Dialogue Volume 11 Issue 2 2015 | Page 54

discipline summaries Dr. RICHARD CONOLLY AUSTIN Practice Location: No Practice Address Practice Area: Obstetrics and Gynecology Hearing Information: Agreed Statement of Facts, Admission, Joint Submission on Penalty On March 18, 2014, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Austin committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in his care and treatment of four patients in 2005 and 2006. Dr. Austin admitted to the allegations. In April 2007, Dr. Austin agreed to terms, conditions and limitations on his certificate of registration that restricted his obstetrical practice to office prenatal care only, and required that his major gynecological surgery and elective cesarean sections only be performed in the presence of another obstetrician/ gynecologist. These terms were to remain in effect until May 26, 2007, after which he would cease such surgery completely and would independently perform only minor gynecological surgery. In 2008, Dr. Austin resigned his membership with the College. An independent expert retained by the College opined that Dr. Austin failed to maintain the standard of practice as follows: Patient A In 2005, Dr. Austin inappropriately selected a patient for a laparoscopic procedure. He displayed a lack of judgment in choosing to perform a laparoscopy for lysis of adhesions in a patient with numerous laparotomies and known adhesions. He also failed to take into account, discuss and/or document the specific risk factors for complications that this patient had, including a failure to make full disclosure and/or document full disclosure following the patient’s complication from surgery. Patient B In 2005, Dr. Austin did not fully assess the risk of malignancy of a simple ovarian cyst in a postmenopausal woman. He also did not clearly consider and/or document the risk of operative intervention as compared with conservative management. 54 Dialogue Issue 2, 2015 Patient C In 2006, Dr. Austin failed to adequately document his assessment of Patient C and failed to adequately document a description of the laparoscopy he performed. Patient D In 2005, Dr. Austin did not comply with the College’s Policy on Disclosure of Harm when he failed to advise Patient D about a bowel perforation promptly after gynecological surgery, failed to tell her how the complication was managed and failed to advise her of any future consequences that might arise as a result of the complication. Reasons for Penalty The relevant penalty principles in this case are general deterrence, maintaining the integrity of the profession and providing public confidence that the profession is being regulated in the public interest. Considering that Dr. Austin had resigned from the College, public protection, specific deterrence and rehabilitation would not apply in this case. The Committee considered aggravating and mitigating factors. The principal aggravating factor accepted by the Committee was that Dr. Austin’s errors covered not just one area of care, but the spectrum of care of the four individual patients. Specifically, he fell below the standard of care in appropriate patient selection, in appropriate procedure selection, in lack of timely disclosure of harm, and in lack of appropriate documentation. The lack of appropriate patient selection and procedure selection led to patient harm. A mitigating factor was the Agreed Statement of Facts and the Joint Submission on Penalty, which avoided the costs and time of a contested hearing. Although Dr. Austin resigned from the College, disciplinary action serves as a general deterrent, maintains integrity of the profession, and maintains public confidence in self-regulation in the public interest. A professional misconduct hearing must consider not only the individual, but also the effect of the misconduct on patients, and on the reputation and integrity of the profession as a whole. Public confidence and trust in the medical profession can be eroded by the misconduct of an individual physician. The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty and costs as appropriate in the circumstances.