Dialogue Volume 14 Issue 1 2018 - Page 69

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES three cases and that, in respect of the first and second cases, Dr. Ruggles was not likely prescribing within her scope of practice. With respect to the 21 other patients reviewed, the expert opined that the care provided by Dr. Ruggles met the standard of practice. On September 29, 2014, in response to this inves- tigation and the expert report, Dr. Ruggles volun- teered to cease all prescriptions of narcotics other than to patients seen in her hospital practice. Dr. Ruggles also offered to undertake to no longer treat or have any clinical dealings with those people with whom she had work-related associations. ORDER The Discipline Committee ordered: a two-month suspension of Dr. Ruggles’ certificate of registration; a reprimand; the imposition of terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Ruggles’ certificate of registration; and payment of costs of $5,000 to the College. The terms, conditions and limitation on Dr. Ruggles’ certificate of registration include a restric- tion on prescribing privileges. Dr. Ruggles must cease prescribing narcotics and other controlled drugs as specified. She is allowed a narrow exception of pa- tients and circumstances that will permit her to func- tion in her role as an obstetrician-gynecologist while assuring there will be no inappropriate prescribing. Dr. Ruggles must post a visible and secure sign in her waiting room that she shall not prescribe narcotics or other controlled drugs identified in the Order. Dr. Ruggles must maintain a prescription log, which will enable the College to review her limited prescribing practice. Dr. Ruggles is prohibited from treating employees (both hospital and office) or family members except in an emergency situation. Dr. Ruggles is also required to successfully complete a course in medical ethics. Dr. Ruggles will undergo a practice reassessment ap- proximately 12 months after the date of this Order. 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. Ruggles waived her right of appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. DR. MURRAY BRUCE WILSON PRACTICE LOCATION: Bradford AREA OF PRACTICE: General Practice HEARING INFORMATION: Admission; Statement of Agreed Facts; Joint Submission on Penalty On November 16, 2016, the Discipline Commit- tee found that Dr. Wilson has committed an act of professional misconduct, in that he has engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of m edicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. Dr. Wilson is a general practitioner who has prac- tised in Bradford, Ontario since 1985. Patient A had been Dr. Wilson’s patient since she was a young child. In December 2004, when she was in her teens, Patient A attended at Dr. Wilson’s office because she was experiencing pain after having had intercourse earlier that day. Her medical record indicates that on that day she was also complaining of dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia, as well as lower back pain of two months’ duration, which was aggravated by bending. At a previous appointment, Dr. Wilson had per- formed a breast examination and identified a lump that should be monitored. At the December 2004 appointment, Dr. Wilson performed a clinically-indicated physical examina- tion on Patient A, which included an examination of the chest, breasts, cardiovascular system, abdomen, and pelvis. Dr. Wilson took a vaginal swab, provided Patient A with a requisition for a urine test, and ordered a pelvic ultrasound. Dr. Wilson documented the examination in the patient chart. Dr. Wilson also assessed Patient A’s lower back at the appointment, which included asking that she stand and bend to 90 degrees. This assessment was clinically indicated and documented in the patient chart. Dr. Wilson noted in the chart that his impres- sion was that Patient A had a lumbar strain. Patient A was confused and distressed by this ap- pointment as a result of Dr. Wilson’s conduct during the appointment, which included the following: • D  r. Wilson did not provide Patient A with a ISSUE 1, 2018 DIALOGUE 69