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 The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent should be subjected to discipline for the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner on July 28, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license no. ME 0031639 on October 26, 1977. Respondent is board certified in general surgery and has worked and trained as a general and vascular surgeon. Respondent has practiced medicine in Tampa since 1988. Respondent offered testimony establishing that his peers respect his ability as a surgeon. Until 1996, Respondent had not been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine or by any other licensing entity. On January 26, 1996, the Board of Medicine issued a final order in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 95-3925, imposing discipline on Respondent’s license to practice medicine. Case No. 95-3925 involved two separate incidents in which Respondent performed surgical procedures that had not been specifically consented to by the patients. In the first incident, Respondent removed the severely diseased left leg of the patient when the signed consent to surgery was for removal of the right leg. The patient was well known to Respondent, and it was understood between Respondent and the patient that both legs would eventually require amputation. In the second incident, Respondent removed a toe that had become dislocated during a debridement of the patient’s foot. The toe was connected only by ligament and necrotic tissue, and Respondent removed it during the debridement procedure rather than waiting to obtain specific consent for its removal. In the final order, the Board of Medicine concluded that Respondent had violated Sections 458.331(1)(p) and (t), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain proper consent from a patient and by practicing medicine below the standard of care. Based on these conclusions, the Board of Medicine imposed the following relevant disciplinary measures: Respondent’s license to practice medicine is REPRIMANDED. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000 to the Board of Medicine, within one year of the date this Final Order is filed. Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is SUSPENDED for a period of 6 months including the time served under the emergency suspension. Respondent shall submit a practice plan prior to reinstatement to be approved by the Board’s probation committee. Within 6 months of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent shall have an independent, certified risk manager review Respondent’s practice. Specifically, this independent consultant shall review the Respondent’s practice concerning preoperative procedures including patient consent. This consultant will prepare a written report addressing Respondent’s practice. Such report, if necessary, will include suggested improvements of the quality assurance of Respondent’s practice. Respondent will submit this report to the Board’s Probation Committee with documentation that demonstrates compliance with the suggestions enumerated in the consultant’s report. Upon reinstatement, Respondent’s license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: Respondent shall comply with all state and federal statutes, rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of medicine, including Chapters 455, 458, 893, Florida Statutes, and Rules 59R, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent shall appear before the Probation Committee at the first meeting after said probation commences, at the last meeting of the Probation Committee preceding termination of probation, quarterly, and at such other times requested by the committee. Respondent shall be noticed by the Board staff of the date, time and place of the Board’s Probation Committee whereat Respondent’s appearance is required. Failure of the Respondent to appear as requested or directed shall be considered a violation of the terms of this Probation, and shall subject the Respondent to disciplinary action. * * * 6. Respondent shall not practice except under the indirect supervision of a physician fully licensed under Chapter 458 to be approved by the Board’s Probation Committee.... The responsibilities of a monitoring physician shall include: Submit quarterly reports, in affidavit form, which shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Description of probationer’s practice. Brief statement of probationer’s compliance with terms of probation. Brief description of probationer’s relationship with monitoring physician. Detail any problems which may have arisen with probationer. * * * Respondent shall submit quarterly reports in affidavit form, the contents of which shall be specified by the Board. The reports shall include: Brief statement of why physician is on probation. Practice location. Describe current practice (type and composition). Brief statement of compliance with probationary terms. Describe relationship with monitoring/supervising physician. Advise Board of any problems. * * * 11. Respondent understands that during this period of probation, semi-annual investigative reports will be compiled by the Agency for Health Care Administration concerning his compliance with the terms and conditions of probation and the rules and statutes regulating the practice of medicine. On January 31, 1996, Respondent submitted to the Board of Medicine the practice plan required by the final order. The practice plan named Joseph Diaco, M.D., as Respondent’s monitoring physician, and stated that Dr. Diaco would review twenty percent of Respondent’s patient charts. The practice plan stated that Respondent would comply specifically with all the terms and conditions of the final order, and with the recommendations of the certified risk manager. The practice plan further stated: ... Dr. Sanchez will have specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered, wherein he will discuss the intended surgical procedure again, and will have the intended surgical site marked with indelible ink. The record does not document that the Board of Medicine’s Probation Committee formally approved Respondent’s practice plan, or addressed the terms of the practice plan in any way. Such approval is presumed from the fact that Respondent appeared before the Probation Committee on several occasions subsequent to filing the practice plan, and the record does not indicate that the Probation Committee registered any objection or suggested any modifications to the practice plan. Respondent made the required appearances before the Probation Committee. Respondent and Dr. Diaco submitted the required quarterly reports to the Board of Medicine, and Dr. Diaco fulfilled the monitoring requirements of the practice plan. Periodically during the probation period, Mr. Richard Hess, an investigator with the Agency for Health Care Administration, would contact Respondent and Dr. Diaco to inquire as to Respondent’s practice and compliance with the terms of probation. Mr. Hess would inquire regarding such matters as the submission of quarterly reports, the payment of the administrative fine, and the current locations at which Respondent was practicing. Mr. Hess would submit his reports to the Agency for Health Care Administration and to the Board of Medicine, and these reports were used to supplement the information submitted directly by Respondent and Dr. Diaco. Based upon the information he was provided by Respondent and Dr. Diaco, Mr. Hess never found Respondent out of compliance with the terms of his probation. On the morning of November 2, 1997, an order was entered at Vencor Hospital by the primary treating physician for placement of a central venous line for patient D.M., an 80 year- old female patient. A central venous line is most often placed for access to the circulatory system for the provision of medications and/or fluids when the peripheral venous system is not available for such use. A central venous line may be ordered if the patient has no veins remaining for the insertion of a peripheral catheter, or for extended access, such as when a patient requires a long-term cycle of antibiotics for a bone infection. Patient D.M. required the central line for antibiotics to treat infected ulcerations on her lower extremities. The placement of a central line may be performed by any licensed physician, though surgeons are often called in to perform the procedure for primary physicians. Two physicians who teach at the University of Miami testified that third-year residents are allowed to perform the procedure with only indirect supervision. Dr. Diaco testified that nurse practitioners may perform the procedure under the supervision of a physician. The procedure is performed at the patient’s bedside, not in an operating room. No general anesthesia is required. A local anesthetic is administered at the point of insertion. The entire procedure takes two to three minutes to perform. The central line may be placed in at least three locations in the body: the leg, the neck, or the collarbone. In the case of D.M., Respondent placed the line by way of the collarbone. A needle is inserted under the clavicle and into the vein that unites with the jugular vein to form the second largest vein in the human body, the superior vena cava. Using a guide wire, a catheter is threaded through the subclavian vein and placed inside the superior vena cava. Prior to performance of the procedure, the patient’s head is typically placed lower than her feet in what is called the Trendelenburg position. If the patient has a feeding tube, it is typically turned off prior to the procedure to prevent aspiration of tube material. Proper placement of the central line is confirmed by X- ray taken immediately after the procedure. Such confirmation of placement is necessary due to the risks associated with incorrect placement. The most immediate risk is pneumothorax, the puncturing of the patient’s lung. Other less common complications are blood loss, cardiac arrest, infection, and irregular heartbeat. The consensus of the experts who testified at hearing was that the procedure poses no greater risk of complication for elderly patients such as D.M., but that elderly patients who do suffer complications may have a harder time recovering than would younger, more robust patients. D.M. was an 80 year-old female patient who shared Room 218 at Vencor Hospital with J.P., an 89 year-old female patient. D.M. and J.P. were of the same general age, ethnic origin, and gender. They had similar medical problems, including bilateral lower extremity decubiti and ulcerations. D.M. was able to understand conversation and could verbally communicate with staff. D.M. signed on her own behalf the consent form for the insertion of the central venous line. The signature on the consent form was obtained by and witnessed by Elizabeth Rood, a registered nurse on duty during the day of November 2, 1997. Ms. Rood testified that she believed D.M. was rational enough to sign the form on her own behalf. Vencor Hospital policy dictated that informed consent be obtained from the patient by the surgeon who was to perform the procedure. The nursing employees of Vencor Hospital and Respondent all testified that, despite the stated policy, it was common practice at the time for nurses to obtain the signatures of patients on the consent forms. The express terms of Respondent’s practice plan also required Respondent to have “specific discussions with his surgical patients prior to any anesthesia being administered. ” J.P. suffered from organic brain syndrome and was generally unable to communicate verbally. J.P. was unable to give consent for surgical procedures on her own behalf. Ms. Rood obtained D.M.’s signature on the informed consent form at about 10:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter, hospital staff contacted Respondent to inform him of the order and request that he perform the placement of the central line. Respondent replied that he was unable to perform the procedure at that time because of a more urgent consultation at St. Joseph’s Hospital, but would come to Vencor Hospital later to perform the procedure. Shortly before the start of the nursing night shift, the central line cart with supplies for the procedure was brought by the day supervisor to the second floor of Vencor Hospital and placed outside Room 218. Lisa Cotroneo was the night charge nurse. When she arrived for her shift, she received report from the day charge nurse. That report indicated that D.M. was to receive a central line placement at some time during the evening. The nursing staff at Vencor was divided into teams of two or three nurses assigned to particular rooms on the floor. Team three was responsible for Room 218. At the start of the night shift, Nurse Cotroneo informed two of the three nurse on team three, Donna Maranto and Fortune Ndukwe, that a central line was to be placed on patient D.M. that evening. Nurse Cotroneo did not inform the third nurse, Mary Shogreen, because Nurse Shogreen was a pool nurse called in to work on short notice and had not yet arrived