|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
 |
|
| Decision Number: | 97/5C | |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioner: | Name suppressed | |
| Charge Characteristics: | Inadequate notes or history Inadequate follow-up care |
|
| Additional Orders: | Doctor granted application to strike
out a particular of the charge: 975chearpriminlaw Doctor granted interim name suppression: 975chearpriminlaw Doctor granted further interim order (effectively permanent as it was granted pending the determination of an appeal which was discontinued): 975cfindingsreasonslaw Patient granted interim name suppression: 975chearpriminlaw Patient granted further interim order (effectively permanent as it was granted pending the determination of an appeal which was discontinued): 975cfindingsreasonslaw Granted application for private hearing: 975chearpriminlaw Correction to the Order for privacy: 975chearpriminlaw |
|
| Decision: | 975cfindingslaw | |
| Decision with Reasons: | 975cfindingsreasonslaw |
Charge:
A CAC charged the Doctor with conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that conduct reflects adversely on the practitioner's fitness to practise medicine in that in the course of his management of his patient he:
Background:
In the course of his employment the patient suffered an electric shock which caused him to fall backward off a platform. He fell seven feet onto a concrete floor. He landed on his back and hit his head.
Finding:
The Tribunal found that the Doctor was not guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner which reflects adversely on his fitness to practise medicine.
The Tribunal found that the Doctor failed to take or obtain an adequate case history in failing to ascertain the height of the fall. The Tribunal regarded this as a significant omission but one which was understandable given his primary focus was on the electric shock. The Doctor admitted that his notes were insufficient. He subsequently changed his practice in relation to note taking.
The Tribunal found that the deficiencies identified on the part of the Doctor were not such as to reflect adversely on his fitness to practise medicine. They were not "so significant as to attract sanction for the purposes of protecting the public."
The Tribunal found that the second particular of the charge was not sufficient to found any disciplinary action against the Doctor. It was the Doctor's clinical responsibility to determine whether and when to carry out an x-ray examination of the patient's back. The fact the patient was x-rayed subsequently on the same day made little practical difference in the outcome of the patient's injury.
Appeal:
The CAC lodged an appeal of this decision with the District Court. The appeal was discontinued.