95-002422
Agency For Health Care Administration vs.
Convalescent Services, Inc., D/B/A Conway Lakes Nursing Center
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, November 30, 1995.
Recommended Order on Thursday, November 30, 1995.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
13ADMINISTRATION, )
15)
16Petitioner, )
18)
19vs. ) CASE NOS. 95
24) 95-3022
26CONVALESCENT SERVICES, INC., )
30d/b/a CONWAY LAKES NURSING CENTER, )
36)
37Respondent. )
39____________________________________)
40RECOMMENDED ORDER
42A formal hearing was conducted in this proceeding before Daniel Manry, a
54duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on
65July 25 and September 7, 1995, in Orlando, Florida.
74APPEARANCES
75For Petitioner: Linda L. Parkinson, Esquire
81Division of Health Quality Assurance
86Agency For Health Care Administration
91400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309
97Orlando, Florida 32801
100For Respondent: Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire
106Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff,
110Rosen & Quentel, P.A.
114101 East College Avenue
118Post Office Drawer 1838
122Tallahassee, Florida 32302
125STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
129The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether uncorrected
139Class III deficiencies existed on January 30, 1995, when Petitioner conducted a
151follow-up survey of Respondent's nursing home; and, if so, whether Petitioner
162should impose a fine and change the rating of Respondent's license from superior
175to conditional.
177PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
179Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on March
18830, 1995. The Administrative Complaint alleges that deficiencies in minimum
198licensure standards existed during an annual survey conducted on October 6,
2091994, and during a follow-up survey conducted on January 30, 1995. The
221Administrative Complaint seeks to impose an administrative fine of $1,400 for
233the alleged violations. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing.
242By letter dated February 23, 1995, Petitioner advised Respondent that
252Petitioner was changing Respondent's license rating from superior to
261conditional. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing for the proposed
271rating change to its license.
276The separate matters were consolidated on July 18, 1995. They were heard
288during a two-day formal hearing conducted on July 25 and September 7, 1995.
301At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of six witnesses
312and submitted four exhibits for admission in evidence. Respondent presented the
323testimony of six witnesses and submitted 21 exhibits for admission in evidence.
335The identity of the witnesses and exhibits, and the rulings regarding each, are
348set forth in the transcripts of the formal hearing filed on August 24 and
362September 25, 1995.
365Petitioner timely filed its proposed recommended order ("PRO") on October
3775, 1995. Respondent timely filed its PRO on October 10, 1995. Proposed
389findings of fact in Petitioner's PRO are addressed in the Appendix to this
402Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact in Respondent's PRO are accepted in
414this Recommended Order.
417FINDINGS OF FACT
4201. Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for inspecting
429nursing homes and enforcing licensure requirements for nursing homes in
439accordance with Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, 1/ and Florida Administrative
449Code Rule 59A-4.128 (amended, July, 1987). 2/ Petitioner also rates nursing
460home licenses as either superior, standard, or conditional. 3/
4692. Respondent is licensed to operate a nursing home. Respondent operates a
481120-bed nursing home as Conway Lakes Nursing Center ("Conway Lakes").
4933. Respondent's license was due to expire on October 31, 1994.
504Respondent's license was renewed. However, on November 4, 1994, its license
515rating was change from superior to conditional.
5221. The Initial Survey
5264. On October 3-6, 1994, Petitioner conducted an inspection survey
536at Conway Lakes (the "initial survey"). The initial survey was conducted by
549seven team members. The team members spent 140 hours at Conway Lakes and
562complied with applicable procedures, protocols, and guidelines in Appendix P of
573HCFA's Transmittal No. 250 ("Transmittal 250").
581ansmittal 250 prescribes a minimum sample size based upon resident
591census and case mix. Case mix is divided into four categories: light care;
604heavy care; non-interviewable light care; and non-interviewable heavy care.
6136. Sample selection is made by consensus of the survey team members after
626they have completed an orientation tour. The orientation tour is the principle
638method of identifying residents who will be included in the sample.
6497. After completing the orientation tour, the survey team correctly
659selected a sample of 23 residents from a total population of 111. The team
673members reviewed resident records to assure that residents in the sample
684satisfied applicable requirements for case mix.
6908. Team members prepared a resident roster on the appropriate HCFA form.
702Team members identified residents by number on the form and recorded
713observations for each numbered resident on the form.
7219. Team members assessed environmental quality, resident records, resident
730rights, dietary services, medication, and quality of care. The quality of care
742assessment is particularly complex and intensive. It involves comprehensive
751review of medical records, care plans, and assessments; as well as interviews
763and observations.
76510. The quality of care assessment includes a dining room observation and
777review. The dining room observation and review must comply with applicable
788protocols for quality of care assessment. The team members complied with
799protocols prescribed for the dining room observation and review. 4/
80911. Petitioner issued a survey report alleging seven deficiencies. The
819survey report classified each deficiency as a "Class III" deficiency within the
831meaning of Section 400.23(9)(c). 5/ The report stated that each deficiency was
843a violation of corresponding sections of Rule 59A-4.106 and 42 Code of Federal
856Regulations 483 ("CFR"). 6/
8622. The Follow-up Survey
86612. After the initial survey, Respondent submitted a plan of correction
877for its deficiencies. Petitioner conducted a follow-up survey on January 30,
8881995. The follow-up survey was conducted by two team members (the "surveyors")
901to determine whether Respondent had corrected the deficiencies noted in the
912survey report.