for her shift. Nurse Shogreen was the nurse on team three who was assigned primary care duties for the patients in Room 218. Nurse Shogreen was later informed by Nurse Ndukwe that one of her patients would be receiving a central line placement that evening. Nurse Shogreen testified that she intended to check with the charge nurse to confirm the order for a central line placement, but that she never did so. At around 8:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned the nursing unit to inform the charge nurse that he was on his way to perform the placement of the central line. Nurse Cotroneo conveyed this information to Nurses Maranto and Ndukwe, and told them to be sure everything was ready for Respondent’s arrival. Respondent arrived at Vencor Hospital shortly after 8:00 p.m. and proceeded to the second floor nursing station, where he asked for and received the chart for patient D.M. He reviewed the chart, which contained the signed consent form and the order for placement of the central line. After reviewing the chart, Respondent inquired as to the location of D.M. and the nurse who would assist him in the procedure. Respondent was told that D.M.’s nurse was down the hall. Respondent walked down the hall and approached a group of three or four nurses. Respondent did not know any of them. He informed the group that he was Dr. Sanchez and was there to perform the central line placement. One of the nurses, later identified as Mary Shogreen, told him she was ready for him. She led him down the hall toward Room 218. Respondent paused at the central line cart outside Room 218 to pick up a pair of surgical gloves and the kit used for the central line placement. When Respondent entered the room, he observed Nurse Shogreen already at the bedside. The room was dark, save for a single light over the bed of the patient where Nurse Shogreen was working. Respondent saw that Nurse Shogreen was turning off the feeding tube to the patient, a common precursor to performance of a central line placement. Respondent walked to the other side of the patient’s bed and addressed the patient by the name of D.M. He told her that he was Dr. Sanchez and that her physician had asked him to insert a central venous catheter in her. Respondent looked into the patient’s eyes and realized she was not comprehending what he said. Nurse Shogreen was standing directly across the bed and could hear Respondent’s efforts to talk to the patient, including his addressing that patient as “D.M.” Respondent asked Nurse Shogreen if the patient was “always like this,” i.e., unresponsive. Nurse Shogreen answered that she had never had the patient before, but believed that was the usual condition of the patient. It would not be unusual for an elderly patient such as D.M. to be communicative and able to understand and sign a consent form at 10:00 a.m., but then be uncommunicative in the evening. The medical community informally refers to this phenomenon as "sundown syndrome." Respondent told Nurse Shogreen to assist him in placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position, and to get a rolled towel to place between the patient’s shoulder blades. While Nurse Shogreen was getting the towel, Respondent examined the patient’s neck and chest. Nurse Shogreen returned with the towel, but was unable to adjust the bed into Trendelenburg position. Respondent told her to go get another nurse who knew how to work the bed. She brought in Nurse Ndukwe, who was also unable to get the bed into the proper position. At length, they found a certified nurse assistant who was able to place the bed into position. Neither Nurse Shogreen nor Nurse Ndukwe expressed any concern to Respondent regarding the identity of the patient. Nurse Ndukwe had received an explicit report concerning the fact that patient D.M. was to receive a central line placement. Nurse Shogreen had heard Respondent address the patient as D.M. Respondent completed the procedure, which took about one minute. He proceeded to the nurse’s station and ordered the standard X-ray to confirm the proper placement of the central line, completed the consult form, and dicated both his consultation report and operative report. Nurse Shogreen remained behind in the room to clean up after the procedure. She made notations in the bedside chart of patient J.P., the mistaken recipient of the central line. Even at this point, Nurse Shogreen did not realize that the wrong patient had received the central line. The findings as to events in Room 218 on the evening of November 2, 1997, were based on the testimony of Respondent. Nurse Shogreen testified that it was Respondent who led the way into the room, Respondent who proceeded to the wrong bed, and Respondent who prevented Nurse Shogreen from going out to get the patient’s chart to confirm her mental condition after questioning by Respondent. Nurse Shogreen agreed with Respondent’s version of the problems with getting the bed into proper position, but testified that Respondent was so angry and in such a hurry that he performed the central line placement before the staff was able to place the bed in the proper position. Based on both the substance of the testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Respondent’s version of events is more believable, and that Respondent is a more credible witness than Nurse Shogreen. The undersigned is unable to credit testimony that a physician of Respondent’s skill and experience would plunge ahead into the room and commence a procedure on a patient he had never seen, without doing anything to ascertain her identity. The undersigned finds it more plausible that Respondent followed Nurse Shogreen’s lead, observed the visual cues she was providing, and assumed that the patient to whom Nurse Shogreen attended was in fact patient D.M. Respondent's proffer of testimony regarding inconsistencies in Nurse Mary Shogreen's testimony before the Peer Review Committee was disregarded in formulating these findings of fact. Several physicians offered expert testimony as to whether it is within the standard of practice for a surgeon to rely on his assisting nurse for patient identification. Dr. David Shatz, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that any surgeon must be absolutely sure he is working on the right person. He testified that once Respondent was unable to get a verbal response from the patient, he should have asked the nurse if he was speaking to patient D.M. Dr. Shatz concluded that it is a deviation from the standard of care to perform a procedure on a noncommunicative patient without checking the patient’s identification bracelet. Dr. Stephen Michel agreed that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by placing the central line in the wrong patient. Dr. Michel’s other conclusions regarding the events in question cannot be credited because he admitted he was assuming that Dr. Sanchez was not permitted by the terms of his probation to be working in Vencor Hospital at all. This assumption was incorrect, and colored the remainder of his conclusions. Dr. Enrique Ginzburg, also an associate professor of surgery at the University of Miami, testified that a surgeon is usually unfamiliar with the patient in a central line placement, and stated that he could not remember the last time he checked an identification bracelet when the nurses were in the room with him. He agreed that it would be easy to check the armband, but that physicians simply do not check the armband if nurses are present to identify the patients. Dr. Jerry Diehr, an anesthesiologist at St. Josephs Hospital in Tampa, testified that a reasonably prudent physician would do what Respondent did. He stated that he relies on nurse identifications in similar circumstances, and that it is common practice for physicians to do so. Dr. Diehr testified that physicians rely on nurses for all manner of patient identification. He noted that care is often dictated by telephone calls. When a nurse calls him and tells him about the condition of his patient, the underlying assumption is that the nurse has correctly identified the patient and adequately reported the condition. Physicians may base their entire course of treatment on such reports from nurses, and must be able to rely on the nurses for such identification and reporting. Dr. Diaco strongly opined that physicians must be able to rely on nurses for patient identification. It is the nurse’s responsibility to identify the correct patient when the physician does not know the patient. Dr. Diaco testified that if physicians cannot rely on nurses for such basic information as the identity of their patients, they may as well live in the hospital and administer their own medications. Peter Shute, an expert in general nursing practice, opined that the three nurses on duty at Vencor Hospital on the evening of November 2, 1997, were negligent in their duty to know the patients on their assigned unit. He testified that Nurse Shogreen was particularly negligent, because she had not received full report on her patients, found out that one of her patients was to receive a central line placement that evening, but did not immediately obtain a full report and take steps to ensure that all preparations had been made. The weight of the evidence is that it was within the standard of care under the conditions and circumstances for Respondent to rely on Nurse Shogreen’s identification of the patient. This finding does not minimize the fact that Respondent bears ultimate responsibility for the performance of an invasive procedure on a patient who did not give informed consent. After Respondent dictated his notes and left the hospital, David Vallejo, the X-ray technician, came to the floor to obtain the X-ray ordered by Respondent. He discovered that the patient who received the central line was J.P., not D.M. Mr. Vallejo went to the nurse’s station and informed Nurse Cotroneo, who called the nursing supervisor to come to the room with her. Nurse Cotroneo and the supervisor confirmed that both patients in Room 218 were wearing their identification bracelets. The nursing supervisor called J.P.’s primary physician, who ordered an X-ray, which confirmed that J.P. suffered no ill effects from the placement of the central line. He also ordered removal of the central line, which was accomplished without incident. Respondent was informed of the error by telephone. He came to Vencor Hospital the next day, November 3, 1997, and documented the error in the medical records of both D.M. and J.P. On that day, a different surgeon performed the central line placement on D.M. All of the expert witnesses agreed that Respondent’s charting and recording of the incident, both before and after he learned of the error, were adequate and indicated no effort to conceal the facts of the situation. The experts also agreed that marking the intended surgical site with indelible ink serves no purpose in a central line placement. Petitioner's own expert, Dr. Shatz, stated that marking the site of a central line placement would be "silly." On November 3, 1997, Vencor Hospital suspended Respondent’s hospital staff privileges pending an investigation of the incident. Respondent immediately contacted Dr. Diaco, his indirect supervisor, as soon as he learned of the error. Respondent fully informed Dr. Diaco of the facts of the situation. Dr. Diaco told Respondent that he did nothing wrong and that “the nurse is in big trouble.” Respondent also sought the counsel of his attorney, Michael Blazicek. Mr. Blazicek conferred with Dr. Diaco, and also concluded that this was a nursing problem, not a standard of care problem for Respondent. The results of the hospital’s internal Peer Review Committee review seemed to bear out the opinions of Dr. Diaco and Mr. Blazicek. On November 26, 1997, Respondent was restored to full privileges at Vencor Hospital. Nurse Shogreen received verbal counseling and a one-day suspension for failure to render proper treatment to the correct patient. Vencor Hospital’s “Root Cause Analysis Team” found that nursing protocols should be changed to prevent a recurrence of patient misidentification. Patients would henceforth be identified by bed letter designation. Identification of the patient and consent to treatment would be verified by two people, one of whom must be a hospital employee. On November 17, 1997, the quality review manager of Vencor Hospital submitted an Adverse or Untoward Incident Report (Code 15) regarding the incident, pursuant to Sections 395.0197(6) and 641.55(6), Florida Statutes. A Code 15 Report is a report of serious adverse incidents in licensed facilities. The Code 15 Report identifies the physicians and nurses involved by their license numbers, and identifies the patient and facility. It describes the nature of the incident and all actions taken by the hospital in response to the incident. The purpose of the Code 15 Report is to notify the Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Health within 15 days of a serious adverse incident so the Agency may review the incident and begin an investigation. Respondent appeared before his Probation Committee on November 13, 1997. At this time, Respondent knew that the hospital would be filing a Code 15 Report, though it had not actually done so. Respondent was still on summary suspension at Vencor Hospital, pending review. Prior to his Probation Committee appearance, Respondent conferred with his attorney, Mr. Blazicek, who counseled him to answer any questions forthrightly, but not to volunteer information about the incident to the Probation Committee. This advice was based on the facts that the incident was still under investigation, that there had been no finding of wrongdoing by Respondent, and that summary suspension was a standard procedure for such incidents indicating no conclusions as to ultimate responsibility. Mr. Blazicek testified that he knew Respondent still had one more written quarterly report to file in January 1998. He reasoned that if the hospital's investigation resulted in adverse findings, Respondent could report the incident in that later filing. The Probation Committee raised no questions as to the Vencor Hospital incident, and determined that Respondent’s probation would terminate as scheduled upon payment of the administrative fine. Respondent did not volunteer information about the incident or the summary suspension. Respondent and Dr. Diaco filed their final quarterly reports in January 1998. Neither of them reported the Vencor Hospital incident. Respondent reported that he was in full compliance with all probationary terms. By the time the final quarterly reports were received, the Department of Health was aware of the Code 15 Report. Nonetheless, the Department issued an Order of Termination on February 2, 1998, finding that Respondent had satisfactorily completed the term of his probation as of January 26, 1998.