Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed practical nurse licensed in the State of Florida and holding license number 0504051. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida and is charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes (1981), related to regulating and enforcing the licensure and professional practice standards for nurses of various categories enumerated therein in the State of Florida. During times pertinent to the allegations of the amended administrative complaint, the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc. On September 16, 1982, the Respondent was the "float nurse" at Ocala Geriatric Center, meaning that she was a nurse assigned to various portions of the Geriatrics Center on an impromptu basis, which assignments to the various wings of the facility would be communicated to her by notations on her timecard which she would receive when she reported to duty for a particular shift. On September 16, 1982, she was previously scheduled by her supervisor to work on the north wing of the Ocala Geriatric Center. When Respondent reported to work for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift for September 16 - September 17, 1982, she was told by her supervisor, Deloris Jamison, to work instead on the east wing of the facility. Respondent, upon learning this, became engaged in a dispute with Mrs. Jamison regarding this assignment, refused to fulfill the assignment and indicated that she preferred to report herself as sick and return home rather than work at her assigned location on the east wing that evening. The Respondent was told to shift her duties from her customary station on the north wing to the east wing that evening due to a shortage of nurses on duty on that shift. The director of nurses of the Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, had already arranged for nurse Phyllis Shepard to work half of the 11:00 to 7:00 shift on the north wing of the facility. When nurse Shepard duly reported for duty at the north wing she found the Respondent present at the north wing even though the Respondent had previously been informed that she was to work on the east wing. At this time the Respondent announced her intentions to nurse Shepard to remain on duty at the north wing and not to report to duty on the east wing, contrary to her supervisor's direction. At this point nurse Shepard went to the south wing of the facility and conferred with nurse Jamison regarding the Respondent's assignment and her own assignment, and had the instructions confirmed by supervisor Jamison. Upon nurse Shepard's return to the north wing, the Respondent indicated to her also that she intended to report herself sick and go home rather than work on the east wing. Only upon calling the Director of Nurses, Ellen Cain, at her home and again receiving instructions to work on the east wing that evening, did the Respondent ultimately elect to proceed to her assigned duty station. Patients Whitehurst and Rubright were classified on September 16, 1952 and September 17, 1982, "as critical geriatric patients" inasmuch as they were nasal-gastric or "tube-fed" patients and both had "indwelling" catheters for elimination of urine. On or about September 16, 1982, the Respondent charted a "dash" on the fluid intake and output record of patient Whitehurst, rather than specifying actual fluid, if any, taken in by the patient. This is an improper method of notation of fluid intake and output for such a patient, since this does not accurately reflect any information one way or the other regarding fluid intake or output for that patient for that shift. At best it might lead to a presumption that that patient had received no fluid, which is a potentially serious problem with such a patient since if a catheterized patient does not receive adequate fluid from time to time during the day, then the catheter is at risk of being blocked, with potentially serious health consequences to the patient. On that same date Respondent also failed to chart any information in her nurses' notes for patient Whitehurst. Both nurses Shepard and the Director of Nursing at Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, were accepted as expert witnesses in the field of nursing and specifically with regard to minimal standards of professional nursing practice in Florida. It was thus established that the failure to chart in her nurses' notes any information for patient Whitehurst was conduct not comporting with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially in view of the fact that the patient Whitehurst was a naso-gastric tube patient who was also catheterized. It is imperative to note any reason why such a patient does not receive fluid during a single shift or alternatively, when a patient does receive fluid, to note on the chart the amount and type of fluids received. Further, the use of a dash on the nursing chart makes it even more imperative that the nursing notes explain what occurred on that shift regarding the patient's fluid intake, so that the nurse charged with the responsibility of that patient on the ensuing shift would be aware of the patient's fluid status and aware of any abnormality that may have occurred on the previous shift. Although the Respondent may have, in fact, administered the proper fluids to patient Whitehurst on that shift, she failed to record whether or not that duty was performed. On September 16, 1952, the Respondent also charted a for fluid intake on patient Rubright, but again failed to make any notation on the nurses' notes as to why this patient actually received no fluids. This failure to properly chart and make notes regarding the patient's fluid intake and failure to administer fluids without explanation