The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes (2011), by discriminating against Petitioner, who is white, because Petitioner opposed Respondent's discrimination against other employees because of race and color, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a), and by discriminating against Petitioner because of a handicap in violation of section 760.10(1)(a).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a registered nurse. She was hired by Respondent in mid-July 2009, participated in an orientation program for approximately a month, and began work as a charge nurse on the night shift of the cardiovascular step-down unit in late August. The cardiovascular step-down unit primarily cares for patients who are recuperating from cardiovascular surgeries and procedures. In early September, Petitioner was counseled for two unscheduled absences and for twice leaving her shift early on account of illness. On November 27, 2009, Petitioner left her shift due to illness without notifying her supervisor. Respondent began taking steps to terminate Petitioner's employment. Respondent told Petitioner not to report for her next shift but to attend a meeting with the director of human resources, the chief nursing officer, and the nurse director. After the meeting, Respondent decided to terminate Petitioner's employment. After the meeting, Petitioner hand-wrote a 12-page letter defending her actions on November 27 and her performance on the job in general. Several days later, she hand-wrote another similar letter, this one 36 pages long. In neither of these letters, or at any time up until then, did Petitioner claim that she was being retaliated against for opposing discrimination against minority employees or that she was being discriminated against because of a handicap or disability. Instead, she excused her actions on November 27 and blamed several other employees of Respondent for making her actions and job performance in general look worse than they actually were. One of Petitioner's main targets of blame in these letters was Karen Franco. Franco is a Filipino registered nurse who sometimes worked as the charge nurse on her shift. Petitioner claims that she received Franco's agreement to cover for Petitioner as charge nurse on November 27, in addition to caring for the patients assigned to Franco on the shift, and did extensive preparation of a charge report for Franco to update and deliver at the end of the shift. Petitioner says she told Franco and almost everyone else on the shift that she was leaving early and placing Franco in charge. Petitioner says she forgot to tell her supervisor and called Franco from her cell phone in the parking lot to ask her to notify the supervisor. Petitioner says Franco agreed to do so. Franco contradicted practically all of Petitioner's version of events. According to Franco, she refused to be placed in charge in addition to caring for her patients, did not know when Petitioner left the building, did not know Petitioner was gone until she received a telephone call after Petitioner already had left the building, and did not agree to advise the supervisor for Petitioner. Another target of Petitioner's blame in these letters was Dena Vegter, the nurse manager for Petitioner's night shift. In the first letter, Petitioner's main complaint was that Vegter reacted with hostility when Petitioner made suggestions to improve the operation of the night shift unit. The letter said nothing about Vegter supposedly discriminating against minority nurses, about Petitioner opposing this practice, or about Vegter or anyone else retaliating against Petitioner for her opposition. In the second letter, Petitioner modified her complaint against Vegter, alleging that Vegter became hostile when Petitioner refused to cooperate with a plan to "crush" and drive off a nurse named Choisette, whom Vegter perceived to be a poor nurse and a liability to the unit. She also alleged in the second letter that Vegter wanted Petitioner to cooperate in getting rid of a nurse with a hearing impairment and that Petitioner herself was fired on account of medical issues. Before writing these letters, Petitioner never complained to anyone at the hospital that Vegter was targeting minority nurses or nurses with disabilities, not even to Sandria George, Vegter's immediate supervisor, who is black and participated in firing Petitioner. Besides George, Respondent had numerous minority nurses and other staff. Petitioner did not prove that Vegter or anyone else employed by Respondent was discriminating against minorities. When Vegter moved from the step-down unit to the cardiovascular unit, several minorities requested to be transferred with her, including several individuals Petitioner claims were Vegter's "targets." During and after Petitioner's employment by Respondent, Respondent fired some minority nurses, some minority nurses resigned, and some non-minority nurses were hired. However, during the same time period, some non-minority nurses were fired or resigned, and some minority nurses were hired. As for the alleged discrimination against Petitioner because of her handicap, during the time she worked at the hospital, Petitioner never claimed to have a handicap or disability. She alleged in her complaint of discrimination filed in November 2010 that she had fibromyalgia and "issues" with the discs in her back that prevented her from working four days in a row. However, Petitioner did not prove that she had a medical condition that limited her in any major life activity. In addition, at Petitioner's request, she never was scheduled to work more than three days in a row and usually was scheduled for no more than two days in a row. Petitioner now claims that she was demoted from charge nurse because of her inability to work four days in a row and in retaliation for opposing discrimination against minority nurses. However, the evidence was that there was no actual charge nurse position at the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. Rather, the nurse manager would assign one of the nurses on duty to be in charge of the shift. The charge nurse would receive a small additional amount of pay, but it was not a permanent