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine enter a final order determining that Rolando R. Sanchez has violated Section 458.331(1)(p), Florida Statutes, and suspending his license for a period of nine months from the date of the Order of Emergency Suspension of License, imposing a fine of $2,500.00 and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years from the date the suspension expires. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether petitioner has good cause, within the meaning of Rule 10D- 29.128(6), Florida Administrative Code, to revoke respondent's superior rating, for the reasons alleged either in Ms. Cheren's letter or in the statement of deficiencies?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a license to operate a 120-bed (T. 186) nursing home at 6535 Chester Avenue in Jacksonville, and does so under the name of Taylor Care Center (TCC). Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), which issued the license, later gave TCC a superior rating, the rating it had in March of 1988. On March 28, 1988, a Monday, Joanna T. Warfel, R.N., Edward Melvin and Richard Gerard undertook an annual "combined Medicare/Medicaid licensure survey" (T. 39) at TCC on behalf of HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification. The surveyors produced a statement of deficiencies on Form HCFA-2567 (10-84), the same form on which TCC responded with its plan of correction. HRS' Exhibit No. 1. If TCC, "a community-based nursing facility . . . [with] probably . . . 80 percent or more . . . Medicaid residents," (T. 186) loses the superior rating and receives instead only a standard rating for the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989, TCC "is projected . . . [to sustain] a loss of at least $50,000 in revenue." Pre-hearing Stipulation. Infection Control TCC "had a policy and procedure manual for infection control," (Dep. 20) with which HRS does not find fault. In practice, if a floor nurse suspects an infection, she tells the charge nurse, who asks a doctor to order laboratory analysis of a culture. (T. II. 38) The laboratory furnishes the physician, the floor and TCC's infection control nurse copies of its reports, which form the basis for a log the Infection control nurse keeps. In addition, TCC's Ms. Jarrett took "environmental" samples and sent them for cultures sporadically, although no law or rule requires this, in terms. In part, the HRS team's statement of deficiencies alleged the following: INFECTION CONTROL NH-445: The condition is out of compliance because there was no system in operation to prevent the spread of infections. Ref: 405.1135, 10D-29.123 Class III 4/23/88 NH-452: Infection Control Standards not met. Ref: 405.1135(b) Class III 5/31/88 F-339/122 NH-454, 458, 116, 99: Observation revealed the following: Five residents with draining wounds not on any type of Isolation precautions. Drainage from a supra pubic catheter insertion site without a dressing. 5-7 residents with Staph Aureus eye Infections not on any type of isolation precautions. Dressings from at least 3 draining wounds were removed without gloves by the facility's nurse. One dressing to a draining wound was applied without gloves. Nurse placing gloved hand into medication jar after being in contact with infected wound. Whirlpool cleaned only with Betadine between residents. Resident with stage 2 decubiti on both feet, one of which was draining purulent material, placing both feet in the whirlpool at the same time. Pictures of a stasis ulcer healing well in August 1987, currently infected with a heavy growth of pseudomonas and much larger in size. When isolation precautions were posted, there were no isolation bags for linen and trash and no gloves left available in the room. Review of documentation revealed: Residents with positive cultures for known pathogans such as staph aureus and pseudomonas were not on isolation precautions. All draining wounds had not been cultured. All positive cultures and wounds with purulent drainage were not included in the infection log. The written infection report by nursing was prepared quarterly rather than monthly as required by state regulations. Environmental cultures collected 11/24/87 revealed "unsatisfactory" results on 5 of 5 sources cultured i.e., Pseudomonas from the whirlpool tub and water fountain. The quarterly infection control meeting minutes did not contain any plan of correction or any mention of the environmental culture results. There were no environmental culture reports since 11/24/87. Of the 39 infections recorded in the last 3 months 100% were nosocomial. There was no documented evidence of isolation being instituted for the last 12 months. Ref: 10D-29.123(3)(b), 10D-29.123(3)(f) 10D-29.108(5)(b), 10D-29.108(3)(e) 405.1135(b) Class III 5/31/88 * * * INFECTION CONTROL/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS F-342/343 NH-490: Infection Control/Disaster Preparedness Standards not met. Ref: 405.1135(d), 442.327 Class III F-345 NH 493: Observation revealed that linen, contaminated with known pathogens, specifically, Pseudomonas was removed from the resident's roe without gloves and deposited with the regular laundry. Observation further revealed that laundry personnel were handling soiled linen without gloves on the first day of the survey. Ref: 405.1135, 442.327, 10D-29.124(2)(b)1 Class III 5/31/88 * * * INFECTION CONTROL/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS F-345 NH-453: Infection control committee has not approved policies and procedures for the laundry operation. Ref: 405.1135(d), 10D-29.124(2)(b) Class III 5/31/88 The "NH" references in the statement of deficiencies are set out in Part B of the nursing home licensure survey report received as HRS' Exhibit 2, and include the following: XIII. INFECTION CONTROL. 10D-29.123. The nursing facility establishes an infection control committee, appointed by the Administrator, of representative professional staff with responsibility for overall infection control in the facility. Necessary staff are provided to maintain a sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of infection. (b) STANDARD: Infection control committee policies and procedures. The policies and procedures developed by the committee include, at a minimum, policies and procedures governing the following: NH454 Monitoring of the methods of maintaining sanitary conditions no less often than quarterly. 10D-29.123(3)(b) * * * NH458 Infection control measures, which include, at a minimum, the following: Isolation procedures for residents in communicable stage of disease. Specifics of nursing care for residents with infection. NH116 Nursing care includes control of occurrence of infection through the use of aseptic techniques, surveillance of personnel and environmental conditions, identification of high-risk, infection prone residents, health education, counseling, and practicing health promoting habits. 10D-29.108(5)(b) * * * NH99 The DON ensures that the facility's resident care policies and procedures and the policies and procedures developed by the pharmaceutical services committee and the infection control committee, which relate to nursing services are implemented. (e) STANDARD: Linen and laundry * * * NH493 The responsible person ensures that written policies and procedures for linen and laundry services, including methods of collection, storage, transportation are developed, implemented and maintained in conjunction with the policies and procedures developed by the infection control committee. 10D-29.124(2)(b)1 The rule provisions on which HRS relies are set out in the conclusions of law. Decubiti, called pressure sores or bed sores after their wonted etiology, advance through four stages, if not checked. In stage one, the skin is intact, but "remains red after approximately 30 minutes of pressure relief." (T. II. 117-8) In stage two, the skin is "open," and the sore moist, but superficial and devoid of infection. Muscle and necrotic tissue may be seen in stage three, when open lesions are deeper. Stage four lesions go to the bone. Clear serous drainage from a stage two decubitus facilitates healing. While purulent drainage from more advanced lesions may also be of some benefit, this yellowish or greenish fluid contains pathogenic organisms which pose the danger that infection will spread. (T. I. 69-70) Stasis ulcers, attributable to poor venous circulation, and eyes in which antibiotic resistant staphylococci aurei have established themselves are other sources of infection in nursing homes. In the course of the survey, Ms. Warfel observed three decubiti on the feet of the resident who slept in bed 101-A at TCC, including a stage two decubitus, TCC's Exhibit No. 2, "with small amount of drainage, half-inch in diameter on the left inner ankle." (Dep. 22) Any discoloration of the drainage (Dep. 25, 31) was apparently due to medication. (T. 11, 33) She saw a sore of similar size "with a slight amount of drainage," (Dep. 23) on the outside of the left foot of the man who slept In bed 210-B, who also had an undressed suprapubic catheter with a "strand of mucous . . . between the catheter tubing and the skin." (Dep. 25) The resident who slept in bed 301-B "had a stage two on the left hip, one inch in diameter, and had a positive culture for staph in March of '88." (Dep. 23) The woman who slept in bed 316-B had both "a draining area on her left thigh . . .from a previous hip pin" (Dep. 23) and a "small stage two decubitus on the coccyx." Id. The drainage from the surgical incision was clear, and, when analyzed after the survey (in response to Ms. Warfel's characterization) proved noninfectious, just as the resident's physician had earlier advised TCC. (T. I. 44-45) One nurse placed a gloved hand into a medication jar after contact with a stasis ulcer the woman in Room 115 had. (Dep. 29) Room 115 is private. What became of the medication thereafter the record does not reveal. The woman's ulcer was heavily infected with pseudomonas, although it had been reported to be healing well in August of 1987. She told Ms. Warfel it had gotten [re]infected from the whirlpool." (Dep. 31) Ms. Warfel saw the resident who slept in bed 101-A with both feet in the whirlpool, then saw a staff person dry both feet with the same towel. (Dep. 31) On March 24, 1988, her physician had ordered "sterile WP to [both] feet." TCC's Exhibit No. 2. The physical therapist regularly disinfected the whirlpool with Wescodyne. (T. II. 34) As far as the evidence revealed, she did so after each use. On her initial visit, Ms. Warfel did not see precautions posted for Room 210 "but on the fourth day . . . went back and checked, and that was on the door then." (Dep. 22) The man who slept in bed 210-B had been placed on secretion precautions the week before the survey, when a culture revealed that he suffered from an infection of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus. Perhaps because the sign posted on his door was not the customary green, Ms. Warfel overlooked it originally. In rooms in which isolation procedures are in effect, soiled linen is placed in "a double red bag or a water soluble bag." (T. II. 30) Water soluble bags go "directly into the hamper . . . [while the contents of each] double red bag . . . [go] into a separate laundry from the regular linen." (T. II. 30) Gloves at the nurse's desk