Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, as well as the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida holding license number PN 0626161. At all times material hereto, Dr. Vladimir Rosenthal owned three clinics in Dade and Broward Counties at which he performed abortions. The clinics were located in Coral Gables (hereinafter referred to as the "Coral Gables clinic"), North Miami (hereinafter referred to as the "North Miami clinic") and Plantation (hereinafter referred to as the "Broward clinic"). All three clinics were licensed under Chapter 390, Florida Statutes. In September and October, 1989, Respondent was employed by Rosenthal and worked full-time as a licensed practical nurse in the North Miami clinic. During this period of time, she had no responsibilities with regard to the other two clinics owned by Rosenthal. Among Respondent's duties at the North Miami clinic during this time period was to prepare, under Rosenthal's direct supervision, packages of medications that Rosenthal gave to his patients, free of charge, to take home with them upon their discharge, a practice that Rosenthal has since discontinued. 6/ On September 30, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) conducted an on-site inspection at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was not present at the clinic during the inspection. Nor were there any patients at the clinic at the time. Approximately 50 small manilla envelopes containing multiple doses of medications were found in a drawer of a desk in the clinic. The envelopes were labeled to the extent that they indicated the name of the drugs they contained, but they did not provide any information regarding the lot number, expiration date or the name of the manufacturer of the drugs. Carmen Penaloza, one of the clinic workers who was present during the inspection, was asked to demonstrate how these packages were prepared. Penaloza proceeded to take an empty manilla envelope like the ones that had been found in the desk drawer and fill it with medication that came from a large container. In performing this demonstration, she did not use gloves and her bare hands came in contact with the medication. Carlos Arias, a licensed pharmacist and one of the HRS employees who participated in the inspection, advised Penaloza that the technique she had employed was unsanitary and recommended that in the future she use a tray and spatula like pharmacists do to perform such a task. The HRS inspection also revealed that medical devices were being stored in a refrigerator that also contained food items. On October 26, 1989, HRS conducted an on-site inspection of the North Miami clinic. Arias was among the various HRS employees who were on the inspection team. Diane Robie, a medical quality assurance investigator with the Department, accompanied the team members on their inspection. Approximately 30 envelopes containing medications were found during the inspection. They were similar to the packages that had been discovered the month before at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was at the clinic when the inspection was conducted. Penaloza was also there. No patients were present, however. Respondent was asked to demonstrate how the packages were prepared. Penaloza was nearby at the time the request was made. She saw Respondent nervously looking around and concluded that Respondent was unable to locate any sterile gloves to use. She therefore told Respondent where such gloves could be found. Respondent then donned the gloves, laid a clean piece of paper on top of the desk where she was situated, placed tablets from a large container onto the paper and pushed each tablet with a tongue blade into a small manilla envelope. 7/ The technique that Respondent used during her demonstration, while it may have been unconventional from the perspective of a pharmacist like Arias, nonetheless was antiseptic and therefore acceptable. Sometime during the inspection Respondent made a statement that led Robie to erroneously believe that Respondent was responsible for packaging medications, not just at the North Miami clinic, but at the Coral Gables clinic as well. A finding of probable cause was initially made in this case on May 14, 1990. An Administrative Complaint was thereafter issued and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department received the following letter, dated September 4, 1990, from counsel for Respondent concerning settlement of the case: This will confirm our understanding that you will file a notice of dismissal with DOAH of the case now pending against my client and, providing the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and closing order entered by the probable cause panel, that Ms. Echlov will agree not to seek fees against your agency under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. In the event the panel does not approve a final dismissal and instructs you to refile the case, neither party will be prejudiced by the present agreement and each party will retain all rights otherwise available to them, including my client's rights to seek fees should the case be refiled. If this does not reflect our understanding, please notify me at once. Otherwise, please fax me a copy of your notice of dismissal so that I can take the final hearing off my calendar. Thank you for your efforts to resolve this matter amicably. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, the following follow-up letter, dated November 6, 1990: You may recall that we reached an agreement in the above-referenced case providing for a voluntary dismissal on your part and promise on mine that my client would not seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. You had to take the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and ask them to close it. In order that I can close my file and know that this matter is, in fact, concluded, please let me know whether you have taken the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and, if so, the outcome. If there are documents reflecting same, please, please send me a copy. If the case has not been taken back before the Panel, please let me know when this will be done. Thanks. I'll be looking forward to hearing from you. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, a third letter, dated January 14, 1991, the body of which read, as follows: It has now been over four months since we reached our "understanding" that DPR would dismiss the case pending before DOAH (which you did) and that my client would forego her right to seek fees under the EAJA, providing (to quote from my September 4, 1990 letter to you) "that the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and a closing order [is] entered by the probable cause panel." The final part of the bargain has never been performed so far as I know (and, if it was performed, the action was illegal since I requested notification of the date when the matter would be presented to the panel so that I might attend or send a court reporter but never received any). I have not, of course, received any final order of dismissal from the probable cause panel. If, within ten days of the date of this letter, I have not received either: an order of closure from the probable cause panel, or the time, date and place when our agreement will be presented to the panel, I will consider that DPR is in breach of the agreement and pursue all remedies available to my client, including attorneys' fees. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. The probable cause panel met a second time, at which it determined not to reconsider its initial finding of probable cause. 8/ Neither Respondent nor her attorney were notified of this second meeting of the probable cause panel. Following this meeting, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) dismissing said complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of January, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of January, 1992.
The Issue The issues in this case are set forth in 11 separate counts within the four consolidated cases: Case No. 09-5360 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly monitor and care for a patient in restraints. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure the physician's plan of care for patient was implemented. Case No. 09-5363 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to properly implement the physician's plan of care for patient. Case No. 09-5364 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to ensure a patients' right to privacy. Count II--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that food was served in the prescribed safe temperature zone. Count III--Whether Respondent failed to ensure that only authorized personnel had access to locked areas where medications were stored. Count IV--Whether Respondent failed to perform proper nursing assessments of a patient. Count V--Dismissed. Count VI--Whether Respondent failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition. Case No. 09-5365 Count I--Whether Respondent failed to triage a patient with stroke-like symptoms in a timely fashion. Count II--Whether Respondent's nursing staff failed to assess and intervene for patients or ensure implementation of the physician's plan of care.