does not comport with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially inasmuch as patient Rubright was also a naso- gastric tube-fed and catheterized patient. The Respondent also failed to chart or record any nurses' notes with regard to patient Lesimby on September 16, 1982. Failure to chart was established to be a violation of federal medicare regulations and a violation of this particular facility's policies with regard to such medicare patients. Although daily charting and notes from each shift for such critical care patients as patients Whitehurst and Rubright is required by minimal standards of professional nursing practice, failure to chart nurses notes for other patients, simply because they are medicare patients, does not necessarily depart from proper standards of nursing practice, although federal regulations require that medicare patients be the subject of daily charting, including recording of vital signs. Compliance with such federal standards is of course, not the subject of the administrative complaint in this proceeding, however. Respondent's failure to properly record fluid intake and output for patients Whitehurst and Rubright, and her failure to properly chart nursing notes for those patients on the above dates, as well as her failure to order medications for patients as required by her position at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc., could have resulted in serious harm to the oat' ants. It was not established that the Respondent has committed acts or omissions that could have jeopardized safety in the past, however, and it was not shown that any other violations of the nursing practice act or failures to comport with minimal standards of nursing practice have ever been charged or proven with regard to the Respondent's licensure status and nursing practice in the past.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Nursing finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged with respect to Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1981), with the exception of the violation charged with regard to patient Lesimby, and that the penalty of a reprimand and 90-day suspension of her licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th May of July, 1984 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 20th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Sears Gibson 2003 Southwest Seventh Street Ocala, Florida Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, for administering medications or treatments in a negligent manner and subject to discipline for unprofessional conduct under Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes. If so, another issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact In June 1994 Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, holding license number RN 2740932. Respondent had been licensed as a registered nurse since 1993 and as a licensed practical nurse since 1987. Respondent's license as a registered nurse became inactive June 21, 1995 after she failed to renew it. In the fall of 1993 East Pointe Hospital hired Respondent as a charge nurse in the transitional care unit, which had recently been started. Although Respondent had only recently become licensed as a registered nurse, the hospital hired her based partly on her current licensing and partly on her previous experience as a licensed practical nurse and respiratory therapist. During the weekend of June 24-26, 1994 Respondent worked the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. As a charge nurse Respondent supervised several other nurses, typically licensed practical nurses. The charge nurse and nurses whom the charge nurse supervised sometimes divided up the patients in the unit, but the charge nurse retained supervisory authority over the other nurses and always remained directly responsible for patients with more complex problems. Patient C. P. had recently been transferred to the transitional care unit from the acute care unit. On the evenings in question, C.P. was among the patients for whom Respondent was directly responsible. Several IVs were being administered the evening of June 24 and early morning of June 25. One patient was having problems with an IV pump and his veins. Respondent asked another nurse, who was under Respondent's supervision, to do the accuchecks on the other patients, including C. P. Accuchecks are finger stick glucose monitors. As was the case with C. P., physicians typically order accuchecks every six hours for patients receiving their total nutrition intravenously. The purpose of the accucheck is to ensure that the patient receiving all his nutrition intravenously does not develop low or high blood sugar, which could have very serious implications. The other nurse failed to perform the accuchecks for midnight at the start of June 25 and 6:00 am on June 25. Respondent failed to follow up to ensure that they were done. Respondent's failure to perform the required accuchecks or to check to make sure that the other nurse performed them constitutes the negligent treatment of a patient. A physician had also ordered that C. P. receive antibiotics intravenously every eight hours, at about 6:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 10:00 pm. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to administer two consecutive doses. However, nothing in the nurses' notes documents what would have been a material omission, and no one on the nursing staff bothered to contact the physician who had ordered the antibiotics. There is also a reasonable possibility that IV bags bearing dates and times were mixed up so as to preclude a determination of which registered nurse failed to administer IV medication, if in fact two doses of antibiotics were missed. Respondent later admitted not performing the accuchecks, but never admitted failing to administer the IV antibiotics. