The Issue The issues in the case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 456.072(1)(q) and 456.072(1)(gg), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. Ms. Cassel is and has been at all times material to this case a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 9177327. The Intervention Project for Nurses (I.P.N.) is part of the impaired practitioner programs established pursuant to Subsection 456.072(1), Florida Statutes. The mission of I.P.N. is to ensure public health and safety by providing an avenue for swift intervention and close monitoring of nurses whose practice may be impaired due to the use, misuse, or abuse of alcohol or drugs, or a mental and/or physical condition. Any nurse, including employers who are nurses, are required to report any nurse who is in violation of the Nurse Practices Act. Nurses may be referred to I.P.N. instead of being reported to the Board if the violation is associated with impairment due to drugs, alcohol, psychiatric or physical problems. Nurses who are referred to I.P.N. must voluntarily request admission to I.P.N. In 2005, Ms. Cassel was hospitalized after attempting suicide by ingesting alcohol and Amitriptyline. Amitriptyline is an anti-depressant, which Ms. Cassel received after completing an online application listing her symptoms. Ms. Cassel was employed as a registered nurse with the Visiting Nurses Association at the time of her attempted suicide. Following her attempted suicide, Ms. Cassel asked an employee at her work place about a referral program, and Ms. Cassel was given the telephone number of I.P.N. In April 2005, Ms. Cassel contacted I.P.N. to see if I.P.N. had a referral program for depression. When Ms. Cassel initially contacted I.P.N., she was advised by I.P.N. staff that Cherry Pfau from the Visiting Nurses Association had contacted I.P.N. about Ms. Cassel’s attempted suicide. After her initial contact with I.P.N., but prior to entering into a contract with I.P.N., Ms. Cassel received an evaluation by an I.P.N. approved evaluator. She was diagnosed with alcohol abuse versus alcohol dependency and major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate to severe. Prior to entering into the contract, Ms. Cassel began and entered into an intensive outpatient treatment program, which she successfully completed on September 25, 2005. On or about August 2005, Ms. Cassel entered into a five-year I.P.N. advocacy contract with monitoring from August 2005 through August 2010.2 Ms. Cassel was provided a Participant Manual as part of the contract. Ms. Cassel read the Participant Manual. The Participant Manual provides: USE OF MOOD-ALTERING CHEMICALS IPN participants in abstinence contracts are expected to remain free of all mood- altering, controlled, or addictive substances (including alcohol), over-the- counter drugs and prescriptive drugs. IPN does not determine if you can take a mood-altering and/or over-the-counter medication. This is a decision you and your prescribing professional (who is aware of your IPN participation) must make. IPN encourages you and your prescribing professional to explore non-mood-altering alternative methods of pain control to minimize risk to your recovery. If there is a medical need for the use of any mood-altering chemical, you are required to inform your IPN Case Manager as soon as possible, either when prescribed or the next business day. You must submit a fully completed Medication Report form to IPN. If IPN does not receive a completed Medication Report, your use of a prescribed medication may be considered a chemical relapse. In the event a random drug screen is positive and you have not informed IPN of your medication use as required, your use of the medication may be managed as a relapse. You are to refrain from providing patient care when using any prescribed mood- altering medication until authorized to return to practice by IPN. A negative urine drug screen may be required prior to return to patient care. Medically necessary, frequent or extended use of any mood-altering medications will require that an IPN- approved addictionist be involved in your case to monitor your medication management. A performance assessment and/or neuropsychological testing to determine your practice ability may be required. The contract required Ms. Cassel to participate in random drug testing. Testing positive on a random drug test is deemed to be a relapse. The Participant Manual provides: When relapse has occurred, the IPN participant and employer will be informed that the nurse or CNA must refrain from work until an IPN-facilitated evaluation is completed. . . . Nurses or CNA’s who refuse to comply with reevaluation or treatment recommendations will be dismissed from IPN and reported to [Department of Health, Florida Board of Nursing]. Ms. Cassel submitted to a random drug screen which returned positive for ethanol in November 2005 while under an abstinence contract with I.P.N. Ms. Cassel attributes the positive test result to her having taken NyQuil for the flu. She did not advise I.P.N. as required by the contract that she had taken the medication, and the use of the NyQuil was managed as a relapse. Ms. Cassel received a telephone call from Lorraine Busch, a case manager with I.P.N., advising Ms. Cassel that she had tested positive for alcohol and that she would need to be reevaluated. Ms. Cassel became angry and asked, “You mean I can’t have a glass of wine with dinner?” Ms. Busch reminded Ms. Cassel that she was in an abstinence contract. Ms. Cassel did not tell Ms. Busch that she had taken NyQuil. Ms. Cassel also told Ms. Busch that she was on her way to a job orientation and that she was not going to participate in the I.P.N. any longer because she did not think that the program was geared for persons suffering from depression. Ms. Cassel was upset, essentially told the I.P.N. case manager that I.P.N. could take the program and “put it where the sun doesn’t shine,” and hung up on her. Ms. Cassel received a letter from I.P.N. dated November 8, 2005, informing her that, following her positive urine drug screen for alcohol, she was required to refrain from the nursing practice and was required to schedule an evaluation with either Martha Brown, M.D.; Chowallur Chacko, M.D.; or Richard Saini, M.D. Additionally, the letter advised Ms. Cassel that her failure to schedule an appointment or failure to keep a scheduled appointment would result in her immediate dismissal from I.P.N. Ms. Cassel did not schedule and did not appear for an evaluation with any of the evaluators listed in the letter. Ms. Cassel did not refrain from the practice of nursing. Ms. Cassel received a letter from I.P.N. dated November 22, 2005, informing her that she had been dismissed from I.P.N. effective immediately for her failure to comply with the conditions of her I.P.N. advocacy contract. The letter also advised Ms. Cassel that the information in Ms. Cassel’s I.P.N. file would be forwarded to the Department in the form of a complaint. Ms. Cassel discontinued her participation