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring health care facilities in the state to ensure compliance with all governing statutes, rules and regulations. It is the responsibility of AHCA to regularly inspect facilities upon unannounced visits. Often AHCA will inspect facilities for the purpose of licensure renewal, certification, or in conjunction with federal surveys. AHCA will also inspect facilities on the basis of complaints filed by members of the general public. Respondent, Gulf Coast Medical Center ("Gulf Coast" or "GCH") is a hospital within the Lee Memorial Health System. South West Florida Regional Medical Center ("SWF") was another hospital within the Lee Memorial Health System. SWF closed in March 2009, when it was consolidated with Gulf Coast. On October 15, 2008, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at SWF; a follow-up complaint investigation was done on November 13, 2008. SWF filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in each of the investigations. The November investigation resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing two counts. On December 16, 2008, AHCA performed another complaint investigation at Gulf Coast. Gulf Coast filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the investigation. The investigation resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing one count. On January 5 through 9, 2009, AHCA conducted a routine licensure survey at Gulf Coast. The hospital filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the survey. The survey resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing six counts (although Count V was dismissed during the course of the final hearing). On February 18, 2009, AHCA did its follow-up survey to the previous licensure survey. Gulf Coast filed and implemented a plan of correction for the issues raised in the survey. The survey resulted in an Administrative Complaint containing two counts. Case 09-5360 The complaint investigation at SWF on November 13, 2008, was conducted under the supervision of Charlene Fisher. Count I in this case addresses findings by the Agency concerning a patient who was placed in restraints at the hospital on August 28, 2008. The patient, A.D., came into the hospital emergency department under the Baker Act seeking medical clearance to a facility. The patient presented at approximately 4:00 p.m., with back pain. He had a history of drug abuse, so there was concern by the hospital regarding the use of narcotics or certain other medications to treat the patient. The patient engaged in some scuffling with police. A physician signed and dated a four-point restraint (one on each limb) order, resulting in the patient being physically restrained. The restraint was deemed a medical/surgical restraint, rather than a behavioral restraint. AHCA had concerns about the restraint, specifically whether there was a notation for Q 15 (or every 15 minutes) monitoring of the restrained patient. However, medical/surgical restraints only require monitoring every two hours. The restraint worksheet for the patient confirms monitoring every two hours. The patient was ultimately admitted to the hospital at 9:37 p.m., and, thereafter, began complaining of left shoulder pain. The hospital responded to the patient's complaints about back pain and began treating the pain with analgesics. However, the patient continued to complain about the pain. An X-ray of the patient's shoulder was finally done the next morning. Shoulder dislocation was confirmed by the X-ray, and the hospital (four hours later) began a more substantive regimen of treatment for pain. Surgery occurred the following morning, and the shoulder problem was resolved. It is clear the patient had a shoulder injury, but it is unclear as to when that injury became more painful than the back injury with which the patient had initially presented. The evidence is unclear whether or when the shoulder injury became obvious to hospital staff. During its course of treating this patient, the hospital provided Motrin, Tylenol, Morphine, Percocet and other medications to treat the patient's pain. Count II in this case also involved a restrained patient, M.D., who had presented to the emergency department under the Baker Act. The patient was released from handcuffs upon arrival at the hospital. After subsequently fighting with a deputy, this patient was also placed in a medical/surgical restraint pursuant to a physician's order. The doctor signed and dated, but did not put a time on, the restraint order. A time is important because there are monitoring requirements for patients in restraints. However, the time of 0050 (12:50 a.m.) appears on the patient's chart and is the approximate time the restraints were initiated. The proper procedure is to monitor a restrained patient every two hours. This patient, however, was removed from his restraints prior to the end of the first two-hour period. Thus, there are no records of monitoring for the patient (nor would any be necessary). The evidence presented by AHCA was insufficient to establish definitively whether the hospital nursing staff failed to properly respond to the aforementioned patients' needs. It is clear the patients could have received more care, but there is not enough evidence to prove the care provided was inadequate. Case No. 09-5363 On December 16, 2008, AHCA conducted a complaint investigation at SWF. The Agency had received a complaint that the hospital did not properly implement a physician's plan of care. Count I in this complaint addresses alleged errors relating to two of four patients reviewed by the surveyors. Both of the patients came to the hospital from a nursing home. One patient, I.A., had presented to the emergency department complaining of chest pains. The medication list sent to the hospital by the nursing home for I.A. actually belonged to someone other than I.A. I.A.'s name was not on the medication list. The drugs listed on the patient chart were different than the drugs I.A. had been taking at the skilled nursing facility from which she came. The skilled nursing facility actually sent I.A.'s roommate's medication list. The erroneous medications were then ordered by the admitting physician and administered to the patient. The hospital is supposed to review the medication list it receives and then enter the medications into the hospital system. The person reviewing the medication list does not necessarily have to be a nurse, and there is no evidence that the person making the error in this case was a nurse or was some other employee. It is clear, however, that the person reviewing the medication list did not properly ascertain that the list belonged to patient I.A. The other patient from the nursing home had been admitted for surgery at SWF. Again, the nursing home from whence she came sent a medication list that was incorrect. The medications on the incorrect list were entered into the system by a SWF employee. The erroneous medications were ultimately ordered by the attending physician for the patient, but there is no evidence the patient was ever administered those medications. Neither of the residents was harmed by the incorrect medications as far as could be determined. Case 09-5364 From January 5 through 8, 2009, AHCA conducted a licensure survey at Gulf Coast and SWF in conjunction with a federal certification survey. Count I of the complaint resulting from this survey addressed the right of privacy for two residents. In one instance, a patient was observed in her bed with her breasts exposed to plain view. In the other instance, a patient's personal records were found in a "public" place, i.e., hanging on the rail of a hallway in the hospital. AHCA's surveyor, Nancy Furdell, saw a female patient who was apparently asleep lying in her bed. The patient's breasts were exposed as she slept. Furdell observed this fact at approximately 1:15 p.m., on January 7, 2009. Furdell did not see a Posey vest on the patient. She did not know if anyone else saw the exposed breasts. Furdell continued with her survey duties, and at approximately 5:00 p.m., notified a staff member as to what she had seen. Furdell did not attempt to cover the patient or wake the patient to tell her to cover up. The female patient with exposed breasts was in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the hospital. Visiting hours in ICU at that time were 10:00 to 10:30 a.m., and again from 2:00 till 2:30 p.m. Thus, at the time Furdell was present, no outside visitors would have been in the ICU. ICU patients are checked on by nursing staff every half-hour to an hour, depending on their needs. This particular patient would be visited more frequently due to her medical condition. On the day in question, the patient was supposed to be wearing a Posey vest in an effort to stop the patient from removing her tubing. The patient had been agitated and very restless earlier, necessitating the Posey vest. Also on January 7, 2009, a surveyor observed some "papers" rolled up and stuffed inside a hand-rail in the hospital corridor. This occurred at 1:15 p.m., on the fourth floor of the south wing of the hospital. A review of the papers revealed them to be patient records for a patient on that floor. The surveyor could not state at final hearing whether there were hospital personnel in the vicinity of the handrail where she found the patient records, nor could she say how long the patient records had been in the handrail. Rather, the evidence is simply that the records were seen in the handrail and were not in anyone's possession at that moment in time. Count II of the complaint was concerned with the temperature of certain foods being prepared for distribution to patients. Foods for patients are supposed to be kept at certain required temperatures. There is a "danger zone" for foods which starts at 40 degrees Fahrenheit and ends at 141 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature, along with time, food and environment, is an important factor in preventing contamination of food and the development of bacteria. Surveyor Mary Ruth Pinto took part in the survey. As part of her duties, she asked hospital staff to measure the temperature of foods on the serving line. She found some peaches at 44 degrees, yogurt at 50 degrees, and cranberry juice at 66 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Pinto, the hospital's refrigerator temperatures were appropriate, so it was only food out on the line that was at issue. Pinto remembers talking to the hospital dietary manager and remembers the dietary manager agreeing to destroy the aforementioned food items. The hospital policies and procedures in place on the date of the survey were consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code concerning the storage, handling and serving of food. The policies acknowledge the danger zone for foods, but allow foods to stay within the danger zone for up to four hours. In the case of the peaches and yogurt, neither had been in the danger zone for very long (not more than two hours). The cranberry juice was "shelf stable," meaning that it could be stored at room temperature. The food services director for the hospital remembers the peaches and yogurt being re-chilled in a chill blaster. She does not believe any of the food was destroyed. Count III of the complaint addressed whether an unauthorized person had access to a room where medications were being stored. A state surveyor, Gary Furdell, was part of the survey team on January 5, 2009. Furdell was touring the second floor of the hospital when he noticed a locked door. Furdell asked a hospital medical technician who was standing nearby about the door. The medical technician gave Furdell the code to unlock the door. Furdell peeked inside and noticed bottles that he presumed were medications. It would be a violation for a medical technician to have access to medications, because medical technicians cannot distribute drugs. The room Furdell looked into is a "mixed use" room located behind a nursing station. A mixed use room is used to store