Discipline Case Summary

The following is a summary of a matter placed before a five member panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario on December 1, 1998.

Background Information

Ms. B worked at a clinic in Toronto as a physiotherapist and clinic director from approximately July 1995 to approximately April 1996.

The clinic was owned and operated by a lawyer with no training in physiotherapy and dealt primarily with clients covered by insurance, primarily motor vehicle accident insurance. Many of the patients were referred to the clinic by the owner's law firm.

Agreed Statement of Facts

Standards of Practice and Record Keeping

Between about 1995 and 1996, Ms. B failed to maintain the standards of practice in respect of patients for whom she had professional responsibility. Specific concerns were:

• Patient treatment tended to consist primarily of exercise programs. These programs were generally not progressive and tended to stay at the same level for extensive periods of time. The frequency of treatment fluctuated with no apparent connection to the patient's condition.
• Re-assessments were inadequate and conducted too infrequently.
• Collaboration and coordination of treatment among staff was inadequately documented.
• Patients continued on treatment for an excessive period of time and discharge planning was inadequate or absent.
• Standards of practice with respect to the documentation of treatment progress were not met.

Plea

Ms. B pleaded guilty to professional misconduct under paragraph 2 (standards of practice) of Section 1 of Ontario regulation 861/93.

Decision

The panel gave due consideration to the agreed statement of facts and accepted the plea, and found Ms. B guilty of professional misconduct.

Penalty

A joint submission on penalty was accepted by the panel. The Discipline Committee therefore made the following order:

1. Ms. B's certificate of registration be suspended for ninety days to begin on a date to be fixed by the Registrar.
2. That once she resumes practice in Ontario, Ms. B will participate in a mentoring relationship consisting of a maximum of four evaluations over an 18 month period. The mentor will address standards of practice and charting, and the costs will be borne by Ms. B to a maximum of $500 per visit.

Costs

Ms. B was ordered to pay to the College the amount of $4000 towards the costs of the investigation, within one year of the Discipline Committee's order.