with I.P.N. prior to the end of her five-year advocacy contract with I.P.N. She did not successfully complete her five-year monitoring contract with I.P.N. On or about February 10, 2006, the Department, through the designee of the secretary of the Department, issued an Order Compelling an Examination to Ms. Cassel. A Department investigator hand-served Ms. Cassel’s attorney with a copy of the Order Compelling an Examination. The order specified that the examination was scheduled for March 7, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., at the offices of David Myers, M.D. Ms. Cassel did not provide a written objection to the Department to the Order Compelling an Examination prior to March 7, 2006. Ms. Cassel did not appear at Dr. Myers’ office on March 7, 2006, for the scheduled examination. Ms. Cassel objects to the use of a physician chosen by the Department and wants to use a physician of her own choice for an evaluation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Jean Cassel, R.N., violated Subsections 456.072(1)(q) and 456.072(1)(gg), Florida Statutes; suspending her license until she undergoes an I.P.N. evaluation and follows any and all recommendations of I.P.N.; and imposing an administrative fine of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 September, 2008.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for hearing based upon the petition of Jeanne Fried, R.N. filed with the State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Board of Nursing, Respondent. This petition was received by the Respondent on October 4, 1978 and referred to the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is a Registered Nurse licensed to practice in Florida. The Respondent is an Agency of the State Of Florida which has among its responsibilities the licensure, certification and regulation of certain individuals who wish to practice nursing in the State of Florida, to include the Petitioner. In 1968, the Petitioner received a Baccalaureate degree from the Medical College of Georgia. Her degree was in nursing and she became a Registered Nurse at that time. Since 1968, the Petitioner has worked in the field of nursing. In addition, she has received a Masters of Education degree from the University of Florida with a minor in nursing. This latter degree was earned in December, 1975. Subsequent to receiving the Masters of Education degree, Ms. Fried attended a course entitled Studies for Nurse Practitioners for Adult Care, and was awarded a certificate of completion in that course. That certificate was received in March, 1976 and a copy of the certificate may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit Number One (1), admitted into evidence. After receiving that certificate, she worked in the capacity of an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner at the Lake Butler Reception and Medical Center, Lake Butler, Florida from April, 1976 through August, 1976. From August, 1976 to the present, the Petitioner has worked in a similar position in the Veterans Administration Hospital at Lake City, Florida. Until July 17, 1977, the Respondent had not recognized nor established guidelines for the position known as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. On that date, the Respondent enacted an item entitled Appendix to Chapter 210-11, Guidelines for Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner Programs of Study. This item appears as a rule set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. The authority for the passage of the rule is found in Subsection 464.051(3), Florida Statutes and it implements Subsections 464.021(2)(a), 4 and 464.051(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. To receive the necessary certification to become an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, an applicant must comply with the guidelines set forth in the aforementioned appendix. The only aspect of the guidelines which is in dispute between the parties is found in that section of the appendix entitled, "Curriculum" and specifically (3) which reads: The program shall be at least one (1) academic year in length (nine months full time) which shall include a minimum of one (1) academic quarter of theory in the biological, behavioral, nursing and medical sciences relevant to the area of advanced practice, in addition to clinical experience with a qualified preceptor . . . The petitioner does not disagree with the fact that the course that she was certified in from the University of Florida in March, 1976 does not constitute an academic year within the meaning of the appendix; however, she is of the persuasion that she is entitled to certification as an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner because individuals who also attended the University of Florida course, Studies for Nurse Practitioner for Adult Care, have been certified by the Respondent as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. (This certification for the other individuals has occurred notwithstanding their failure to complete a full academic year as prescribed in the guidelines for the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners found in the Appendix to Chapter 210-11, Florida Administrative Code.) The basis for the certification of these other unnamed individuals transpired through an apparatus of the Respondent, in which, by meeting of its governing board, it was determined that individuals who did not meet the academic requirements of the Appendix to Chapter 210-11, Florida Administrative Code, nonetheless would be given an opportunity for certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. This special dispensation on behalf of these unnamed parties was granted in the face of the clear requirements of the established rule, which is the Appendix to 210-11, Florida Administrative Code. By that, it is meant that the rule was passed effective July 17, 1977, but its application to these unnamed individuals who received certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners without complying to the terms and conditions of the rule, was withheld. The technique for withholding it was to extend the period of enforcement of the guidelines to become effective March 31, 1978 as opposed to the prescribed date of July 17, 1977. Any applicants who applied prior to that date would be considered on a basis which did not require strict compliance with the academic requirements of the "Curriculum" guideline, which could be and was waived in the instances of some of the applicants, to include applicants in a similar factual circumstance to the Petitioner in that they had attended the University of Florida, College of Nursing course, Studies for Nurse Practitioner for Adult Care. The way prospective applicants were notified of the "grace period" allowing noncompliance with the academic requirement for certification in the subject field, was through the publication of that information in the newsletter of the Respondent which is forwarded to hospitals, public health clinics, colleges