medical supplies, including medications, as long as there is a locked cabinet in the room for that purpose. This particular mixed use room had a locked cabinet. The room is used for the preparation of medications and for other purposes. No narcotics were stored in this particular mixed use room. The room contained locked cabinets used to store other medications. The evidence presented was insufficient to determine what "medications" Furdell may have seen in the room. Count IV of the complaint concerned the nursing assessment of a patient, and whether the assessment was properly and timely performed. A patient, M.S., had been admitted to the hospital on June 18, 2008, for lung surgery. Following the surgery, Amiodarone (a very toxic drug which can cause clots and other complications) was administered to treat M.S. for heart arrhythmia. The Amiodarone was administered intravenously and M.S. developed blisters and irritation at the intravenous site. That is not an uncommon complication with Amiodarone. M.S.'s attending physician was notified about the irritation and prescribed a treatment. He also ordered a consult with an infectious disease specialist who ultimately changed M.S.'s antibiotics. Although M.S. was seen daily by her physicians, the nursing notes do not reflect the assessment and treatment of her blisters. It appears that proper care was rendered, but the care was not documented properly. Another patient was admitted to the hospital on December 15, 2008, with End Stage Renal Disease and diabetes mellitus for which she began dialysis treatment. The patient was not weighed before and after a particular dialysis treatment on January 5, 2009. However, the patient had been moved to an air mattress bed on that date for comfort. The air mattress bed did not allow for a weight to be taken as it could be on a regular bed. There is an allegation in the Administrative Complaint concerning the discontinuation of the calorie count for a patient. This issue was not discussed in AHCA's Proposed Recommended Order, nor was sufficient evidence of any wrong- doing concerning this matter presented at final hearing. During the survey, the hospital was found to be storing the medication Mannitol in blanket warmers, rather than in warmers specifically designed for the drug. The blanket warmers maintained the Mannitol at 100-to-110 degrees Fahrenheit. The manufacturer's label on the drug calls for it to be dispensed (injected) at between 86 and 98.5 degrees Fahrenheit. In order to meet this requirement, the hospital takes the drug out of the blanket warmer in time for it to cool sufficiently before it is injected. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a blanket warmer to store Mannitol. On January 5, 2009, a surveyor found two vials of Thrombin, one vial of half-percent Lidocaine and Epi, and one vial of Bacitracin in operating room No. 4. The operating room is within the secured and locked suite of surgical rooms on the second floor. Two of the vials had syringes stuck in them and one of them was spiked. Whoever had mixed the medications was not attending to them at the time the surveyor made her observation. There were two unlicensed technicians in the room preparing for the next surgery. A registered nurse anesthetist was present as well. There was no identifying patient information on the medications. The hospital's policies and procedures do not require the patient's name to be on the label of medications prepared for impending surgery. That is because the procedures for the operating room include a process for ensuring that only the correct patient can be in the designated operating room. There is a fail-safe process for ensuring that only the proper patient can receive the medications that are set out. At around 2:45 p.m. on January 5, 2009, there were patient records in the emergency department showing that several drugs had been administered to a patient. The surveyor did not see a written order signed by a physician authorizing the drugs. When the surveyor returned the next morning, the order had been signed by the physician. The hospital policy is that such orders may be carried out in the emergency department without a doctor's signature, but that a physician must sign the order before the end of their shift. AHCA cannot say whether the physician signed the order at the end of his shift or early the next day. Count V of the complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the Agency. Count VI of the complaint concerned the status of certain patient care equipment, and whether such equipment was being maintained in a safe operating condition. A patient was weighed at the hospital upon admission on December 27, 2008, and found to weigh 130 pounds using a bed scale. Six days later, on January 2, 2009, the patient's weight was recorded as 134 pounds. Two days later, in the same unit, the patient weighed 147 pounds and the next day was recorded as weighing 166 pounds. During the survey process, the patient was weighed and recorded at 123 pounds on a chair scale. The hospital does not dispute the weights which were recorded, but suggests there are many factors other than calibration of the equipment that could explain the discrepant weights. For example, the AHCA surveyor could not say whether the patient sometimes had necessary medical equipment on his bed while being weighed, whether different beds were involved, or whether any other factors existed. AHCA relies solely on the weight records of this single patient to conclude that the hospital scales were inaccurate. Case No. 09-5365 On February 18, 2009, AHCA conducted a licensure survey at Gulf Coast. Count I of the complaint from this survey concerned the timeliness of triage for a patient who presented at the hospital emergency department with stroke-like symptoms. AHCA surveyors witnessed two patients on stretchers in the ambulance entrance hallway leading to the emergency department. Each of the two patients had been brought in by a separate emergency medical service (EMS) team and was awaiting triage. One patient was taken to an emergency department room (ER room) 50 minutes after his/her arrival at the hospital. The other patient waited 45 minutes after arrival before being admitted to an ER room. Meanwhile, a third patient arrived at 2:20 p.m., and was awaiting triage 25 minutes later. During their observation, the surveyors saw several nursing staff in the desk area of the emergency department, i.e., they did not appear to be performing triage duties. The emergency department on that date was quite busy. That is not unusual during February, as census tends to rise during the winter months due to the influx of seasonal residents. A summary of the action within the emergency department from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., on the day of the survey shows the following: Patient L.G., 74 years old with stable vital signs, was radioed in by her EMS team at 1:08; L.G. was processed into the ER at 1:21 (which is not an unreasonable time; EMS teams call in when they arrive at or near the hospital. By the time they gain access, wait their turn if multiple ambulances are present, and get the patient inside, several minutes may lapse). L.G. was stabilized and quickly reviewed by ER staff, then officially triaged at 2:04. Patient H.M., an 89-year-old male residing in a nursing home, arrived at 1:20 and was processed in at 1:59. He was triaged at 2:01, but ultimately signed out of the hospital against medical advice. Patient E.M. arrived at 2:18 and was processed at 2:25. Triage occurred one minute later. This patient presented as a stroke alert, and hospital protocol for that type patient was followed. Patient C.J. arrived at 1:08 and was processed at 2:38. Triage occurred immediately after C.J. was processed. This patient was not stroke alert, but had some stroke-like symptoms.1 C.J. had not been transported to the hospital as emergent, because the symptoms had been going on for 24 hours. Patient W.M., an auto accident victim, arrived at 1:40 and was processed at 1:49. Triage occurred within six minutes. Patient M.M., W.M.'s wife (who had been with M.M. in the automobile accident, but was placed in a separate ambulance), arrived at 2:06 and was triaged at 2:34. There is no record of when M.M. was processed. Patient L.M. came to the hospital from a nursing home. She arrived at 1:43 and was processed at 2:35. L.M. was triaged at 2:37. Patient K.M. arrived at 2:45 and was processed within three minutes. Triage occurred at 2:52. Her triage was done very quickly due to the condition in which she arrived, i.e., shortness of breath and low oxygen saturation. Patient R.S. arrived at 1:00 and was triaged at 1:15. The aforementioned patients represent the patients presenting to the emergency department by ambulance during a two-hour period on a very busy day. It is the customary procedure for ER staff to make a quick visual review (rapid triage) of patients as they come into the hospital. Those with obvious distress or life-threatening conditions are officially triaged first. Others, as long as they are stable, are allowed to wait until staff is available for them. As part of their duties, nurses necessarily have to be in the desk area (nursing station) in order to field phone calls from physicians concerning treatment of the patients who present. It is not unusual or improper for nurses to be in the nursing station while residents are waiting in the processing area. It is clear that some patients waited a much longer time for triage than others. However, without a complete record of all patients who presented that day and a complete review of each of their conditions, it is impossible to say whether the hospital was dilatory in triaging any of them. Count II of the complaint addressed the nursing staff and whether it failed to assess and intervene in the care of a patient or failed to implement a physician's plan of care for the patient. Patient D.W. was a 67-year-old female who was morbidly obese, diabetic, debilitated, had end stage renal disease, and was receiving dialysis. Upon admission, D.W. had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer to her sacrum and a Stage 4 ulcer on her left calf. A wound care protocol was initiated immediately, and a Clinitron bed was obtained for her on the day of admission. Due to the seriousness of her condition, the wound care physician declined to accept her case at first. He later ordered Panafil, and it became part of the protocol for treating the patient. The nursing documentation for D.W. was only minimally sufficient, but it does indicate that care was provided. Patient R.H. was an 83-year-old male who presented on February 10, 2009, in critical condition. R.H. was suffering from congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and respiratory failure. Due to the critical nature of his respiratory problems, R.H. was placed on a ventilator. As a ventilator patient, he did not fit the profile for obtaining wound care. Nonetheless, the hospital implemented various other measures to deal with R.H.'s pressure wounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 in DOAH Case No. 09-5363 and a fine in the amount of $500.00 in DOAH Case No. 09-5364, Count VI. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 30th day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent , Michael Barlow, L. P. N., who holds License No. 38497-1.