were available to the nursing staff. (Dep. 28) Although the "director of nurses wore gloves part of the time when she was handling dressings . . . [t]he nurse who did the treatment on the pseudomonas infection wore gloves while she was doing the dressing only." (Dep. 27) TCC terminated that nurse's employment. (T. II. 32) Because Jackie Williams, TCC's infection control nurse who began at TCC not long before the survey, listed all urinary tract infections as nosocomial, the infection control log grossly overstated the number of nosocomial infections occurring at TCC during the three months before the survey took place. HRS' Exhibit No. 4. If evaluated against accepted criteria, Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1, the actual number was on the order of six. Of these, four were urinary tract infections in which only pathogens present at admission were implicated. The infection control log was updated continuously, as information was received, but monthly reports as such were not prepared. Dr. Tremble, who attends the woman who sleeps in Room 115, "does his very own cultures himself." (T. II. 38) No laboratory or other report of the results of cultures done for this resident reached TCC's infection control nurse nor were any deflected in the infection control log. As far as the record reveals, environmental cultures were denominated "unsatisfactory if there was any bacteria count," (Dep. 39) however small. The evidence did not establish that the environmental culture results reflected conditions about which TCC should have done anything it failed to do. Guidelines The CDC Guideline for Isolation Precautions in Hospitals published in 1983, excerpts from which were received as HRS' Exhibit No. 6, say the following about gowns, gloves, bagging of articles, linen and dressings: Gowns In general, gowns are recommended to prevent soiling of clothing when taking care of patients. Gowns are not necessary for most patient care because such soiling is not likely. However, gowns are indicated when taking care of patients on isolation precautions if clothes are likely to be soiled with infective secretions or excretions, for example, when changing the bed of an incontinent patient who has infectious diarrhea or when holding an infant who has a respiratory infection. Furthermore, gowns are indicated, even when gross soiling is not anticipated, for all persons entering the room of patients who have infections that if transmitted in hospitals frequently cause serious illness, for example, varicella (chickenpox) or disseminated zoster. When gowns are indicated, they should be worn only once and then discarded in an appropriate receptacle. Clean, freshly laundered or disposable gowns may be worn in most circumstances. In some instances, as with extensive burns or extensive wounds, sterile gowns may be worn when changing dressings. Gloves In general, there are 3 distinct reasons for wearing gloves. First, gloves reduce the possibility that personnel will become infected with microorganisms that are infecting patients; for example, gloves should prevent personnel from developing herpetic whitlow after giving oral care or suctioning a patient with oral herpes simplex infections. Second, gloves reduce the likelihood that personnel will transmit their own endogenous microbial flora to patients; for example, sterile gloves are used for this reason when personnel perform operations or touch open surgical wounds. Third, gloves reduce the possibility that personnel will become transiently colonized with microorganisms that can be transmitted to other patients. Under most conditions, such transient colonization can be eliminated by handwashing. Thus, in hospitals where handwashing is performed carefully and appropriately by all personnel, gloves are theoretically not necessary to prevent transient colonization of personnel and subsequent transmission by them to others. However, since handwashing practices are thought to be inadequate in most hospitals, gloves appear to be a practical means of preventing transient hand colonization and spread of some infections. Therefore, for many diseases or conditions listed in this guideline, wearing gloves is indicated for touching the excretions, secretions, blood, or body fluids that are listed as infective material. Gloves may not be needed if "no touch" technique (not touching infective materials with hands) can be used. When gloves are indicated, disposable single-use gloves (sterile or nonsterile, depending on the purpose for use) should be worn. Used gloves should be discarded into an appropriate receptacle. After direct contact with a patient's excretions or secretions, when taking care of that patient, gloves should be changed if care of hat patient has not been completed. Bagging of Articles Used articles may need to be enclosed in an impervious bag before they are removed from the room or cubicle of a patient on isolation precautions. Such bagging is intended to prevent inadvertent exposures of personnel to articles contaminated with infective material and prevent contamination of the environment. Most articles do not need to be bagged unless they are contaminated (or likely to be contaminated) with infective material. (See the Tables, which contain an alphabetical listing of diseases for identification of the infective material for each disease.) A single bag is probably adequate if the bag is impervious and sturdy (not easily penetrated) and if the article can be placed in the bag without contaminating the outside of the bag; otherwise, double bagging should be used. Bags should be labeled or be a particular color designated solely for contaminated articles or infectious wastes. * * * Linen In general, soiled linen should be handled as little as possible and with a minimum of agitation to prevent gross microbial contamination of the air and of persons handling the linen. Soiled linen from patients on Isolation precautions should be put in a laundry bag in the patient's room or cubicle. The bag should be labeled or be a particular color (for example, red) specifically designated for such linen so that whoever receives the linen knows to take the necessary precautions. Linens will require less handling if the bag is hot-water-soluble because such bags can be placed directly into the washing machine; however, a hot-water soluble bag may need to be double-bagged because they are generally easily punctured or torn or may dissolve when wet. Linen from patients on isolation precautions should not be sorted before being laundered. If mattresses and pillows are covered with impervious plastic, they can be cleaned by wiping with a disinfectant-detergent. (See Guideline for Hospital Environmental Control: Laundry Services.) * * * Dressings and Tissues All dressings, paper tissues, and other disposable items soiled with infective material (respiratory, oral, or wound secretions) should be bagged and labeled and disposed of in accordance with the hospital's policy for disposal of infectious wastes. Local regulations may call for incineration or disposal in an authorized sanitary landfill without being opened. (See Guideline for Hospital Environmental Control: Housekeeping Services and Waste Disposal.) The same document also specifies "secretion precautions" and "bodily fluid precautions" for certain hospital patients: Drainage/Secretion Precautions Drainage/Secretion Precautions are designed to prevent infections that are transmitted by direct or indirect contact with purulent material or drainage from an infected body site. . . . Infectious diseases included in this category are those that result in the production of infective purulent material, drainage, or secretions, unless the disease is included in another isolation category that requires more rigorous precautions. For example, minor or limited skin, wound, or burn infections are included in this category, but major skin, wound, or burn infections are included in Contact Isolation. . . . Specifications for Drainage/Secretion Precautions Private room is not indicated. Masks are not indicated. Gowns are indicated if soiling is likely. Gloves are indicated for touching infective material. Hands must be washed after touching the patient or potentially contaminated articles and before taking care of another patient. Articles contaminated with infective material should be discarded or bagged and labeled before being sent for decontamination and reprocessing. * * * Blood/Body Fluid Precautions Blood/Body Fluid Precautions are designed to prevent infections that are transmitted by direct or indirect contact with infective blood or body fluids, unless the disease is included in another isolation category that requires more rigorous precautions, for example, Strict Isolation. For some diseases included in this category, such as malaria, only blood is infective; for other diseases, such as hepatitis B (including antigen carriers), blood and body fluids (saliva, semen, etc.) are infective. Specifications for Blood/Body Fluid Precautions Private room is indicated if patient hygiene is poor. A patient with poor hygiene does not wash hands after touching infective material, contaminates the environment with infective material, or shares contaminated articles with other patients. In general, patients infected with the same organism may share a room. Masks are not indicated. Gowns are indicated if soiling of clothing with blood or body fluids is likely. Gloves are indicated for touching blood or body fluids. Hands must be washed immediately if they are potentially contaminated with blood or body fluids and before taking care of another patient. Articles contaminated with blood or body fluids should be discarded or bagged and labeled before being sent for decontamination and reprocessing. Care should be taken to avoid needle-stick injuries. Used needles should not be recapped or bent; they should be placed in a prominently labeled, puncture-resistant container designated specifically for such disposal. Blood spills should be cleaned up promptly with a solution of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite diluted 1:10 with water. TCC has incorporated these provisions in its infection control policy and procedure manual. Joint Exhibit No. 1. More recently, the Centers for Disease Control have prescribed "universal precautions," recommending that hospital personnel proceed as if every patient had acquired immune deficiency syndrome. (T. I. 75-6) No Isolation The TCC resident who slept in bed 306-A had an eye infection which TCC staff began treating with ophthalmic ointment (Gentamycin) on February 3, 1988. "Resolved" by the time of the survey, this infection was caused by staphylococcus aureus, which was methicillin resistant (T. II. 73, 111) and required isolation (secretion precaution) procedures (T. II. 46, 7) which were never instituted. (T. II. 42) "[T]hey should have been wearing gloves. And the linen that they were using should have been placed in isolation bags before washing, labeled and identified". (Dep. 26)(T. I. 70, 73-4) Except for the resident who slept in bed 210-B, TCC had placed nobody in isolation for the six months preceding the survey. (T. II. 42) Other Red Eyes The TCC resident who slept in bed 112A had redness of the eye, from which Ms. Warfel concluded "that it was conjunctivitis and the patient should have been isolated". The patient to whom bed 112A was assigned had no drainage. At the time of the survey, the TCC resident who slept in bed 203B was already receiving medication for an eye infection. A laboratory report dated March 15, 1988, identified the organism as "staph epi," normal skin flora, to be distinguished from the malevolent staphylococcus aureus. The woman who slept in bed 407B also "had light growth of staph epi . . . was on an ointment for seven days and didn't require isolation". (T. II. 47) The women who slept in beds 305A and 316B had red eyes, as well, attributable, it turned out, to glaucoma, and not to staphylococcus aureus. Resident Care Plans and Activities With respect to patient care management and residents' activities, the HRS team alleged, in its statement of deficiencies: F-237/238 NH-136: Patient Care Management Standards not met. Ref: 405.1124(d), 442.341 Class III 5/31/88 F-239/240 NH-138: Observation of patient care and record review revealed that all resident's problems/needs, i.e., decubiti, infections, rehab, etc. were not being addressed in the written plan of care or delivery of services. Goals were not measurable and interventions were limited and inadequate. The evaluations did not address the effectiveness of the interventions or institute appropriate changes in either the goals or approaches. Social Services and Activities in the care plans, also did not have measurable goals and specific approaches to meet the residents identified needs. Also the disciplines did not evaluate the effectiveness of their approaches. Ref: 405.1124, 442.341, 10D-29.109(2) Class III 5/31/88 * * * F-234 NH-324: The facility has two programs implemented for its residents: (1) stroke group, (2) Adventure Group for Alzheimers residents. Surveyor