of nursing in Florida and the Florida Nurses Association. In addition, the Florida Nurses Association attempted to make its members aware of the "grace period." Also, it was the policy of the Respondent to advise the prospective applicants for certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners of the opportunity for consideration during the "grace period." This information sheet was typically mailed to the applicant with the application form, once an inquiry on the question of application had been received from the applicant. The Petitioner did not receive notice of the "grace period" through any published newsletter or bulletin and did not receive a copy of the information sheet which would have apprised her of the fact of the "grace period." She inquired about making application in February, 1978 and began to execute her application form on March 13, 1978 and completed the form on June 14, 1978. This can be seen by an examination of the Petitioner's Exhibit Number Five (5) admitted in evidence, which is a copy of the application for certification as Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner filed by the Petitioner with the Respondent. Due to the fact that the application was received subsequent to March 31, 1978, and the fact that the Petitioner did not meet the academic requirements established in the Appendix of Chapter 210-11, Florida Administrative Code, her application to be an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner was denied through correspondence dated September 13, 1978.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application by the Petitioner, Jeanne Fried, R.N., be denied by the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Board of Nursing. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Jeanne Fried, R.N. Post Office Box 932 Alachua, Florida 32615 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks (Brooks or respondent), was licensed as a practical nurse having been issued license number PN 0877941 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). She has been licensed as a practical nurse since 1987. There is no evidence that respondent has been the subject of disciplinary action prior to this occasion. When the events herein occurred, respondent was an agency nurse for Underhill Personnel Services, Inc., an agency that furnished nurses to various health care facilities, including Methodist Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida. She was employed at all times as a licensed practical nurse. On November 17, 1990, respondent was scheduled to work the 11 p.m. - 7 a.m. shift at Methodist Medical Center. Although her duty shift began at 11:00 p.m., respondent arrived a few minutes late and reported directly to the medical-surgical- orthopedic wing instead of signing in at the nursing office as required by hospital rules. After reporting to her work area, respondent went to the assignment board to review her assignment for that evening. Her specific duties that evening were to care for five patients in the medical-surgical-orthopedic wing. While respondent was at the assignment board, a registered nurse, Lynn Ivie, came to the board to ascertain her assignment. At that time, Ivie reported that she smelled a "strong odor of alcohol" on respondent's breath. However, Ivie said nothing at that time since she wanted to give respondent the benefit of the doubt. Around midnight, one of respondent's patients awoke in his room with severe chest pains. Both Ivie and respondent immediately went to the room. Although Ivie instructed Brooks to get a vital signs machine (also known as the Dynamap), Brooks ignored the instruction and "wiped the patient's face with a wet cloth". Ivie then brought the machine into the room and respondent was instructed by Ivie to take the patient's vital signs (blood pressure, temperature and pulse). This merely required her to place an attachment around the patient's arm and push a button to start the machine. The operation of the machine is considered a basic nursing skill. According to Ivie, respondent could not focus on the machine and did not seem to remember how to operate it. After waiting a few moments with no response from Brooks, Ivie finally took the patient's vital signs herself. During this encounter, Ivie again smelled alcohol on respondent's breath and concluded that her inability to assist in the care of the patient and to operate the machine was due to alcohol. Within a few moments, the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) on another floor. Before accompanying the patient to the ICU, Ivie instructed respondent to chart the incident and action taken in the nurse's notes and then meet her in the ICU with the completed notes. These notes should be completed in an expedited manner so that the nurses in the ICU wing can utilize them in providing follow-up care to the patient. However, respondent did not chart the incident nor bring the notes to the ICU. Indeed, she failed to chart the notes on any of the patients assigned to her that night. By failing to chart any notes that evening, respondent contravened the requirement that a nurse file a report or record (nursing notes). Around 1:30 a.m. on November 18, Ivie and Joyce Biddix, the nursing supervisor, went to the room of one of the patients assigned to respondent and found the patient, a confused elderly male, sitting nude in a chair with the bed stripped of all linens. He had previously been tied to the bed to prevent him from falling. The linens were soiled with urine and were lying in a heap on the floor. Although respondent had taken the patient out of the bed, disrobed him, and removed the linens, she had left him unattended in the room and had not returned. Biddix called down the hall for someone to bring fresh linens and observed respondent "floating" down the hall saying "I can't find the linens" in a "singsong" voice. When she got closer to respondent, Biddix smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. It may reasonably be inferred from the evidence that respondent's conduct with this patient was unprofessional and constituted a departure from acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. After being confronted by Biddix regarding the alcohol, respondent told her she had drunk one beer with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty that evening. However, she denied she was intoxicated or unable to perform her duties. Respondent was then told to leave work immediately. The incident was later reported to Underhill Personnel Services, Inc. and that agency contacted the Board. After an investigation was conducted by the Board, an administrative complaint was filed. At hearing, respondent did not contest or deny the assertion that by reporting to work with alcohol on her breath, she was acting in an unprofessional manner and deviated from the standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. In this regard, she acknowledged that she had drunk alcohol (which she claimed was only one tall