Findings Of Fact The aforementioned stipulation dated March 6, 1980, provides: The Respondent does not deny the authenticity of the records at the Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, Pensacola, Florida, and hereby agrees that in each and every incident contained in the administrative complaint if the records show that he did not in fact chart said medications, he does not contest the fact that he did not chart the medication as contained in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 thereof. Further, the licensee maintains that he will appear at the hearing and present testimony to the effect that his failure to properly chart was due to a lack of proper orientation at the time that he was employed by the Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center. The administrative complaint contained fourteen (14) counts seven (7) of which, Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, were allegations of misconduct by failure to chart medications and the remainder, Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 14, were allegations that the foregoing respectively numbered allegations were in violation of various sections of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. The following exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection: True copies of the patient records pertaining to the factual allegations of the administrative complaint, petitioner's Exhibit 2; Pertinent parts of the Policies and Procedures Manual of Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center, petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3; An employer/employee agreement between Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center and Respondent Barlow, petitioner's Exhibit 4; An orientation check sheet for new employees signed by respondent on December 13, 1979, affirming that respondent was instructed as to the policy of the employer on medication protocol Petitioner's Exhibit 5; A summary of patient profiles of the amounts of Valium and Tylenol No. 3 that were signed out but not charted on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) as alleged in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of the administrative complaint, petitioner's Exhibit 6(a) and (b); A document entitled "Charted on MAR" indicating medications other than Valium and Tylenol No. 3 administered by respondent to the same patients named in Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of the administrative complaint, petitioner's Exhibit 7; A drug order form showing that a patient had been authorized to take Valium 5 mg. by a Dr. Augustus. The handwriting on the order form was identified by a handwriting authority as that of Respondent Barlow rather than Dr. Augustus, petitioner's Exhibit 8. The current director of nursing at Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center placed or had placed the policies and procedures manual at the nursing stations on each floor of the center and gave or had given an orientation program to each nurse, including Respondent Barlow, at the time of employment at the center. The director of nursing did not know why respondent charted drugs for the patients with the exception of the Valium and Tylenol No. 3. At the hearing Respondent Barlow admitted he had read the documents submitted into evidence but stated that he did not know he was supposed to chart the controlled substances. He had previously worked at a Baptist hospital and in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where it was not required that the licensed practical nurse sign out for Valium on the Medication Administration Record inasmuch as the pharmacy dispensed the medication. He said that he administered to the patients all medications checked out for them; that he was not supervised by a registered nurse as he now feels that he should have been; and that he had not been given proper orientation at Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center as to what was considered a controlled drug. The respondent further stated that there was a shortage of nurses in relation to the number of patients in the center and that he was extremely busy administering to the patients during his employment. He pointed out that the medications he properly charted were noted on the front of the form and that he was supposed to chart the Valium and Tylenol No. 3 on the back, but that he had not been required to chart said drugs in his former employment and that he did not know to turn the form over and chart the Valium and Tylenol No. 3 on the back. He said he was never instructed as to how to fill out the form. After consideration of the testimony of the parties and the witnesses and examination of the evidence, the hearing officer finds that Respondent Barlow was guilty of negligence in failing to carefully read and study the policies and procedures manual provided by Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center and in failing to learn the policies, procedures and protocol in use at his place of employment. The hearing officer finds that respondent failed to chart the controlled substances as required, but that his failure was unintentional and due to his negligence, crowded conditions and a heavy demanding workload.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the hearing officer recommends that the respondent, Michael Barlow, be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months from the date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Michael C. Barlow 6111 Lebanon Lane Pensacola, Florida 32504 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF NURSING In Re: Michael C. Barlow, L.P.N. NO. FSBN 79-MIS-1 License No. 38497-1 CASE NO. 80-255 / This cause came to be heard by the Florida Board of Nursing of the Department of Professional Regulation on June 24, 1980 in Jacksonville, Florida for the purpose of determining whether disciplinary action should be taken against the licensee pursuant to Sections 464.018(1)(f) and (g), F.S. A formal hearing, conducted at the licensee's election pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S., resulted in the rendering of a recommended order from the Division of Administrative Hearings. Exceptions were filed to the Recommended Order by the Attorney representing the Board of Nursing at the administrative hearing. The licensee filed no exceptions. The Board has reviewed the complete record and each Board member has certified that she has reviewed it. Based upon such review of the complete record, the Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order are accepted by the Board as its own Findings with the additional Finding that the licensee was completely unaware that Valium was a controlled substance but thought that it was a legend drug. This fact is clear and undisputed from the record of the hearing at which the licensee admitted not knowing the drug's status. The Conclusions of Law contained in the Recommended Order are adopted by the Board as its own and are incorporated herein in their entirety by reference. Based upon its review of the complete record, the Board does not feel that the recommended penalty of six months probation is appropriate under the circumstances. Given the seriousness of the undisputed facts, the Board hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the licensee be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, that during said probationary period, the licensee shall successfully complete a course in charting the administration of medications to patients and further that during the probationary period the licensee assure that quarterly evaluation reports are submitted to the board by his employer. By order of the Florida Board of Nursing, this 11th day of July, 1980. Mary F. Henry, Chairman Florida Board of Nursing cc: Michael Barlow 308 West Gregory Street, No. 3 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Mike Schwartz, Esquire
The Issue When the hearing commenced, the parties through counsel agreed that sufficient facts would be presented to sustain a finding of violations of Counts One, Two, and Three a. and b., within the Administrative Complaint drawn by the State of Florida, Department of Health, Case No. 1999-53281. It was left for the fact finder to portray those facts consistent with the agreement. The parties presented their cases and facts have been found on the record which promote findings of violations of the aforementioned counts. In addition, as envisioned by the parties and accepted by the undersigned, determinations concerning recommended sanctions for the violations have been made on the record presented at hearing.1
