discipline summaries
DR. ANDREW SAI-CHAK SHUM
Practice Location: Toronto
Area of Practice: General Practice
Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts and
Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty
On September 11, 2013, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Shum committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the
standard of practice of the profession. The Committee
also found that Dr. Shum is incompetent. Dr. Shum
admitted the allegations.
Dr. Shum’s infection control procedures and his
maintenance of equipment in performing urologic
procedures did not meet the standard of practice of
the profession. He displayed a lack of both judgment
and knowledge regarding what is required to safely
practise invasive procedures in the ambulatory care
setting. His multiple reprocessing and practice breaches put patients at risk of bacterial and viral cross-colonization or infections.
Multiple deficiencies were identified in Dr. Shum’s
urologic practice, including with respect to prostate
biopsy and cystoscopy, prostate cancer care, microscopic hematuria evaluation, and management of
urethral stenosis including urethral dilatation.
Dr. Shum failed to meet the standard of practice of
the profession in his family practice with respect to
record keeping and displayed a lack of knowledge with
respect to various types of preventative screening. Dr.
Shum’s practice exposed patients to potential risk of
harm.
On September 19, 2012, the Inquires, Complaints
and Reports Committee ordered and directed the Registrar to suspend Dr. Shum’s certificate of registration,
without notice, under s. 37(6) of the Health Professions
Procedural Code. He has not practised medicine since
that date.
Reasons for Penalty
In considering the nature and circumstances of the
findings of professional misconduct, the Committee agreed with counsel for the College that this is an
egregious case of clinical failure in infection control,
urological procedures and management, and perfor-
mance as a family physician. With respect to his urological practice, according to the expert witnesses, Dr.
Shum failed to adequately diagnose and treat prostate
cancer, his biopsy procedures were out of date and
there was no evidence that he made any effort to keep
current in his practice. He exposed his patients to risk
of harm by failing to make the proper diagnosis, and
by subjecting them to delays in diagnosis and proper
care. With respect to his family practice, the Committee heard evidence from a family physician who acted
as an assessor for the College, that Dr. Shum exposed
his patients to risk, in that he failed to provide proper
preventative screening, failed to highlight drug allergies, and failed to provide proper and complete care to
diabetic patients. The Committee accepted the evidence that there was an inappropriate use of antibiotics, lipid lowering agents, blood pressure medication
and osteoporosis medication. He failed in all these
areas of his practice, repeatedly failing to maintain
clinical standards and failing to exercise proper skill
and judgment.
Dr. Shum’s shortcomings were fundamental and
profound. The Committee accepted the submissions
of counsel that these failings call for the penalty of
revocation.
In considering aggravating factors, the Committee
considered the scope and nature of the misconduct
and the repeated shortcomings in Dr. Shum’s practice (failing to maintain standards of practice or the
profession in infection control, failing to maintain and
keep up to date in the standards of urology and family
practice, exposing his patients to harm and putting
their health and safety in jeopardy).
In considering mitigating factors, the Committee
considered that Dr. Shum had:
• o previous disciplinary history with the CPSO of
N
professional misconduct;
• dmitted the facts of his misconduct in the Agreed
A
Statement of Facts and Admission submitted to the
Committee;
• pared witnesses from having to testify and saved the
S
College the costs of a long hearing;
• howed insight and expressed remorse in admitS
ting his incompetence and accepting the proposed
penalty; and
• oluntarily agreed that he would stop doing invasive
V
Issue 1, 2015 Dialogue
Issue1_15.indd 63
63
2015-03-19 11:18 AM