Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Nur09/123D
Practitioner: Savita Mistry
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Care plan - inadequate (Established)

Assessment - inadequate/inappropriate

Note taking - inadequate/inappropriate

Failed to document adequately


Treatment - care inadequate/inappropriate

Referral - inadequate


Mislead Health and Disability Commissioner

(Not Established)

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Permanent name suppression to complainant and patient


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 269Nur09123D.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


Mrs Savita Mistry, a registered nurse of Auckland (the Nurse) was charged with professional misconduct.  The charge was in relation to the care of three elderly residents at a retirement home.  The particulars included:

  1. Failing to arrange referrals in a timely manner;
  2. Inadequate care;
  3. Failing to ensure an adequate nursing care plan;
  4. Inadequate patient risk assessments;
  5. Poor management;
  6. Poor record keeping;
  7. Asking staff to alter documentation to mislead an investitgation by the Health and Disablity Commisssioner (HDC); and
  8. Altering documentation herself to mislead an investigation by the HDC.


The HDC investigated the appropriateness of care provided to three patients in a retirement home.  The Nurse was nurse manager and co-owner of the retirement home.


The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Summary of Facts and the Nurse accepted all the particulars except the two relating to altering documentation to mislead the investigation by the HDC (particular 7 and 8 above).  The Tribunal found all the particulars established except the particular relating to the Nurse asking staff to alter the documentation to mislead the investigation (particular 7 above).

The Nurse accepted her actions amounted to professional misconduct.  The Tribunal agreed and found the charge of professional misconduct was established.


The Tribunal censured the Nurse and directed that, if she resumed practice she would be subject to supervision for 12 months.  In addition she would not be permited to practise in a sole charge or in a supervisory role for three years after returning to practise.  The Nurse was ordered to pay a fine of $7,500 and $18,500 costs.

The Tribunal recommended to the Nursing Council that a competence review be conducted before her annual practising certificate was issued.

The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.