job classification. In any event, Petitioner clearly was not demoted since she was assigned to be in charge on her last night on the job before her termination. After filing her complaint of discrimination, Petitioner again modified her story to allege for the first time what she described as an elaborate plot by her and Vegter. Petitioner said Vegter was an old and dear friend of Petitioner who agreed to have Petitioner hired by Vegter's immediate supervisor, Sandria George, while concealing from George her close friendship with Petitioner. According to Petitioner, after George hired her, the plan was for Petitioner to improve the operation of the night shift and share credit with Vegter, to the benefit of both of them. Vegter persuasively contradicted most of Petitioner's allegations. She testified that she had no close friendship with Petitioner, but an rather an old friendship based on prior employment together. She also testified that there was no plot to dupe George and the hospital. To the contrary, Vegter testified that she openly acknowledged to George that she knew Petitioner and requested that George interview Petitioner and make an independent decision whether to hire her. She also denied targeting minority nurses or nurses with handicaps or disabilities. Respondent had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for all employment actions taken with respect to Petitioner. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's reasons were pretexts for actual retaliation against Petitioner for opposing illegal discrimination or for actual discrimination against Petitioner based on handicap. There was no persuasive evidence that Respondent discriminates against nurses or other employees because of race or handicap (disability). Petitioner's testimony regarding such discrimination is rejected as not credible. In December 2009, Petitioner both threatened Respondent and begged Respondent for her children's sake to allow her to resign with severance pay instead of being terminated. Respondent agreed so that Petitioner would be able to collect unemployment and be reemployed more easily. In return, Petitioner agreed not to bring an action such as this one.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of May, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Findley, Esquire Messer, Caparello and Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerry Girley, Esquire The Girley Law Firm, P.A. 125 East Marks Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Lawrence Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for consideration are those allegations set forth in an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation (Department), in which the Respondent, Scarlett Jones, R.N., is accused of various violations of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Through Count One it is said that the Respondent transcribed an order for Heparin to be administered to the patient K.W. as 15,000 units when the physician's order quoted the dosage as 5,000 units, and that the patient was given two dosages at 15,000 units as opposed to the required 5,000 units. In an additional accusation against the Respondent, related to patient care, Respondent is said to have failed to indicate in the patient K.W.'s nursing notes, on or about May 16, 1988, that an administration of Aminophylline was to be restarted during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Further, it is alleged that this substance was not restarted until 8:00 a.m. on the next day as discovered by a subsequent shift employee. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1) (f), Florida Statutes, related to alleged unprofessional conduct. Count Two to the Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about June 4, 1988, the Respondent who was assigned to care for the patient E.J., was told by a co-worker that the patient had fallen out of bed and soiled himself and that the Respondent failed to respond to the patient's needs after repeated requests. Eventually, it is alleged that the patient's wife assisted him back to bed and the co-worker took care of the patient's hygiene. As a consequence, Respondent is said to have violated Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, related to unprofessional conduct and that she violated Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for knowingly violating a rule or order of the Board of Nursing. Finally, the third count of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent, on or about June 14, 1988, was found asleep while on duty in violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes, an act of unprofessional conduct, including, but not limited to, the failure to conform to minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. For these alleged violations, the Department seeks to impose disciplinary action which could include revocation or suspension, the imposition of an administrative fine and/or other relief which the Board of Nursing might deem appropriate.
Findings Of Fact During the relevant periods under consideration in this Administrative Complaint the Respondent was licensed by the Department as a registered nurse and subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Nursing in disciplinary matters. The license number was 1702172. On April 11, 1988, Respondent took employment with Gadsden Memorial Hospital in Gadsden County, Florida, in a position of charge nurse on the Medical-Surgical Pediatrics Unit, also known as "Med-Surg. Ped." That unit provides short term acute care for post-operative patients, acute medical patients, and acute pediatric patients, some of which require 24-hour observation. Response to the needs of the patients is given by three nursing shifts in each day which begins with shifts of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., followed by the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and then 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following morning. Upon hiring, Respondent was assigned to the work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and was the only registered nurse on duty during that shift. Among the responsibilities of the charge nurse at the time