91413. With two exceptions, Petitioner found that Conway Lakes met all
925requirements to continue a superior rating for Respondent's license. The two
936exceptions were for uncorrected deficiencies Petitioner found in Respondent's
945accommodation of needs for individual residents and in the environment at Conway
957Lakes.
9582.01 Accommodation Of Needs
96214. One deficiency was for Respondent's alleged failure to assure that
973residents receive reasonable accommodation of individual needs and preferences
982within the meaning of 42 CFR 493.15(e) ("accommodation of needs"). The
995surveyors found deficiencies in accommodation of needs during dining room
1005service and during in-room dining service. The surveyors also found a
1016deficiency pertaining to a sign posted over one resident's bed stating, "Cannot
1028feed self, she must be fed."
103415. The surveyors concluded that staff did not accommodate the individual
1045needs of some residents in the dining room who needed assistance with their
1058food. The surveyors claimed that staff was "dashing" from one resident to
1070another offering only bits of food at a time.
107916. The surveyors observed three residents in the dining room with their
1091plate guards in an allegedly incorrect position. One of the residents was
1103observed trying to scoop her food. The food was observed spilling over the edge
1117of the plate.
112017. Another resident required assistance to spear a piece of bacon. One
1132of the surveyors observed that a staff member was verbally cuing the resident
1145regarding the location of the bacon. The resident was able to spear that piece
1159of bacon. However, the surveyor observed that the staff member did not return
1172for four or five minutes.
117718. A staff member encouraged another resident to eat but did not return
1190to provide further assistance. The surveyor claimed that the resident left the
1202dining room after consuming only 10 percent of her food.
121219. A surveyor noted that two residents were served a pitcher of water but
1226received no assistance in pouring the water into their glasses. One of the
1239residents attempted to pick up the pitcher but had to set it down because the
1254resident's hand started shaking.
125820. One surveyor observed two residents in their rooms without any
1269assistance from staff. The surveyor classified both of these residents as
1280cognitively impaired and as requiring assistance with their meals.
128921. One surveyor observed two residents in their rooms with their food
1301trays uncovered. No staff was observed assisting the residents for a period of
1314five minutes.
131622. One surveyor observed a sign over a resident's bed stating that the
1329resident needed assistance in feeding. The surveyor did not observe the
1340resident receiving any assistance.
13442.02 Environment
134623. The second deficiency was for Respondent's alleged failure to provide
1357a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment in which residents are
1368allowed to use personal belongings in accordance with 42 CFR 483.15(h)(1)
1379("environment"). 7/ The surveyors found deficiencies in the environment after
1391noting urine odors, two soiled intravenous ("IV") stands, and a soiled suction
1405apparatus in a resident's room.
141024. The surveyors found a stale urine odor at the entry of Conway Lakes
1424and at the ends of the hall closest to the lobby area on both the east and west
1442wings of the facility. One observer found pervasive urine odors in Room 227 on
1456the west wing as well as in the hall in front of Room 227.
147025. One surveyor found that the bases for two IV stands used to hang tube
1485feeding formulas were soiled with formula at the base of the stands. She also
1499found a soiled and uncovered suction apparatus in a room.
150926. The cleaning tag on the apparatus indicated that the apparatus was
1521last cleaned on January 21, 1995. The surveyor asked the staff nurse if the
1535apparatus was last cleaned on January 21, 1995. The staff nurse confirmed that
1548the apparatus was last cleaned on January 21, 1995.
155727. The bottle on the suction apparatus was one-third full of mucous. The
1570surveyor concluded that the mucous had been in the bottle since January 21,
15831995.
15843. Procedural Deficiencies In Follow-Up Survey
159028. A follow-up survey is conducted to re-evaluate the areas cited as
1602deficient during the initial survey in order to determine if the deficiencies
1614have been corrected. To assure consistency, the follow-up survey generally
1624should follow protocols prescribed in Transmittal 250 for the initial survey.
1635ansmittal 250 requires the sample size for the follow-up survey to
1646be 60 percent of the sample size selected for the initial survey. In selecting
1660the sample for the follow-up survey, the survey team should focus on residents
1673who are most likely to have those conditions, needs, or problems cited in the
1687initial survey. If possible, the survey team members should include some
1698residents identified as receiving substandard care during the initial survey.
170830. Surveyors did not select residents who were most likely to have
1720problems cited in the initial survey. The surveyors made no effort to include
1733in the follow-up survey sample residents who were included in the initial survey
1746sample.
174731. Surveyors did not review resident records to assure that residents in
1759the follow-up survey satisfied case mix requirements in Transmittal 250. The
1770surveyors did not review resident records, such as medical records, care plans,
1782and dining room records to distinguish between residents who required light care
1794or heavy care or to determine which residents were non- interviewable.