beer) with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty. However, she contended that all of her previously scheduled shifts at the hospital had been cancel led and she assumed her shift that evening might also be cancelled. In response to the allegation that she could not operate the vital signs machine, respondent offered a different version of events and suggested that the machine in the patient's room was inoperative. Therefore, it was necessary for Ivie to bring a Dynamap into the room and Ivie took the vital signs without respondent's assistance. She justified leaving the elderly patient alone without clothes in his room on the grounds there was no clean gown, the patient was not combative, and she was only gone from the room for a few moments. Finally, she contended that she charted the notes for one of her patients but did not chart the others because the remaining patients were removed from her care by Ivie and Biddix when she was sent home at 1:30 a.m. However, these explanations are either deemed to be not credible or, if true, nonetheless do not justify her actions. Although there was no testimony concerning the specific issue of whether respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol, taken as a whole respondent's conduct on the evening of November 17, 1990, supports a finding that her capacity was impaired that evening by virtue of alcohol. Accordingly, it is found that respondent was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 464.018(1)(f), (h), and (j), Florida Statutes (1989), and that her nursing license be suspended for six months but that such suspension be stayed upon respondent's entry into and successful completion of the Intervention Program for Nurses. Respondent's failure to remain in or successfully complete the program will result in the immediate lifting of the stay and imposition of the six-month suspension. Thereafter, said license shall not be reinstated until such time as respondent appears before the Board and can demonstrate that she can engage in the safe practice of nursing. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-5033 Petitioner: Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 7-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 11-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 15-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 17-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Roberta L. Fenner, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks 1604 S.W. 40th Terrace, #A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to practice nursing should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Rita Flint (Flint) was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number PN0655201. Flint's last known address is 6494 South West 8th Place, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. At all times material to this proceeding Flint was employed by North Broward Medical Center (NBMC) located in Pompano Beach, Florida, as a practical nurse. On August 3, 1990, Flint was assigned to care for patients J. C. and J. K. including administering their medications and charting same on their Medication Administration Record (MAR). On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed one (1) nitroglycerine patch each day. Flint failed to administer the patch on this date. On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed 100 mg. of Norpace every six (6) hours. Flint failed to administer the 2:00 p.m. dosage of Norpace to J. C. On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed 120 mg. of Inderal each day. Flint failed to administer the 9:00 a.m. dosage of Inderal until 1:30 p.m. without noting any explanation on J. C.'s MAR. On August 3, 1990, Flint failed to document the administration of J. K's own medications on the MAR. On August 3, 1990, Flint failed to sign the MARs for J. C. and J. K. as required by hospital policy. On August 15, 1990, Flint left an intravenous bag with an exposed needle hanging at the bedside of a patient. On August 29, 1990, Flint was assigned to care for patient R. R. including administering his medications. Flint failed to administer the following medications leaving all of them at R. R.'s bedside: (a) Timolo (9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. doses); (b) Mixide (9:00 a.m. dose); (c) Zantac (9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. doses); (d) Lasix (9:00 a.m. dose); and, (e) Entozyme (8:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon doses). On August 30, 1990, NBMC terminated Flint's employment as a result of the aforementioned conduct. There is no evidence that any patient suffered any actual harm as a result of Flint's errors. In September of 1990, NBMC referred Flint to the Intervention Project for Nurses. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Flint's job performance was adversely affected by long work schedules necessitated by severe financial problems. During the week of August 3, 1990, Flint worked a ninety-two-hour week. The acute financial stress was due to domestic problems including the breakup of her twenty-two-year-old marriage. Flint had no problems involving substance abuse. Flint attended individual therapy sessions with a clinical psychologist, Priscilla Marotta, Ph.D., and participated in group therapy designed primarily for persons with substance abuse problems. Flint attended weekly therapy sessions for approximately one month after which she could no longer afford treatment. Even though Flint was financially unable to continue treatment with Dr. Marotta or any other counseling program recommended by the Intervention Program for Nurses, she diligently undertook a self-help program to educate herself on stress management techniques, to develop self-reliance, and to improve self-esteem. Flint's effort to participate in therapy, to the extent financially possible, and to rehabilitate herself shows a strong commitment to her profession. Flint has been licensed to practice nursing since May 31, 1982. There is no evidence of any disciplinary action against her license prior to or after the incidents herein described. Flint is currently employed as a nurse in a hospice. Her recent performance appraisal reports indicate that, on an average, she fully meets all job requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 464.018(h), Florida Statutes (1989), as defined in Rule 210-10.005(1)(e)1 and Rule 210-10.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, and not guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Board's final order: (1) place the Respondent on probation for one year subject to such requirements as the Board may require; and (2) require the Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250). DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November 1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 November 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-2715 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Incorporated into Findings of Fact 1. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 6. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 7. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 8. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 9. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 10. The first sentence is incorporated into Findings of Fact 13. The remaining portion of this proposed fact is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Furthermore, Respondent's Exhibit 3, as it relates to a diagnosis of a mental condition, is hearsay which does not supplement or explain any other psychological or medical evidence. Thus, any reference in Exhibit R3 to a generalized anxiety disorder is insufficient to support Petitioner's proposed finding. Unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Unsupported by competent substantial evidence. See number 10 above. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. Respondent did file proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura Gaffney, Esquire Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rita Flint 3313 South East Second Street Pompano, Florida 33063 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing AHCA 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harold D. Lewis General Counsel The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Respondent, Kimberly Bauzon, L.P.N., is a licensed practical nurse in the state of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0803361. Respondent has been so licensed at all times material to the allegations in the complaint. Between the dates of October 25, 1985, and December 2, 1985, the Respondent was employed as an LPN by the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach. On various occasions during her employment as an LPN at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent charted vital signs for patients that she had not, in fact, taken. On or about November 21, 1985, while employed as an LPN on duty at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, without authority or authorization, Respondent left her unit within the Care Unit for at least thirty (30) minutes. During that period of at least thirty (30) minutes on November 21, 1985, during which Respondent was out of her unit, there was no nurse present in the unit to take care of patient needs. Also on or about November 21, 1985, while on duty at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent was asleep for a period of at least two (2) hours. On one occasion during Respondent's employment at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent pulled a male adolescent by the waistband at the front of his trousers in the course of directing the patient to provide a urine specimen. The manner in which Respondent pulled on the patient's clothing was inappropriate and unprofessional. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to be asleep while on duty. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to chart vital signs which she has not, in fact, taken. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to leave her unit for a period of thirty (30) minutes in the absence of a replacement nurse.
Recommendation In view of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of one incident of violation of Section 464.018(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and four incidents of violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes. And in view of the provisions of Rule 210-10.05(4)(d), Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing impose a penalty consisting of a letter of reprimand and further consisting of a requirement that Respondent attend required specific continuing education courses, with an emphasis on the legal responsibilities of a nurse to the patients under her care. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of March, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. M. M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Bassett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kimberly Bauzon, LPN 2968 Songbird Trail Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Kimberly Bauzon, LPN 216B Seagate Avenue, #B Neptune Beach, Florida 32233 Joe Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
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
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's certificate to practice as a Certified Nursing Assistant?
Findings Of Fact Facts Admitted: Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapter 20.43, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is Andrea Tyson. Respondent is a Certified Nursing Assistant (C.N.A.) in the State of Florida having been issued certificate number 0898- 262792261. Respondent's current address of record (address listed for C.N.A. certificate with Department of Health) is P.O. Box 999, Cross City, Florida 32628. On or about August 23, 2001, Respondent was employed at Tri-County Nursing Home (Tri-County) in Trenton, Florida. During the time Respondent worked at Tri-County, W.H. (resident referred to in Petitioner's Administrative Complaint) was a resident at Tri-County. Respondent knew W.H. prior to working at Tri-County. Respondent regularly cared for W.H. at Tri-County. On or about August 23, 2001, Respondent assisted W.H. in taking a shower. On or about August 23, 2001, while in the shower with W.H., Respondent jerked W.H.'s hand from the shower grab bar. On or about August 23, 2001, while in the shower with W.H., Respondent sprayed W.H.'s face with cold water. On or about August 23, 2001, after Respondent finished showering W.H., Respondent partially dried W.H. and put on only his pants. On or about August 23, 2001, after Respondent finished showering W.H., Respondent refused to assist W.H. with putting on his shirt. On or about August 23, 2001, W.H. had to seek the assistance of another person at Tri-County, in putting on his shirt following his shower with Respondent. Additional Facts: W.H. had suffered a stroke in 1992. W.H. came to be a resident at Tri-County on March 8, 1999. On August 23, 2001, Respondent told W.H. to go to the bathroom to get ready for his shower. W.H. required assistance to shower. Respondent had given showers to W.H. before the date in question. On August 23, 2001, it was necessary for W.H. to support himself by holding on to the shower grab bar. W.H. explained that he uses the shower bar because he feels better that way, more secure. When Respondent jerked W.H.'s hand away from the shower grab bar, she did so without warning. This made W.H. feel bad. It also made him feel mad at Respondent. On the date in question while in the shower, W.H. told the Respondent that the water was too hot. Her response was to reach over with her hand and turned the lever to the cold setting and rinsed W.H. off with cold water. The water was really cold. W.H. did not complain about the cold water. He just wanted to get out of the shower. W.H. was left with the impression that if Respondent was going to be mean to him, he did not want to be around her. The incident made him feel abused. W.H. felt intimidated by