Performance and Professional Standards Panel
Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory
Date of Hearing: 16 October 2013
Date of Decision: 16 October 2013
It was alleged that the practitioner had behaved in a way that constituted unsatisfactory professional performance under section 191(1)(b)(i) of the National Law in that:
The panel found that there was no evidence to support the third allegation. However, it found that the first, second and fourth allegations were proved and that the practitioner had engaged in unsatisfactory professional performance by this conduct.
The panel found that while the practitioner recognised the possibility of pulmonary embolus, their management of the risk fell short of reasonable standards. The practitioner made only a brief record of the consultation, which was not helpful and did not record the patient’s temperature, heart or respiratory rate, blood pressure, or presence or absence of cyanosis. The practitioner conceded that they were not aware that Aspirin was no longer an appropriate treatment for DVT and took responsibility for not treating the suspected condition as a medical emergency.
The practitioner had since updated their knowledge and changed the way they manage thromboembolic events.
The panel cautioned the practitioner.