DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
standard of practice of the profession.
Reasons for Penalty
Dr. Kamermans had admitted to the allegation.
Counsel for the College and counsel for the member
made a joint submission as to an appropriate penalty
and costs order.
In the course of a s.75(b) investigation into Dr. Kamermans’ practice, the College’s expert opined that Dr.
Kamermans failed to maintain the standard of practice
in his care and treatment of 21 of the 25 patients under
review.
Among other concerns, the expert expressed the following concerns regarding Dr. Kamermans’s standard of
practice:
(a) nadequate medical record keeping, including absence
I
of a Cumulative Patient Profile, medical history and
family history, and failure to record examinations,
vital signs, test results, patient complaints, medications and treatment plan;
(b) mproper use of Cerumex and irrigation as treatment
I
for a pimple in a patient’s ear;
(c) Inadequate follow up on a patient’s elevated choles
terol and triglycerides;
(d) ailure to follow up on a patient following a decrease
F
in her pain medication;
(e) Failure to follow up with a patient following a pre
scription of Crestor;
(f ) Inadequate investigation and treatment of ongoing
hypertension in multiple patients, and failure to
make an urgent referral to a cardiologist or emergency department in the face of a patient’s hypertensive
crises;
The Committee appreciated the significant risk of harm
to which Dr. Kamerman’s patients were exposed by his
inadequate medical care, and considered this as an aggravating factor in its decision.
Mit igating factors considered included the fact that
Dr. Kamermans had
Full decisions are available online
no previous disciplinat www.cpso.on.ca.
ary findings against
Select Doctor Search and enter
him, nor any practice
the doctor’s name.
limitations previously
imposed. The fact that
Dr. Kamermans admitted to his professional misconduct and had already,
and of his own volition as of May 2012, begun to practise under the supervision of Dr. Z, were considered as
significant mitigating factors when deliberating on the
jointly proposed penalty.
Order
The Committee ordered and directed that:
1. r. Kamermans attend before this panel to be repriD
manded.
2. he Registrar impose the following terms, conditions
t
and limitations on Dr. Kamermans’ certificate of
registration:
(i) r. Kamermans shall undergo a preceptorship
D
for a duration of one year under the supervision
of a preceptor acceptable to the College. The
preceptor shall sign an undertaking and the preceptorship shall include monthly chart reviews
of 25 patient charts, selected by the preceptor
in his/her sole discretion, monthly meetings for
discussion of any concerns and recommendations of the preceptor, and monthly reports to
the College by the preceptor;
(ii) ffective as of the date of this Order, and until
E
such time as Dr. Kamermans has completed the
preceptorship, Dr. Kamermans shall practise
only under the supervision of his College-approved preceptor. If Dr. Kamermans’ preceptor
is, at any time, unwilling or unable to continue
(g) Inadequate management of Type II Diabetes;
(h) Inadequate management of hypercholesterolemia in
multiple patients;
(i) Failure to follow up on lab results showing abnormal
hemoglobin, creatinine and GFR levels;
(j) Failure to document dosages of medication; and
(k) Failure to document a cardiovascular risk analysis
where indicated.
Since May 2012, Dr. Kamermans has practised under
the supervision of a clinical supervisor. According to the
clinical supervisor, Dr. Kamermans has been compliant and cooperative in fulfilling the requirements of the
supervision agreement.
DIALOGUE • Issue 1, 2014
43