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent failed to administer the IV medications as ordered. The hospital terminated Respondent's employment shortly after the incidents involving C. P. Respondent has since held two temporary nursing jobs and has applied unsuccessfully for 12 other nursing jobs. She now lives with her mother in Virginia where she earns $100-$200 weekly in employment unrelated to nursing. C. P. suffered no injury as a result of the failure to conduct ordered accuchecks and the failure, if any, to administer the prescribed IV. Respondent has not previously been disciplined as a licensed practical nurse or registered nurse.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for her failure to perform two accuchecks or make sure that another nurse had performed them and issuing a reprimand to Respondent. ENTERED on December 21, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 21st day of December, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (second sentence): rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 13-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 17-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19-21: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 22-23: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 24: rejected as subordinate. 25: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 26-28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 3 (first sentence)-4: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 5-6: adopted or adopted in substance, although not as to the identify of the other nurse. 7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the failure either to perform the accuchecks or ensure that the other nurse did is negligence. 8-14: rejected as subordinate. 15-18: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert E. Tardif, Jr. Duncan & Tardif, P.A. P.O. Drawer 249 Ft. Myers, FL 33902 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure by endorsement as a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was licensed as a practical nurse by examination in the State of Ohio, having received her license in Ohio in August of 1994. She practiced in Ohio, generally in long-term care settings, from 1994 to approximately 2009. She was subsequently licensed by endorsement in Virginia on March 17, 2009, and in North Carolina on May 18, 2011. On February 23, 2011, Petitioner received a reprimand against her license in the State of Virginia. The reprimand was issued as a result of a Consent Order in which Petitioner neither admitted nor denied the findings of fact in the Virginia Board of Nursing’s Final Order. Petitioner applied for licensure in North Carolina a few months after the entry of the Virginia Final Order. Her testimony that she disclosed the reprimand in her application for licensure in North Carolina is undisputed and accepted. The application submitted in North Carolina was a paper application. On or about April 27, 2015, Petitioner submitted an electronic application for licensure by endorsement in Florida. The application contains the following question, which Petitioner answered “no”: Have you ever had disciplinary action taken against your license to practice a health care-related profession by the licensing authority in Florida, or any other state, jurisdiction or country? In submitting her application, Petitioner also checked an Affirmation Statement, which includes the following statement: I, the undersigned, state that I am the person referred to in this application for licensure in the State of Florida. I affirm these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083, and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me herein are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information in this application I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice as a Registered Nurse or a Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida. Petitioner did not complete her on-line application in one sitting. She filled it out over several sessions on the computer, because she had to complete the continuing education required for Florida and had to wait for funds to pay the application fee. Because of the way she completed the application, she did not check her application as carefully as she should have and did not realize that she had answered the question regarding discipline in another state incorrectly. Petitioner had notified North Carolina of her previous discipline when applying in that state. There was no basis presented to indicate that she was affirmatively attempting to conceal her prior discipline, as opposed to being negligent in the completion of her application. Petitioner did not realize the error on her application until she inquired about the status of her application after the Board considered it at its June 2015 meeting. After her inquiry, but before receiving the Notice of Intent to Deny, Ms. Walker wrote to the Executive Director of the Board to inquire what she needed to do to correct her error, stating, “it was an honest mistake of marking the wrong box on the question. I had started and stopped the application several times while gathering all of the information needed.” She provided information regarding the Virginia discipline, and a printout of the documents on file with the Virginia Board of Nursing with respect to the reprimand. Petitioner has been a nurse for over 22 years. She loves her job. She was candid and forthright in acknowledging that it was her error and no one else’s with respect to the answers given on the application. While Petitioner clearly