180532. The surveyors did not prepare a resident roster on the appropriate
1817HCFA form, or otherwise. The surveyors randomly observed residents on an ad hoc
1830basis.
183133. The follow-up survey was conducted by two team members who devoted
1843four hours each to the follow-up survey. They did not have time to conduct a
1858thorough survey. The surveyors did not comply with protocols prescribed in
1869Transmittal 250.
187134. The two surveyors who observed the dining room service during the
1883follow-up survey did not observe the dining room service during the initial
1895survey. The surveyors in the follow- up survey had no baseline from which they
1909could assess any improvement or deterioration in dining room service after the
1921initial survey.
192335. The surveyors did not observe the entire dining process. Their
1934observations were cursory, at best. Neither surveyor spent more than 15 minutes
1946in the dining room.
195036. One surveyor did a loop through the dining room, paused in the back to
1965write some notes, and then returned to the front of the dining room. She stood
1980there for a few minutes and left at 12:40 p.m. The dining room process
1994continued until 1:40 p.m.
199837. The other surveyor entered the dining room at 12:30 p.m., left at
201112:35 p.m., reentered at 12:40 p.m., and left for the final time at about 12:50
2026p.m.
202738. The objective of the dining observation review is to:
2037. . . observe the quality of life and the quality
2048of care associated with the dining experience
2055for residents included in the Standard Survey
2062sample who are triggered for a Dining Observation
2070review. This observation allows for integrating
2076information gained from an in-depth review of
2083residents' nutritional status and information on
2089meals and snacks from the Individual Resident's
2096Rights Interview, with your direct observation of
2103these residents dining.
2106A resident in the sample should be observed while
2115dining if at least one of the following is present:
2125Dining complaint during an interview;
2130Nutritional (protein/calorie) deficiencies;
2133Weight loss of more than 5 percent;
2140Therapeutic or mechanically altered diet;
2145Complaint of hunger or not being fed; or
2153Presence of a pressure sore.
2158Transmittal 250.
216039. The surveyors did not consult resident records to measure such
2171outcomes as weight gain or loss for residents. Nor did the surveyors integrate
2184information gained from an in-depth review of residents' nutritional status with
2195direct observations.
21974. Accommodation Of Needs
220140. There is no deficiency in Respondent's accommodation of needs of
2212individual residents. Respondent accommodates the needs of individual residents
2221in dining room service, in-room service, and in posting signs over residents'
2233beds. Even if the alleged deficiencies exist, they are not Class III
2245deficiencies that are related to the health, safety, or security of residents.
22574.01 Dining Room Service
226141. Respondent provides residents in the dining room with reasonable and
2272appropriate accommodation of needs. Respondent utilizes a restorative dining
2281process in an attempt to restore the maximum self sufficiency possible for each
2294resident.
22954.01(a) The Restorative Dining Process
230042. The restorative dining process requires Respondent to assess the
2310individual needs and conditions of each resident. Respondent then develops a
2321plan to return the resident to independent eating and self sufficiency to the
2334fullest extent possible for each resident.
234043. Respondent maintains written policies and procedures for its
2349restorative dining process. The policies and procedures provide guidelines for
2359implementing the restorative dining process.
236444. Respondent uses outcome measurements to assure that the health and
2375nutritional needs of each resident are met in the restorative dining process.
2387The staff monitors food intake for every meal and assesses weight gain or loss
2401monthly.
24024.01(b) Dashing About
240545. The dining room at Conway Lakes is designed and operated to achieve
2418the goals of the restorative dining process. The dining room has a restaurant-
2431like atmosphere with individual dining tables and decor, chandeliers, and
2441wallpaper.
244246. Residents are seated in standard dining room tables and chairs.
2453Wheelchair bound residents are transferred to these chairs when appropriate.
246347. The staff serves each resident individually. A staff member brings
2474each resident's meal out of the kitchen on a tray with the resident's menu card.
2489The plates are then placed on the table.
249748. Staff members verbally cue residents as needed in order to encourage
2509independence and self help. Verbal cuing is a valid and appropriate means of
2522encouraging self help and independence.
252749. Staff members provide full time assistance to those residents who need
2539it. Volunteers also assist with residents who need full time assistance.
255050. The "dashing" about of staff in the dining room is not a deficiency in
2565the accommodation of needs of residents using the dining room. Staff members
2577are busy in the dining room serving food, cuing residents, assisting others, and
2590monitoring all residents in the dining room.
259751. Even if "dashing" about is a deficiency, it is not a Class III
2611deficiency. There is no deficiency in the health or nutritional needs of
2623residents or in their safety or security.
26304.01(c) Plateguards
263252. Respondent provided reasonable and appropriate accommodation of needs
2641in positioning resident plateguards. Staff members did not position resident
2651plateguards incorrectly.
265353. There is no standard position for a plateguard. The correct position
2665for a plateguard is determined by an assessment of the individual needs and
2678abilities of each resident.