the Respondent given her actions. As part of the process of showering that took place on August 23, 2001, in addition to spraying cold water in W.H.'s face, the cold water got into his ears. He did not like water in his ears. After the shower, Respondent dried W.H. off and put on his underclothes and pants and shoes but not his shirt. W.H. was left with only his T-shirt above the waist. W.H. took his outer shirt and went into the hall and got another C.N.A. to assist him in putting it on. To W.H.'s knowledge he had never done anything or said anything to provoke Respondent before the incident in the shower. W.H. reported the incident to a nurse at Tri-County about a day after the event. The expectation at Tri-County was that Respondent as a C.N.A. would perform her duties in the facility consistent with the Florida standards of care incumbent upon C.N.A. certificate holders. Tri-County is a skilled nursing facility. C.N.A.s who are employed at that facility, such as Respondent, undergo orientation in addition to the training received when earning a certificate to practice in Florida. The orientation includes issues such as fire safety, resident rights,1/ infection control, and body lifting of residents. What is described as the "paper part" of the orientation takes a day. In addition, the new employee is paired with an experienced C.N.A. on the same shift where the new employee will work, and the new employee and the experienced employee work together for a couple of weeks at the nursing home as training. While working with the experienced C.N.A., that employee uses a check-list to verify that the new employee can master the skills required to assist the residents. Within Tri-County the expectation for resident rights are in association with the right to dignity, among other rights. C.N.A.s at Tri-County are responsible for feeding, hydration, bathing, toileting, and skin care in relation to residents they are responsible for. Margo Chancey, R.N.C. was the Director of Nurses at Tri-County on August 23, 2001. She continues to hold that position. Ms. Chancey is a licensed nurse in Florida. By virtue of her formal training and work experience, Ms. Chancey is sufficiently familiar with the expected standard of care to be provided by C.N.A.s to offer expert opinion testimony concerning Respondent's treatment of W.H. on August 23, 2001. Nurse Chancey explained W.H.'s condition in August 2001 as being a circumstance in which W.H. had had a couple of strokes over a period of years. Nonetheless, W.H. remained alert and oriented and continued to be alert and oriented in more recent times including the present. W.H. gets around in a wheelchair. He is on an oxygen concentrator P.R.N. W.H. suffers with chronic pulmonary disease. W.H. was more ambulatory in August 2001 than he is today. Ms. Chancey is sufficiently familiar with the events on August 23, 2001, concerning Respondent's provision of care to W.H. while providing him a shower, to offer an opinion on whether that performance was within the minimal standards expected of a C.N.A. Ms. Chancey established that the manner of care provided from Respondent to W.H. was inhumane and abusive and below minimal standards. More particularly, Ms. Chancey commented that Respondent gave W.H. no choices. She demanded things of the resident. She sprayed cold water in his face, which is unacceptable. She was rough and rude with W.H. when removing his arm from the grab bar, which is unacceptable. W.H.'s patient's rights were violated pertaining to matters of human dignity and he was not treated safely. As Ms. Chancey correctly explained, for Respondent to perform her duties in giving the bath to W.H. she would have had bathing equipment ready when he came into the room and she should have been in the room when W.H. started to get undressed and would not have removed his arm from the grab bar. W.H. had the right to complain that the water was too hot. Respondent should have tested the water before she sprayed what was revealed to be cold water on W.H. Respondent should have totally dressed W.H. before she left the room given his condition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The risk was that his condition could worsen when left partially dressed. This might lead to his contracting pneumonia.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Sections 464.204(1)(b), 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9- 8.005(13)(2001), placing Respondent on probation for a period on one year subject to terms established by the Board of Nursing, imposing a $150.00 fine and requiring that Respondent attend a continuing education class on the care of the elderly. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2003.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 64B9-8.005(2) and 64B9-8.005(12), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the regulatory and prosecutorial duties related to nursing practice in Florida. Respondent is a licensed practical nurse in Florida, holding license no. PN 0481631. From May 13, 1992, to April 11, 1997, she was employed by Southlake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Southlake). On April 9, 1997, Respondent worked as a nurse on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on Southlake's A wing. T.C. was a patient of another nurse on that wing. Around 7:00 p.m., Respondent began administering medications to her patients. Melody Perez, the ward clerk, informed Respondent that T.C. needed assistance because he was in respiratory distress. T.C. was sitting in the hall, six to eight feet from Respondent. Respondent went over to T.C., checked to make sure that there was oxygen in his tank and that his nasal cannula was in place. Respondent saw no outward symptoms of T.C. being in acute respiratory distress such as rapid breathing or anxiety. Respondent told Ms. Perez that she could not help T.C. because he was not her patient. She told T.C. that his nurse, who was on break and had the keys to the other medication cart, would be back in a few minutes. Respondent thought that T.C. just wanted his medications. She did not perform a nursing assessment, as that term is commonly understood in the practice of nursing. She did not take T.C.'s vital signs, count his respirations, or listen to his chest. After telling him to wait for his nurse, she just walked away. On April 10, 1997, T.C. and another resident complained to Southlake's administrative staff about Respondent's failure to help T.C. Southlake initiated an investigation based on these complaints. Conchita Griffin, Southlake's Assistant Director of Nursing, conducted the investigation. As was the custom and procedure at Southlake, Ms. Griffin interviewed T.C., the second complaining resident, Ms. Perez, and two certified nursing assistants (CNAs) who were on duty during the incident. Ms. Griffin then compiled a written report of the incident and submitted it to Southlake's administration. Based on her investigation, and after considering Respondent's disciplinary history at Southlake, Ms. Griffin