needed to be more careful in preparing her application, no deliberate attempt to deceive was demonstrated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Nursing enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for licensure by endorsement as a licensed practical nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tara Danielle Walker 146 Smoky Crossing Way Seymour, Tennessee 37865 (eServed) Lynette Norr, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 (eServed) Ann-Lynn Denker, PhD, ARNP Chair Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent should take final action to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a practical nurse on the grounds set forth in Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Background On May 1, 2011, Petitioner graduated from Southeastern Community College (West Burlington, Iowa) with a certificate in Practical Nursing (PN). Thereafter, Petitioner received a passing score on the Iowa PN licensure examination, and was issued an Iowa PN license on June 13, 2012. Although both he and his wife hail from Iowa, Petitioner desired to relocate to Florida and seek employment as a practical nurse. In pursuit of that goal, Petitioner submitted an application for PN licensure by endorsement on October 19, 2012. Petitioner’s Criminal History Prior to submitting the Florida application, Petitioner had run afoul of the law on three occasions, only two of which are relevant to the application at issue. On May 10, 2007, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to misdemeanor battery in Henderson County, Illinois. As a result of this plea, Petitioner was sentenced to two years of supervision and was required to complete anger management counseling. At the request of the Florida Board of Nursing (Board), Petitioner provided a written account of the circumstances surrounding the battery charge as follows: I had just gotten married and my wife and I were out celebrating her birthday at a club. A bouncer came to me and said that the person I had came in with was being bothered by someone else and that I should go check on her. I got my wife and we were in the process of leaving along with the rest of our group. The person bothering my wife continued talking and fussing. As I turned my back to leave, the person grabed [sic] me by the shoulder and lunged at my wife. In reaction I instinctively protected my wife feeling that she was in danger. Everyday since then this has haunted me. If I had taken a different path I would not be writing you this letter today. I feel I have learned the hard lesson from this mistake. I completed the requirements of the court for this along with my own self evaluation of life of how better to handle the situation or avoid them all together. Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony at hearing regarding the circumstances of the battery incident was consistent with his written account above, and is found to be credible. Henderson County court records reflect that Petitioner was accused of striking the person who had been bothering his wife “in the face with his fist.” On July 27, 2011, Petitioner was charged with driving under the influence, also in Henderson County, Illinois. On August 30, 2011, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor charge. In his written submission to the Board, Petitioner explained the circumstances surrounding this incident as follows: Regarding my DUI, I had just finished my semester for LPN. I was out celebrating with some classmates. I was pulled over because my oversized tires went over the white line. I was arrested for DUI. I went to the states attorney and explained my situation. He informed me that he would allow me to have court supervision if I pled guilty and pay a hefty fine. My lawyer informed me that this was not a reasonable means for stopping me, but since I had already talked to the states attorney, he informed me that it would not be wise to fight this case because I had already spoke with the states attorney and gave a verbal agreement of what I agreed to do. I have completed all of my classes, I am still paying monthly on my fine, which will be finished this year. I have learned my lesson from this situation. As a nurse I have a high standard to uphold to help people get better and by drinking and driving I was endangering many lives which is the opposite of my civic, humanitarian and the basic oath I took when I decided to become a nurse. Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony at hearing regarding the circumstances of the DUI charge was consistent with his written account above, and is found to be credible. As a result of his guilty plea, Petitioner was ordered to pay a fine and attend a substance abuse class, which he successfully completed. Petitioner’s Application Respondent introduced a copy of Petitioner’s “Initial Application for Licensure” which was submitted by Petitioner through the Board’s online website. The online application contains the following question: Criminal History Have you ever been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contender, or no contest to, a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense?2/ Your answer: NO At hearing, Petitioner testified that although he carefully reviewed his application before submitting it, he did not intend to answer the above question in the negative, and that “he made a mistake” when he did so. On cross-examination Petitioner confirmed that he read and understood the Affirmation Statement at the end of the application, and that he affirmed that the information he provided was true and correct. There is no question that Petitioner provided a false response on his application regarding his criminal history. However, the