268254. The assessment of the individual needs of each resident is conducted
2694by staff members in nursing, occupational therapy, and speech therapy.
2704Respondent maintains written plateguard instructions in the dining room. The
2714surveyors did not review resident records to determine the proper position for
2726plateguards based on the individual needs of the residents observed.
273655. Some residents scoop a plate from right to left or from left to right.
2751Others scoop from front to back or vice versa. One of the residents observed by
2766the surveyors did not require a plate guard because that resident receives a
2779sandwich at every meal and does not scoop food.
278856. Plateguards may be incorrectly positioned by residents rather than
2798staff. Residents commonly reposition plateguards during the course of a meal.
280957. Staff members constantly monitor plateguard positions during meals
2818and make adjustments appropriate for the individual resident. Appropriate
2827adjustments were made in every case observed by the surveyors. Surveyors were
2839not in the dining room long enough to know that staff members corrected any
2853plateguards that were in fact improperly positioned.
286058. The surveyors noted that plateguards were placed on plastic plates
2871rather than china plates. Some china plates had recently been broken. Staff
2883members were using plastic plates while new china plates were on order.
289559. The china plates were replaced within a short period after the follow-
2908up survey. However, the surveyors did not inquire about the order for new
2921plates or the expected delivery date.
29274.01(d) The Bacon
293060. Staff members at Conway Lakes provided the resident who attempted to
2942spear a piece of bacon with appropriate accommodation of needs. The bacon was
2955included as decoration and tenderizer for meatloaf. It was not a substantive
2967part of the meal.
297161. That resident is very particular about her bacon. She demands that
2983her bacon be brown and crispy when she typically receives bacon during her
2996breakfast.
299762. The resident ate 80 percent of the meal observed by the surveyor. She
3011normally eats only 70-75 percent of her meals.
301963. The surveyor was not present in the dining room long enough to
3032determine the total amount of bacon or other food consumed by the resident. Nor
3046did the surveyor consult the resident's records for outcome measurements to
3057determine if the resident's nutritional needs were suffering.
306564. Even if the incident was a deficiency, it was not a Class III
3079deficiency. It was not a deficiency in the health or nutritional needs of the
3093resident or in her safety, or security.
31004.01(e) The Resident Who Ate Only 10 Percent Of Her Meal
311165. The resident who left the dining room after eating only 10 percent of
3125her meal was very ill. She suffered from chronic gastro intestinal ("GI")
3139bleeding. Staff members encouraged the resident to go to the dining room to
3152increase the resident's social contact.
315766. The resident was served a tuna sandwich. A tuna sandwich was not part
3171of the regular menu. Staff members decided that the resident should be given
3184anything she felt like eating in order to maintain an accurate percentage of
3197food intake. The resident ate the entire sandwich that she was served.
320967. The surveyor did not inquire into the medical status of the resident.
3222Nor was the observer present in the dining room long enough to determine the
3236total amount of the meal consumed by that resident.
32454.01(f) The Two Residents Who Were Served Water
325368. Respondent provided the two residents who were served water with
3264reasonable and appropriate accommodation of their needs. Staff members provided
3274the two residents with adequate assistance in getting their water. The surveyor
3286was not in the dining room long enough to determine whether the residents
3299received assistance.
330169. The resident whose hand shook when attempting to pour water from the
3314pitcher suffers from Parkinson's disease. It is not unusual for that resident
3326to try to help himself by picking up his own water pitcher.
33384.02 In-Room Dining Service
334270. Respondent provided reasonable and appropriate accommodation of the
3351needs of four residents observed eating in their rooms. The residents either
3363did not need assistance or received adequate assistance.
33714.02(a) One Unattended Resident On The West Wing
337971. One of the residents housed in the west wing of Conway Lakes is
3393cognitively impaired and needs assistance with her meals. Appropriate
3402assistance was provided by the resident's adult granddaughter. The
3411granddaughter routinely assists the resident with her meal.
341972. Staff members were aware that the granddaughter was providing
3429appropriate assistance to the resident. The granddaughter fed the resident in
344020 minutes, beginning at 12:10 p.m.
344673. The resident did not complete her meal. That was consistent with the
3459resident's normal routine.
346274. Even if the incident was a deficiency, it was not a Class III
3476deficiency. It does not relate to the health, safety, or security of the
3489resident.
349075. The resident does not experience any weight loss problem. She eats
3502appropriate portions from her food tray. The observer did not consult the
3514resident's records to assess the resident's accommodation of needs on the basis
3526of outcome measurements.
35294.02(b) The Other Unattended Resident On The West Wing
353876. The other west wing resident is not cognitively impaired. She is
3550alert and oriented.
355377. The resident is capable of independent eating. She does not require
3565assistance with meals except for set up.
357278. Set up includes cutting meat and pouring liquids. The resident
3583received adequate assistance appropriate to her individual needs.
359179. This resident is hearing impaired. She can not be interviewed orally.
360380. The resident did not respond to the observer's verbal inquiries
3614because she is hearing impaired. The observer did not consult the resident's
3626medical records and erroneously classified the resident as "non-interviewable."