Findings Of Fact Respondent's History At all times relevant, Respondent has been licensed as a physician in the State of Florida in accordance with license No. ME:0061141. His practice has been in the field of psychiatry. Respondent is Board-certified in psychiatry. Respondent has a Bachelor's of Science degree from the University of Michigan. He holds a Masters' degree in Clinical Social Work from Tulane University and a Medical Degree from Louisiana State University Medical School. Respondent did a four-year residency at Ochner Foundation Hospital in Psychiatry. Respondent has been married to Brenda Schenthal for 25 years. The Schenthal's have two sons, ages 10 and 12. The family resides in Destin, Florida. Respondent began private practice in the Fort Walton Beach, Florida, area in 1993 with Dr. Victor DeMoya. Respondent was affiliated with that practice when circumstances arose for which he stands accused. Respondent practiced in the group known as Emerald Coast Psychiatric Care, P.A., in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Respondent does not have a prior disciplinary history with the Board of Medicine. M.B.G. M.B.G. was born July 23, 1981. Respondent first saw M.B.G. on March 21, 1996, when she was 14 years old. M.B.G. presented with issues of uncontrollable behavior, running away from home, anger, rage, drug use, suspected alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity. M.B.G. did not have a history of acting out until she was 13 or 14 years old. Respondent had been treating M.B.G. for approximately two months, when in May 1996, M.B.G. was involved in a physical altercation with another student in her school. The evaluation Respondent performed at that time revealed that M.B.G. was extremely angry, presenting sufficient risk that Respondent determined to involuntarily commit M.B.G. to Rivendell Hospital in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. At the time M.B.G. remained hospitalized for a couple of weeks. Following her hospitalization M.B.G. was seen by Dr. Deborah Simkan, an adolescent psychiatrist. Dr. Simkan was associated with Respondent's clinic. M.B.G. remained in treatment with Dr. Simkan until August of 1996. At the time M.B.G. was also being seen by Betty Mason, a mental health counselor affiliated with Respondent's practice. There was some concern about the progress M.B.G. was making under Dr. Simkan's care and the family determined to move M.B.G. from the Fort Walton Beach, Florida, area to live with an aunt in Charleston, South Carolina. M.B.G. had been sent to live with her aunt because M.B.G. was defiant, would not follow the rules in her household, and was difficult to control. After living with her aunt in Charleston, South Carolina, for several months it became apparent that the aunt was unable to control M.B.G. There was some suspicion that M.B.G. was using drugs while residing with her aunt. When M.B.G. returned from Charleston, South Carolina, she ran away from home as she had before. When she was found she was sent to live in a treatment facility in Trenton, Alabama. That facility was Three Springs. The reasons for her placement related to the inability to control her conduct, suspected alcohol abuse, and sexual promiscuity. M.B.G. remained at Three Springs from January 1997 until her return home in April 1998. Her stay in that facility was in accordance with a very structured environment. While at Three Springs M.B.G. revealed for the first time that she had been the victim of sexual abuse by a male YMCA counselor when she was nine years old. As a means to express her feelings, while at Three Springs, M.B.G. was encouraged to write in journals, in that she found writing about her feelings an easier means of expression then verbalizing her feelings. M.B.G. could share or refuse to share the things that she had written in the journals. Upon her release from Three Springs M.B.G. asked that Respondent resume her care. It was anticipated that Respondent would treat M.B.G. for the sexual abuse that had occurred earlier in her life and as a means to transition from the very structured environment at Three Springs into greater freedom she would have living at home. In April 1998, when Respondent again undertook M.B.G.'s care, his response to his duties was initially appropriate. However, upon reflection Respondent questions the decision to undertake the care following his former decision to place M.B.G. in Rivendell Hospital under the Baker Act. In April, M.B.G. was being seen by Respondent in his practice twice a week for one hour each visit. A couple of months later the schedule changed from two one-hour sessions per week to one two-hour session per week. Around August or September 1998, Respondent began to see M.B.G. three or four times a week in his office. By January of 1999, Respondent was seeing M.B.G. almost on a daily basis, not always in his office. Some of the increases in contacts between M.B.G. and the Respondent were associated with group therapy sessions involving M.B.G. and other sexual abuse patients under Respondent's care. One of the persons in the group was considerably older than M.B.G. It was not shown that the inclusion of the older patient in the therapy group was designed to advance some inappropriate purpose in the relationship between Respondent and M.B.G. Nonetheless, Respondent now questions the appropriateness of placing M.B.G. in the group with such divergence in ages among the participants. Upon her return from Three Springs M.B.G. became pregnant as was manifest in May 1998. She informed Respondent of her pregnancy. Reluctant to tell her parents about her condition, M.B.G. expressed the belief that an abortion was a better choice in responding to her pregnancy. Respondent left it to M.B.G. to inform her parents or not concerning the pregnancy. Respondent arranged for M.B.G. to talk to a patient who had gone through a somewhat similar experience. Ultimately M.B.G. told her mother of the pregnancy and the desire to terminate her pregnancy. Her mother was supportive of that choice and arranged for the abortion procedure. Respondent offered to go with M.B.G. and her mother M.G. when the abortion was performed. Respondent now concedes the error in the choice to offer to accompany and the accompaniment of M.B.G. and her mother to the place where the abortion was performed. This was not an appropriate response for a care-giver. Upon her return from Three Springs M.B.G. had a better relationship with her family than before. But the cordiality did not last. Over time their relationship became strained. M.B.G. was especially irritated with her mother. As before, M.B.G. maintained journals upon her return from Three Springs, portions of which she shared with Respondent. M.B.G. considered the journals to be private. Her mother was aware of the issue of privacy. Without permission M.G. read her daughter's journals. Being aware that the mother had read the journals, Respondent brought M.B.G. a safe to help maintain the journals in privacy. This purchase constituted involvement with the patient M.B.G. beyond the provision of appropriate care and into the area of problem solving in which Respondent should not have been involved. Respondent has come to understand that the purchase of the "lock-box" was not an appropriate decision. Another indication that Respondent was deviating from the normal physician-patient expectations in treating M.B.G. occurred in September 1998, in a meeting between M.B.G. and her parents. Rather than maintain his professional objectivity, Respondent sided with the patient M.B.G. in a setting in which the parents were attempting to impose rules and restrictions on her conduct. In retrospect Respondent feels that he should have handled that appointment differently, realizing his conduct indicated that something was going on within him that was not desirable, as evidenced by his starting to side with the patient. In November 1998, in response to one of the therapy sessions Respondent was engaged in with M.B.G., Respondent provided the patient with a can of Spaghettios and a poster board that he sent home with her mother. With these items he wrote a note that indicated that the Spaghettios were a reward for her efforts and he signed the note "your protector" and the name "Steve" in informal reference. As Respondent acknowledges, this was "an indication there was certainly more going on with myself," referring to feelings he was developing for the patient that were not proper conduct for a physician. M.B.G. and her family took a Christmas holiday in 1998. M.B.G. did not enjoy the trip. In explaining the lack of enjoyment, M.B.G. indicated that she did not enjoy spending time with her family on the vacation. Upon the return home M.B.G. went to stay with a friend from school. The friend with whom M.B.G. was staying upon the return from the vacation was being visited by some students from Florida State University. It was decided that M.B.G.'s friend, M.B.G., and those students would go to M.B.G.'s house to play pool. The next morning, M.B.G.'s mother found evidence that beer or other forms of alcohol had been consumed in the basement where the pool table was located. D.G., M.B.G.'s father also saw this evidence. M.G. confronted M.B.G. with the evidence. M.B.G.'s response was to leave her home and return to her friend's home. Later M.B.G. called her home and left a message that she was going to spend the night with her friend. Beyond that point Respondent became aware that M.B.G. and her mother had a disagreement about what had happened in the basement at their home. M.B.G. denied being involved in drinking. Respondent became involved in what he considered to be a stand- off between M.B.G. and her mother concerning terms acceptable for M.B.G.'s return home from her friend's house. As Respondent described it, he was allowing himself to get stuck in between M.B.G. and her mother on this subject. During the time that M.B.G. lived away from her home with the friend, Respondent spoke to M.G. about a contact which M.G. had with Three Springs, in which it was stated that M.B.G. might be returned to that facility or that M.B.G. might possibly be emancipated. Respondent spoke to Dr. Ellen Gandle, a forensic child/adolescent/adult psychiatrist, expressing his feelings of responsibility to help M.B.G. other than in the role of psychiatrist. Dr. Gandle strongly suggested Respondent not abandon his role as psychotherapist in favor of that of guardian for M.B.G. The possible guardianship was another subject that had been discussed with M.G. Respondent also tried to contact Dr. Charles Billings who had been the Respondent's residency director at Ochner to discuss this situation concerning M.B.G. In conversation, Dr. Victor F. DeMoya, Respondent's partner in the practice, advised Respondent that Dr. DeMoya considered it to be a conflict in roles for Respondent to be a therapist to M.B.G. and her guardian and that Respondent should seek the "feedback" of other colleagues about that prospect. Given the schism that existed between M.B.G. and her mother, the mother expressed a reluctance to provide continuing financial support to her daughter, the mother wanted the daughter to return the car the daughter was allowed to drive, and the mother wanted the house keys and credit cards returned. These views were made known to Respondent. Respondent went with a member of M.B.G.'s therapy group to M.B.G.'s home to remove her belongings. This retrieval of the patient's belongings was a boundary violation of conduct expected of a physician. Beyond that point Respondent continued to pursue a course of conduct involving boundary violations in his relationship with M.B.G. While M.B.G. was living with her friend from December 1998 until February 12, 1999, Respondent saw her frequently outside the treatment setting. In these instances Respondent discussed with M.B.G. her living circumstance. Respondent was involved with paying rent to the family of