evidence of record does not support a finding that the false statement was intentional. At hearing, Petitioner presented as an articulate, intelligent, and well-educated individual. Petitioner had also successfully undergone the PN application process in Iowa, and was therefore familiar with the application review process. As such, it is reasonable to infer that Petitioner was aware that the information he provided on his application would be verified by Board personnel. This makes it increasingly unlikely that Petitioner intentionally falsified his application, since he could have no reasonable expectation of successfully perpetrating a fraud on the Board. Petitioner was notified by correspondence dated November 10, 2012, that he was required to provide information concerning his criminal history. As noted, it was not until after the notification that Petitioner provided explanations regarding his criminal charges to the Board. Petitioner included several letters of reference with his application to the Board. One of those letters was from his former employer in Iowa, Wayland Mennonite Home Association. In that letter, the facility’s director of nursing wrote: December 4, 2012 To Whom it may Concern: Hosea Pratt has been employed as a licensed practical nurse, at Parkview Home, Wayland, Iowa. He started employment September 11, 2012. Our pre-employment criminal background evaluation revealed a court proceeding regarding the suspension of his Iowa driver’s license. There was no disposition on this case and Iowa Department of Human Services ruled this did not preclude him from practicing nursing. He had a valid Iowa driver’s license at the time of hire. Hosea functioned independently as a night shift charge nurse. He assisted with orientation of new nursing staff. He completed assigned tasks during his scheduled shift. He proved to be a thoughtful young man, who demonstrated kindness towards our residents. He had good assessment skills and excellent computer technical abilities. He would be welcomed back to work in this facility. On April 9, 2013, the Board informed Petitioner that it intended to deny his Florida application. Petitioner thereafter challenged the intended denial of his application, and the instant proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing issue a final order approving Petitioner's pending application for licensure as a practical nurse without conditions. However, should the Board determine that approval with conditions is warranted, a one-year probationary period is recommended. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters under consideration here, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, under license #0692631. Cynthia J. Pagonis entered University Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 11, 1983, for a routine laparoscopy to be performed the following morning. Early on the morning of the day of her surgery, April 12, 1983, Respondent, who was one of her nurses, came into her room with two other nurses, one of whom gave her a shot. While this was done, Respondent stood back and observed. Somewhat later, he again came back into her room with a rolling table onto which he told her to climb so he could take her down to the operating room. By this time she was somewhat drowsy from the shot. She asked Respondent what was in it and he told her, whereupon he wheeled her to surgery. After the procedure, that afternoon, Ms. Pagonis recalls him entering her room several times. One time, he checked her I.V. bottle--other times, he did nothing for her and, sleepy as she was, this concerned her because she wanted to sleep and Respondent's visits disturbed her. During this period, other nurses also came in to check her blood pressure or do something else, but Respondent never did anything--just looked. On the final visit, he came in and said he wanted to check her bandage. With this, he lowered her blanket to below her waist to the extent that her pelvic area was exposed. She was wearing a short hospital gown and nothing else. By this time, several hours after surgery, the anesthetic had worn off so that she knew exactly what was happening. After looking at her bandage, in this case no more than a Band-Aid, he pulled the cover back up and, without warning, bent over and kissed her on the cheek. She was upset when he pulled the blanket down because she felt it was inappropriate for him to do it when her dressing had been checked by another nurse shortly before. She also did not think it was appropriate for a male to be in her room without a chaperone. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, he told her he would be off for a few days and for her to take care of herself. Then he left. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, she got angry. She had said nothing to him to lead him on. She had asked him what cologne he was wearing and when he told her, she said it smelled nice, but nothing more. Mr. Pagonis entered his wife's room on the morning of her surgery, both before and after the operation. When he was there before she was taken to the operating room, he saw Respondent in the room and Respondent asked him to leave so they could get his wife ready for the operation. When he came back later, after this incident, he found her nervous and upset. She looked to him as if she had been frightened. When she told him what had happened, that this "black male nurse had repeatedly come into her room and was doing nothing" for her, and that he had pulled down her covers and "got his eyes full," Mr. Pagonis became angry and went out to look for Respondent. He could not find Mills, however, and went through the nursing chain of command until he got to Mrs. Davis, the Director of Medical Nursing, to whom