under examination here, was the assessment of patients on the unit as well as an awareness of the abilities of those other employees who were working in this shift. This was in an effort to provide direct supervision of critical care patients and included supervision of activities performed by a Nurse Technician. Respondent was more directly responsible for critical patients. Other duties included making frequent rounds and checking vital signs in an attempt to insure that the patients were stable. Respondent as charge nurse on "Med-Surg. Ped." could not leave the floor without notification of the house supervisor, another registered nurse. This person would replace the Respondent on those occasions where the Respondent would need to vacate the floor. In addition it was expected that the Respondent would notify those personnel who were working with her on the unit, where she intended to go and how long she would be gone. Before departing it was expected that the Respondent would check the stability of patients. physician's Orders were written on March 2D, 1988, in anticipation of the admission of patient K.W. to Gadsden Memorial Hospital to "Med. Surg Ped." The admission was under orders by Dr. Halpren. Among those orders was the prescription of Heparin, 5,000 units, subcutaneously every 12 hours. The Physician's Orders in terms of legibility are not immediately discernible but can be read with a relatively careful observation of the physician's orders. A copy of those may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The problem that tends to arise is that on the line which immediately follows the orders related to Heparin 5,000 units, is found the word hysterectomy written in such a fashion that the initial portion of the letter "H" might be seen as being placed on the prior line giving the unit dosage of the Heparin the appearance of being 15,000 units as opposed to 5,000 units. On April 11, 1988, K.W. was admitted to Gadsden Memorial Hospital as anticipated. At the time of admission the Physician's Orders previously described were provided. Surgery was scheduled and the patient file was made on "Med-Surg. Ped." Under the practices within this hospital, the ward clerk was responsible for transcribing physician's orders onto the patient's Medication Administration Record. This was done here by the ward clerk, S. Diggs. This is to be checked for accuracy by the charge nurse, to include Respondent, with the fixing of the signature to this Medication Administration Record verifying the accuracy of the clerk's entries. Respondent initialed the Medication Administration Record for the patient designating that Heparin in the amount of 15,000 units Q-12, meaning to be given every 12 hours was the requirement, and had been administered in that dosage. This may be seen in a copy of the Medication Administration Record which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. The patient was to undergo extensive abdominal surgery, to include the possibility of a hysterectomy and the incorrect administration of Heparin might promote problems with bleeding. The incorrect amount of Heparin as a 15,000 unit dosage was given to K.W. on two occasions. Another patient who was admitted to the ward which Respondent was responsible for as charge nurse was the patient A.W. Physician's Orders were written for that patient by Dr. Woodward on May 16, 1988. A copy of the Physician's Orders may be found at Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. Among the substances prescribed was Aminophylline drip 20 milligrams per hour I.V. This patient had been admitted to the pediatric unit with a diagnosis of asthma and prescribed the Aminophylline to aid the patient's breathing. It was expected that patient A.W. was to be administered two dosages of Aminophylline, an intermediate dosage to be given every few hours in a larger quantity, and a continuous drip to run at 20 milligrams per hour. Within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 are nursing notes made by Respondent concerning A.W. On May 17, 1988, between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. it is noted that Respondent was having trouble with patient A.W.'s I.V. She states that the I.V. site was assessed and had to be pulled and that she was not able to reinsert due to the uncooperative nature of this child. The I.V. was restarted by the house supervisor nurse. An entry at 6:30 a.m. made by the Respondent describes the I.V. position as acceptable. When the shift changed at 7:00 a.m. the new charge nurse did not find the Aminophylline drip in progress, as called for, and this is noted in a 7:30 a.m. entry made by this registered nurse, Sherry Shiro. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a Confidential Incident Report prepared by the Gadsden Memorial Hospital concerning allegations against the Respondent. They have to do with an alleged incident that occurred around 5:00 a.m. and contain the purported observations by Lucinda Mack, a licensed practical nurse on duty at that time, and they were received on June 15, 1988, by Carol Riddle, R.N., Director of Nursing at Gadsden Memorial Hospital, and the person responsible for investigating this matter. The copy of the Confidential Incident Report contained observations about the alleged failure of treatment by the Respondent directed in the matter of the patient E.J. These remarks are hearsay. They do not corroborate competent evidence at hearing concerning any oversight by the Respondent in the treatment of the patient E.J. On or about June 14, 1988, the Director of Nursing, Carol Riddle, called the night supervisor Michelle Warring at 2:00 a.m. to ascertain if the Respondent was on duty. Respondent was working on that date. At 2:15 a.m. Warring advised Riddle that the Respondent could not be found and Riddle went to the hospital at that time. When she arrived at the facility at 3:00 a.m. she went to "Med-Surg. Ped." where she was informed by the communications clerk that Lucinda Mack, LPN, was the only nurse on duty in that unit, and that the clerk did not know where Respondent could be found. Riddle and Warring then looked through the patient rooms in "Med-Surg. Ped." but could not find the