the friend with whom M.B.G. was living. Respondent was involved with shortening M.B.G.'s school day as a means to assist her in getting a job. Respondent helped M.B.G. to fill-out applications for college. Although Respondent had the expectation that M.B.G. would eventually repay the money expended, Respondent and his wife purchased an automobile and gave it to M.B.G. Respondent opened a joint checking account in which M.B.G. had access to monies that had been placed there by Respondent. Respondent provided M.B.G. a pager which was used by Respondent in contacting M.B.G. at her friend's residence after curfew hours that had been imposed by the friend's parents. Sometime around the latter half of January 1999, Respondent became convinced that he was falling in love with M.B.G. He gave expression to these feelings both verbally and in cards that he sent to M.B.G. In addition, Respondent had sexual fantasies about M.B.G. Respondent went so far as to discuss with M.B.G. the possibility of marrying her and the consequences of that choice. Eventually, Respondent made his wife aware of his feelings toward M.B.G. On February 11, 1999, while seated in the car Respondent had purchased for M.B.G., they kissed briefly. On February 12, 1999, M.B.G. and the friend in whose house M.B.G. was living, had an argument and M.B.G. left the home. After leaving she called Respondent early on February 13, 1999. She explained to Respondent that she had left the friend's home and was planning to drive to Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In response Respondent offered to meet M.B.G. They met at a parking lot at a Walgreens store. While seated in the car they talked for a while and kissed. Respondent invited M.B.G. to stay at his residence. She declined. Respondent then offered to get her a hotel room. On February 13, 1999, Respondent paid for a room in a local motel for M.B.G. to use. Respondent carried her belongings into the room. They sat on the bed in the room and talked, kissed, and hugged. In the course of the hugging Respondent placed his hand inside the band of M.B.G.'s sweat pants that she was wearing. Respondent touched M.B.G.'s breast on the outside of her clothing. Respondent then left the lodging and returned home. When at home he explained to his wife what had transpired with M.B.G. Following the encounter on February 13, 1999, in the motel, Respondent discussed the situation involving M.B.G. with his partner in the clinic. His partner told Respondent that Respondent needed help. Respondent contacted Dr. Henry Dohn, an adult psychiatrist practicing in Pensacola, Florida. This visit took place on February 14, 1999. They discussed the situation with M.B.G. An arrangement was made for a return visit which occurred on February 19, 1999. Respondent reports that Dr. Dohn told Respondent that the Respondent was not thinking clearly and needed to stop practicing and to attend to whatever issues needed attention in association with the boundary violation pertaining to M.B.G. Respondent was told by Dr. Dohn that if he did not report himself, Dr. Dohn would make a report concerning the conduct. In turn Respondent called a Dr. Dwyer, the on-call doctor at the Physician's Resource Network. Consistent with the discussion held between Respondent and Dr. Dohn, Respondent determined to admit himself for treatment at the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas. Respondent was admitted to the clinic on February 22, 1999. He had told his partner Dr. DeMoya that he was going to the clinic. Respondent admitted himself to the Menninger Clinic on a voluntary basis. While under treatment at Menninger Clinic Respondent was cared for by Dr. Richard Irons. Respondent also consulted with Dr. Glenn Gabbard, who specializes in boundary violations. Respondent was treated at the Menninger Clinic from February 22, 1999 through February 24, 1999, on an in-patient basis. He continued his treatment on an out-patient basis from February 24, 1999 until March 19, 1999. Respondent was released from the Menninger Clinic on March 19, 1999, and returned to Florida. Without justification and contrary to appropriate conduct for a physician, especially when recognizing his past indiscretions with M.B.G., Respondent made an arrangement to meet M.B.G. in person. This was contrary to any of the advise he had been given either medical or legal. While it had been suggested that Respondent offer assistance in placing M.B.G. in therapy with another care-giver, it was not contemplated that the arrangements would be made in person. Moreover, Respondent had a more expansive agenda in mind when meeting M.B.G., beyond acknowledging his responsibility for what had transpired between them, the offer to assist in finding a therapist and the possibility of paying for the therapy. Broadly stated, Respondent believed at that point-in-time that he could "fix things between them." Respondent was unaware that M.B.G. had contacted the authorities after their encounter in the motel room and complained about his conduct. She agreed to assist the authorities in investigating Respondent, to include taping telephone conversations between M.B.G. and Respondent while he was in Topeka, Kansas, undergoing treatment and upon his return. As well, M.B.G. was wearing a transmitter when she met Respondent in a park in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, on March 22, 1999, that would allow the authorities to record the meeting. The meeting was also video-taped. When the meeting concluded Respondent was arrested by Okaloosa County, Florida, Sheriff's deputies upon charges of battery, attempted sexual misconduct by a psychotherapist and interference with child custody. As a consequence, Respondent was charged in State of Florida vs. Stephen Schenthal, in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County, Florida, Case No. 99-497-CFA. The case was disposed of by entry of a plea of nolo contendere to Count One: attempted interference in custody, Count Two: attempted sexual misconduct by a psychotherapist. In response an order was entered by the Court withholding the adjudication of guilt and placing defendant on probation on September 2, 1999. Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years under terms set forth in the court order. These criminal offenses relate to the practice of medicine or the ability to practice medicine. In his testimony Respondent acknowledged that he committed boundary violations with M.B.G. that are depicted in the fact finding. Whether Respondent recognized the damage he was causing while he was engaged in the misconduct, he does not deny that he violated the fiduciary relationship with his patient by betraying M.B.G.'s trust and participating in the re- traumaterzation of her past. No independent evidence from a person treating the patient was presented concerning M.B.G.'s mental health following Respondent's transgressions. But Respondent recognizes the potential for significant damage to his patient by making it hard for M.B.G. to trust other physicians, therapists, authority figures, or to trust relationships in general and the possible re-enforcement of the trauma that had occurred in her childhood. Dr. Peter A. Szmurlo, a psychiatrist who practices in Florida, was called upon to review the circumstances concerning Respondent's relationship with M.B.G. Dr. Szmurlo has not had the opportunity to examine M.B.G. However, in a report dated November 1, 2000, concerning Respondent's actions, Dr. Szmurlo stated, "I believe that the patient's relationship with Dr. Schenthal was nothing but destructive and may preclude her ability to ever be able to develop a trusting relationship with another male and/or with another psychotherapist." In his deposition Dr. Szmurlo expressed the opinion that the issue of potential harm to M.B.G. was clear and that the potential harm was in association with "further undermining of the patient's sense of safety and, therefore enhancing or recreating the original trauma (assuming it really occurred), and that's the sexual trauma which occurred in early years." Dr. Joel Ziegler Klass, practices psychiatry in Florida. Dr. Klass reviewed information concerning Respondent's relationship with M.B.G. Dr. Klass did not personally assess M.B.G., however, within his knowledge of the facts concerning the relationship between Respondent and M.B.G. and the patient's prior history; Dr. Klass did not think a lot of damage had been done by Respondent to M.B.G. He did express the opinion that M.B.G. lost out on valuable time to get help for her mental health based upon Respondent's indiscretion. As of November 27, 2000, when M.B.G. gave her deposition, she was attending the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. She explained that she had been seen by a mental health care provider, Dr. Carol Ware, a psychologist in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The purpose for seeing Dr. Ware was basically pertaining to "things that had happened with Dr. Schenthal." M.B.G. last saw Dr. Ware in July or August 2000. M.B.G. expressed an interest in seeing a psychiatrist and indicated that she had called three different doctors. She wishes to see a female psychiatrist and she understands that only one or two female psychiatrists were practicing in Tuscaloosa when she inquired. She provided information to facilitate being seen by one of those psychiatrists but has not heard back from either practitioner concerning their willingness to treat M.B.G. In her deposition M.B.G. expressed the feeling of depression "just ups and downs and it comes as fast as it goes and it’s getting a lot worse and I need somebody to help me with it." Dr. Szmurlo expressed the opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Respondent used information gathered from the physician/patient relationship during the therapeutic sessions to establish trust and exercise influence over M.B.G. thereby engaging in a course of conduct for purposes of engaging a patient in a sexual relationship. That opinion is accepted. Dr. Szmurlo also expressed the opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Respondent in his treatment of M.B.G. practiced medicine with a level of care, skill, and treatment, which would not be recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. That opinion is accepted. Respondent: Diagnosis, Care, and Practice Opportunities Respondent returned to the Menninger Clinic on March 29, 1999, and was seen on an in-patient basis until May 14, 1999. Dr. Richard Irons was Respondent's principal treating physician at the Menninger Clinic. Upon his release from the Menninger Clinic, Respondent has been routinely treated by