he told the story. Mrs. Davis found Mr. Pagonis to be upset, but rational and controlled. He was, in her words, restrained, gentlemanly, and "quite heroic" about the whole situation. Mrs. Davis was first contacted about the incident, while in her office, by a call from the floor nurse on Mrs. Pagonis' floor. The nurse alerted her that Respondent had made advances to a patient. She immediately went up to that floor and met with Mr. Pagonis, whom she then took downstairs to her office where he told her what his wife had related. She then went back up to Mrs. Pagonis' room, in an effort to be fair to everyone, to see how alert Mrs. Pagonis was and how accurate her observations were. Mrs. Davis found her alert, and a clearheaded woman who, in her opinion, had been free of the effects of anesthesia for quite awhile. Mrs. Pagonis told her what had happened, that Respondent had made an unnecessary check of her I.V., since another nurse had just checked her, and then checked her dressing, as described. Mrs. Davis verified that another nurse had recently checked on Mrs. Pagonis and, after checking the incision, concluded that because it was so minor, there was no legitimate need for Respondent to have done so also. In her professional opinion, based on service as a licensed practical nurse since 1971 and as a registered nurse since 1974, the way in which Respondent checked Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate. The incision and dressing here were so small, it was not necessary to expose the patient all the way to the mons pubis, as Respondent did. In addition, a male nurse should always have a witness present in a situation such as this. As for the kiss, it is a rare situation when it is appropriate for a nurse to kiss a patient. This may be done only in the care of a very old, very young, very sick, long-term patient, where the parties had a long-standing relationship, and the action would be therapeutic. Under the circumstances here, Respondent's kiss of Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate and unprofessional, notwithstanding Respondent's claim he did it, "but only as a friendly gesture." Mrs. Davis requested Mr. Pagonis to make a written statement. When this was done and signed, Mrs. Davis called for Respondent, who, she found, had signed off his regular shift, but was working overtime. She located him and took him back to her office, where she questioned him about the incident. At first he denied it, but subsequently admitted he had kissed Mrs. Pagonis and pulled down her covers, although he claimed he did this in an appropriate manner. She then sent him back to work and thought about the situation for a while. Having made her decision to discharge the Respondent, she prepared the appropriate paperwork, called him back to her office, and did so. The next day, Mills called her and told her he understood why she had done what she did, told her he loved her, and thanked her. During the period he worked at that hospital, she never had any other difficulty with Respondent. He was cooperative and would come in for extra duty when called. She bad received no direct complaints about his relationship with other patients; and though she was not his immediate supervisor, she understood that his performance of his nursing duties was satisfactory. Somewhat later in the year, in June 1983, Respondent was employed as a Float Nurse at the Jacksonville Convalescent Center, specifically on June 19 and 20, 1983. On those days it was, according to Carol R. Hadnot, Director of Nursing at the Center, his responsibility to change the dressings on certain patients. Respondent was present for duty on those dates. During this period, Fay K.F. Bennett, also a nurse at the Center, as a part of her duties, checked the dressing on several of the patients whose dressings were due to be changed. She found that the dressings had not been changed and that the Patients' charts bore initials and date for the last change, a day or two before. The initials on the charts were D.M., which could have been Respondent or Doris Minard. That initial is not significant, however. What is significant is that there was no note on the chart showing that Respondent had changed the dressings during his duty period as he was required to do. This information was reported to Mrs. Hadnot. It is the general policy at Jacksonville Convalescent Center to counsel an employee before taking discharge action here. This was not done here because before Respondent could be counseled, allegations that Respondent had made sexual advances to three nurses' aids were reported to her. She then discussed the situation with the faculty administrator. They decided that because he was still a probationary employee, the allegations described were sufficient to discharge Respondent without counseling, and this was done.
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be revoked.