Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 4 2017 - Page 88

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES sion by demonstrating that Dr. Price’s behaviour was completely unacceptable. The public will see that the penalty demonstrates the medical profession’s capac- ity, through its regulatory authority, the College, to govern in the public interest. The penalty will serve as general deterrence to the medical profession by emphasizing the seriousness of medical record-keeping and especially the steps that must be taken (dating and initialing) when additions or alterations are made to a medical record. Further- more, the penalty emphasizes that misleading a Col- lege investigation is a very serious matter. It makes clear to the profession that the privilege of self-gov- ernance brings with it the requirement for physicians to be honest and forthright with the College during an investigation. The penalty will serve as specific deterrence to Dr. Price. The three-month suspension and the repri- mand convey the seriousness of the misconduct he has engaged in. The penalty also provides the opportunity for Dr. Price to rehabilitate his behaviour for his future prac- tice. The ethics and medical record-keeping courses will provide a formal framework for dealing with his unprofessional behaviour. The electronic medical record-keeping system that he must use in the future will enhance his record-keeping. The ongoing com- pliance monitoring will provide feedback to him and the College about his record-keeping practices. Aggravating Factors The Committee considered the aggravating factors when reviewing the joint submission on penalty. Dr. Price was the subject of a Registrar’s investiga- tion in 2012 regarding a failure to meet the medical record-keeping policy. He completed a course on medical record-keeping in 2013. The Inquiries, Com- plaints and Reports Committee issued a written cau- tion to Dr. Price in 2014. The Committee noted with dismay that shortly after receiving that written cau- tion, inappropriate chart alterations were done with respect to the matter currently before the Committee. The Committee also noted that chart alterations were done deliberately to mislead College investiga- tions. This is a significant aggravating factor, as it undermines the integrity of the profession and the ability of the profession to regulate itself. 88 DIALOGUE ISSUE 4, 2017 Mitigating Factors The Committee acknowledged that by his plea of no contest, Dr. Price spared the patient and other wit- nesses the need to testify, and reduced the time and costs of a contested hearing. ORDER In summary, the Committee directed that the Regis- trar suspend Dr. Price’s certificate of registration for a period of three months; impose terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Price’s certificate of registra- tion; Dr. Price must appear before the panel to be reprimanded; and payment to costs to the College in the amount of $5,000. For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name. At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Price waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. DR. ROGER CYRIL WALES PRACTICE LOCATION: Napanee AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice (Refraction) HEARING INFORMATION: Contested Hearing (three days) On January 14, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Wales committed an act of profes- sional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession. The Commit- tee also found that Dr. Wales is incompetent. Dr. Wales had denied the allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence. Dr. Wales is a general practitioner (GP) refraction- ist in solo practice in the Kingston area. The findings of professional misconduct and incompetence pertain to the following areas of Dr. Wales’ practice: • his measuring intraocular pressure by touching the eye with his finger (finger tonometry) instead of using an applanation tonometer to measure numerically;