Respondent. One and a half hours after commencing the search Riddle located the Respondent in a different wing of the hospital which contains a respiratory therapy manager's office. Respondent was there with her husband asleep, with the door locked and lights off. At that time she was the only registered nurse on duty in "Med-Surg. Ped." which had six patients receiving care on that evening. Respondent was not performing her duties or supervising those other persons who worked with her on the unit. Respondent had been observed asleep at her nurses' station desk on several other occasions by Dale Storey, a registered nurse working at the Gadsden Memorial Hospital. Linda Reed, a nurse technician at Gadsden Memorial Hospital had observed the Respondent asleep on duty. As commented on by nurse Riddle, who is qualified to give expert opinion testimony about the performance of the Respondent in her nursing practice, the conduct set out before in these findings of fact constitutes unprofessional conduct in the practice of nursing, in a situation which the Respondent knew what her duties were as charge nurse and failed to perform them at an adequate level.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which fines the Respondent in the amount of $1,000 for the violation related to the care of patient K.W. as set out in Count One and for sleeping on duty as set out in Count Three. And, finds that the violation related to patient A.W. as set out in Count One and the violation alleged in Count Two related to the patient E.J. were not proven. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5719 Petitioner's fact finding is subordinate to the finding in the Recommended Order with exception of paragraph 16 which is not relevant and reference within paragraph 34 to the date June 24, 1988, which should have been June 14, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Scarlett Jones 2636 Mission Road, #138 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Judy Ritter, Executive Director Florida Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue In DOAH Case No. 02-1421, addressing a survey concluded on October 23, 2001, the issue is whether Respondent Delta Health Group, doing business as Rosewood Manor (Rosewood), violated Rule 59A-4.1288, Florida Administrative Code and should be assessed a civil penalty and costs. In DOAH Case Nos. 02-1905 and 02-4040, addressing the survey of January 22 through January 25, 2002, the issue is also whether Rosewood violated Rule 59A- 4.1288, Florida Administrative Code. In DOAH Case No. 02-1905, the issue is whether a conditional license should issue. In DOAH Case No. 02-4040, the issue is whether civil penalties and costs should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensure and enforcement of all applicable statutes and rules governing nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Sections 400.021 and 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. Rosewood is a skilled nursing facility located at 3107 North H Street, Pensacola, Florida, holding license no. SNF1482096, which was issued by AHCA. Although not found in any rule, an unofficial standard in the industry requires that a resident be observed every two hours. This standard, when complied, is usually not documented. On September 11, 2001, AHCA conducted a survey of Rosewood's skilled nursing facility. During the survey AHCA concluded that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's environment remained as free as possible of accident hazards. Specifically, the AHCA surveyors determined that the door to a bio-hazardous storage area had been, either purposely or inadvertedly, propped open instead of being locked, and as a result, a resident entered the area, and injured himself with used hypodermic needles stored therein. Subsequently, on December 6, 2001, AHCA filed a Notice of Intent to Assign Conditional Licensure Status, based on the September 11, 2001, survey. The Notice was dated November 29, 2001. The Notice had attached to it an Election of Rights for Notice of Intent. Prior to December 10, 2001, the Election of Rights for Notice of Intent was returned to AHCA indicating that the factual allegations contained in the Notice of Intent to Assign Conditional Licensure Status were not disputed. On January 30, 2002, ACHA filed its Final Order. This Final Order incorporated the Notice of Intent dated November 29, 2001, and recited, that by not disputing the facts alleged, Rosewood admitted the allegations of fact. However, Rosewood did not admit the facts alleged. Rosewood merely stated that it would not contest the facts. The Survey of September 11, 2001. Resident 1 suffered from dementia, congestive heart failure, and epilepsy. He had a history of psychiatric problems. He was known by the staff to engage in aggressive behavior. Resident 1 was a "wanderer," which, in nursing home jargon, is a person who moves about randomly and who must constantly be watched. On May 24, 2002, Resident 1 attempted to get in another resident's bed and when a staff member attempted to prevent this, he swung at her but missed. On the morning of August 28, 2001, Resident 1 wandered in the biohazard storage room, which was unlocked and unguarded. Resident 1 succeeded in opening a Sharp's container which was used for the storage of used hypodermic needles. His handling of these needles resulted in numerous puncture wounds. These wounds could result in Resident 1 contracting a variety of undesirable diseases. Because he died soon after of other causes it was not determined if he contracted any diseases as a result of the needle sticks. This incident resulted from Rosewood's failure to prevent Resident 1 from wandering and from Rosewood's failure to ensure that harm did not befall their resident. The Survey of October 23, 2001. Resident 1A Resident 1A was admitted to Rosewood on May 31, 2001. At times pertinent he was 87 years of age. He suffered from a urinary tract infection, cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, hypertension, degenerative joint diseases, and a past history of alcoholism. On May 16, 2001, he struck a nursing assistant. He was diagnosed by a psychiatrist on October 31, 2001, as