36354.02(c) The Two Residents On The East Wing
364381. Both residents on the east wing of Conway Lakes who were allegedly
3656unattended received reasonable and appropriate accommodation of their needs.
3665Both residents require only set up assistance with their meals. Otherwise, each
3677resident is able to eat independently.
368382. One of the residents refuses to eat in front of other people. She is
3698embarrassed about her eating. She would not eat as long as she was being
3712observed.
371383. Both residents received assistance appropriate to their individual
3722needs. Both residents ate appropriate portions of their noon meals.
373284. Even if the incidents were deficiencies, they are not Class III
3744deficiencies. Neither resident suffers from any weight loss or nutritional
3754problems.
375585. The surveyors did not review resident records to assess the residents'
3767accommodation of needs based on outcome measurements. Nor did the surveyors
3778consult resident records to determine the level of assistance required by each
3790resident or to distinguish between residents who were hearing impaired and those
3802who were cognitively impaired.
38064.02(d) The Posted Sign
381086. A sign was posted over one resident's bed stating that the resident
3823can not feed herself and must be fed. The sign was posted by members of the
3839resident's family.
384187. Respondent provides this resident with reasonable and appropriate
3850accommodation of needs. Even if the incident were a deficiency, it is not a
3864Class III deficiency. The resident eats appropriate portions at each meal and
3876does not suffer any weight loss problems.
38834.03 Environment
388588. Respondent provides a safe and clean environment at Conway Lakes.
3896Respondent is not deficient in the environment it maintains at Conway Lakes.
3908Even if the problems observed by the surveyors are deficiencies in the
3920environment, they are not Class III deficiencies that relate to the health,
3932safety, or security of residents.
39374.03(a) The Urine Odors
394189. Respondent has implemented reasonable measures to maintain an odor
3951free environment at Conway Lakes. Respondent adequately assessed the cause of
3962the urine odors at Conway Lakes and is making all reasonable efforts to deal
3976with the source of the problems. The problems are adequately noted and
3988discussed in the care plans of the individual residents who cause urine odors at
4002the facility.
400490. The surveyors failed to review records and care plans of individual
4016residents to understand the cause of the urine odors at Conway Lakes. The
4029surveyors also failed to familiarize themselves with the specific care needs of
4041the individual residents in order to evaluate the impact of the residents' needs
4054on their environment.
405791. One resident in the east wing is incontinent. Her room is located
4070very close to the front entry of Conway Lakes.
407992. The resident attempts to wash her own under garments. She then stuffs
4092the still-soiled garments into air conditioning vents, underneath her pillow,
4102under the mattress, on the closet shelves, and in between clean clothes.
411493. The odors generated by this resident are not confined to her room.
4127They permeate through the door and can be detected in other parts of the
4141facility.
414294. Respondent has implemented reasonable measures to maintain an odor
4152free environment for this resident. Nursing and housekeeping staff pay close
4163attention to this resident. They are constantly alert to find misplaced and
4175soiled garments.
417795. Respondent has replaced the carpet in this resident's room with tile.
4189Respondent provides this resident with three changes of clothes at each shift;
4201making it easier for staff members to track soiled clothes. Staff members mop
4214this resident's room once each shift. Staff members give this resident one to
4227two showers a day.
423196. The problems with this resident are well documented in her resident
4243records, including her individual care plan. The surveyors did not review those
4255records.
425697. Another resident in Room 227 is very alert and oriented. However, he
4269purposefully urinates on the floor, his books, and his furniture.
427998. The odor permeates other areas of the facility. It is not limited to
4293his room.
429599. Respondent has provided behavior modification treatment to this
4304resident. Respondent had the resident evaluated for alternative
4312placement by the state agency responsible for determining an appropriate
4322placement in a long term care facility as a means of preventing inappropriate
4335Medicaid expenditures.
4337100. The agency determined that this resident should remain in a nursing
4349home because of physician orders and concern over a mental health diagnosis.
4361Respondent has made every reasonable effort to address this problem.
43714.03(b) The Soiled IV Stands
4376101. One of the IV stands was soiled because the resident for which it was
4391used was being discharged. Staff members were teaching the resident's husband
4402how to administer tube feeding utilizing the IV stand.
4411102. During the training, formula spilled on the base of the IV stand.
4424The spilled formula was cleaned up as soon as practicable.
4434103. The other soiled IV stand also involved ordinary splatter after use.
4446The splatter was cleaned up upon discovery by the unit manager.
44574.03(c) The Suction Apparatus
4461104. The suction apparatus was also being used to train the husband of the
4475resident who was discharged on the day of the follow-up survey. The suction
4488apparatus had just been used in training. The mucous was not present in the
4502bottle for nine days.
4506105. The tag on the apparatus showing January 21, 1995, as the last date
4520of cleaning showed the date that the entire machine was last cleaned. Each
4533machine is thoroughly cleaned before going back into central supply. It is then
4546given a new tag and stored in central supply until it is needed by another
4561resident.
4562CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4565106. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the
4575subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto. The parties were
4587duly noticed for the formal hearing.
