Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered nurse who began her employment at South Lake Memorial Hospital on August 29, 1977, and was terminated on April 23, 1980. During her employment, the Respondent received four poor evaluations and/or warnings for her nursing practice. The first warning occurred on August 1, 1979. This warning involved allegations of poor nursing performance by the Respondent. These allegations included the Respondent leaving her unit, failing to properly organize her work, failing to properly restrain a patient, wasting time by running too many EGG strips instead of performing her assigned functions, failing to take vital signs timely when coming onto shift, becoming hostile with the Director of Nursing, and failing to obey the direct order of the Director of Nursing to leave the hospital and go home after an argument on July 12, 1979. Although there was no direct evidence as to most of the allegations, the Respondent admitted to late charting, failing to timely take vital signs, spending time working with ECG strips, and failing to obey a direct order to-go home given by the Director of Nursing. The next evaluation occurred on November 26, 1979. The deficiencies in Respondent's practice as alleged by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent gave a patient whole blood instead of packed cells as ordered by the physician, failed to verify an error in transcription by the ward clerk which resulted in a patient's x-rays being delayed for a day, and improperly charting when the Respondent noted on the nursing notes that at 9:00 p.m. there was no significant change in a patient's condition, when in fact the patient had left the hospital at 8:30 p.m. The lack of direct evidence of these allegations was compensated for by the Respondent's admissions as she testified concerning the circumstances surrounding why the incidents occurred. The third warning occurred on March 19, 1980. The allegations in the warning concerned the Respondent having shouted at a supervisor, abandoning her patients, allowing two I.V.s to run dry, failing to carry out a doctor's orders, and failing to chart. Again, there was no direct evidence of the allegations, however, the Respondent admitted that she left her duty station because of sickness prior to relief arriving in the unit, failed to properly follow doctor's orders, and failed to chart for the time she was present in the unit prior to her reporting to the emergency room. The fourth and final warning, which resulted in termination, occurred on April 23, 1980. The allegations by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent hung one-fourth percent normal saline solution rather than the one- half percent normal saline solution ordered by the physician, and that the Respondent failed to administer the 5:00 p.m. medication. Again, the allegations were admitted by the Respondent as she attempted to explain why they occurred. The Director of Nursing testified that during each of these warnings, the Respondent's attitude was that she had done nothing wrong and, therefore, could not improve on her performance. The testimony of the Department's nurse investigator was to the effect that the Respondent's actions failed to meet the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The investigator also testified that, in her opinion, a nurse with Respondent's poor attitude could be extremely dangerous in a hospital setting. After many years of difficult and stressful work, many nurses suffer from what is commonly referred to as "burn out" and are no longer useful, and can be dangerous in a high stress area of nursing. Respondent testified in her own behalf and offered an explanation for each allegation presented by Petitioner. Respondent testified that relative to the first warning, even though she only had two patients, she did not have adequate time to do her charting during her shift and, therefore, had to stay two hours late. Respondent further testified that on one occasion she had not timely taken her vital signs because the Director of Nursing had delayed her with a needless confrontation. Respondent testified that she did not leave the facility as ordered on August 12, 1979, because she was afraid that she would be abandoning her patients, and could lose her vacation and sick leave benefits. With respect to the November 26, 1979 evaluation, the Respondent testified that she gave whole blood instead of packed cells because the whole blood was incorrectly labeled as packed cells. Respondent further testified that she became aware of the error after the solution had infused, and that had she looked at the solution earlier she would have been able to see that it was an incorrect blood product, and would have been able to correct the problem. As to the incorrect transcription resulting in a patient's x-rays being delayed, the Respondent stated that it was the ward clerk's responsibility, not hers, to transcribe the doctor's orders. With respect to the 9:00 p.m. nursing notes when the patient had left the facility at 8:30 p.m., the Respondent's response was that she had been aware that the patient was gone, but was summarizing the patient's condition during the entire shift up to the point the patient left. Respondent acknowledge that the nursing notes may have been misleading. As to thee warning of termination on March 19, 1980, the Respondent admitted leaving her unit prior to relief arriving. Her explanation gas that she had been attempting for one hour to get assistance, to no avail. Upon questioning, she admitted that she was-only "a little dizzy" and had diarrhea. On that day she did not chart any nursing care given by her while on duty. The Respondent was caring for twelve patients at that time. With respect to the April 23, 1980 termination, Respondent admitted that she hung the incorrect percentage saline solution, but that she did so because a prior nurse obtained the incorrect solution