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated April 17, 1990, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of nursing in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse, having been issued license number PN 0914071. On October 27, 1988, the Board of Nursing (Board) issued a license to practice to Respondent and placed him on probation subject to specific terms and conditions for a period of two years. One of the conditions of Respondent's first year of probation required that he be directly supervised by a registered nurse when administering a narcotic. During the period July 15-16, 1989, Respondent worked two shifts in the oncology ward at Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in Orlando, Florida. During these shifts, Respondent administered approximately seventeen narcotic doses without being directly supervised by a registered nurse. The administration of narcotics described above were performed during Respondent's first year of probation. Policies in effect at ORMC during the period July 15-16, 1989, did not require that a licensed practical nurse be directly supervised when administering narcotics. Respondent's supervising head nurse at ORMC was unaware of the probationary condition requiring that Respondent be directly supervised during the administration of narcotics. A further condition of Respondent's probation required that he notify the Board's probation supervisor of any changes in his telephone number and/or employment within ten days of such change. On or about April 26, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board that he had been employed for Health Care of Orlando since approximately January, 1989, and for St. Cloud Hospital since approximately January 9, 1989. Such notification was not made within ten days of the change in employment. In July, 1989, the Respondent notified the Board of additional changes in employment and with his telephone number. This notification also was not made within ten days of the change. On or about May 11, 1989, the Respondent filled out an employment application with Allied Health Card Consultants, Inc. One of the questions posed on that application asked: "Have any of your professional licenses ever been under investigation?" Respondent answered the foregoing question: "no". Another question posed on the application asked: "Is there any reason you would be unable to perform the duties of your position?" In response, Respondent again answered: "no". On or about August 11, 1989, Respondent gave a copy of the final order setting forth his conditions of probation to Allied Health Care. At all times material to the allegations of this case it was the policy of ORMC not to hire any agency staffed nurse who was on probation status with the Board since all such staff are required to perform all duties without restrictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of having violated a term of his probation set forth in the prior final order enter by the Board, contrary to Section 464.018(1)(1), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and suspending the Respondent's license for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-8047 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's findings of fact begin with the paragraph numbered 9 Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the height of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 C. Michael Magruder The Monument Building 22 W. Monument Avenue Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On 22 June 1982 DHRS, Office of Licensure and Certification, conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility known as Regency Oaks at Gainesville, Florida. During this inspection the nurses' schedule was not produced and the inspector, with the assistance of Respondent's staff, attempted to reconstruct the nurses' schedule for the month of June, 1982, up to the date of the inspection. From the data received it was determined that on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift on June 5, 1982, Respondent was staffed with one registered nurse (RN) and three licensed practical nurses (LPN) on June 6 there were two RN's and two LPNs; on June 12 there were three RNs and one LPN; and on June 19 there were three RNs and one LPN. Staffing requirements for nursing homes are determined by the shift and census of the nursing home. All of the shortages here involved the day shift. On each of the days of 5, 6, 12, and 19 June the regulations required two RNs and three LPNs on the day shift. The regulations also permit the substitution of an RN for an LPN. Accordingly, from the evidence gathered bv Petitioner's evaluation at the June 22 inspection, Respondent was short one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6, 12, and 19. Respondent presented time cards for the periods here involved. These time cards, which were accepted in evidence as business records of Respondent, show that on June 12 Respondent had two RNs and three LPNs on duty on the day shift. Respondent's one witness admitted the nursing home was understaffed one RN on June 5 and one LPN on June 6 and 19.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Ferman Barrett committed unprofessional conduct and departed from minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes by abandoning his shift.
Findings Of Fact At all times material Ferman Barrett was licensed as a practical nurse, with State of Florida license number PN0628671. He was originally licensed by examination on December 14, 1981, and has regularly renewed' his license since then. Mr. Barrett was employed as a practical nurse at Westlake Hospital, in Longwood, Florida, from July 1987 until January 1988. Westlake is a psychiatric hospital serving individuals of all ages with complex psychiatric problems. On January 2, 1988, Mr. Barrett was assigned to the children's unit, consisting of 12-13 children with conduct disorders. He was given charge of three patients whose medication he was to maintain and whose activities he was to supervise. The children could have been combative and [illegible]. Barrett was scheduled to work a double shift on January 2, 1988 from 7:00 A.M. until 3:00 P.M., and from 3:00 P.M. until 11:00 P.M. At approximately 8:05 A.M., Barrett told Denise McCall, the charge nurse for that shift, that he "couldn't take it anymore" and was leaving. She asked him to wait until she could contact a supervisor to properly relieve him, but he left without permission. He was subsequently discharged by the hospital for abandoning his job. Diana Eftoda was qualified