4593107. Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Petitioner
4604must show by a preponderance of evidence that uncorrected Class III deficiencies
4616existed on January 30, 1995, when Petitioner conducted its follow-up survey of
4628Conway Lakes; and that Respondent's license rating should be changed from
4639superior to conditional. Young v. State, Department of Community Affairs, 567
4650So.2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C.
4662Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v. Department of Health
4676and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
4686108. Petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of proof. Respondent
4696corrected all of the deficiencies found in the initial survey. No uncorrected
4708Class III deficiencies existed at the time of the follow-up survey.
4719109. The deficiencies observed by the surveyors during the follow-up
4729survey, if any, were not Class III deficiencies. They did not have an indirect
4743or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the residents.
4755110. Petitioner claims that Rule 59A-4.1288 requires both Class III and
4766Level B deficiencies to be corrected at the time of the follow-up survey in
4780order to obtain a superior rating. However, Rule 59A-4.1288 applies to surveys
4792conducted after March 1, 1995, for the first time. It does not apply to follow-
4807up surveys conducted on Conway Lakes on January 30, 1995.
4817111. Even if Rule 59A-4.1288 did apply to this proceeding, it would not
4830change the findings and conclusions in this Recommended Order. Petitioner
4840failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an uncorrected Level B
4854deficiency existed at the time of the follow-up survey.
4863112. The surveyors failed to follow applicable procedures for the follow-
4874up survey. The observations and findings from such a survey are unreliable.
4886The testimony supporting their observations and findings was not credible and
4897was unpersuasive.
4899RECOMMENDATION
4900Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
4913RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not
4923guilty of allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and reinstating
4933Respondent's superior rating effective November 1, 1994.
4940RECOMMENDED this 30th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
4950___________________________________
4951DANIEL S. MANRY
4954Hearing Officer
4956Division of Administrative Hearings
4960The DeSoto Building
49631230 Apalachee Parkway
4966Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
4969(904) 488-9675
4971Filed with the Clerk of the
4977Division of Administrative Hearings
4981this 30th day of November 1995.
4987ENDNOTES
49881/ All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1993) unless
5000otherwise stated.
50022/ Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in
5015the Florida Administrative Code, last amended in July, 1987. The current
5026version of Rule 59A-4.128 is applicable to nursing homes surveyed on or after
5039March 1, 1995.
50423/ Petitioner rates a nursing license as conditional pursuant to Rule 59A-
50544.128(4) if the nursing home fails to satisfy the requirements prescribed in
5066Rule 59A-4.128(5) for a standard rating. Petitioner rates a nursing home
5077license as superior pursuant to Rule 59A-4.128(6) if the nursing home exceeds
5089the requirements in Rule 59A-4.128(5) for a standard rating.
50984/ Paras. 38a.-m., 39, and 40a.-d. in Respondent's proposed findings of fact
5110question the credibility of the observations made by the survey team during the
5123initial survey. However, any defects in the initial survey are irrelevant and
5135immaterial because the issue for determination in this proceeding is whether any
5147of the deficiencies noted by the survey team during the initial survey were
5160uncorrected at the time of the follow-up survey.
51685/ Sec. 400.23(9)(c) defines Class III deficiencies as those:
5177. . . which . . . have an indirect or potential relationship to the health,
5193safety, or security of the . . . residents. . . .
52056/ In designating deficiencies in accommodation of needs as a Class III
5217deficiencies, Petitioner erroneously cited Rule 59A- 4.106(3)(r), (x), and (cc)
5227which requires Respondent to maintain written policies and procedures in the
5238respective areas of nursing services, resident's rights, and incident reporting.
52487/ In designating the deficiencies in environment as a Class III deficiencies,
5260Petitioner erroneously cited Rule 59A- 4.106(3)(k) which requires Respondent to
5270maintain written policies and procedures for housekeeping. Petitioner also
5279classified the deficiencies as "Level B" deficiencies under the federal
5289classification system.
5291APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 95-2422 AND 95-3022
5300Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact.
53051.-5. Accepted in substance
53096.-7. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial (relates to the
5318initial survey)
53208. Accepted as to the observations, but the proposed
5329finding that Respondent failed to accommodate the needs
5337of the residents is rejected in as not supported by
5347credible and persuasive evidence
53519. Accepted in substance
5355Respondents' Proposed Findings Of Fact.
5360Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted in this Recommended
5370Order.
5371COPIES FURNISHED:
5373Douglas Cook, Director
5376Agency For Health Care Administration
53812727 Mahan Drive
5384Tallahassee, Florida 32308
5387Jerome Hoffman, Esquire
5390General Counsel
5392Agency For Health Care Administration
53972727 Mahan Drive
5400Tallahassee, Florida 32308
5403Linda L. Parkinson, Esquire
5407Division of Health Quality Assurance
5412Agency For Health Care Administration
5417400 West Robinson Street, Suite 309
5423Orlando, Florida 32801
5426Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire
5430Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff,
5434Rosen & Quentel, P.A.