from a supply room. The Respondent then also admitted failing to give out the 5:00 p.m. medication as ordered, but stated the reason for her failure to administer the medication was her inability to obtain help from her supervisor which was necessary because she was overworked. Respondent also testified that during this time period, she went on rounds with a doctor, and also went to dinner. The Respondent testified that she felt she was a good and qualified nurse. Respondent also testified that she had been fired previously from Leesburg General Hospital. The Respondent believes her attitude to be good and indicated that the hospital was overreacting to a few isolated incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice nursing in the State of Florida, license number 39108-2, be suspended indefinitely. If the Respondent seeks reinstatement, it will be her responsibility to undergo counseling with a psychologist or psychiatrist, for an in-depth evaluation and treatment, the results of which shall be submitted to the Board of Nursing if and when the Respondent wishes to apply for reinstatement of her nursing license. If the Respondent applies for reinstatement of her license, it shall be her responsibility to demonstrate to the Board that she is able to engage in the practice of nursing in a safe, professional, proficient and legal manner. This demonstration shall include but not be limited to a report by her psychologist or psychiatrist, along with a recommendation from him that she be reinstated to the practice of nursing. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent. ROYCE S. McCALL, was licensed by the State of Florida as a licensed practical nurse, the license initially issued on December 4, 1978 and renewed thereafter until the present. His license number is 0500981. On July 11, 1984, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse with the Walton County Convalescent Center (WCCC) in DeFuniak Springs, Florida. Late that evening, at approximately 4 or 5 a.m., Respondent, as charge nurse on one of the Center's units, along with Rachiel Infinger and Corene Fondren, was about to change a bladder catheter on one of the Center's residents, a Mrs. Rourke. Before doing so, however, he discovered that Mrs. Rourke had fouled herself and he refused to do the procedure then instructing Mrs. Rourke's aides to clean her up. He then went to the room occupied by Mrs. Harper, an elderly, completely bedridden patient between 80 and 90 years old, who rarely talks and can hardly move her arms and legs. Mrs. Harper also required a bladder catheter change and Respondent, along with another nurse, was attempting to do it. Since apparently Mrs. Harper was resisting somewhat, Respondent asked Ms. Infinger to help. During the course of the procedure, Mrs. Harper brought her hand down into the area where Respondent was working in an attempt to stop him. It was obvious that the procedure was somewhat painful to her and in the opinion of Ms. Infinger, Respondent was being less than gentle. When Mrs. Harper brought her hand down, Respondent grabbed it and moved it out of the way telling her at the time to, "Move your damned hand." This comment was heard by both Ms. Infinger and Ms. Fondren. When Respondent moved Mrs. Harper's hand, it collided with the bed rail which broke the skin causing it to bleed. Ms. Infinger noticed this and mentioned it to Respondent. He said he would take care of it and Ms. Infinger went some place else to do something. When she came back some 30 to 45 minutes later, she found that Respondent had still not dressed the skin break on Mrs. Harper's hand. Ms. Infinger thinks Respondent was too rough with Mrs. Harper. She believes it was not necessary for him to throw the elderly woman's hand off as he did. There were two aides present who could have, had they been asked, moved the hand and held it out of the way. There is some divergence in the testimony of Ms. Infinger and Ms. Fondren as to whether Respondent threw Mrs. Harper's hand or pushed it with the former contending it was a throw and the latter contending it was merely a push. Even Ms. Fondren, however, who believes this rough action was a reflex action by Respondent who had been in a bad mood all evening, agrees that since someone was there to help him, he should have asked for help rather than reacting on his own. If either witness is to be believed, however, Respondent acted unprofessionally. On the other hand, however, Ms. Stubbs, Ms. Blocker, and Ms. Fields, all of whom had worked with Respondent for several months, knew him from their repeated observations of him at work never to be abusive or rough with his patients. He is generally very kind to his patients, taking the time to explain what he is doing and exhibiting patience and understanding. His patience is somewhat less with the aides who in his opinion, do not do what they should on duty. Mrs. Harper has had several other skin tears both before and after the one in issue here. She is an old woman who bruises easily and whose skin can be broken easily. While not a difficult patient, she is somewhat confused and tends to try to interfere at times with the ministrations of those trying to help her and her hands often get in the way. Here, it is obvious that Respondent was in a bad mood late at night when he went to treat Mrs. Harper. He had just come from another patient who had not been properly cared for by the aides responsible for her and he was clearly annoyed. No doubt Mrs. Harper, not through spite or even consciously, attempted to stop him from doing what was no doubt a painful procedure and he reacted unprofessionally. This is not to say he consciously intended to harm her, but his reaction was less than it should have been in this situation. When Ms. Infinger came back and found that Respondent had not tended to Mrs. Harpers wound, she immediately reported this fact to Barbara Jean Miller, a licensed practical nurse