Charge
Between 15-19 June 2020, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) against Dr H, registered medical practitioner (the Doctor).
The charge was laid under section 100(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCA Act).
The charge related to separate incidents from 2014 – 2017. Particulars 1 and 2 of the charge alleged that the Doctor behaved unprofessionally towards colleagues in that:
- In 2016, the Doctor was allegedly rude and verbally abusive towards a colleague, Dr Y, during a phone call regarding the care of a patient.
- In 2017, the Doctor was allegedly brusque towards a colleague, Dr B, during a phone call regarding the care of a patient.
Particulars 3-7 alleged that the Doctor failed to be available when rostered as on-call in that:
- In 2014, while rostered as on-call, the Doctor failed to come to the hospital within a reasonable timeframe when asked by Dr E to attend to see a patient.
- In 2016, the Doctor, who was on-call, failed to come to the hospital within a reasonable timeframe when asked by Dr Y to attend to see a patient.
- Also, during 2016, the Doctor was unable to be contacted on his cell phone, despite telling Dr Y that he could be contacted over the weekend regarding the care of a patient.
- 2017, while rostered as on-call, the Doctor initially refused to see a patient in a timely manner, who had been presented at the Emergency Department.
- On another instance in 2017, the Doctor refused to provide treatment advice to Dr B during a phone call regarding the care of a patient, who presented at the Hospital when the Doctor was on-call.
The alleged conduct amounts to professional misconduct either separately or cumulatively. If established, the charges amount to malpractice, or had brought/is likely to bring discredit the Doctor’s profession.
Finding
The Tribunal found that two out of the seven particulars were established. The Tribunal found that particular 3 (failure to come to the hospital within a reasonable timeframe) and particular 7 (refusal to provide treatment advice) were established. The Doctor’s actions constituted malpractice and negligence, likely to, or did bring discredit to the profession.
The Tribunal noted that there were communication issues between the Doctors involved in the events and how they had been dealt with. The Tribunal also noted the pressures that the Doctor was placed under by his employment conditions and the resolution of these matters by the employer, may have produced a better result.
Penalty
The Doctor was:
- Censured;
- Ordered to pay costs of $45,000.00
The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.