5438101 East College Avenue
5442Post Office Drawer 1838
5446Tallahassee, Florida 32302
5449NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
5455All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended
5467Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit
5481written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit
5493written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final
5505order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions
5518to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be
5530filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
5543=================================================================
5544AGENCY FINAL ORDER
5547=================================================================
5548STATE OF FLORIDA
5551AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
5556STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR
5561HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,
5564DOAH Case No. 95-2422
5568Petitioner, 95-3022
5570AHCA No. 7-95-598-NH
5573vs. 7-95-612-NH
5575RENDITION No. AHCA-96-181-FOF-OLC
5578CONVALESCENT SERVICES, INC.,
5581d/b/a CONWAY LAKES NURSING
5585CENTER,
5586Respondent.
5587_____________________________/
5588FINAL ORDER
5590This cause came on before me for the purpose of issuing a final agency
5604order. The Hearing Officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings
5615(DOAH) in the above-styled case submitted a Recommended Order to the Agency for
5628Health Care Administration (AHCA). The Recommended Order entered November
563730,1995, by Hearing Officer Daniel Manry is incorporated by reference.
5648RULING ON EXCEPTIONS
5651FILED BY AHCA
5654Counsel excepts to the hearing officer's conclusion stated as a finding of
5666fact that the violations charged by the agency do not constitute Class III
5679deficiencies. The administrative complaint charges two violations: one,
5687failure to reasonably accommodate the individual needs of impaired residents
5697with eating meals, and two, failure to provide a clean, comfortable, and
5709homelike environment in that persistent urine odors were present at the entrance
5721of the facility and at the ends of the halls in both wings.
5734Class Ill deficiencies are defined as . . those which the agency
5746determines to have an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety,
5758or security of the nursing home facility residents . . .", Section 400.23(9),
5771Florida Statutes (emphasis added). The record supports the conclusion that
5781persistent foul odors adversely affect the health, including mental health, of
5792nursing home residents. The classification of violations is a policy function
5803which is the responsibility of the agency. Killearn vs. Department of Community
5815Affairs, 623 So2d 771, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(findings infused with policy
5827considerations). The charged violations are properly classified as Class III
5837deficiencies. The exception is granted.
5842Counsel excepts to the conclusion that Conway Lakes is not guilty of
5854failure to reasonably accommodate the individual needs of impaired residents
5864with eating meals. Conflicting evidence was presented regarding this violation.
5874It is the function of the hearing officer to resolve such conflicts; therefore,
5887the exception is denied. Heifetz vs. Department of Business Regulation, 475
5898So2d 1277, 1281(Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
5904Counsel excepts to the hearing officer's conclusion that the persistent and
5915pervasive urine odors do not constitute a violation because of Conway Lakes'
5927effort to control the odors. The exception is granted. See the conclusions of
5940law herein for discussion.
5944FINDINGS OF FACT
5947The agency hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact
5959set forth in the Recommended Order except where inconsistent with the rulings on
5972the exceptions. The findings and conclusions of this Final Order are made after
5985a review of the complete record. Conway Lakes, a nursing home, challenges the
5998agency's intent to impose fines for two Class III violations. Also at issue is
6012whether Conway Lakes should lose its superior rating based on the violations.
6024Count one of the administrative complaint charges failure to reasonably
6034accommodate the individual needs of impaired residents with eating meals; count
6045two charges failure to provide a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment in
6057that persistent urine odors were present at the entrance of the facility and at
6071the ends of the halls in both wings. As to count one, the hearing officer
6086weighed conflicting evidence and concluded that Conway Lakes did provide
6096reasonable assistance to residents with eating meals. As to count two, Conway
6108Lakes did not challenge the existence of the urine odors, but offered the
6121defense that two difficult residents caused the odors and that facility staff
6133made reasonable efforts to control the odor. The hearing officer accepted the
"6145reasonable efforts" defense. The hearing officer recommends that Conway Lakes
6155be found not guilty of both counts, and that Conway Lakes be rated as a superior
6171facility.
6172CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6175The agency hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the conclusions of
6186law set forth in the Recommended Order except where inconsistent with this Final
6199Order. The issue of overriding importance in this case is whether a nursing
6212home with pervasive and persistent urine odor should be given the State's
6224highest quality rating, "superior". 1/ Conway Lakes' license is not at stake
6237here, but the credibility of the State's quality rating is. This is an
6250important consumer issue. Based on uncontroverted expert opinion evidence, I
6260conclude that a well-run nursing home should not have lingering offensive odors.
6272As noted by the expert, every nursing home will experience odor problems from
6285time to time, but the key to a quality, homelike environment is the response
6299time to the cause of an offensive odor. 2/, 3/
6309At hearing, Conway Lakes did not challenge the existence of persistent
6320urine odors, but offered in defense the problems it encountered with two
6332difficult residents. See paragraphs 89 through 100 of the Recommended Order.
