by Written on behalf of Wise Health Law January 02, 2019 4 min read

This week we explore a recent professional misconduct decision in which a nurse was found to have contravened a standard of practice of the profession or failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession after she stole pain medication that she was not supposed to be administering to patients and used it herself while on shift.

The Ontario College of Nurses

The College of Nurses of Ontario is responsible for regulating the nursing profession. As with other health colleges in Ontario, its Discipline Committee hears and adjudicates on allegations of professional misconduct. Acts of misconduct are spelled out in the Health Professions Procedural Code of the Nursing Act, and further defined in Ontario Regulation 799/93. The essential question for the committee is a determination of whether the member has contravened a standard of practice. The nurse in question in this case was was alleged to have committed a breach of the standards expected by the College by doing the following:
  1. Misappropriating the narcotic, Dilaudid, intended for a patient;
  2. Making a false entry in the patients record indicating that the narcotic had been administered to the patient, when in fact the nurse had misappropriated it.

What Happened?

The nurse was employed as RN Manager at a long-term care home, which cared for 160 resident patients. As RN Manager, she was in charge of the entire facility when she was the RN on duty. On the day and evening shifts, there were five Registered Practical Nurses (RPN) on shift and one RN, usually the nurse in question. On the day in question the nurse in question was working the night shift. She approached the Registered Practical Nurse (RPN), who was responsible for medication administration, and offered to deliver the medication Dilaudid to a patient who was palliative and receiving the medication for pain relief. The RPN told the nurse that she would administer the medication to the resident shortly, however, the nurse insisted on doing so herself. The RPN then watched the nurse draw up a vial of Dilaudid in a syringe and walk towards the patient’s room. The RPN followed and saw that the vial was now empty and that the nurse was pretending to administer the narcotic to the patient. The nurse then documented the administration of the narcotic on the patients Narcotic and Controlled Drug Sheet. The RPN notified the facility of her observations.

Criminal Charges Laid

The nurse was charged criminally with a series of offences related to this incident. After a trial she was convicted only of the offence of theft of the narcotic. The other charges, although made out, were withdrawn or stayed. She received a suspended sentence and two years probation.

Admissions

Given the result of the criminal trial the nurse formally admitted before the College that she had committed the alleged acts of professional misconduct. The panel of the Discipline Committee conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that the member's admission was voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Onus and Standard of Proof

The College bears the onus of proving the allegations on a balance of probabilities based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The onus was clearly met given the admissions and the agreed statement of facts. As a result, the Discipline Committee found:
That the Member’s conduct was unprofessional as it demonstrated a serious and persistent disregard for her professional obligations. Nurses are accountable for practising in accordance with the Professional Standards, practice expectations, legislation and regulations. The Member gave false and misleading information, which is dishonest and breaches the public’s trust in the profession. That the Member’s conduct was dishonourable. The Member demonstrated an element of dishonesty and deceit by approaching and offering to administer medication to the Client who was palliative and receiving Dilaudid for pain. The Member misappropriated the medication Dilaudid for her own use. The Member failed to meet the basic needs of the Client when she withheld the Client’s medication, this act in its self is neglect and morally wrong. The Member was in a position of power over not only the Client but also who was an RPN working under the Member’s direct supervision. That the Member’s conduct was disgraceful as it shames the Member and by extension the profession. The conduct of the Member resulted in her being criminally charged and convicted on August 30, 2016 in relation to the incident of theft of a value not exceeding $5,000.The fact that the Member willingly withheld/misappropriated pain medication from a palliative Clientcasts serious doubt on the Member’s moral fitness and inherent ability to discharge the higher obligations the public expects nursing professionals to meet. This Member demonstrated a lack of integrity, dishonesty, abuse of her power and disregard for the welfare and safety of the Client. The health profession will not tolerate this conduct. The Member’s conduct has brought shame not only on herself but also on the profession as a whole.

Penalty

The penalty in included:
  • A reprimand;
  • A suspension of her certificate for five months;
  • Attendance at two meetings with an expert in nursing at her own expense to review
    • The acts or omissions for which the Member was found to have committed professional misconduct,
    • The potential consequences of the misconduct to the Member’s clients, colleagues, profession and self,
    • Strategies for preventing the misconduct from recurring,
    • The development of a learning plan in collaboration with the Expert.

How Can We Help?

Being the subject of a professional misconduct complaint is one of the most stressful events in a nurse’s career. The potential consequences of a finding of misconduct or incompetence are significant and can include a reprimand, fine, conditions and limitations on your practice, or a suspension or revocation of your license. If you are facing a complaint or disciplinary proceeding, it is strongly advised that you seek assistance from experienced legal counsel who has a thorough understanding of your regulatory College, its mandate, and its specific practices. At Wise Health Law, we rely on our significant experience before discipline panels of various regulatory Colleges to provide our clients with exceptional guidance and representation through the often-overwhelming discipline process. To find out more about how we can help, contact us online, or at 416-915-4234for a consultation.


Also in Blog

Cases to Watch: Marchi v. Nelson

by Mina Karabit September 22, 2020 3 min read

In August 2020, the Supreme Court heard and granted leave to appeal in Marchi v. Nelson, a case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision is one to watch as it will likely result in a renewed discussion of the distinction of policy versus operational decisions and their impacts on liability in tort law. The discussion will likely impact many of the anticipated post-COVID-19 lawsuits against public and government institutions.
Judicial Review: New Time Limits and a Helpful Primer

by Mina Karabit September 17, 2020 4 min read

In December 2019, Ontario’s Attorney General introduced Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (the “Act”), which became law on July 8, 2020. The Act hopes to simplify a complex and outdated justice system by bringing changes to how legal aid services are delivered, how class actions are handled, and how court processes are administered.

Of note, the Act has amended the Judicial Review Procedures Act (JRPA) to establish new rules as to when an application for judicial review may be brought.

Any decisions made on or after July 8, 2020 are now subject to a 30-day limit for bringing an application for judicial review unless another Act provides otherwise. Courts, however, retain powers to extend the time for making an application for judicial review if satisfied that there are apparent grounds for relief and that no prejudice or hardship will be incurred by the delay. Before these amendments, the JRPA did not set out any time limits for bringing an application, but courts had powers to extend the time to bring an application if another Act prescribed the limit.

Recent Exemptions for Psychedelic Therapy in Canada

by Mina Karabit August 14, 2020 3 min read

In early August 2020, the Federal Minister of Health granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to four terminally ill Canadians to use psilocybin in their end of life care.

Psilocybin is one of the active ingredients/chemicals in “magic mushrooms,” the other is psilocin. Both psilocybin and psilocin are controlled substances under Schedule III of the CDSA. The sale, possession, production, etc. are prohibited unless authorized for clinical trial or research purposes under Part J of the Food and Drug Regulations. Both have been illegal in Canada since 1974. According to Health Canada, there are no approved therapeutic products containing psilocybin in Canada. However, the purified active ingredient, i.e. psilocybin, is being studied in supervised clinical settings for its potential to treat various conditions such as anxiety and depression.