discipline summaries
tice of the profession with respect to delegation of
controlled acts and appropriate supervision of his
staff. Dr. Mohan also failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession with respect to his
medical record-keeping. His patient charts failed to
indicate the care-provider where care was provided
by an assistant, and there was inadequate documentation of follow-up management plans. In two cases,
the deficiencies in medical record-keeping resulted in
patients’ abnormal test results being missed.
Dr. Y, an expert retained by Dr. Mohan, reviewed
updated charts for some of the patients whose
care had been reviewed by Dr. X. Dr. Y noted that
since Dr. Mohan had moved to an electronic medical record-keeping system in 2013 there had been
improvements, including in follow-up on test results
and significant improvement in record-keeping. Dr.
Y noted that in two cases Dr. Mohan should have
monitored diabetes more closely and that there was
overuse of broad templates, but overall opined that
Dr. Mohan now met the standard of practice.
Dr. Mohan was subject to an Order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee since
February 20, 2015, which was effective on an interim basis pending the disposition of the allegations
against him. Among other things, Dr. Mohan’s general practice was under clinical supervision. The clinical supervisor recommended some improvements,
for example to the management of diabetic patients
and to record-keeping. The clinical supervisor also
identified patient charts in which he found care to be
well-documented, appropriate investigations ordered,
and appropriate referrals made.
Reasons for Penalty
Counsel for the College and counsel for the member
made a joint submission as to an appropriate penalty
and costs order.
The Committee accepted the proposed penalty,
including a reprimand, a three-month suspension,
and terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Mohan’s certificate of registration. The public reprimand
denounces Dr. Mohan’s misconduct and expresses
the Committee’s strong disapproval of his actions. It
sends a clear message to Dr. Mohan and the membership at large that, through the inappropriate delegation of controlled health acts, Dr. Mohan put his
patients’ health at risk and specifically, in this case,
by being unaware of abnormal laboratory results. In
addition, by allowing new patients to be seen and examined by unlicensed individuals in his absence, Dr.
Mohan undermined the vital trust of the public that
is at the very core of the doctor-patient relationship.
A three-month suspension of Dr. Mohan’s certificate of registration will deter Dr. Mohan from recurrence of such unacceptable professional misconduct,
as well as deterrence to the membership. The Committee was disappointed that Dr. Mohan delegated to
practitioners that he knew were not licensed physicians, without the informed consent of his patients.
His actions tarnish his reputation as well as that of
the profession. Our health system operates on the
honour system that patients will be fully informed
and can trust that the professionals they are seeking
advice from are who they say they are and are acting
within the rules and regulations of the profession.
In addition, the penalty includes terms, conditions
and limitations on Dr. Mohan’s certificate of registration to protect the public going forward after his
suspension. Dr. Mohan is prohibited from delegating any controlled acts, which includes not permitting non-regulated health professionals to conduct
histories or physical examinations of his patients.
These terms, conditions and limitations will rebuild
the public confidence in the profession’s ability to
regulate itself. The Committee noted that the investigation into the rest of Dr. Mohan’s practice did not
reveal any additional shortcomings in Dr. Mohan’s
patient care, but must be assured that he will not
continue to delegate controlled acts or histories and
physical examinations. He must complete an educational program in medical record-keeping, undergo
a reassessment of his practice 12 months after he
returns to practise post suspension, consent to unannounced inspections of his practice and consent to
the College making appropriate enquiries of OHIP.
The Committee was of the view that the jointly
proposed penalty was in the public interest and was
just. As mitigating factors, the Committee noted
that this was Dr. Mohan’s first appearance before the
Discipline Committee, and also that he had already
started to take steps to improve his patient care by
successfully completing the record-keeping educational program before the hearing.
Issue 2, 2016 Dialogue
Issue2_16.indd 47
47
2016-06-16 12:27 PM