Discipline Case Summary

The following is a summary of a discipline case heard by a five member panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario on April 9, 10, June 20, 21, September 4, November 16, and December 17, 1996.

Allegations

Following an investigation into the practice of Ms. X, the College alleged that the member's conduct constituted professional misconduct under paragraphs 2 (failing to maintain standards), 25 (unprofessional conduct) and 29 (failing to supervise auxiliaries) of section I of Ontario Regulation 861/93.

Hearing Summary

Ms. X was hired by Dr. S to work at the Clinic in December 1994. She worked one to two evenings per week until August 1995. Ms. X's responsibilities included conducting assessments, developing and reviewing treatment plans with the clinic's auxiliary workers, and reassessing clients with a view to discharge. Treatment was provided by the clinic's auxiliary staff five days per week and billed to insurers as physiotherapy services.

A significant issue in considering the case was whether or not Ms. X was responsible for the ongoing supervision of the auxiliary staff and whether Dr. S could assume responsibility for this in her absence. Was Ms. X hired only as a consultant, or was she responsible for the overall physiotherapy care provided to these patients?

Ms. X maintained that she was not responsible for supervising the implementation of the treatment plan. She believed that Dr. S was supervising support staff in her absence. The Committee agreed with the expert witness, who maintained that Ms. X was responsible for implementing, supervising, evaluating and changing any treatment plan she developed, as well as maintaining adequate records of the case. In its reasons, the Committee stated its belief that once Ms. X established the treatment program, she was responsible for re-evaluating patient progress and monitoring the performance of the auxiliary staff.

Finding

The panel found Ms. X guilty of professional misconduct for failing to maintain the standards of practice of the profession. Because the allegation of professional misconduct for failing to supervise auxiliaries was based on the same set of facts, Ms. X was not found guilty of the other two offences. Generally, a panel finds a member guilty of only one definition of professional misconduct if the allegations are based on the same set of facts.

Penalty

The Discipline Committee ordered the following penalty:

1. Ms. X's certificate of registration be suspended for a period of four months, commencing February 1, 1997, with the first three months to be served.
2. The final month will be waived if:

1. Ms. X cooperates with an on-site review of her practice by a mentor on three separate occasions during the nine months following completion of the suspension; and
2. Ms. X pays the College a maximum of $300 for each of the three assessments and agrees to implement any recommendations made by the mentor.

Failure to comply with the above conditions, which are overseen by the Registrar, would result in suspension of the member's registration for the remaining month on a date determined by the Registrar.