working on another unit that evening who quickly treated and dressed the skin tear. When she left duty the next morning, she reported what she had seen and done and what Ms. Infinger had told her to the Assistant Director of Nursing who she saw outside in the parking lot. This lady reported it to the Director of Nursing, Mrs. Harwell, who conducted her own investigation. Mrs. Harwell interviewed Respondent who after first denying that the incident had taken place, admitted that he did yank Mrs. Harper's arm but stated he did not know it had hit the bed rail. He also initially denied knowing there was an injury but then admitted he had been told there was and that he had said he would fix it. He admitted that he was upset that evening. In the catheter procedure that Respondent was accomplishing, it is never appropriate to handle a patient so forcefully that it results in an injury even though it may be necessary to restrain or move the patient in some fashion. In Mrs. Harwell's opinion, Respondent's handling of Mrs. Harper in this instance was below minimum standards for the nursing profession. After talking with all the witnesses and securing pictures of the injury, based on her investigation and her discussions with Respondent, she terminated his employment with WCCC that day not only because in this instance his performance was below standards and unprofessional but also because this was the second incident of substandard performance on his record. She had previously chastised him for speaking improperly to or about another patient several weeks previously. Consequently, it is clear that Respondent moved Mrs. Harper's hand in such a manner that resulted in injury to her which is unprofessional conduct on his part compounded by his failure to return to treat the wound once he was made aware of it.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent admitted new residents in violation of Section 400.141(15)(d), Florida Statutes (2001); and, if so, whether Petitioner should reclassify Respondent's license from standard to conditional, impose an administrative fine of $7,500, and impose costs pursuant to Sections 400.23(8)(b) and 400.419(10), Florida Statutes (2001). (References to chapters and statutes are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating nursing homes in accordance with Chapter 400. Respondent is licensed as a skilled nursing facility pursuant to license number SNF 1186096, certificate number 8590. Respondent operates a 120-bed nursing home at 2500 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida 32805 as a non-profit facility (the facility). From April 8 through 11, 2002, a four-member survey team assigned by Petitioner conducted an annual survey of the facility pursuant to Section 400.23(7). The survey team found that the facility violated Section 400.23(3)(a) by failing to maintain minimum staffing requirements for licensed nurses equal to one hour of direct care per resident per day (minimum staffing requirements) during a 14-day period from March 17 through March 30, 2002 (the relevant period). Petitioner found that the facility failed to maintain minimum staffing requirements for 12 days during the relevant period, including two consecutive days on March 28 and 29, 2002. It is undisputed that the facility admitted new residents on March 17, 22, and 27, 2002. The survey team based its finding on records provided by the facility. In particular, the survey team relied on a table submitted by the facility that compares the total number of licensed nurses, including LPNs and RNs, to the resident census (the original submission by the facility). The original submission by the facility is identified in the record as page nine of Petitioner's Exhibit One (P-1). The original submission indicates the facility failed to maintain minimum staffing requirements on 12 days during the relevant period. The original submission indicates the facility complied with minimum staffing requirements on March 27 and March 30, 2002. During and after the survey, the facility submitted additional information in an attempt to explain the discrepancies in the original submission (subsequent submissions). The subsequent submissions are identified in the record as pages five and eight of P-1. The subsequent submissions indicate that the facility failed to meet minimum staffing requirements on five days during the relevant period. However, the subsequent submissions identify different days in which the facility failed to meet minimum staffing requirements. The subsequent submission identified as page five of P-1 indicates the facility failed to meet minimum staffing requirements on March 18 through 20, March 24, and March 29, 2002. The subsequent submission identified as page eight of P-1, indicates the facility fell below minimum staffing requirements on March 19, 21, 24, and 28 and 29, 2002. Given the inconsistencies in the three submissions by the facility, identified in the record as pages 5, 8, and 9 of P-1, Petitioner relied on the original submission by the facility, identified as page 9 of P-1, for the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint. In relevant part, the Administrative Complain alleges: . . . [T]he facility failed to maintain the minimum number of staff between March 17 . . . March 30, 2002. Nursing staffing records revealed that twelve days during the period were below minimum staffing. Further review of . . . [the] records revealed that it did not have six consecutive days during which it met the minimum required staffing. Interviews with the acting Director of Nursing . . . revealed that they were not aware of the staff shortages. Pursuant to [Section] 400.141(15)(d), Fla. Stat., [Respondent] is prohibited from accepting new admissions until it has achieved the minimum staffing requirements for a period of six consecutive days. [Respondent] admitted new residents on March 22 . . . [and] March 27, 2002. The Administrative