discipline summaries
Aggravating factors
1 . After signing a voluntary undertaking with the hospital , Dr . Bhatt was unpleasant and unprofessional to a female doctor in August 2015 .
2 . Dr . Bhatt ’ s abusive behaviour towards colleagues , staff , and patients spanned several years .
3 . Despite receiving warnings about his behaviour , Dr . Bhatt did not stop his misconduct .
4 . Dr . Bhatt was in a position of authority as Chief of Medicine at the hospital . In this position , he should have acted as a role model to fellow physicians and staff . His behaviour indicates that he has gotten away with harassment and denigration in the workplace . The profession must strongly assert that this is unacceptable behaviour .
5 . The Committee was particularly alarmed by a volunteer fundraiser ’ s complaint that Dr . Bhatt was rude and used inappropriate language with her while complaining that an individual donation was too small . After she wrote a letter to hospital administrators about the behaviour , Dr . Bhatt confronted the volunteer in her office .
Mitigating factors 1 . This was Dr . Bhatt ’ s first appearance before the
Committee . 2 . He has accepted responsibility for his actions through his plea .
3 . He has saved others from the burden and strain of testifying . He has also saved the College the substantial costs of conducting a contested hearing .
4 . He has ceased working on call as well as working in the ICU . These were the two most stressful aspects of his work .
5 . He has been regularly meeting with his psychiatrist .
6 . According to hospital staff members interviewed by the College more recently , his behaviour has improved . This demonstrates that Dr . Bhatt has the ability to display consideration and thoughtfulness to others when he so chooses .
The Discipline Committee directed the Registrar to suspend Dr . Bhatt ’ s certificate of registration for a four-month period ; place terms and conditions and limitations on his practice , including participating in the ProBE program and ongoing monitoring ; appear before the panel to be reprimanded ; and pay costs to the College in the amount of $ 5,000 . At the conclusion of the hearing , Dr . Bhatt waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand .
Order For complete details of the Order , please see the full decision at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor ’ s Name .
Dr . STEPHEN ROSE JAMES
Practice Location : Toronto
Area of Practice : Anesthesiology ( Pain mAnagement )
Hearing InformATion : Uncontested Allegations , STATement of FacTS , Joint Submission on Penalty
On November 16 , 2015 , the Discipline Committee found that Dr . Stephen James committed acts of professional misconduct , in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession ; and he engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that , having regard to all the circumstances , would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional . The Committee also found Dr . James is incompetent . Dr . James is an anesthesiologist practising in pain management . His practice at the time relevant to these proceedings was at the Rothbart Centre for Pain Care . Specifically , the findings of professional misconduct relate to his care and treatment , including his infection control practices , of : Patients A to F as well as the additional seven ( Patients T to Z ) identified by Toronto Public Health . In addition , he engaged in disgraceful , dishonourable and unprofessional conduct including by :
• Providing an Interview Prep Document to nursing
Full decisions are available online at www . cpso . on . ca . Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor ’ s name .
Issue 1 , 2017 Dialogue 45