having dementia. He was also known by Rosewood staff to be a wanderer. On September 7, 2001, this resident engaged in combat with his roommate. Resident 1A was the loser in this contest. When found by staff, his fellow combatant had him in a headlock and was hitting him with a metal bar. The resident suffered facial lacerations as a result. The facility responded to this event by moving Resident 1A into another room. Resident 1A's care plan of September 10, 2001, had a goal which stated that, "Resident will have no further incident of physical abuse toward another resident by next care plan review." On October 4, 2001, the resident entered the room of a female resident and physically abused her. This resulted in this resident's being beaten by the resident with the help of another. Resident 1A suffered cuts and bruises from this encounter. As a result, Rosewood implemented a plan on October 4, 2001, which required that Resident 1A be observed every 15 minutes. Prior to that time he was observed at least every two hours, which is the standard to which Rosewood aspires. Subsequent to this altercation Resident 1A was evaluated by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist did not recommend additional observation. On October 5, 2001, early in the morning, the resident was physically aggressive to staff and backed a wheelchair into another resident. The other resident struck Resident 1A twice in response. Later in the day, the resident also attempted to touch a female nurse's breasts and to touch the buttocks of a female nursing assistant. The evening of October 21, 2001, Resident 1A was found holding another resident by the collar while another was hitting the resident with his fist. Resident 1A suffered skin tears as a result. There was no documentation that Resident 1A was or was not observed every 15 minutes as required by the care plan of October 4, 2001. He was provided with drugs on October 5, 2001, and October 17, 2001, in an attempt to ameliorate his aggressive behavior; however, the pharmaceuticals provided were unlikely to modify his behavior until four to six weeks after ingestion. On October 31, 2001, Resident 1A was discharged because he was determined to be a danger to others. He died in November 2001. Resident 5 Resident 5 was admitted to Rosewood August 15, 1998. Resident 5 suffered from atrial fibrillation, cardiovascular accident, and pneumonia, among other maladies. Resident 5 was at high risk for accidents. Specifically, he was at risk from falling. In his admissions history dated August 15, 1998, it was noted by Dr. Michael Dupuis that, "If he attempts to stand, he falls." Indeed, the record reveals dozens of falls which occurred long before the survey of October 23, 2001. In response to Resident 5's propensity to fall, Rosewood tried self-opening seat belts while in his wheelchair, placement in a low bed, instituted a two-hour toileting schedule, and attempted to increase the resident's "safety awareness." Rosewood prepared a "Rehabilitation Department Screen" on June 8, 2001, to address the risk. This document indicated that the resident needed assistance with most activities. In the evening of July 28, 2001, Resident 5 was found on the floor of his room. It was believed that he fell when trying to self-transfer from his bed to his wheelchair. He suffered no apparent injury. On August 14, 2001, Resident 5 was found on the floor in the bathroom. He stated that he was trying to get into his wheelchair. He was not injured. On August 29, 2001, Resident 5 was found lying on his side on the floor in a bathroom because he had fallen. He received two small skin tears in the course of this event. On September 12, 2001, Resident 5 was found on the floor holding onto his bed rails. He was on the floor because he had fallen. He told the nurse that he fell while trying to get in bed. He did not suffer any injury during this event. On October 5, 2001, Resident 5 was found lying on the floor in a puddle of blood. He had fallen from his wheelchair. On October 7, 2001, Resident 5 fell in the bathroom while trying to get on the toilet. On October 8, 2001, Resident 5 fell out of his wheelchair and was found by nursing staff lying on the floor in a puddle of blood. This event required a trip to a hospital emergency room. He received three stitches on his forehead and suffered a skin tear on his lower left forearm. On October 14, 2001, Resident 5 was discovered by a nurse to be crawling on the floor. He denied falling and stated that he was just trying to get back in his wheelchair. On October 20, 2001, Resident 5 fell out of his wheelchair. Resident 5's care plan dated September 19, 2001, noted a history of falls and injury to himself and defined as a goal to prevent fall with no report of injury or incidents due to falling by the next review date. Methods to be used in preventing falls included assistance with all transfers, verbally cuing resident not to stand or transfer without assistance, ensurance that a call light and frequently used items were in reach, the provision of frequent reminders, and ensurance that his living areas were kept clean and free from clutter. Rosewood implemented a plan to encourage the resident to ask for assistance when transferring. Subsequent to the June 8, 2001, evaluation, and the September 19, 2001, care plan, which called for a number of interventions, as noted above, Resident 5 continued to experience falls. Resident 5's feisty personality and determination to transfer himself without assistance made it difficult for the facility to guarantee that he did not experience falls. It was noted by Nurse Steele that a care plan requiring one-on-one supervision is not required by AHCA. Nurse Steele, however, opined that perhaps one-on-one supervision would be the only practice which would guarantee that the resident would experience no falls. The Survey of January 22-25, 2002. Resident 12 Resident 12 suffered from osteoporosis, dementia, hyperthyroidism, transient ishemic attacks, urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, anemia, and hypoglycemia, among other things. Resident 12 was receiving nutrition through a tube so it was necessary to elevate the head of her bed to