discipline summaries
(3) protect the public;
(4) ct as a general deterrent (to the profession at
a
large) and specific deterrent (to the member); and
(5) erve to rehabilitate the member to the extent
s
necessary.
In this case, the reprimand serves to express the professions’ abhorrence of the behaviour and should act as a
deterrent to both the individual and the profession at
large.
The three-month suspension is appropriate given the
facts agreed upon and falls within the range of suspensions levied in similar cases reviewed. It serves as a
general deterrent to members of the profession and a
specific deterrent to Dr. Rudinskas.
The Communications and Ethics courses Dr. Rudinskas is ordered to take are appropriate and necessary
remedial interventions, given the facts of this case.
The reports ordered from Dr. Rudinskas’ Chief of
Staff will serve as a measure of public protection. Issues raised in the Agreed Statement of Facts go beyond
concerns with clinical practice and are reflective of
unprofessional communication on Dr. Rudinskas’
part. The reporting requirement serves to ensure that
not only are clinical deficiencies identified, but that
any concerns regarding communication and collegiality come to the attention of the facility Chief of Staff
as well.
Assessment by a College-appointed assessor serves
as a further public protection measure. Any areas of
concern can be identified and Dr. Rudinskas will be
required, by the terms of the penalty order, to abide by
the recommendations made by the assessor.
The issues of late and insufficient rounding have
been addressed by the terms, conditions and limitations imposed, for an indefinite period of time, on Dr.
Rudinskas’ certificate of registration.
Costs imposed were deemed appropriate for the
number of hearing days held prior to Dr. Rudinskas
changing her plea and admitting the allegation. The
Committee recognized that this costs award falls
short of compensating the College for all of the costs
incurred to date, but reflects the compromise made by
the parties to resolve this hearing.
The Committee accepted as mitigating factors in
consideration of the penalty proposed that this was Dr.
Rudinskas’ first finding before the Discipline Commit-
tee and the fact that she has engaged in supervision for
nearly four years with reports of adequate patient care
and imp ɽٕ