as an expert in the practice of nursing. She has been licensed as a registered nurse in Florida since 1978. She has 20 years experience in nursing, including beginning her nursing career as a licensed practical nurse. She has administered nursing staff of an entire hospital and has served in a policy making position with the Board of Nursing. Mrs. Eftoda established that abandonment of a shift without notice or permission is a breach of professional responsibility and constitutes misconduct. Ferman Barrett's action jeopardized the safety and well being of his patients and his license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1980, Petitioner was working as a student nurse at University Community Hospital, Tampa, Florida. She was in her next to last quarter as a student in the Registered Nurse Program at Hillsborough Community College. Her supervisor had assigned Petitioner to provide exclusive care to a comatose patient who had both a tracheostomy and a gastrostomy. Attached to the trachea of this patient was a tube into which oxygen and water were added to help patient's respiration and to keep the proper moisture content in his lungs. The hole was covered by a mask which could be slipped aside by the nurse to suction fluids emerging from the lungs. This suctioning around the trachea was required every few minutes, hence the assignment of Petitioner to only one patient during this shift. Petitioner was informed she would get this assignment one or two days prior and had visited the patient's room, read his charts, and studied the nursing required before reporting for duty on 9 December 1980. She was fully aware of the tracheostomy, gastrostomy, and the purpose and function of each. Petitioner reported for work at 6:00 a.m. on December 9, 1980, and was assigned to the comatose patient as noted above. She spent most of the first two hours suctioning and cleaning around the tracheostomy and generally caring for the patient, which included turning the patient. From her observation and study Respondent was aware of the tube into the abdomen of this patient by which he was to be fed. Shortly after 8:00 a.m. on December 9, 1980, Petitioner prepared the bag for liquid feeding of the patient and hung it on the IV pole alongside the patient's bed. She then connected the tube from the feeding bag to the tracheostomy tube. Around 8:45 a.m. James Holly, a respiratory therapy technician, entered the room and saw Petitioner standing alongside the patient's bed with the feeding bag on the IV pole and the tube from the bag leading to the tracheostomy of the patient. He immediately yelled words to the effect that the feeding tube is connected to the treach and ran to the opposite side of the bed from which Petitioner was standing. Petitioner heard a noise, immediately realized what was happening and removed the feeding tube from the trachea. Holly testified the patient coughed once violently; Petitioner testified-the patient did not cough violently. In either, event the patient's lungs were checked immediately with a stethoscope, the supervising nurse was sent for and Petitioner's supervisor was called. The patient received very little, ,if, any, feeding fluid into his lungs and suffered no adverse effects from this incident. Petitioner's supervisor discussed the incident with Petitioner, assisted her in giving the patient his morning feeding and concluded Petitioner was capable of caring for the patient for the rest of the shift. Petitioner remained with the patient throughout the shift and gave the patient his twelve o'clock feeding without assistance or incident. Petitioner's supervisor reported the incident to the Director of Nursing at Hillsborough Community College, who called a meeting of the evaluating committee the following day. At the evaluation hearing Petitioner could give no explanation of why she had connected the feeding tube to the tracheostomy tube rather than the gastrostomy tube, nor could she explain at this hearing why she did it. In Petitioner's words, "If I knew why I did it, it wouldn't have happened." Following the meeting of the evaluating committee Petitioner was dismissed from nursing school and her subsequent application for readmission was denied. Her application to take the licensed practical nurse examination, for which her time as a student nurse qualified for the licensed practical nurse training requirements, was denied by Respondent and Petitioner requested this hearing. Prior to the incident of 9 December 1980 Petitioner was regarded by her supervisors as well motivated, good with patients, and well organized. Petitioner is 37 years old and has wanted to be a nurse for a long time. She readily acknowledges that she knew the patient was to be fed through the gastrostomy tube, that the patient could not be fed through the tracheostomy tube and that it would be very dangerous to attempt to do so. Her inability to give any explanation of why she attached the feeding tube to the tracheostomy was a major factor in the evaluation board's determination to dismiss Petitioner from nursing school. Transmitting liquid into a patient's lungs through a tracheostomy tube constitutes a very dangerous procedure which could prove fatal to the patient either from suffocation (if a sufficient quantity of fluid was injested) or through infection in the lungs from the unsterilized liquid. Committing such act constitutes a failure to conform to minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practices. Petitioner was sufficiently advanced in her training to know the proper procedures to be followed in such a case, and Petitioner readily acknowledges that she did know the proper procedures to follow and is unable to account for her deviation therefrom.