found that these groups had about 20 residents each in the groups. However, surveyor found from interview, observation, and documentation could not ascertain that the residents were receiving benefits from these programs or that these programs were meeting their identified needs. Ref: 442.345, 10D-22.116 Class III 5/31/88 The statement of deficiencies also sets out pertinent standards: STANDARD: Resident care plans NH138 The DON serves as coordinator of an interdisciplinary team responsible for the development, implementation, maintenance and evaluation of each resident's plan of care. Each interdisciplinary team member involved in the resident's care provides input into the development, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of the resident's plan of care. 10D-29.109(2) NH324 The activities program provides diversified independent and group activities for each resident, including those confined to bed, commensurate with each resident's needs, abilities and interests. The rule provisions on which HRS relies are set out in the conclusions of law. TCC provides two programs of group activities as part of the care it affords residents. In specifying which group activities are to be available to a particular resident, the resident's care plan typically listed either the "Stroke Club" or the "Alzheimers Adventure Group," without further elaboration. Only from other documents was HRS' Mr. Melvin able to discern the goals and objectives of the two programs. (T. 117, 119) In reviewing six charts in particular, Mr. Melvin perceived flaws in residents' care plans, plans that may be summarized, as follows: Patient Diagnosis/Problems Goals Approaches No. 361 Alzheimer's disease, Safe and free ADV. group unaware, disoriented unaware of needs and from harm needs will be 24 hour su- pervision of care wants met learn her signals and needs No. 348 Alzheimer's disease, unaware, disoriented will be kept aware of day, time, & place ADV. program No. 368 CVA (new admit) monitor needs get pt. to activities No. 365 Alzheimer's disease, free from ADV. program bladder tumors, con- harm and injury fused, disoriented, wanders ADV. program potential for de- & take to creased social stimula- parties tion & mental status No. 328 OBS, osteoarthritis, will attend encourage periods of confusion and depression memory loss and has good past recall activities, be- come acquainted with others; not to be em- barrassed when she forgets to parti- cipate in activities introduce to other residents; do not argue or dwell on things No. 011 arthritis & hyperten- sion, altered mental status, unaware of needs provide needs keep free from harm and in- jury 24 hour supervi- sion & adv prog. For the most part these plans lack specificity and individualization. They do not specify the severity of Alzheimer patients' disease. They are vague enough that it would be, in many instances, difficult to say whether they had been complied with. Nor was Mr. Melvin impressed with the 20-member Alzheimers Adventure Group in action. When he observed, a woman lay on the floor without participating in the group's activities. But the family of the recumbent resident, well aware of her proclivity to stretch out, agreed with staff that letting her lie was the more sensible and humane course. The other patients sat in rows "for hours in the room . . . [without] any programming . . . except the break at lunchtime". (T 120) Arts and crafts were not available to them.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS revoke respondent's superior rating, until and unless respondent demonstrates its renewed eligibility for the same. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 9th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2326 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 12 and 13 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, merely recite testimony. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5, the infection control log was inaccurate, subparagraphs (c) and (e) are adopted; and the remaining parts of the proposed findings relate to subordinate matters. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been adopted in part only. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 15 is a proposed conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 23, 24 and 27 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, a new infection control nurse began work. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11 (as to individualization) 12, 15, 19 (including secretion precautions) 22 and 26 have been rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 merely recites testimony. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, an HRS witness did cite the patient's opinion. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20, the infection control log was up to date, but inaccurate. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21 is a proposed conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25 relates to subordinate matters. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick J. Simpson, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32230-0083 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Dempsey & Goldsmith, P.A. Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from standard to conditional; and whether Petitioner should impose administrative fines of $7,500 and recover costs for alleged deficiencies in the care of four residents of a nursing home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent is licensed to operate a 150-bed nursing home located at 2916 Habana Way, Tampa, Florida 33614 (the facility). Respondent admitted Resident 1 to the facility on March 9, 2001. The admitting diagnoses included tracheal bronchitis, diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, and acute respiratory failure. From the time Resident 1 entered the facility until her death, Resident 1 lived with a tracheal tube in place. Resident 1 died on March 4, 2003, at 10:20 a.m. in the emergency room at St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida. The tracheal tube of Resident 1 was completely occluded with hardened secretions when Resident 1 arrived at the hospital. The emergency room (ER) physician that treated Resident 1 testified by deposition. The ER physician diagnosed Resident 1 with respiratory arrest and death. However, the diagnosis is merely a clinical impression and is not a medical determination of the cause of death. No certain cause of death could be determined without an autopsy, and no one performed an autopsy on Resident 1. The diagnosis made by the ER physician is a clinical impression that is an educated guess. The respiratory arrest suffered by Resident 1 could have been precipitated by various causes including an occluded tracheal tube, a heart attack, or acute respiratory failure. The ER physician did not determine that the facility committed any negligence and found no evidence of negligence. The ER nurse who assisted the ER physician believed that the facility had been negligent in clearing the tracheal tube of Resident 1. The ER nurse suspected that secretions had been accumulating in the tracheal tube for several days and that the facility did not monitor or clean the tube because the tube was completely occluded when Resident 1 arrived at the hospital. The ER nurse notified Petitioner of her suspicions. On March 11, 2003, Petitioner conducted a complaint investigation of the facility in connection with the death of Resident 1. Petitioner determined that Respondent either had not assessed whether Resident 1 was capable of performing her own tracheal tube care; or had not monitored the respiratory status of Resident 1 between March 2 and March 4, 2003; or both. Petitioner determined that the alleged failure to assess and monitor Resident 1 violated 42 CFR Section 483.25(k)(4) and (5). Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 4.1288 applies the federal standard to nursing homes in Florida. 42 CFR Section 483.25(k)(4) and (5) requires Respondent to "ensure that residents receive proper treatment and care for . . . tracheostomy care (sic) . . . [and] tracheal suctioning." Petitioner assigned the charged deficiency a severity rating of class "II." In relevant part, Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), defines a Class II deficiency as one that has: compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. Petitioner determined that a Class II rating was appropriate because the facility's alleged failure to provide Resident 1 with appropriate tracheal tube care harmed Resident 1. Petitioner changed the license rating for the facility from Standard to Conditional within the meaning of Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2003). The change in license rating was effective March 11, 2003, when Petitioner completed the complaint survey of the facility. The Conditional rating continued until April 10, 2003, when Petitioner changed the rating to Standard. Petitioner also proposed an administrative fine of $2500 pursuant to Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). The preponderance of evidence shows, by various measures, that Respondent provided Resident 1 with proper treatment and care for her tracheotomy tube within the meaning of 42 CFR Section 483.25(k)(4) and (5). First, it is uncommon for a person to cough up material in a tracheal tube and have the material gradually accumulate until the tube closes. It is more likely that secretions coughed up will block the tracheal tube immediately. Second, the emergency medical team (EMT) that treated Resident 1 in the facility did not find it necessary to remove or replace the existing tracheal tube in order to obtain an open airway. Rather, EMT personnel administered oxygen through the existing tube. Third, Resident 1 had normal oxygen saturation levels on March 2, 2003. Finally, Resident 1 was experienced in maintaining her tracheal tube, was capable of clearing her own tube, and asked members of the nursing staff to clear the tube whenever Resident 1 needed assistance. On March 4, 2003, Resident 1 complained of shortness of breath rather than a blocked tracheal tube. The ER physician's testimony shows it is uncommon for a person to cough up material in a tracheal tube and have the material gradually accumulate until the tube closes. The ER nurse that suspected secretions had been accumulating in the tracheal tube of Resident 1 for several days had no experience caring for nursing home residents with tracheal tubes. Gradual accumulations of secretions in a tracheal tube are generally associated with a productive cough from causes such as infiltrated pneumonia. There is no evidence that Resident 1 had such a condition. It is more likely that any material Resident 1 coughed up would have occluded the tracheal tube immediately rather than accumulating over time. EMT personnel that treated Resident 1 in the facility did not find it necessary to remove or replace the existing tracheal tube in order to obtain an open airway. When EMT personnel arrived at the facility, Resident 1 was non- responsive. When confronted with a non-responsive patient, standard protocol requires EMT personnel to ensure an open airway. EMT personnel placed an oxygen "bag" over the existing tube to provide Resident 1 with oxygen. EMT personnel then transported Resident 1 to the hospital emergency room. In the emergency room, the ER physician found the tracheal tube of Resident 1 to be completely blocked with hardened secretions. He removed the tube, replaced it with an open tube, and unsuccessfully attempted to ventilate Resident 1. It is likely the hardened secretions found in the tracheal tube at the emergency room blocked the tube between the time EMT personnel administered oxygen to Resident 1 at the facility and the time the treating physician removed the tracheal tube in the emergency room. A contrary finding would require the trier of fact to speculate that EMT personnel found the tracheal tube to be blocked and administered oxygen to a closed tube; or incorrectly diagnosed Resident 1 with a clear tracheal tube before administering oxygen. There is less than a preponderance of evidence to support either finding. Sudden deposits of hardened secretions in the tracheal tube of Resident 1 are consistent with medical experience. A person with a tracheal tube may develop calcified secretions in their lung known as concretions that can be coughed into the tube and cause it to become instantly blocked. It is unlikely that the hardened secretions found in the tracheal tube at the emergency room were present before Resident 1 collapsed in the facility. Hardened secretions can be cleared with a suctioning device or by coughing them through the tube and out of the opening near the neck if the resident has sufficient muscle strength. Resident 1 was a cognitively alert, 40-year-old, and physically capable of cleaning her own tracheal tube with a suctioning device. Resident 1 also had sufficient muscle strength to cough some secretions through the opening in her tube. Whenever Resident 1 was unable to clear her tube through the