressure ventilation (PPV), with increased heart rate to 120 to 180 beats per minute, but continued without respiratory effort or tone. Resuscitation included stimulation, PPV via mask, intubation with PPV, suctioning, and Narcan without response. Tano was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for further management and at 3:10 a.m., June 13, 1995, he was transferred to All Children's Hospital. At All Children's Hospital, neurological evaluation revealed evidence of severe hypoxic and anoxic insult, metabolic screening demonstrated results compatible with metabolic acidosis, and sequential daily EEG's showed no spontaneous activity. Consequently, with family consent, artificial support was withdrawn and Tano expired at 11:25 a.m., June 16, 1995. Autopsy findings disclosed: . . . the presence of massive meconium aspiration that led to acute perinatal hypoxia, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy including white matter infarcts (periventricular leukomalacia) and thrombotic episodes observed in the adrenal glands, diaphragm, and lungs. No source of embolism is present. The possibility of an acute chorioamnionitis is not ruled out, as a proximate cause of perinatal difficulties; the placenta was not available at the time of autopsy. The death certificate described the cause of death as respiratory failure, due to apnea, as a consequence of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marty Johnsey (Johnsey), was at all times material hereto licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1766782. From November 10, 1986, to November 25, 1986, Johnsey was employed as a certified registered nurse anesthetist at Broward General Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On November 24, 1986, while on duty at Broward General, Johnsey was observed by Dr. Alfredo Ferrari, an anesthesiologist, to be in a rigid and cyanotic condition. Dr. Ferrari immediately summoned assistance, and Johnsey was placed on a stretcher, given respiratory assistance, and taken to the emergency room. While in the emergency room, Johnsey was administered Naloxone, a specific narcotic antagonist used to reverse the effects of synthetic narcotics such as Sufentanil. Within minutes of being administered Naloxone, Johnsey began to breath normally, wake up, and relate to his environment. A urine sample taken from Johnsey on November 24, 1986, as well as a syringe found by Dr. Ferrari next to Johnsey when he first assisted him, were subsequently analyzed and found to contain Sufentanil. Sufentanil is a synthetic narcotic analgesic, and a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Section 893.03(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Under the circumstances, the proof demonstrates that on November 24, 1986, Johnsey, while on duty at Broward General, was under the influence of Sufentanil to such an extent that he was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $250.00, suspending the license of respondent until such time as he can demonstrate that he can safely practice his profession, followed by a one year term of probation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of May, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0115 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph l. 2-3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4-7. Addressed in paragraph 3. 8-10. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 4. 11-15. Addressed in paragraph 5. Otherwise rejected as subordinate. 16. Addressed in paragraph 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Mr. Marty Johnsey Department of Professional 180 Skyline View Drive Regulation Collinsville, Illinois 62234 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter, Executive Director William O'Neil Department of Professional General Counsel Regulation Department of Professional Board of Nursing Regulation Room 504, 130 North Nonroe Street 111 East Coastline Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0570 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
