The Health Ombudsman v Riek [2017] QCAT 173

Decision date: 5 June 2017
“Where respondent practitioner stole schedule 8 medication from his employer – where the respondent was convicted of 1 count of stealing as a servant in the Magistrates Court in relation to that conduct – where respondent earlier diagnosed with ADD, major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder – where evidence and submissions dealt with whether respondent impaired in practising due to suffering from a substance abuse disorder – where impairment due to substance abuse disorder not an element of any charges brought by Health Ombudsman – whether the practitioner engaged in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct – whether Tribunal should have regard to impairment due to substance abuse disorder – whether reprimand, suspension or disqualification an appropriate sanction – whether an order as to costs should be made.”
Find decision here.

The Health Ombudsman v Jamieson [2017] QCAT 172

Decision date: 5 June 2017
“Where respondent practitioner stole three boxes of antibiotics from her place of employment – where the practitioner used the antibiotics to treat her son’s recurrent medical condition – where the respondent was convicted of 1 count of stealing as a servant in the Magistrates Court in relation to that conduct – where no conviction recorded in respect of that charge – where respondent failed to notify the National Board of that charge – where respondent made a false declaration when renewing her registration in respect of that charge – where respondent believed she did not need to disclose the charge as no conviction was recorded – whether the practitioner engaged in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct – whether reprimand is an appropriate sanction – whether an order as to costs should be made.”
Find decision here.

Medical Board of Australia v Griffiths (Review and Regulation)

Decision date: 9 June 2017
“Review and Regulation List – medical practitioner – inappropriate prescription and medical treatment – prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines – inappropriate treatment of persons with whom shared a close personal relationship – breach of S8 permit obligations – agreed facts and findings and joint proposed determinations – Medical Practice Act 1994 (Vic) s 3(1), Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (Vic) s 3(1), Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) s 5(a).”
Find order here.

Health Care Complaints Commission v Simonson [2017] NSWCATOD 87

Decision date: 1 June 2017
“Medical practitioner – allegations of professional misconduct concerning five patients – requirement for documentation and recording of matters under Regulation – failure to document not for resuscitation direction – inappropriate conduct in the course of a difficult birth delivery-failure to transfer very ill child for specialist treatment in a timely manner – held constitutes in the aggregate professional misconduct.”
Find decision here.

Malpractice should be investigated proactively and holistically to identify underlying causes

BMJ 2017; 357: j2510
Author: Simon R Peck
“I question what a public enquiry into the Paterson case will achieve. The facts are already in the public domain, and the theme of institutional failure to act effectively is familiar to us all. Much more useful, in my view, would be a review of how healthcare is regulated and how concerns might better be handled in future.”
Find letter here.

California Has A Deadly Problem With Regulating Naturopathic Doctors

Forbes, 24 April 2017
Author: Britt Marie Hermes
“Since there is no “naturopathic standard of care,” a point that the committee acknowledged in 2009 and that critics of the regulation of naturopathy have noticed too, naturopathic expert reviewers must make ad hoc determinations that are likely to deviate from the medical consensus and fail to establish lasting precedent. For some influential naturopathic doctors, the standard of care includes anything taught in naturopathic school or done by two or more practitioners.”
Find article here.

Kaye v Psychology Board of Australia (Occupational Discipline) [2017] ACAT 27

Date of orders: 18 April 2017
“OCCUPATIONAL DISCIPLINE – psychologist – immediate action – matters to be satisfied – Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (ACT) section 156 – nature of appeal from board – Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (ACT) section 199(h).”
Find decision here.

A doctor’s sexual advances towards a patient are never ok, even if ‘consensual’

The Conversation, 20 April 2017
Author: Ron Paterson
“In a recent independent review, I recommended chaperones no longer be used as an interim protective measure to keep patients safe while allegations of sexual misconduct by a doctor are investigated. The Medical Board of Australia and AHPRA have accepted my recommendations that the current system of using chaperones is outdated and paternalistic. Sadly, cases of sexual misconduct are likely to continue. It’s important patients know the warning signs and where to seek help if they suspect their doctor is behaving inappropriately.”
Find article here.