suctioning device or by coughing, she became anxious and immediately notified a nurse, who would then suction the tube and clear it for her. On March 2, 2003, Resident 1 complained to a nurse that she was experiencing shortness of breath. Significantly, Resident 1 did not complain that her tracheal tube was blocked. The nurse on duty at the facility notified the treating physician of Resident 1's complaints, and the physician ordered the nurse to measure the oxygen saturation levels of Resident 1. The oxygen saturation levels were within normal range, at 97 percent. The treating physician then ordered bed rest for Resident 1 and ordered the nurse to give Resident 1 a breathing treatment. Resident 1 had no further problems on March 2, 2003. On March 4, 2003, at approximately 9:30 a.m., Resident 1 summoned a nurse to come to her bedside and told the nurse that she did not feel well. Resident 1 did not complain that her tracheal tube was blocked. Her skin color was gray. She then passed out and fell to the floor. Nursing staff immediately called for EMT assistance, and EMT personnel arrived at the facility at approximately 9:32 a.m. EMT personnel transported Resident 1 to the emergency room at approximately 9:52 a.m. Between March 2 and March 4, 2003, the preponderance of evidence shows that the tracheal tube of Resident 1 was clear. Nursing staff at the facility monitored Resident 1 three times on March 3, 2003. Resident 1 had no breathing difficulties and did not express any complaints or discomfort. Resident 1 took her scheduled medications and meals on March 3, 2003. The nurse on duty during the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift for March 4, 2003, provided oxygen and suctioning, "as needed," to Resident 1. This action would have cleared secretions, if any, that would have been "accumulating" in the tracheal tube of Resident 1. Resident 1 placed her finger over the opening to her tracheal tube when she spoke to the nurse about not feeling well on March 4, 2003. Resident 1 covered her tracheal tube to force air around her vocal cords so that the nurse could hear Resident 1. It would not have been necessary for Resident 1 to cover her tracheal tube if the tube were occluded. The findings in paragraphs 25 through 27 are based on notes prepared by the unit manager on March 4, 2003, in response to the directive of the facility's risk manager. The risk manager was responsible for investigating the incident and required all nurses who had contact with Resident 1 on March 3 and 4, 2003, to document their experiences with Resident 1. The unit manager then placed the accounts in the medical record. Petitioner questions the credibility of the unit manager notes because they are late-filed entries in the medical records. The trier of fact finds the unit manager and her notes to be credible and persuasive. The testimony and notes of the unit manager are consistent with the apparent determination by EMT personnel that the tracheal tube was clear. In addition, the Medication Administration Record for March 4, 2003, indicates that Resident 1 received a dose of an ordered medication at 6:00 a.m. and did not complain of not feeling well until some time later. If the notes and testimony of the unit manager were disregarded, the trier of fact cannot ignore the administration of oxygen by EMT personnel. The preponderance of evidence shows that the tracheal tube of Resident 1 was clear when EMT personnel administered oxygen. If it were determined that the tracheal tube of Resident 1 were fully occluded at the facility before Resident 1 collapsed on March 4, 2003, such a finding would alter the outcome of this case. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that an occlusion occurred as a consequence of inadequate assessment or monitoring. Resident 1 had normal oxygen saturation levels on March 2, 2003. The preponderance of evidence does not show that facility staff had reason to believe that the tracheal tube of Resident 1 was occluded after March 2, 2003, and failed to take action to clean the tube prior to the time Resident 1 collapsed on March 4, 2003. There is no preprinted or accepted assessment form for nursing homes to use to assess and monitor the ability of Resident 1 to clean her own tracheal tube. The parties agree that the process involves nothing more than a simple observation of Resident 1 to confirm that she understood and could clean the tracheal tube either by suctioning or coughing. Resident 1 was capable of cleaning her tracheal tube. Relevant orders from the treating physician did not require cleaning to be performed by facility staff. One physician's order indicated that Resident 1 could participate in her own self-care. Another physician's order indicated that Resident 1 was to have "trach care" three times a day, but did not describe the nature and scope of the care or designate who was to provide such care. Another physician's order indicated that Resident 1 was to receive oxygen through her tracheal collar while in bed and "suction trach as needed." However, nothing in the order indicated who was to provide those services. Resident 1 had her tracheal tube for more than a year prior to March 4, 2003. Facility staff routinely observed Resident 1 successfully suctioning and otherwise cleaning her own tracheal tube. Resident 1 also routinely notified staff when she could not remove a blockage in her tube. Facility staff appropriately determined that Resident 1 was capable of performing self-care on her tracheal tube. It was appropriate for facility staff to rely on Resident 1 to inform them if Resident 1 were unable to clean the tube. Her transfer to the hospital on March 4th and her subsequent death were not the product of any inadequate or erroneous assessment or monitoring of Resident 1. On May 12, 2003, Petitioner conducted another complaint investigation of the facility. Petitioner determined that Respondent failed to provide adequate care for pressure sores for three residents identified in the record as Residents 1A, 4, and 5, in violation of 42 CFR Section 483.25(c). Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288 applies the federal requirements for pressure sore care to nursing homes in Florida. Petitioner assigned the charged deficiency a class II rating. Petitioner determined that a Class II rating was appropriate because actual harm or a negative outcome allegedly occurred with each of the residents cited in the deficiency. Petitioner changed the license rating for the facility from Standard to Conditional within the meaning of Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2003). The change in license rating was effective May 12, 2003, and continued until June 16, 2003, when Petitioner changed the rating to Standard. Petitioner also proposes a $5,000 fine against Respondent. The fine is calculated by doubling the prescribed fine of $2,500, based on the alleged deficiency in the survey conducted on March 11, 2003, in accordance with Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). For reasons stated in previous findings, Respondent committed no violation in connection with the survey conducted on March 11, 2003. The fine for the alleged deficiency found on May 12, 2003, cannot exceed $2,500. Petitioner alleges that the pressure sore care provided by Respondent for Residents 1A, 4, and 5 violated 42 CFR Section 483.25(c). In relevant part, 42 CFR Section 483.25(c) requires a nursing home to ensure that: resident who enters the facility without pressure sores does not develop pressure sores unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable; and a resident having pressure sores receives necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new sores from developing. 42 CFR Section 483.25(c) Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to provide Resident 1A with necessary treatment and services to promote healing of an existing pressure sore on the coccyx of Resident 1A. Resident 1A acquired the pressure sore before Respondent admitted Resident 1A to the facility. In April 2003, Resident 1A had surgery to cover the pressure sore with a skin graft taken from her thigh. The surgery required approximately sixty staples to secure the graft. The alleged improper care of Resident 1A is based on several observations made by the surveyor on May 12, 2003. The surveyor observed that the staples used in the surgical process had not been removed even though a physician's order dated April 16, 2003, directed staff to set up an appointment with the plastic surgeon within two weeks of the date of the order. The surveyor found no evidence that staff had scheduled an appointment or taken any other steps to remove the staples. The surveyor observed that the skin was reddened and growing over some of the areas around the staples. The surveyor also observed Resident 1A positioned on her back in bed in such a manner that her weight was on her coccyx area. The area in question was not a pressure sore. Petitioner has adopted a written definition of a pressure sore in the guidelines that Petitioner requires its surveyors to use in interpreting the federal regulation at issue. In relevant part, the guidelines define a pressure sore as: . . . ischemic ulceration and/or necrosis of tissues overlying a bony prominence that has been subjected to pressure, friction or sheer. If the area of concern were the area over the coccyx of Resident 1A, that area would have been over a "bony prominence" within the meaning of definition of a pressure sore. However, it is undisputed that the area of concern for Resident 1A was located in the fleshy part of the buttocks where staples were used to secure the skin flap to the skin. The area of concern was a surgical wound site, rather than a pressure sore because of its origin and location. The preponderance of evidence shows that the area of concern failed to satisfy the definition of a pressure sore adopted by Petitioner. Section 120.68(7)(e), Florida Statutes (2003), prohibits Petitioner from deviating from its officially stated policy unless Petitioner explains the deviation. Petitioner failed to provide any evidence to explicate legitimate reasons for deviating from its written definition of a pressure sore in this case. Assuming arguendo the staples around the wound site were a pressure sore, the preponderance of evidence shows that Respondent provided necessary treatment to promote healing. Respondent turned and repositioned Resident 1A every two hours in accordance with standard protocol. That schedule included a period during which Resident 1A was on her back in bed, with the head of her bed elevated. The single observation by the surveyor of Resident 1A on her back in bed did not show that Respondent failed to properly turn and reposition Resident 1A. The failure to timely comply with the physician's order for Resident 1A to consult with a plastic surgeon did not deprive Resident 1A of the care necessary to promote healing of a pressure sore. The removal of staples from a skin flap is not an element of required care for a pressure sore. Rather, removal of staples is part of the established care for a surgical wound site. The failure to timely provide a consult was not a violation of the requirements for care of pressure sores. If the removal of staples were required for treatment of pressure sores, the failure to timely obtain a consult and the failure to timely remove the staples did not cause harm to Resident 1A. The undisputed purpose of the physician's order to see a plastic surgeon was to evaluate whether the staples should be removed from the wound site. Respondent removed the staples from the wound site shortly after the survey with no complications to the resident. The surgical wound site healed in a timely and complete manner. The absence of harm to Resident 1A precludes a rating as a Class II deficiency. Petitioner alleges that Respondent allowed avoidable pressure sores to develop on Resident 4 and failed to provide necessary treatment after the pressure sores developed. During the survey, the surveyor and a nurse, who was a clinical consultant to the facility, twice observed Resident 4 lying on a special air mattress that was not inflated. After the second observation, the surveyor and consultant examined Resident 4 and observed what each determined to be two stage II pressure sores on each of the outer heels of Resident 4, a stage IV pressure sore on the right toe, two stage II areas on her left side above her rib cage, and a stage II area under her left breast. The surveyor and the nurse-consultant found nothing in the medical record to indicate that these areas had been previously identified by facility staff. Nor did they find any treatment orders for the areas of concern. The areas of concern were not pressure sores. It is undisputed that pressure sores involve deep tissue damage, do not heal quickly, and would have been present a few days later during examination. The director of nursing and the wound care nurse for the facility examined Resident 4 on May 13, 2003, and found no evidence of the areas that caused concern to the surveyor and nurse-consultant on May 12, 2003. The director of nursing asked the treating physician to examine Resident 4 to confirm the director's observations. On May 19, 2003, the treating physician examined Resident 4 and found no areas of concern on Resident 4. Resident 4 had no conditions that placed her at risk for developing pressure sores. The failure to inflate the special air mattress under Resident 4 did not create any risk for pressure sores. The mattress had not been ordered for Resident 4 and was not necessary for her care because Resident 4 was not at risk for developing pressure sores. Resident 4 was on the mattress because she had moved into a new room, and facility staff had not yet removed the mattress from the bed in the room that was used by the previous occupant. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to provide necessary treatment to promote healing of existing pressure sores on Resident 5. Resident 5 had three open areas on his skin: one on each hip and one over the coccyx. The areas on each hip were surgical wounds from hip surgeries prior to admission to the facility. For reasons stated in previous findings, these areas were surgical wound sites and were not pressure sores. It is undisputed that the remaining area on Resident 5 was a stage II pressure sore over the coccyx that was present upon admission to the facility. During the survey, the surveyor and the nurse-consultant observed Resident 5 on a specialty air mattress that contained a number of air chambers. Two of the chambers were not inflated. The surveyor and nurse-consultant determined that the area over the coccyx had worsened to a stage IV pressure sore. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to provide necessary care to Resident 5 by failing to properly inflate his specialty air mattress during the survey. Respondent did not fail to properly inflate the air mattress for Resident 5. The level of inflation of that mattress is not determined or set by the facility. Rather, the manufacturer calculates and sets the level of inflation for the mattress. The alleged failure to properly inflate the air mattress did not cause harm to Resident 5. The director of nursing observed the area of concern the day after the survey and determined it to be a stage II, rather than a stage IV, pressure sore. The clinical records that charted the size and stage of the pressure sore for the month after the survey show that the area was never more than a stage II pressure sore. A stage IV pressure sore would not have improved to a stage II sore within a month. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged improper inflation of an air mattress caused the pressure sore on Resident 5 to worsen from a Stage II to a Stage IV pressure sore.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order deleting the disputed deficiencies from the survey reports for March 11 and May 12, 2003; replacing the Conditional ratings with Standard ratings; and dismissing the proposed fines and investigative costs with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 2nd day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna Holshouser Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue By its Administrative Complaint, dated October 14, 1980, Use Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00 upon the Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center for alleged violations of Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Petitioner charges the Respondent with allegedly failing to provide patients in its nursing home with adequate care consistent with their right to receive adequate health care in accordance with the established and recognized practice standards in the community and with rules promulgated by the Department pursuant to Section 400.022 (1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner charges also that the Respondent failed to maintain its premises and equipment and conduct its operations in a safe and sanitary manner as required by Section 400.141(4), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is concomitantly charged with violations of Rules 10D-29.33(4) and 10D-29.38(1), and Rule 10D-29.52(4) Table (36), Florida Administrative Code, in the area of patient health care. A violation of Rule 10D-29.49(1), Florida Administrative Code is alleged on the ground that no effective maintenance plan was promulgated or implemented by the Respondent. The charges at issue relate to an August 22, 1980 complaint investigation and surveillance visit conducted by personnel from the Tampa Office of Licensure and Certification of Petitioner's Department. On that visit it is charged that the Petitioner's personnel observed a patient and her bed linens soiled with fecal material and another patient who had soil accumulations on the right hand and was in need of hand care. Additionally, the Petitioner's personnel allegedly observed nurse paging cords missing or not attached to beds in approximately twelve rooms and observed various fixtures and equipment in need of repair. The issues are thus whether the acts or omissions charged occurred, and whether they constitute violations of the above-cited legal authority and concomitantly, whether an administrative fine is appropriate pursuant to Section 400.102(c) and Section 400.121(2), Florida Statutes. Two witnesses were called by the petitioner and five by the Respondent. Ten exhibits were introduced into evidence. The Respondent moved to dismiss the Administrative Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss will be treated in the Conclusions of Law hereinbelow. The Respondent has filed 248 proposed findings of fact and has requested separate rulings upon each. In that regard, the Hearing Officer has considered all proposed findings of fact, conclusions and supporting arguments of the parties. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties, and the arguments by them, are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein they have been accepted, and to the extent that such proposed findings and conclusions of the parties, and such arguments made by the parties, are inconsistent therewith, they have been rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions have been omitted as not relevant, dispositive or as not necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses is not in accord with the findings and conclusions herein, it is not credited.
Findings Of Fact The Y & S Partnership, Limited, d/b/a Manhattan Convalescent Center, operates a nursing home facility in Tampa, Florida. The Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC), of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is responsible for the investigation of complaints about the operation of nursing facilities such as that of the Respondent, which are licensed by HRS. On August 22, 1980 a complaint investigation and surveillance of the Respondent's facility was conducted by O.L.C. employees Joel Montgomery and Muriel Holzberger. These individuals performed an inspection tour of the Respondent's facility accompanied by staff members of the Respondent to generally observe the level of health care accorded patients and the effectiveness of maintenance and repair operations carried out by the Respondent on its facilities and equipment. Ms. Holzberger, a registered nurse and accepted as an expert in the area of proper nursing care standards, personally observed at least 90 percent of the 176 patients resident at the Respondent's facility. In that connection, witness Holzberger observed patient A. W. who was bedridden at the time. This witness observed a brown stain approximately the size of a half dollar on the top sheet of patient A. W.`s bed. The witness described the stain as appearing to be the color of fecal material and it apparently was dry. She did not touch it, but made a determination by its visual appearance only. The stain only consisted of a brown coloration and no fecal material was observed adhering to the stained area. The sheet of this patient was raised by Nurse Holzberger who thereupon observed wet excrement on the patient's buttocks and on a waterproof pad that had been placed under the patient. Ms. Holzberger opined that at this point and time at least, the patient had not been cleaned. No dried excrement material was observed on the patient or on the waterproof pad however. Patient A. W. had a medical history of constant fecal incontinence and other bowel problems consisting generally of frequent impactions, coupled with constant oozing of fecal matter. Proper nursing care for such a patient was established to consist of changing sheets and washing the patient frequently to avoid the danger of skin breakdown in the anal and coccyx area which can be caused by frequent contact with fecal material. This witness, however, was unable to testify that patient A. W. had not been cleaned frequently inasmuch as she had a constant oozing of fecal material due to her inability to achieve sphincter control. The witness was similarly unable to establish that the wet excrement observed on the patient's buttocks and the waterproof pad beneath her had not been disposited there immediately before her observation of the patient. It was not shown that the patient had remained in a soiled condition for a significant period of time and indeed the witness acknowledged that allowing such a patient to remain in a soiled condition for a short period of time would not, on one or two occasions, affect that patient's health and safety. It is inferred that the soiling could just as likely have occurred immediately prior to Ms. Holzberger's observation inasmuch as it was described to be wet. Ms. Holzberger's observed no patients in the nursing home exhibiting skin breakdown or other ill effects caused by contact with excrement. Nurse Holzberger also observed patient C. M. who had severe contractures of the hands. Ms. Holzberger maintained that she observed soil accumulations in the right hand and the fingernails were in need of trimming. This witness described generally accepted hand care for contractured hands as consisting of washing or soaking in warm water at least daily and that if the contracture is severe, causing pain to open the hand, a washcloth should be wrapped on a tongue blade and inserted into the hand to clean it in that fashion. Drying is accomplished in a similar manner followed by insertion of a soft hand roll at least one inch in diameter to prevent indentation of the nails into the hand and to prevent build up of perspiration and to allow air to circulate. The nails should be trimmed as short as possible. Ms. Holzberger concluded, based primarily on the observance of the soil or stain in the hand, that it had been several days since hand care had been performed on this patient. Nurse Holzberger admitted that she knew nothing of the medical history of the patient C. M., a 97-year-old lady who suffers from severe degenerative arthritis and osteoporosis in both hands. The hand in question is so severely contractured as to be "in a ball." The witness acknowledged that no patient at the facility, including patient C. M., had any wounds caused by long nails, and that patient C. M. did have a gauze pad inserted into her hand. Witness Holzberger acknowledged that the brown stain on the patient's hand could have been due to the use of betadine which is a form of disinfectant medication and indeed Nurses Campanillo and Groves who testified for the Respondent, and were similarly accepted as experts, confirmed that the stain on patient C. M.