recommended that Southlake terminate Respondent. Southlake had written policies requiring a nurse to attend to any resident who needed help. The policies require a nurse to assess a patient complaining of respiratory distress by taking the patient's vital signs, listening to respirations and to the chest for congestion. According to the policies, a nurse should attend to any patient in distress, calling the patient's assigned nurse, facility management, or 911 if needed. There are no circumstances where the nurse should do nothing. On April 11, 1997, Respondent was called in and asked about her side of the incident. She admitted that she looked at T.C. and that he did not appear to be in distress. She acknowledged that she did nothing except tell T.C. that his nurse would be back soon. When informed that she was being terminated, Respondent refused to sign the disciplinary form. She was asked to leave the premises immediately. Sharon Wards-Brown, Southlake's nursing supervisor for the evening shift in question, accompanied Respondent to A wing to retrieve her belongings. When Respondent arrived on the A wing, she went into the medication room, picked up T.C.'s chart, removed some pages from the chart, and went to the fax machine just outside the medication room. Ms. Wards-Brown and Beverly Burstell, the nurse manager who was on the floor checking some charts, saw Respondent remove the pages from T.C.'s chart and go to the fax machine. Both of them told Respondent that she could not remove or copy anything from the resident's chart. Respondent told Ms. Wards-Brown and Ms. Burstell not to touch her. Each page of nurses' notes in the patients' charts have a front and back side. Respondent stood at the fax machine for only a couple of seconds, not long enough to copy both sides of one page of nurses' notes. She certainly did not have time to copy both sides of all of the pages that she had removed from T.C.'s chart. Respondent's testimony that she had time to copy some of the nurses' notes from T.C.'s chart is not persuasive. Her testimony that she left all of the original pages in the fax machine is not credible. After being prevented from copying all of the pages that she had removed from T.C.'s chart, Respondent ran into the bathroom. A few seconds later she came out of the bathroom with papers and her purse in her hand. Ms. Wards-Brown called Clara Corcoran, Southlake's administrator, and Ms. Griffen for assistance. All three of them followed Respondent out of the building, demanding that she return the documents that she had removed from T.C.'s chart. Respondent repeatedly told them not to touch her. Ms. Corcoran and Ms. Griffen followed Respondent into the parking lot. Respondent got in her car but Ms. Corcoran and Ms. Griffen blocked Respondent from closing the car door and continued to demand the return of the papers. Respondent finally drove forward over the cement bumper and the grass in order to leave with the papers. Meanwhile, Ms. Wards-Brown returned to the A wing to examine T.C.'s chart. Ms. Griffen also examined the chart within two to three minutes after Respondent left the floor. The chart was still open on the desk. Ms. Wards-Brown and Ms. Griffen discovered that T.C.'s nurses' notes for April 9, 1997, were missing. They knew the notes were missing because both of them had seen the notes in the chart the day before when they reviewed the chart as part of the investigation. Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a copy of the front and back of one page of T.C.'s nurses' notes. The last note is dated March 27, 1997. It is not plausible that T.C.'s chart had no nurses' notes from that time until after April 10, 1997. Even if Respondent did not remove any of T.C.'s original nurses' notes from the premises, she violated the acceptable standards of nursing care by copying the front and back of one page and removing the copies from the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order fining Respondent $1,000 and suspending her license for one year, followed by two years of probation with appropriate conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Room 3231A Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Randy Rogers, Esquire Delegal & Merritt, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202-2837 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D., R.N. Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4042 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner Marianna Convalescent Center's licensure rating should be changed from "Standard" to "Conditional" and whether an administrative fine in the proposed amount of $2500.00 should be imposed upon the Petitioner and its facility, based upon an alleged failure to timely consult with a resident's attending or treating physician when there was an alleged significant change in that resident's physical, mental or psycho-social status, etc.
Findings Of Fact The AHCA is the state Agency charged with licensure of nursing homes in Florida, pursuant to Section 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2001), and the assignment of licensure status, pursuant to Section 400.102, Florida Statutes (2001). The Agency is also responsible for conducting federally-mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal, statutory and rule requirements. Marianna is a licensed nursing facility located in Marianna, Florida. On August 4, 2001, the Agency conducted an annual Medicare and Medicaid re-certification survey and a state licensure survey, noting its findings on a standard form titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation and sets forth specific factual allegations that the surveyors believe support a violation. It also indicates the federal scope and severity of the non-compliance. The Agency alleged that Marianna was not in compliance with certain federal compliance requirements, one of which is significant in this proceeding: 42 C.F.R. Subsection 483.10(b)(11)(F-157)("Tag F-157"), for allegedly failing to immediately consult with a resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psycho- social status. The Agency contends that this failure resulted in the potential for harm to Resident No. 3. Section 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, contain the state licensure requirements at issue and Rule 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code, serves as the legal basis by which the AHCA made the initial determination that Marianna, in its view, had failed to comply with the Agency rules. In accordance with the Florida Classification System, the Agency classified the F-157 Non-compliance as a "Class II deficiency" because it compromised the resident's ability to maintain her highest practicable physical, mental and psycho-social well-being " . . . as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services." Based upon the presence of the alleged Class II deficiency, according to the result of the survey, the Agency elected to assign a conditional licensure status to Marianna and impose