Dr. Roberta Schaffner, who practices psychiatry in Pensacola, Florida. Her treatment began July 9, 1999, and was continuing upon the hearing dates. Her treatment involves psychotherapy and the use of medications. As Dr. Schaffner explained in correspondence to counsel for Respondent, Dr. Schaffner's treatment does not involve the role of making specific recommendations about the timing and details of Respondent's possible return to practice. The treatment provided by Dr. Schaffner was in agreement with the treatment plan from the Menninger Clinic and was discussed with Dr. Irons and Dr. Gabbard who had cared for Respondent at the Menninger Clinic. Dr. Schaffner does not oppose the recommendations of Dr. Barbara Stein, a psychiatrist who has evaluated Respondent concerning his fitness to return to practice and under what circumstances. With this knowledge, Dr. Schaffner has indicated that were she persuaded that the suggestions by Dr. Stein for restrictions on Respondent's possible return to practice were ideas that were dangerous or inappropriate, Dr. Schaffner would be active in expressing her opposition, recognizing Respondent's difficulties. This is taken to mean recognizing Respondent's underlying mental health which needs attention. As Dr. Klass explained in his testimony, Respondent's present physician Dr. Schaffner would not offer her specific observations concerning Respondent in the interest of maintaining the physician/patient relationship. Using the diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV, Mental Disorders, Dr. Irons identified Respondent's condition as follows: Axis I: 296.22 Major depressive episode, single, in full remission V. 62.2 Occupational problem associated with professional sexual misconduct Axis II: 301.9 Personality disorder NOS, a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic, histrionic, compulsive and dependent features. Dr. Irons expressed this diagnosis in correspondence dated March 24, 2000, directed to Dr. Raymond M. Pomm, Medical Director for the Physician's Resource Network. In addition to the prior treatment described, Dr. Irons has seen Respondent for internal review of Respondent's progress and rehabilitation. On November 29 and 30, and December 1, 1999, Dr. Irons noted that: The patient continued to show progress and understanding in appreciating boundary- related issues, as well as problems of potential vulnerability associated with professional re-entry. The patient shows incremental improvement in understanding dynamics of boundary violations and appears to have gained some insight into the nature of his own transgressions. I concur with opinions presented by Dr. Schaffner, as well as Dr. Gabbard that ongoing and continuing work should be strongly encouraged. Collectively, Dr. Gabbard, Dr. Schaffner, and myself believe that this individual has the potential to practice psychiatry but only with the use of a carefully structured and monitored professional re-entry program. view: We would support professional re-entry into a psychiatric practice that involves males and females if the site provided for direct supervision with regular reports to appropriate regulatory authorities in Florida. In the correspondence Dr. Irons went on to express his It is my professional opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Steven Schenthal has made sufficient progress to be able to return to the practice of psychiatry with reasonable skill and safety on the following conditions: The patient will return to practice serving an all-male population. The patient will not serve females professionally under any circumstances. Dr. Schenthal will not engage in marital therapy or couples therapy or work with groups involving males and females. Dr. Schenthal will engage in a program that will involve monitoring of his practice through a sexual boundary violation contract with the Physicians Recovery Network. The patient will enact practice modifications which include appointments only during office hours with support staff in attendance, limitation of office hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., office policies and office practice to be monitored by a psychiatrist agreeable to Dr. Schenthal and the Physician Resource Network, ongoing individual psychotherapy with Roberta Schafner, [sic] M.D., twice weekly at this time and a frequency agreeable to Dr. Schafner [sic] and other concerns [sic] parties. The patient will practice in an office which includes other therapists if not other physicians, and will arrange for clinical supervision with the supervisor having regular contact with Roberta Schafner [sic]. Dr. Barbara N. Stein, is Board-certified in psychiatry and practices in Florida. She was requested by Respondent to provide a second opinion on what parameters would allow Respondent to practice medicine with reasonable skill and with safety to patients. Reportedly, this request was made by Respondent who was dissatisfied with Dr. Irons' recommendations concerning the circumstances under which Respondent might return to practice. Based upon a review of the history of Respondent and the treatment provided to M.B.G. and an interview conducted on August 22, 2000, Dr. Stein concluded that Respondent suffers from Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, without psychotic features, Mild DSM-IV 296.21; Dysthymic Disorder, DSM- IV 300.4; and that there is evidence that Respondent suffers from personality disorder, not otherwise specified with narcissistic, histrionic, and anti-social personality traits, DSM-IV 301.9. In her report Dr. Stein went on to express her opinion on how Respondent can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients and stated that within her opinion with reasonable medical certainty Respondent can practice safely as long as certain restrictions were in place to include: Dr. Schenthal continues at least weekly (and preferably twice a week) therapy as recommended with Dr. Schaffner. Dr. Schenthal continues in weekly PRN Caduceus group. Dr. Schenthal continues to have regular, indirect physician monitoring of his cases directed by the Board. Dr. Schenthal works only in an institutional or group practice setting and does not treat (with psychotherapy) any female patients under 30 for at least two years or until which time he is deemed safe to do so. Dr. Schenthal may do medication management with females under 30 if and only if he has a licensed female health care worker in the room at all times and he does not have any call responsibilities that would cause him to treat these patients after hours without a chaperone. He should not ever treat female adolescents again. Dr. Schenthal takes a series of professional boundary/risk management courses on an annual basis. Patient survey and physician survey forms are employed quarterly and results are satisfactory. Dr. Schenthal has appointments only during regular office hours. Dr. Schenthal continues taking his antidepressant medication until his depressive symptoms have remitted for a minimum of six months and/or Dr. Schaffner recommends discontinuation. Dr. Schenthal and his wife participate in marital therapy if recommended by Dr. Schaffner. Dr. Schenthal is fully compliant with the above and with his long-term PRN contract. With the above recommendations for continued rehabilitation, supervision and monitoring in place, it is my medical opinion that Dr. Schenthal can begin his re-entry into professional practice with the reasonable skills and safety to patients. Dr. Raymond M. Pomm is a psychiatrist. He is the Medical Director of the Physician's Resource Network. Dr. Pomm was aware of Dr. Stein's findings concerning Respondent when Dr. Pomm prepared his own report on October 27, 2000. Based upon Dr. Stein's evaluation, Dr. Pomm's knowledge of the case and with the recognition that restrictions on Respondent's return to practice would be monitored by the Physician's Resource Network, in part and by the Agency for Health Care Administration otherwise, Dr. Pomm described the nature of restrictions he would recommend, should Respondent be allowed to return to practice. They were as follows: Dr. Schenthal should continue at least weekly psychotherapy. This will be a requirement of his PRN contract. Dr. Schenthal should continue his weekly PRN Caduceus group. This also will be a part of his PRN contract. Dr. Schenthal should have indirect physician supervision. This supervision would entail Dr. Schenthal meeting with a physician who is Board-Certified in his specific specialty of Psychiatry on a monthly basis. Each visit will require the supervisor to review with Dr. Schenthal a randomly selected ten percent of Dr. Schenthal's charts pertaining to his treatment of female patients. Therefore, every quarter, a minimum of thirty percent of his charts should have been reviewed. The review would be looking at the appropriateness of evaluative techniques used, therapeutic and psychotropic medication management issues, as well as, countertransferential issues. Also, this review will determine the appropriateness of the ongoing treatment plan and Dr. Schenthal's follow-up with said treatment plan. Dr. Schenthal should only work in an institutional or group practice setting. Dr. Schenthal should not treat any female patient under thirty years of age with psychotherapy for at least two years, and until such time he is deemed safe to do so. Dr. Schenthal may do medication management with females under thirty years of age, if an only, if, he has a licensed female health care worker in the room at all times. Dr. Schenthal should never have any call responsibilities that would cause him to treat the restricted population after hours without a chaperone. Dr. Schenthal should never treat female adolescent patients again (any female patients under twenty-one years of age). Dr. Schenthal should receive annual CME credits in boundary violation and risk management. Patient survey forms, which will be supplied by PRN, should be distributed to his patients by his office manager for one entire week every quarter. These completed forms would then be sent to his indirect physician supervisor for review. Dr. Schenthal should only have appointments with patients during regular office hours. Dr. Schenthal should continue to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis as required by his PRN monitoring contract. Dr. Schenthal will be required to inform his office staff of the difficulties he is experiencing, the terms of his agreement with the Agency for Health Care Administration, as well as, the terms of his agreement with his PRN contract and give his staff the PRN phone number. The tenure of the PRN contract will