Close
Performance and Professional Standards Panel
Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory
Date of Hearing: 10 October 2013
Date of Decision: 6 November 2013
It was alleged that the practitioner had behaved in a way that constituted unsatisfactory professional performance under section 191(1)(b)(i) or unprofessional conduct under section 191(1)(b)(ii) of the National Law by providing treatment to an infant patient that was inappropriate.
The panel found that the practitioner had engaged in unsatisfactory professional performance.
The practitioner vaccinated the 23 month-old patient with a dosage of.25ml of Fluvax, before a scheduled review of the patient in Sydney for a bronchoscopy, when they knew or ought to have known that the use of Fluvax in vaccinating children under five years of age was contraindicated.
While the panel accepted that the practitioner relied on deficient, ambiguous and probably out of date advice available on the day, it still found their performance to be below the standard reasonably expected of a health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.
The panel decided to reprimand the practitioner.
It also cautioned the practitioner about maintaining appropriate history of consultations, including detailing examinations, actions and reasoning behind decisions.
The panel saw no benefit in imposing conditions on the practitioner’s registration, particularly because the practitioner’s lapse of judgment on the day was not part of a pattern of similar behaviour and the practitioner had a heightened awareness of safety and patient care since the incident.