`s hand was not caused by soil accumulation, but rather the betadine medication applied the day before in the course of regular hand care. Witness Holzberger testified that such hand care should be performed once a day and that she did not know whether it had been performed on the day of the inspection or not. The Respondent's witnesses confirmed that it had not been performed on that day at the time of her inspection shortly after 11:00 a.m., but that within the regular schedule of care for patients, it should be and was performed before 12:30 that day. Witness Holzberger admitted that there was no danger to the health and safety of the patient even if the hand was allowed to remain unclean for a reasonable period of time, which it was not. The Respondent thus demonstrated that the hand care was performed daily and that this patient could not tolerate a hand roll under her fingers to retard perspiration and indentation of the nails into the palm because it was extremely painful to even slide a tongue depresser with a washcloth under her fingers. Consequently, hand care was adequately accomplished on a daily basis by inserting a four inch gauze pad beneath her fingers and against her palm soaked with betadine solution and keeping her nails trimmed as short as possible. Witness Joel Montgomery was the hospital consultant on the Department's inspection team. Witness Montgomery observed a leaking air conditioner unit, a broken water closet tank cover, a leaking faucet in a janitor's closet, an inoperative water fountain and a missing baseboard in two of the rooms, as well as the allegation that nurse call cords were missing or not attached to the beds in approximately 12 rooms. The witness conceded that this is a large nursing home and such deficiencies are not unusual for a nursing home of this size and type, and that the staff of this nursing home had made sincere and continuing efforts to make repairs. He has seen improvements in maintenance over conditions existing at previous inspections. The witness was unable to state how many nurse paging cords were severed or missing, but that most of the 12 were simply not attached to the patients' beds. His testimony was not clear as to the existence of a requirement for attaching the paging cords to the beds, but the general tenor of his testimony was that that was the accepted procedure required by the Petitioner in regulating and overseeing patient care in nursing homes. The witness could not recall which, if any, beds were occupied in the rooms where he noticed the call cords were not attached to the beds. The witness also acknowledged that some of the cords were reattached to the beds in his presence, but he did not recall how many. The Respondent has a policy of detaching the cords from the beds when the patients are not in bed in order to change the linen, move the beds or to better allow ingress or egress by the patient from the bed. This witness did not establish that that policy conflicts with any Department policy or rule or constitutes an adverse influence on health care. The Respondent adduced evidence which established that only two call cords were actually inoperative during the inspection and that those were repaired during the inspection. The Respondent's witness to this effect Ann Killeen, the Administrator of the facility, made the inspection tour in the company of witness Montgomery for the Petitioner and corroborated the fact that the cords were clipped to the wall when patients are out of the beds or beds were being changed in order to prevent cords from breaking when the beds are moved, and that she was unaware that this violated any minimum standard promulgated by the Petitioner. The broken toilet tank cover was corrected while the inspector was on the premises, the leaking faucet in the janitor's closet sink was a slight drip causing no standing water inasmuch as the leaking water went down the drain. The leaking air conditioner drip pan was the only one of 89 air conditioners with such a problem. The testimony of this witness, as well as Respondent's witness Robert Cole, the employee of the facility in charge of maintenance, establishes that the inoperative call cords as well as the loose baseboards, the inoperative water fountain and broken water closet tank cover were repaired on the day of the inspection while the inspector was still on the premises with the exception of the air conditioner which was repaired within one week after the inspection and the baseboards which were repaired the day after the inspection. The water fountain was the subject of regular maintenance and had been repaired a number of times and the plumber was summoned to repair it once again after its deficiency was noted by Mr. Montgomery. None of the deficiencies with regard to the nurse call cords, the condensation dripping from the air conditioner, the broken water closet tank cover, the leaking faucet, the inoperative water fountain and the loose baseboards were shown to have been a recurring problem or problem existing for any significant period of time. The Petitioner did not show when these conditions occurred or how long they had been allowed to exist, nor did it show any resultant effect on the health or safety of the patients. The Respondent called Earnest H. Brown as an adverse witness. Mr. Brown is the Supervisor of the Tampa area Office of Licensure and Certification for the Petitioner. This witness admitted that he recommended a fine with regard to witness Holzberger's observance of patient A. W., who was fecally incontinent, because he believed fecal material had been found dried upon that patient's bed sheet. He relied on witness Holzberger's professional judgment in reporting to him. Witness Holzberger's testimony at the hearing, however, does not establish that any dried fecal material was found on patient A. W.`s bed sheet. With regard to his decision to recommend a fine concerning the deficient nurse calling cords, the witness admitted that this was predicated on the other observances of deficient call cords at the Respondent's facility on past inspections. The witness could not recall how many call cords, if any, had been observed to be inoperative or otherwise used improperly on past inspections. It should be noted parenthetically that the Administrative Complaint contains no allegation of such past deficiencies as a predicate to the charge regarding call cords in the Administrative Complaint stemming from the inspection of August 22, 1980 and in support of the fine which the Petitioner seeks to impose for this condition.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this cause should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard A. Gilbert, Esquire de la Parte & Butler, P.A. 403 Morgan Street, Suite 102 Tampa, Florida 33602 Steven R. Reininger, Esquire Tew, Critchlow, Sonberg, Traum & Friedbauer 10th Floor Flagship Center 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons given in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Nursing (Board), has alleged that Respondent, Sheila Key, a licensed practical nurse, failed to conform to minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice while employed as a practical nurse at Florida Christian Health Center (FCHC), in Jacksonville, Florida, in the Fall of 1999. Respondent holds license number PN 0792331 issued by the Board. The allegations against Respondent arose as a result of a routine Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) licensure survey of the facility on October 1, 1999. On that date, an AHCA survey team found an elderly resident with a head injury whose nursing notes had not been properly charted; a resident in the recreation area with blood on her gown and requiring medical attention; and a third resident with unattended sores on his ankles. All were under the direct care of Respondent. As to the first resident, the Board charged Respondent with failing to document the resident's head injury or condition in her nursing notes. In the second case, she was charged with failing to notify a physician or other responsible party in a timely manner about the injury and applying "steri-strips without a physician's order." Finally, Respondent was charged with failing and refusing "to comply with the surveyors' request" that she "remove [the patient's] socks so the ankle area on his feet could be observed." Each of these charges will be discussed separately below. Around 5:15 p.m. on September 30, 1999, A. B., an eighty-seven-year-old male resident at FCHC, acidentally fell and sustained an injury to his head that required emergency room treatment. A. B. returned to FCHC from the emergency room sometime after 9:00 p.m. Respondent reported for duty at 7:00 p.m. that same evening. Although good nursing practice dictated that Respondent promptly perform a neurological check on A. B. after he returned from the hospital, she failed to do so and did not perform one until 7:00 a.m. the next day (October 1). Even then, she failed to document any of her findings in the resident's nursing notes. By failing to document "the fall or his condition" in the nursing notes until the morning following the injury, Respondent failed to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable prevailing nursing practice. Around 7:40 a.m. on October 1, 1999, M. C. suffered a laceration on her neck while being transferred from her bed to a wheelchair. Respondent applied steri-strips to the wound, but she did not have a physician's order to do so. Also, she failed to document the neck wound or her treatment of the wound until 10:45 a.m., or more than three hours later. Finally, M. C.'s physician was not notified about the injury until around 12:15 p.m. FCHC has a written policy entitled "Changes in a Resident's Condition Status," which requires that the nurse promptly notify the resident, the resident's physician, and the resident's family of changes in the resident's condition. Thus, a nurse must notify the resident's attending physician and family whenever the resident is involved in any accident or incident that results in an injury. If the injury is of an emergency nature, such notification is required within thirty minutes to an hour. The evidence establishes that M. C.'s injury was of a type that required notification within this short time period. By waiting for almost five hours to notify M. C.'s physician about the injury, Respondent failed to conform with minimally acceptable nursing practices. She also violated the same standard by applying steri-strips to the injury without a doctor's order. Finally, she failed to conform to minimally acceptable nursing practices by not charting the injury in the nursing notes until more than three hours had elapsed. During the October 1, 1999, inspection, a member of the survey team asked Respondent to remove the socks and dressings on J. R., a resident. The request was made since the team could see a brown discharge on the inner aspects of his socks. Respondent would not do so, and eventually an assistant director of nursing performed that task. After the socks were removed, the survey team found old dressings through which drainage had soaked. They also observed sores that had thick yellow or serosanguinous drainage. Even though the sores had been there for at least a week or so, dressings had been previously applied, and the soaked socks were clearly visible, Respondent had failed to check the resident and was therefore unaware of his condition. Despite this omission, however, Respondent was only charged with failing and refusing "to comply with the surveyors' request," and not with inappropriate conduct with respect to the care of the resident. By failing to respond to a reasonable and legitimate request to remove the resident's socks so that a suspicious area could be observed, Respondent failed to conform to minimally acceptable standards of prevailing nursing practice. Respondent failed to admit responsibility for any of the foregoing violations. As to the resident with the neck wound, Respondent contended that the wound was not serious. However, it was serious enough that the resident's physician believed emergency room treatment was necessary. Respondent also contended that the assistant director of nursing (Widhalm) advised her that she (Widhalm) would call M. C.'s physician, an assertion which Widhalm credibly denied. Respondent further contended that she failed to chart A. B.'s nursing notes because the chart was in the hands of the surveyors. Under those circumstances, however, acceptable protocol requires that the nurse request the return of the notes so that essential information can be timely recorded. Finally, Respondent contended that the surveyor had told her that she could finish her "medication pass" before removing the socks and could do so whenever she had time. This assertion is not deemed to be credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding that Respondent is guilty of the violations described in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent be fined $1,000.00, given a reprimand, and placed on probation for two years subject to such conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruth R. Stiehl, PhD., R.N., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3231A 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sheila Key 3651 Dignan Street Jacksonville, Florida 32254 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint dated July 16, 2008, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The. att ached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Filed June 30, 2009 1:59 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00). The administrative fine is due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of this Order. Checks should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care Administration." The check, along with a reference to these case numbers, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. Respondent's petition for formal administrative proceedings is hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this du, day of- =---' 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Holly Ben on, Secretary Agency fo Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: David C. Ashburn Attorney for the Respondent Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (U. S. Mail) Mary Daley Jacobs Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Admin. Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Daniel Manry Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (U.S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the <?s = method designated, on this the Z f C J , 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 STATE OF FLORIDA