be license-long. Dr. Klass was called upon by Respondent to offer an opinion concerning Respondent's conduct, in relation to the care Respondent provided M.B.G. After familiarizing himself with the circumstances, to include the reports of Dr. Schaffner concerning treatment provided Respondent and the forensic psychiatric examination performed by Dr. Stein, Dr. Klass arrived at his opinion concerning Respondent's status. Dr. Klass also spoke to Dr. Schaffner by telephone concerning her opinion and attitudes about Respondent. Implicit in Respondent's request was the intent that Dr. Klass speak to the issue of Respondent's future opportunities to practice and under what conditions. In arriving at his conclusions Dr. Klass performed an assessment of Respondent. Dr. Klass expressed the opinion that if Respondent were allowed to return to practice, Respondent could do so acceptably if the following restrictions were in place: 1) No treatment of a female patient younger than 21 years of age until Respondent completes his therapy, as attested to by two sources, one of whom is his treating psychiatrist and the other psychiatrist who is selected; 2) Supervision of all female cases not just young females; Respondent would have to take the charts of his female patients to a qualified Board-certified expert and go over those cases so that it can be determined whether Respondent is significantly affected by his problem in that it is not resolved; 3) Marriage counseling; 4) Participation in group therapy; 5) Medication as necessary; 6) Urine checks that Respondent would have to consent to on an unscheduled basis to determine if he is taking prescribed medication; 7) Further psychiatric/psychological testing if deemed necessary by treating therapists or the Board of Medicine; 8) Literature review on the subject of countertransferance which was in evidence in Respondent's conduct directed to M.B.G.; 9) No patients seen before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.; 10) Contact with Physician's Resource Network professionals who have similar problems to those experienced by Respondent; 11) Allowing assessment by a third- party through a psychological or psychiatric evaluation; Allowing communication with female consenting patients concerning limited questions about their therapy; and Maintaining a "dream journal." With these restrictions in mind, Dr. Klass believes, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, that Respondent could practice psychiatry safely. The restrictions which the physicians have recommended recognize that Respondent has yet to achieve a level of improvement in his condition that would not require close monitoring of his practice and their belief that he not be allowed to treat young female patients. These opinions are held while recognizing Respondent's improvement and willingness to continue with treatment. The opinions concerning restrictions on practice are accepted as well informed and meaningful. Dr. Madison Haire is a practicing internist and nephrologist in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. In the past, Dr. Haire referred patients to Respondent and was persuaded that Respondent provided those patients with excellent supervision, monitoring, and care, prior to the incident with forms the basis for this case. Dr. Haire was unaware of any complaints against Respondent. Dr. Patricia Harrison is a Board Certified psychiatrist who is practicing in the Fort Walton Beach area and has had the opportunity to observe Respondent in the performance of his duties. Dr. Harrison has observed that Respondent exercised professionalism and good judgment in rendering good care and treatment to his patients, aside from the present case. Other physicians have offered favorable opinions concerning Respondent's practice as evidenced in Respondent's Exhibit No. 8.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which imposes the following penalties: Count One: Imposition of a $5,000.00 administrative fine; Count Two: A suspension of one year from the date upon which the final order is entered; Count Three: Placement of Respondent on two years probation following the service of his suspension, subject to such conditions as the Board may specify and restriction of Respondent's practice consistent with those recommendations that have been made by the treatment specialists, as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ruth Theresa Healey, was, at all times material hereto, licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0983072 by the Board of Nursing. On May 20, 1988, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Broward Convalescent Home for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Included in Respondent's responsibilities were the assessment of each patient under her care; the administration of medication to her patients according to the physician's orders; and the correct documentation of each medication administration on each patient's medical chart. Under Respondent's care on May 20, 1988 was the patient, E.M. The physician's orders for E.M. during Respondent's shift indicated that she was to be fed with one-half strength Entrition at 60 cc's per hour with water flushes through the gastrostomy tube (G Tube) which had been inserted into her abdomen. One-half strength Entrition is a nutrition substitute which is supplied in a self-contained package. On May 20, 1988, the supply of one-half strength was on special order and would not be available for use at Broward Convalescent Home until the next morning during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. E.M.'s G Tube was clearly marked on E.M.'s chart and easily observed upon patient assessment since it was protruding from her abdomen. Sometime during Respondent's shift, a naso-gastric tube, NG Tube, was also inserted into E.M. Without a physician's order, the insertion of a NG Tube into a patient with an existing G Tube could prove harmful to the patient and is contrary to the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. It was Petitioner's contention that Respondent inserted the NG Tube into her patient. Petitioner's position was supported by the testimony of Geraldine Hamilton, a nurse who came on duty the morning of May 21, 1988. Ms. Hamilton recalled that Respondent admitted to Ms. Hamilton that Respondent was in trouble because she, "put an NG Tube in one of the patients who has already got a G Tube." However, Respondent, at the hearing, consistently denied having made the statement. She asserted, instead, that a co-worker, Bunster Martinez, inserted the NG Tube. During Respondent's shift, she had sought Mr. Martinez's advice concerning the procedure she should use to feed E.M. since the one-half strength Entrition was not available. Mr. Martinez was not present at the hearing. Respondent's speech pattern, as observed at the hearing and as noted through the testimony of others is not clear. Rather, it is cryptic and disjointed. Given Respondent's poor diction and syntax, Respondent's consistent denial that she inserted the NG Tube and the lack of corroborating evidence that Respondent did, in fact, insert the NG Tube, the literal meaning of Respondent's statement to Ms. Hamilton is unclear. Respondent did not perform an assessment of E.M. which would have revealed the G Tube. Instead, contrary to the physician's order, Respondent began the administration of full strength Entrition through the NG Tube. In an attempt to create one-half strength Entrition, Respondent knowingly administered full strength Entrition for one hour at 85 cc. per hour followed by water flushes. However, the quality of one-half strength Entrition can not be obtained by diluting full strength Entrition in this manner, and the administration of full strength Entrition could have harmed F.M. Respondent's failure to perform an assessment of her patient and her action with regard to this feeding were contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice and constituted unprofessional conduct on her part. Also, although Respondent administered to E.M. full strength Entrition through the NG Tube, she entered the feeding on E.M.'s chart as Entrition one- half strength at 60cc/hour via G tube. Accordingly, Respondent knowingly falsified the medication administration report. The following morning, May 21, 1988, when the presence of the NG Tube was questioned, Respondent abruptly and forcibly removed the NG Tube from E.M. The procedure Respondent used to remove the NG Tube was also contrary to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, constituting unprofessional conduct on her part and placing her patient in more jeopardy. Respondent acted somewhat incoherently on several occasions around the end of May, 1988. She was observed "talking to herself", was unresponsive to questions and appeared disoriented. No competent evidence was presented that such conduct resulted from a physical or mental condition or from medication. Respondent was previously suspended by the Board of Nursing and required to undergo psychiatric treatment. She was subsequently reinstated. No competent and substantial evidence was presented that Respondent disobeyed the previous order or any order of the Board of Nursing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the a final order be entered suspending Respondent's license for a period of one year, and thereafter, until she can demonstrate the ability to practice nursing in a safe and proficient manner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12 day of October 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12 day of October 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-3401 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 2. Subordinate to the result reached. In part, addressed in paragraph 3 ;in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. In part, subordinate to result reached; in part, addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 3. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 9. In part, addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6; in part, subordinate to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 7. In part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence, in part, subordinate to the result reached. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. In part, addressed in paragraphs 10 and 11. In part, subordinate to the result reached, in part, not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. Addressed in paragraph 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Ruth Theresa Healey, R.N. 1075 N.E. 39th Street, Apartment 110 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
