discipline summaries
the room . Dr . Bhatt also was demeaning to a nurse who was tending to the patient . The next day , Dr . Bhatt again spoke to Dr . X about the same patient ’ s care in a threatening , abusive , and condescending manner . Dr . X received and felt intimidated by multiple telephone calls from Dr . Bhatt in the days following which she neither answered nor returned . She also reported that patients specifically ask not to see Dr . Bhatt because he is rude and demeaning .
• Ms . E , a volunteer member of the District Hospital Foundation , received complaints from donors that Dr . Bhatt had pressured them to donate to the local Cardiovascular Program . Dr . Bhatt came to see Ms . E to complain that a recent donation was too small and that he could get more money . Ms . E tried to explain the donor ’ s position , but Dr . Bhatt became rude and used foul language . Ms . E wrote to the hospital CEO to express her concerns about this interaction . Subsequently , Dr . Bhatt came to see Ms . E and closed her office door . Dr . Bhatt handed Ms . E a donation and asked her why she had written the letter of complaint to the Hospital . Ms . E refused to discuss her complaint with Dr . Bhatt . She felt fearful and described his behaviour as bullying .
Post-referral conduct In the fall of 2015 , after the above matters had been referred to the Discipline Committee , the hospital asked Dr . Bhatt to assist in in-patients consultations , which Dr . Bhatt had not done since his October 2014 undertaking with the hospital . In October 2015 , a newly-qualified female doctor at the Hospital , Dr . Y , reported to the Chief of Staff that she had experienced an unpleasant and unprofessional interaction with Dr . Bhatt . The Chief of Staff reported the complaint to the College for investigation , which disclosed that Dr . Y ’ s first interaction with Dr . Bhatt was a phone call in which Dr . Bhatt was abrupt , curt , and questioned Dr . Y ’ s management of the patient they were discussing . Dr . Y felt that Dr . Bhatt was suggesting that she did not know what she was doing and was not taking appropriate care of the patient . Dr . Y felt professionally threatened when Dr . Bhatt said words to the effect that “ the patient ’ s family will not be happy ,” and suggested that the care Dr . Y was providing was not “ up to par .” After the incident , Dr . Y felt anxious and concerned . After this incident , the hospital and Dr .
Bhatt agreed that Dr . Bhatt would no longer do inpatient consultations .
Reasons for Penalty The Committee found that Dr . Bhatt ’ s behaviour was egregious , inappropriate , and harmful . His misconduct persisted over multiple years and impacted many colleagues , staff , and patients . Once his monitoring ceased , Dr . Bhatt immediately reverted to the inappropriate , unprofessional behaviour that the monitoring had been designed to oust . His conduct caused significant distress to his colleagues , to the point that one nurse installed a panic button in her office . Some staff members went out of their way to avoid Dr . Bhatt . While there is no evidence to suggest he provided less than adequate care , some patients did specifically request not to see him because they felt uncomfortable interacting with him . The College ’ s primary duty is to protect the public . Patients have complained about Dr . Bhatt ’ s manner and behaviour . Some have refused to see him . Patients should not have to endure demeaning and insulting behaviour from their physician . The Committee was particularly alarmed that the behaviour was directed almost exclusively at women colleagues , patients , and co-workers . Another penalty principle is to instill public confidence in the profession and its ability to self-govern . Failing to address disruptive behaviour in the workplace can clearly affect the integrity and reputation of the profession and its ability to self-govern . A third important penalty principle is general deterrence . A disruptive physician ’ s behaviour can easily poison a workplace . The Committee felt that hospital staff should be able to attend work without having to fear abusive behaviour from colleagues or superiors . Finally , a penalty should meet the goal of specific deterrence . Dr . Bhatt has demonstrated a longstanding pattern of humiliating female colleagues , nurses , and patients . The Committee wished to send a message to this physician to ensure that he ceases this misconduct . The Committee agreed with the joint submission on penalty , and felt it appropriate that the Order implements a system of checks and balances so that Dr . Bhatt ’ s improvements in behaviour may be maintained .
44
Dialogue Issue 1 , 2017