Complaint does not expressly allege that the facility failed to meet minimum staffing requirements for "two consecutive days." However, such an allegation is necessarily implied in the allegation that the facility failed to meet minimum staffing requirements for 12 of the 14 days in the relevant period. The submissions by the facility, identified in the record as pages 5, 8, and 9 of P-1, were flawed for several reasons. First, the census count in each submission included bed holds for residents who were not present in the facility. The parties agree that bed holds should be excluded from the resident census and that the resident census should include only those residents that are physically present in the facility. Second, the submissions inadvertently excluded LPNs and RNs who were actually working during the relevant period, including contract nurses provided by outside agencies. Turnover among key personnel at the facility was another reason for the flawed submissions by the facility. On or about March 22, 2002, the Administrator of the facility and the Director of Nursing resigned. The individuals who replaced them were inexperienced in reporting data to Petitioner and were confused over how to compute minimum staffing requirements, including the resident census. The change in personnel also created confusion over whether to include clinical hours of nurses who also performed administrative functions. The minimum staffing requirements prescribed in Section 400.23(3)(a) provide, in relevant part, that the hours of a licensed nurse with dual job responsibilities cannot be counted twice. When the Director of Nursing resigned, the Assistant Director of Nursing became the Acting Director of Nursing (DON). The position of Assistant Director of Nursing remained vacant because the facility did not have a resident population large enough to require an Assistant Director of Nursing. The submissions by the facility did not include the clinical hours of nursing provided by the Assistant Director of Nursing before she became the DON. Nor did the submissions by the facility include the clinical hours of nursing provided by another licensed nurse identified in the record as the "MDS" Coordinator. After Petitioner filed the Administrative Complaint, Respondent retained two experts to determine minimum staffing levels at the facility during the relevant period. Each expert determined minimum staffing levels at the facility for the relevant period independently of the other expert. One expert spent approximately 14 hours in making her determination, and the other expert spent between 15 and 16 hours making her determination. The minimum staffing level computed by the first expert agreed with that computed by the second expert. Each expert relied on relevant facility records and interviewed facility personnel. Each expert calculated an adjusted census that excluded bed holds. Each expert reviewed time records of licensed nurses during the relevant period, including nurses provided by outside agencies. Each expert reviewed job descriptions for the Assistant Director of Nursing and the MDS Coordinator and interviewed the individuals who were the Assistant Director of Nursing and MDS Coordinator to determine the actual clinical hours of nursing each provided during the relevant period. The experts also discovered that time records excluded time actually worked by some licensed nurses during lunch. The experts included the time actually worked by those nurses in computing minimum staffing levels during the relevant period. The facility met or exceeded the minimum staffing requirements for licensed nurses on each day during the relevant period except March 19, 24, and 29, 2002. The facility did not fail to meet minimum staffing requirements on two consecutive days. If the time actually worked by licensed nurses but not included in the time records were disregarded, it would not result in understaffing for two consecutive days during the relevant period. During cross-examination, each of Respondent's experts agreed that she would have cited the facility for failing to meet minimum staffing requirements for two consecutive days if the information contained in the original and subsequent submissions by the facility had been the only information available to the expert. That was the only information available to the witness called by Petitioner, and time constraints permitted the witness to spend only about two hours reviewing the flawed information. Based on flawed information available to Petitioner prior to the administrative hearing, Petitioner correctly proposed to take final agency action to fine Respondent and to change Respondent's license status from standard to conditional. However, an administrative hearing conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1) is not a review of proposed agency action that has been taken preliminarily. An administrative hearing conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1) is a de novo hearing that is undertaken to formulate final agency action rather than to review proposed agency action taken preliminarily. A de novo hearing is not limited to information available to the agency at the time the agency proposes final agency action. The scope of a de novo hearing includes any relevant and material evidence admitted through the date of the hearing. The weight to be accorded that evidence is the sole province of the trier of fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the acts and omissions alleged in the Administrative Complaint and restoring Respondent's previous license rating nunc pro tunc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive Sebring Building, Suite 330L St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3219 George F. Indest III, Esquire The Health Law Firm 220 East Central Parkway, Suite 2030 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 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 