prevent pneumonia or aspiration. Resident 12, at times pertinent, was immobile and was dependent on facility staff to accomplish all of her transfers and all activities of daily living including turning and repositioning. As evidenced by numerous observations recorded on the "Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk," Resident 12 was at risk for developing pressure sores. Resident 12 was observed by the facility with a pressure sore on the coccyx on December 21, 2001. A care plan had been created on October 12, 2002, providing that she was to be turned every two hours, and was to be provided with a pressure reduction mattress, and was to be kept clean and dry, among other actions. On December 24, 2001, it was noted in a "Data Collection Tool," that the resident's coccyx area was healed. On January 10, 2002, it was noted in Resident 12's care plan that the sore was fully healed. During the survey Nurse Brown on one occasion observed a member of the facility's staff change a dressing over the resident's coccyx, observed the area, and determined that the resident had a pressure sore. A pressure sore is a wound, usually over a bony area, such as the coccyx, which is caused by the weight of the body compressing flesh between the bony area and a bed or chair. Depending on the severity of the sore, pressure sores require a substantial period of time to heal. Pressure sores are graded as Stages I, II, III, or IV, with Stage IV being the most severe. Nurse Brown evaluated Resident 12 as having a Stage II pressure sore during the survey. Nurse Brown observed Resident 12 on two occasions on January 22, 2002; on four occasions on January 23, 2002; on two occasions on January 24, 2002; and on four occasions on January 25, 2002. On each of these occasions Resident 12 was lying on her back with her head elevated. She also observed the resident on several occasions sitting in a wheelchair. A wheelchair does not cause pressure on the coccyx. A "Data Collection Tool" with an assessment date of January 18, 2002, indicated that on January 20, 2002, that there was present on Resident 12, a "coccyx split .25 cm superficial open area, left buttocks 2 cm dark gray rough area." On January 21, 2002, the "tool" noted, "left buttocks 2 cm open area darkened, coccyx split .25 cm remains." A "tool" dated January 25, 2002, noted, "open area on coccyx 2 cm." A "tool" dated February 1, 2002, noted "red area on buttocks" as did a "tool" dated February 8, 2002. A "tool" dated February 15, 2002, noted, "excoriation on buttocks" and on February 22, 2002, the notation was "red area on buttocks." A "Data Collection Tool" dated March 1, 2002, noted, "No open areas." There is nothing in the records maintained by the facility which indicate that subsequent to the healing of the pressure sore on January 10, 2002, another pressure sore developed on Resident 12's coccyx. Nurse Brown was an expert on pressure sores and she saw the area on the coccyx and determined it was a Stage II pressure sore. Thomas Hulsey, also a nurse and also an expert in nursing, observed the wound and concluded that it was merely a skin split or excoriation likely caused by the resident's urinary incontinence. He also observed that after a short passage of time the wound disappeared, which is inconsistent with a pressure sore. Considering the evidence as a whole, it is determined that the redness described subsequent to January 20, 2002, was something other than a pressure sore. The absence of a pressure sore tends, moreover, to indicate that what Nurse Brown observed was not indicative of the general care Resident 12 was typically receiving. Resident 10 Resident 10, a woman 64 years of age, suffered from cardiovascular accident, dysphasia, decubitus ulcers, urinary tract infections, sclera derma, and seizures. She was unable to move any part of her body except for her left arm. Two to three caregivers were required to accomplish transfers. On December 16, 2001, at about 9:45 in the morning, Lula Andrews, a certified nursing assistant, reported finding Resident 10 lying on her side or back on the floor of her room. At 9:10 a.m. Resident 10 had been seen in her bed so she could have been residing on the floor for as long as 35 minutes. Ms. Andrews and two other certified nursing assistants put her back in her bed. Resident 10 weighed about 150 pounds. Ms. Andrews inquired of Resident 10 as to how she came to be resting on the floor and she replied she had, "blackened out." Resident 10 did not receive injuries in connection with this event. The bed was three to four feet above the floor. Ms. Andrews was suspended during an investigation of this incident. Based on the evidence of record it could be deduced that Resident 10 fell from her bed or it could be deduced that Ms. Andrews attempted to transfer Resident 10 without assistance with the result that Resident 10 was dropped or deposited on the floor due to Ms. Andrews' inability to cope with Resident 10's bulk. The evidence of record fails to provide a basis for resolving this question. Neither scenario demands a finding that there was a failure to provide adequate supervision. Resident 16 Resident 16 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. She also had a seizure disorder, osteoarthritis, and hypothyroidism. She had a care plan addressing her potential to suffer falls. On May 4, 2001, Resident 16 had a grand mal seizure while sitting on a piano stool. The 72-hour report generated by this event noted that she was not injured and refused all medications. On September 29, 2001, Resident 16 had a seizure while sitting on a piano bench. She was playing the piano prior to suffering the seizure. As a result of the seizure she fell backward and bumped her head. She denied experiencing pain from this event. On October 3, 2001, Resident 16 was in the visitor's bathroom, alone, washing her hands. She was upright before the lavatory and when she attempted to sit down in her wheelchair she did not notice that it was not directly behind her. Therefore she missed the seat of the wheelchair and landed on the floor. She sustained no injuries. Nurse Brown opined that had Resident 16 been supervised properly this fall would not have