the disputed administrative fine. The survey team believed it found a violation of 42 C.F.R. Subsections 483.10(b)(11)(i), which states that "a facility must immediately . . . consult with a resident's physician . . . when there is . . . a significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psycho-social status " On July 2, 2001, at approximately 12:45 a.m., a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) summoned Michael Laurie, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) to observe Resident No. 3, a resident of the subject facility. Resident No. 3 had complained of some pain in the pubic area and her urine was dark in color and had a strong odor. Resident No. 3's temperature at that time was 104.5 degrees. In response to his observance of that condition, Nurse Laurie, accepted as an expert in the field of nursing, and a long-term care nurse of many years experience, administered Tylenol, pursuant to a pre-existing doctor's order for that patient. He also applied cool compresses to the groin area and to the armpits and continued to observe her. Resident No. 3's temperature was again taken at 3:00 a.m. and registered 101.2 degrees. The temperature registered 104 at 4:00 a.m. Mr. Laurie again applied cool compresses and at 4:30 a.m. administered Tylenol. Resident No. 3 was alert and did not complain of any discomfort after the occasion at 12:45 a.m. The resident's temperature at 6:00 a.m., was 100.4 degrees. Mr. Laurie continued with the cool compresses placed in the armpits and in the groin area. On the night of July 2, 2001, Resident No. 3 slept well exhibiting no signs or symptoms of pain or discomfort, other than the occasion at 12:45 a.m. The resident did not appear in any distress. In fact, Resident No. 3 affirmatively stated at 3:00 a.m. that she did not have any complaints. The nursing interventions referenced above appeared to be reducing the temperature and alleviating discomfort. The attending physician for Resident No. 3 was called by Sonja Sellers, an LPN, at 9:00 a.m., the next morning, July 2, 2001. Repeated attempts were made to contact the physician during that day to no avail, until Dr. Chin was finally contacted, or returned a call, at 2:00 p.m., on July 2, 2001, after being called several times by the nursing home staff. Dr. Chin was responsible for this resident since Dr. Arunakul, her attending physician, was on vacation. Dr. Chin agreed to send Resident No. 3 to the hospital. The nursing expert who was the only witness able to directly observe the presenting symptoms of Resident No. 3, during the early morning hours of July 2, 2001, opined that the patient or resident was not in any particular distress during that night and made the nursing judgment, related in his testimony, that it was appropriate to call the doctor the following morning, which was done by 9:00 a.m. The nursing home staff made repeated attempts to contact the doctor during the morning after 9:00 a.m., and was unable to do so until 2:00 p.m. that day. Nurse Laurie's testimony is accepted at the most credible and as the best evidence, since Nurse Laurie is an expert in the field of long-term care nursing and actually observed the resident and rendered treatment or nursing intervention. The fact that Resident No. 3's urine was dark in color and odiferous does not necessarily mean that one observing that condition should opine or conclude that the resident was suffering from an infection such as urosepsis. There are medications or vitamins or other situations that can cause that color in the urine and make it smell differently. The resident did not appear in any particular distress after the complaint of 12:45 a.m., and indeed ate all of her breakfast the following morning, July 2, 2001. The doctor was called so the nursing home staff could inform the doctor that Resident No. 3 had run a fever during the night. It is the regular policy of Marianna to contact the attending physician if a resident exhibits elevated temperature during the night. It is significant also that Resident No. 3's temperature did not increase during the day on July 2, 2001, before she was transported to the hospital for examination, evaluation and diagnosis by the physician. "Tag F-157" states as a requirement that an attending physician of a resident should be contacted if the resident experiences a significant change in physical, mental or psycho- social status or well-being. Resident No. 3, although ill, did not experience a significant change in her physical, mental or psycho-social status during that night, such that an attending physician should have been called during the night. Dr. Arunakul, based on the resident's condition, opined that it would not be expected that a nurse call him or another physician during the night of July 2, 2001. In other words, his testimony reveals that calling the physician on an "immediate" basis as a requirement was satisfied by the nursing home making the call to the physician by 9:00 a.m. the following morning. A Class II deficiency is one where the resident's ability to maintain or reach the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psycho-social well being is compromised. Resident No. 3's ability to maintain her highest practicable physical well-being was not compromised by the nursing home staff's failure to contact the attending physician during the eleven to seven shift on July 1 and 2, 2001, but instead contacting the physician, or attempting to, by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of July 2, 2001 (the following shift). F-157 was classified by the agency in the case with a scope and severity of "G." According to the agency's policy and rules, a Level "G" identifies an isolated incident which involved actual harm. It was not demonstrated by the agency's evidence that Resident No. 3 was actually harmed by any action or inaction of Marianna. Indeed, the nursing interventions tried during the early morning hours from 12:45 a.m. through 9:00 a.m., actually reduced the temperature and discomfort of the patient. Beyond that, it was not shown that any permanent harm of any kind resulted to the patient and, in due course, albeit with delays caused by the doctor failing to contact the nursing home staff, after receiving the calls at his office, the patient was diagnosed and rendered appropriate treatment. No harm occasioned by an action or inaction of Marianna was shown to have occurred merely by the fact that the physician was not called (or the attempt made to reach the physician) until 9:00 a.m. on the morning of July 2, 2001.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, 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 issued by the agency for Health Care Administration restoring the standard rating to the Marianna Convalescent Center and that the Administrative Complaint seeking to impose the administrative fine be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Suite 310H St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
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.