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues for consideration are those allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation (Department), in which the Respondent, Scarlett Jones, R.N., is accused of various violations of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Through Count One it is said that the Respondent transcribed an order for Heparin to be administered to the patient K.W. as 15,000 units when the physician's order quoted the dosage as 5,000 units, and that the patient was given two dosages at 15,000 units as opposed to the required 5,000 units. In an additional accusation against the Respondent, related to patient care, Respondent is said to have failed to indicate in the patient K.W.'s nursing notes, on or about May 16, 1988, that an administration of Aminophylline was to be restarted during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Further, it is alleged that this substance was not restarted until 8:00 a.m. on the next day as discovered by a subsequent shift employee. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1) (f), Florida Statutes, related to alleged unprofessional conduct. Count Two to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about June 4, 1988, the Respondent who was assigned to care for the patient E.J., was told by a co-worker that the patient had fallen out of bed and soiled himself and that the Respondent failed to respond to the patient's needs after repeated requests. Eventually, it is alleged that the patient's wife assisted him back to bed and the co-worker took care of the patient's hygiene. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, related to unprofessional conduct and that she violated Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for knowingly violating a rule or order of the Board of Nursing. Finally, the third count of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent, on or about June 14, 1988, was found asleep while on duty in violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, an act of unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to, the failure to conform to minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. For these alleged violations, the Department seeks to impose disciplinary action which could include revocation or suspension, the imposition of an administrative fine and/or other relief which the Board of Nursing might deem appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the relevant periods under consideration in this Administrative Complaint the Respondent was licensed by the Department as a registered nurse and subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Nursing in disciplinary matters. The license number was 1702172. On April 11, 1988, Respondent took employment with Gadsden Memorial Hospital in Gadsden County, Florida, in a position of charge nurse on the Medical-Surgical Pediatrics Unit, also known as "Med-Surg. Ped." That unit provides short term acute care for post-operative patients, acute medical patients, and acute pediatric patients, some of which require 24-hour observation. Response to the needs of the patients is given by three nursing shifts in each day which begins with shifts of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., followed by the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and then 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following morning. Upon hiring, Respondent was assigned to the work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and was the only registered nurse on duty during that shift. Among the responsibilities of the charge nurse at the time under examination here, was the assessment of patients on the unit as well as an awareness of the abilities of those other employees who were working in this shift. This was in an effort to provide direct supervision of critical care patients and included supervision of activities performed by a Nurse Technician. Respondent was more directly responsible for critical patients. Other duties included making frequent rounds and checking vital signs in an attempt to insure that the patients were stable. Respondent as charge nurse on "Med-Surg. Ped." could not leave the floor without notification of the house supervisor, another registered nurse. This person would replace the Respondent on those occasions where the Respondent would need to vacate the floor. In addition it was expected that the Respondent would notify those personnel who were working with her on the unit, where she intended to go and how long she would be gone. Before departing it was expected that the Respondent would check the stability of patients. physician's Orders were written on March 2D, 1988, in anticipation of the admission of patient K.W. to Gadsden Memorial Hospital to "Med. Surg Ped." The admission was under orders by Dr. Halpren. Among those orders was the prescription of Heparin, 5,000 units, subcutaneously every 12 hours. The Physician's Orders in terms of legibility are not immediately discernible but can be read with a relatively careful observation of the physician's orders. A copy of those may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The problem that tends to arise is that on the line which immediately follows the orders related to Heparin 5,000 units, is found the word hysterectomy written in such a fashion that the initial portion of the letter "H" might be seen as being placed on the prior line giving the unit dosage of the Heparin the appearance of being 15,000 units as opposed to 5,000 units. On April 11, 1988, K.W. was admitted to Gadsden Memorial Hospital as anticipated. At the time of admission the Physician's Orders previously described were provided. Surgery was scheduled and the patient file was made on "Med-Surg. Ped." Under the practices within this hospital, the ward clerk was responsible for transcribing physician's orders onto the patient's Medication Administration Record. This was done