occurred. On December 17, 2001, Resident 16 was sitting on a piano bench when it appeared that she was fainting. One of the staff prevented her from actually falling over. The resident insisted that she was fine. On January 18, 2002, a facility staff person saw Resident 16 about to fall forward from her wheelchair and attempted to catch her before she reached the floor. The staff member was unsuccessful and the resident struck her head on the floor, which resulted in a four-centimeter by four-centimeter bump on her head. Resident 16's care plan required that facility staff closely supervise the resident. The facility also failed to ensure that she received adequate doses, and properly prepared doses of her anti-seizure medicine. Resident 20 Resident 20, during times pertinent, was a man of 96 years of age. He had a history of seizure disorder, depression, vascular dementia, gastro esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and osteoporosis. He entered the facility on January 22, 1995. On September 7, 2001, Resident 20 had a physical encounter with Resident 1A, who was his roommate. Resident 20 was found holding Resident 1A in a headlock and was pounding Resident 1A with a metal seat spine. As a result, Resident 1A received cuts and bruises. The facility was negligent in permitting Resident 20 access to the metal seat spine which could be used as a weapon. The facility staff determined that Resident 20 was very territorial and that the appropriate solution would be to assign him a room so that he could be alone. Nevertheless, on November 10, 2001, a roommate was assigned to Resident 20. The resident complained and the new roommate was moved to another room. Resident 20's care plan was not revised to reflect his territorial nature. On December 28, 2001, another resident was moved into Resident 20's room. On January 2, 2002, Resident 20 told a nursing assistant that the new roommate was wearing his, Resident 20's, clothes. The nursing assistant pacified Resident 20 and left the room. Shortly thereafter Resident 20 attacked his new roommate with a reach/grab device causing the new roommate to receive a cut. One of the surveyors, Nurse Salpetr opined that the nursing assistant was derelict in leaving Resident 20 alone with his new roommate. As a result of this incident Resident 20, pursuant to the Baker Act, was sent to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing, DOAH Case Nos. 02-1421, 02-1905, and 02-4040. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 8th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lori C. Desnick, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building, III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency care for a nursing home resident in respiratory distress in violation of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 483.25 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288. (All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect as of the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes inside the State of Florida. Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 830 West 29th Street, Orlando, Florida (the facility). Petitioner conducted a complaint survey of the facility on September 14, 2001. The survey cited the facility for a deficiency described in F309, and rated the deficiency with a scope and severity of "G" and Class II, respectively. The deficiency classifications authorized in Subsection 400.23(8) range from Class I through Class IV. Class I deficiencies are not relevant to this case. The statute defines the remaining classifications as follows: A Class II deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines 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 resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services. . . . A Class III deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines will result in no more than minimal physical, mental or psychosocial discomfort to the resident or has the potential to compromise the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being as defined. . . . A Class IV deficiency is a deficiency that the agency determines has the potential for causing no more than a minor negative impact on the resident. . . . Rule 59A-4.1288 requires nursing home facilities licensed by the state of Florida to adhere to federal regulations found in Section 483 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In relevant part, Rule 59A-4.1288 provides: Nursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 CFR 483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference. The "G" rating adopted by Petitioner for the scope and severity rating of the deficiency alleged in F309 is a rating authorized in relevant federal regulations. A "G" rating means that the alleged deficiency was isolated. Applicable state law authorizes Petitioner to change a facility's licensure rating from standard to conditional whenever Petitioner alleges that a Class II deficiency exists. Petitioner alleged in the survey report that a Class II deficiency existed at the facility and assigned a conditional rating to the facility's license. The conditional rating was effective September 14, 2001, and continued until substantial compliance was achieved. When Petitioner proves that a Class II deficiency exists, applicable law authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil money penalty. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent seeking to impose a fine of $2,500.00 and subsequently filed an Amended Administrative Complaint. The allegations on which both the change in license status to a conditional license and the proposed fine are based are set forth in F309. The deficiency alleged in F309 is set forth on CMS Form 2567, entitled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" (the 2567). The 2567 that Petitioner used to charge Respondent with the deficiency described in F309 involved only one resident. In order to protect this resident's privacy, the 2567, F309, the Transcript, and all pleadings refer to the resident as Resident 1. F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25. In relevant part, the federal regulation provides: Each resident must receive and the facility must provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Use F309 for quality of care deficiencies not covered by 483.25(a)-(m). F309 alleges that the facility failed to satisfy the requirement of 42 CFR Section 483.25 because: Based on interview and record review the facility neglected to provide appropriate emergency care for [Resident 1] in respiratory distress and failure. Petitioner promulgates an officially stated policy in written guidelines entitled the State Operations Manual (the Manual). The Manual states agency policy regarding the interpretation and application of the regulatory standards surveyors must enforce. The facility admitted Resident 1 to the pediatric long-term care unit on November 20, 2000. The admitting diagnosis was cerebral palsy, pneumonia and convulsions, a tracheostomy, and a gastrostomy. Resident 1 could breathe on her own and was being weaned from the trach. She could breathe through her nose at times. She was not on a ventilator but could breathe room air. At all times, Resident 1 was making respiratory effort. Resident 1 was on an apnea monitor. Resident 1 had three stomas. Stomas are the openings for the tracheostomy tube. Her throat structures were very frail. She had received numerous throat reconstructions. She had significant scar tissue and a granuloma at her stoma sites. A granuloma is a tumor-like growth. The granuloma was vascular, and the blood vessels were easily broken. Resident 1 was spastic as a result of her cerebral palsy. On September 7, 2001, at 2:50 a.m., Resident 1's apnea monitor alarm sounded. Staff immediately responded to find that Resident 1 had pulled out her tracheostomy tube and was bleeding profusely. Facility staff called 911 and notified the treating physician and the parents. An ambulance was dispatched to the facility at 2:51 a.m. on September 7, 2001. While awaiting the ambulance, the Registered Nurse on duty (RN) could not detect an apical or radial pulse. The RN did not administer CPR. Rather, the RN established an airway by successfully replacing the tracheostomy tube. Securing a patent airway was the first thing that the RN should have done for Resident 1 under the circumstances. No oxygen can be given without a patent airway. It was difficult for the RN to visualize the trach opening because of the profuse bleeding. The RN was able to tactilely reinsert the tube. Vital signs taken by the RN showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. CPR is not appropriate when vital signs are present. The ambulance and EMT personnel arrived shortly after the RN reinserted the trach tube. At 2:56 a.m., EMT personnel took over the care of Resident 1. EMT personnel worked on Resident 1 for 23 minutes before transporting her to the hospital. Resident 1 died at the hospital at 3:35 a.m., 38 minutes after the EMTs took responsibility for her care. EMT personnel generated EKG strips indicating that Resident 1's heart was beating at some point after they took over. Two sets of x-rays subsequently taken at the hospital substantiate that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel took over her care. EMT personnel removed the trach the nurse had inserted and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. Removing the trach eliminated the airway that the RN had established for Resident 1 before EMT personnel arrived. The endotracheal tube was 22 centimeters long and significantly longer and larger than the regular trach tube used for Resident 1. The physician's order for Resident 1 stated that nothing should go past 6 centimeters into Resident 1's trach. It took the EMTs three attempts to get the endotracheal tube placed. The EMTs should have hyperventilated Resident 1 before placing the endotracheal tube. They did not do so. The x-ray taken at 3:42 a.m. in the hospital, shows that the endotracheal tube was improperly positioned in Resident 1's lung. All steps taken by the RN were appropriate for Resident 1 under the circumstances. Petitioner failed to show a nexus between any act or omission by the facility and the harm to Resident 1. The care plan for Resident 1 called for suctioning of her tracheal tube. Care plans are to be followed under normal circumstances. Emergency procedures take precedence in critical situations. Suctioning for Resident 1 was appropriate under normal circumstances when she had a patent airway. If Resident 1 did not have an airway, the first priority is to establish an airway. The RN first established a patent airway for Resident 1. It would have been inappropriate for the RN to suction Resident 1 before establishing an airway because it would have sucked out the air remaining in Resident 1's lungs. Suctioning also could have caused a vasovagal response that could stop the heart and could have caused tissue damage. After the RN opened an airway for Resident 1, the next priority would have been for the RN to check for vital signs. The RN checked Resident 1's vital signs after opening an airway, and the vital signs showed that Resident 1 was alive when EMT personnel arrived on the scene. The presence of vital signs made it inappropriate for either the RN or EMT personnel to administer CPR. CPR is appropriate only in the absence of vital signs. When EMT personnel arrived, they continued the same procedure that the RN had followed. EMT first established an airway by removing the trach tube used by the RN and replaced it with an endotracheal tube. The resident had vital signs after placement of the trach and CPR was inappropriate. F282 relates to failure to implement a care plan. Respondent was not cited under F282. Petitioner stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation that both the conditional license and fine were based on F309 alone.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in F309 and the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the Administrative Complaint, and changing Respondent's conditional license to a standard license effective September 4, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, Room 3106 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. Post Office Box 2011 2180 Park Avenue, North Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