6343Keeping in mind that the paramount question to be decided here is Conway Lakes'
6357quality rating, the dispositive factual issue is the existence of persistent,
6368pervasive urine odors, not the cause of such odors nor reasonable efforts to
6381control the odors. 4/ Thus, a violation of the requirement that the facility
6394maintain a clean, homelike environment has been established. The violation is a
6406Class III deficiency in that it poses an indirect or potential threat to the
6420health, including mental health, of the facility's residents. See Section
6430400.23(9)(c), Florida Statutes. As such, Conway Lakes is not entitled to a
6442superior rating. The findings regarding the difficult residents and Conway
6452Lake's efforts to control the odor are relevant in mitigation and I conclude
6465that no fine should be imposed.
6471Based upon the foregoing, it is
6477ADJUDGED, that Convalescent Services, Incorporated, doing business as
6485Conway Lakes Nursing Center be rated as conditional and that no fine be imposed.
6499DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida,
6511STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR
6516HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
6519____________________________
6520Douglas M. Cook, Director
6524ENDNOTES
65251/ Nursing homes are evaluated periodically by the agency and given a quality
6538rating of superior, standard, or conditional. Section 400.23(8), Florida
6547Statutes.
65482/ See the testimony of Carol Wittig, transcript of proceedings of July 25,
65611995, pages 42 and 43.
65663/ It is noted that my conclusion and the supporting expert opinion are
6579consistent with the findings and conclusions of the respected consumer journal,
6590Consumer Reports. See Consumer Reports, Nursing Homes When A Loved One Needs
6602Care, August 1995, page 518, High-quality [nursing] homes have no lingering
6613stench. Yet at 90 percent of the homes we visited, strong urine odors or the
6628thick scent of air freshener used to mask them greet visitors at the front door
6643Accidents happen in every nursing home, but how fast they are cleaned up is a
6658key to quality care.", page 523.
66644/ The hearing officer sustained Conway Lakes' objection to testimony that the
6676facility had a long- standing problem with urine odor. See transcript of
6688proceedings of September 7,1995, page 40. With the benefit of hindsight,
6700evidence of a history of such problems would have been relevant in rebuttal.
6713A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL
6728REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH
6743THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED
6758BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE
6772AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
6783SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE
6795OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
6811COPIES FURNISHED:
6813Linda Parkinson, Esquire
6816Senior Attorney, Agency for
6820Health Care Administration
6823400 West Robinson Street
6827Suite 5-309
6829Orlando, Florida 32801-1976
6832Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire
6836GREENBERG, TRAURIG, HOFFMAN,
6839LIPOFF, ROSEN & QUENTEL, P. A.
6845101 East College Avenue
6849Post Office Drawer 1838
6853Tallahassee, Florida 32302
6856Daniel Manry
6858Hearing Officer
6860The DeSoto Building
68631230 Apalachee Parkway
6866Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
6869CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6872I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
6886furnished to the above named addresses by U.S. Mail this 16th day of February,
69001996.
6901________________________________
6902R. S. Power, Agency Clerk
6907State of Florida, Agency for
6912Health Care Administration
69152727 Mahan Drive
6918Fort Knox 3, Suite 3431
6923Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
6926(904)922-3808
![](/images/view_pdf.png)
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 02/20/1996
- Proceedings: Final Order filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 11/30/1995
- Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 07/25/95 & 09/07/95.
- Date: 10/11/1995
- Proceedings: Order Granting Enlargement of Time sent out.
- Date: 10/10/1995
- Proceedings: Convalescent Services, Inc. d/b/a Conway Lakes Nursing Center's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law; Cover Letter filed.
- Date: 10/05/1995
- Proceedings: (Michael J. Cherniga) Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
- Date: 10/05/1995
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order (for Hearing Officer signature) filed.
- Date: 10/02/1995
- Proceedings: Letter to Linda Parkinson from Michael J. Cherniga (cc: Hearing Officer) Re: Time frame for Proposed orders filed.
- Date: 09/25/1995
- Proceedings: Transcripts (Continuation of Hearing Volumes I, II, tagged) filed.
- Date: 09/07/1995
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 08/30/1995
- Proceedings: Letter to Hearing Officer from Michael J. Cherniga Re: Inadvertently omitted the fact that Conway Lake`s still intends to call Ms. Quarantello filed.
- Date: 08/28/1995
- Proceedings: Letter to DSM from Michael Cherniga (RE: enclosing Exhibit Notebook Index, tagged) filed.
- Date: 08/24/1995
- Proceedings: Letter to Hearing Officer from Michael J. Cherniga Re: Status on Conway Lakes` filed.
- Date: 08/24/1995
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
- Date: 07/31/1995
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/7/95; 9:30am; Orlando)
- Date: 07/25/1995
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS DOCKETED: Hearing Partially Held, continued to date not certain.
- Date: 07/18/1995
- Proceedings: Order Granting Consolidation sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-2422 & 95-3022)
- Date: 07/17/1995
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No/s. 95-2422, 95-3022) filed.
- Date: 06/08/1995
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 7/25/95; 9:30am; Orlando)
- Date: 05/30/1995
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 05/16/1995
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 05/09/1995
- Proceedings: Notice; Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings; Administrative Complaint; Payment Form filed.