here by the ward clerk, S. Diggs. This is to be checked for accuracy by the charge nurse, to include Respondent, with the fixing of the signature to this Medication Administration Record verifying the accuracy of the clerk's entries. Respondent initialed the Medication Administration Record for the patient designating that Heparin in the amount of 15,000 units Q-12, meaning to be given every 12 hours was the requirement, and had been administered in that dosage. This may be seen in a copy of the Medication Administration Record which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. The patient was to undergo extensive abdominal surgery, to include the possibility of a hysterectomy and the incorrect administration of Heparin might promote problems with bleeding. The incorrect amount of Heparin as a 15,000 unit dosage was given to K.W. on two occasions. Another patient who was admitted to the ward which Respondent was responsible for as charge nurse was the patient A.W. Physician's Orders were written for that patient by Dr. Woodward on May 16, 1988. A copy of the Physician's Orders may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. Among the substances prescribed was Aminophylline drip 20 milligrams per hour I.V. This patient had been admitted to the pediatric unit with a diagnosis of asthma and prescribed the Aminophylline to aid the patient's breathing. It was expected that patient A.W. was to be administered two dosages of Aminophylline, an intermediate dosage to be given every few hours in a larger quantity, and a continuous drip to run at 20 milligrams per hour. Within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 are nursing notes made by Respondent concerning A.W. On May 17, 1988, between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. it is noted that Respondent was having trouble with patient A.W.'s I.V. She states that the I.V. site was assessed and had to be pulled and that she was not able to reinsert due to the uncooperative nature of this child. The I.V. was restarted by the house supervisor nurse. An entry at 6:30 a.m. made by the Respondent describes the I.V. position as acceptable. When the shift changed at 7:00 a.m. the new charge nurse did not find the Aminophylline drip in progress, as called for, and this is noted in a 7:30 a.m. entry made by this registered nurse, Sherry Shiro. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a Confidential Incident Report prepared by the Gadsden Memorial Hospital concerning allegations against the Respondent. They have to do with an alleged incident that occurred around 5:00 a.m. and contain the purported observations by Lucinda Mack, a licensed practical nurse on duty at that time, and they were received on June 15, 1988, by Carol Riddle, R.N., Director of Nursing at Gadsden Memorial Hospital, and the person responsible for investigating this matter. The copy of the Confidential Incident Report contained observations about the alleged failure of treatment by the Respondent directed in the matter of the patient E.J. These remarks are hearsay. They do not corroborate competent evidence at hearing concerning any oversight by the Respondent in the treatment of the patient E.J. On or about June 14, 1988, the Director of Nursing, Carol Riddle, called the night supervisor Michelle Warring at 2:00 a.m. to ascertain if the Respondent was on duty. Respondent was working on that date. At 2:15 a.m. Warring advised Riddle that the Respondent could not be found and Riddle went to the hospital at that time. When she arrived at the facility at 3:00 a.m. she went to "Med-Surg. Ped." where she was informed by the communications clerk that Lucinda Mack, LPN, was the only nurse on duty in that unit, and that the clerk did not know where Respondent could be found. Riddle and Warring then looked through the patient rooms in "Med-Surg. Ped." but could not find the Respondent. One and a half hours after commencing the search Riddle located the Respondent in a different wing of the hospital which contains a respiratory therapy manager's office. Respondent was there with her husband asleep, with the door locked and lights off. At that time she was the only registered nurse on duty in "Med-Surg. Ped." which had six patients receiving care on that evening. Respondent was not performing her duties or supervising those other persons who worked with her on the unit. Respondent had been observed asleep at her nurses' station desk on several other occasions by Dale Storey, a registered nurse working at the Gadsden Memorial Hospital. Linda Reed, a nurse technician at Gadsden Memorial Hospital had observed the Respondent asleep on duty. As commented on by nurse Riddle, who is qualified to give expert opinion testimony about the performance of the Respondent in her nursing practice, the conduct set out before in these findings of fact constitutes unprofessional conduct in the practice of nursing, in a situation which the Respondent knew what her duties were as charge nurse and failed to perform them at an adequate level.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which fines the Respondent in the amount of $1,000 for the violation related to the care of patient K.W. as set out in Count One and for sleeping on duty as set out in Count Three. And, finds that the violation related to patient A.W. as set out in Count One and the violation alleged in Count Two related to the patient E.J. were not proven. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5719 Petitioner's fact finding is subordinate to the finding in the Recommended Order with exception of paragraph 16 which is not relevant and reference within paragraph 34 to the date June 24, 1988, which should have been June 14, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Scarlett Jones 2636 Mission Road, #138 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Judy Ritter, Executive Director Florida Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
