discipline summaries
the room. Dr. Bhatt also was demeaning to a nurse who was tending to the patient. The next day, Dr. Bhatt again spoke to Dr. X about the same patient’ s care in a threatening, abusive, and condescending manner. Dr. X received and felt intimidated by multiple telephone calls from Dr. Bhatt in the days following which she neither answered nor returned. She also reported that patients specifically ask not to see Dr. Bhatt because he is rude and demeaning.
• Ms. E, a volunteer member of the District Hospital Foundation, received complaints from donors that Dr. Bhatt had pressured them to donate to the local Cardiovascular Program. Dr. Bhatt came to see Ms. E to complain that a recent donation was too small and that he could get more money. Ms. E tried to explain the donor’ s position, but Dr. Bhatt became rude and used foul language. Ms. E wrote to the hospital CEO to express her concerns about this interaction. Subsequently, Dr. Bhatt came to see Ms. E and closed her office door. Dr. Bhatt handed Ms. E a donation and asked her why she had written the letter of complaint to the Hospital. Ms. E refused to discuss her complaint with Dr. Bhatt. She felt fearful and described his behaviour as bullying.
Post-referral conduct In the fall of 2015, after the above matters had been referred to the Discipline Committee, the hospital asked Dr. Bhatt to assist in in-patients consultations, which Dr. Bhatt had not done since his October 2014 undertaking with the hospital. In October 2015, a newly-qualified female doctor at the Hospital, Dr. Y, reported to the Chief of Staff that she had experienced an unpleasant and unprofessional interaction with Dr. Bhatt. The Chief of Staff reported the complaint to the College for investigation, which disclosed that Dr. Y’ s first interaction with Dr. Bhatt was a phone call in which Dr. Bhatt was abrupt, curt, and questioned Dr. Y’ s management of the patient they were discussing. Dr. Y felt that Dr. Bhatt was suggesting that she did not know what she was doing and was not taking appropriate care of the patient. Dr. Y felt professionally threatened when Dr. Bhatt said words to the effect that“ the patient’ s family will not be happy,” and suggested that the care Dr. Y was providing was not“ up to par.” After the incident, Dr. Y felt anxious and concerned. After this incident, the hospital and Dr.
Bhatt agreed that Dr. Bhatt would no longer do inpatient consultations.
Reasons for Penalty The Committee found that Dr. Bhatt’ s behaviour was egregious, inappropriate, and harmful. His misconduct persisted over multiple years and impacted many colleagues, staff, and patients. Once his monitoring ceased, Dr. Bhatt immediately reverted to the inappropriate, unprofessional behaviour that the monitoring had been designed to oust. His conduct caused significant distress to his colleagues, to the point that one nurse installed a panic button in her office. Some staff members went out of their way to avoid Dr. Bhatt. While there is no evidence to suggest he provided less than adequate care, some patients did specifically request not to see him because they felt uncomfortable interacting with him. The College’ s primary duty is to protect the public. Patients have complained about Dr. Bhatt’ s manner and behaviour. Some have refused to see him. Patients should not have to endure demeaning and insulting behaviour from their physician. The Committee was particularly alarmed that the behaviour was directed almost exclusively at women colleagues, patients, and co-workers. Another penalty principle is to instill public confidence in the profession and its ability to self-govern. Failing to address disruptive behaviour in the workplace can clearly affect the integrity and reputation of the profession and its ability to self-govern. A third important penalty principle is general deterrence. A disruptive physician’ s behaviour can easily poison a workplace. The Committee felt that hospital staff should be able to attend work without having to fear abusive behaviour from colleagues or superiors. Finally, a penalty should meet the goal of specific deterrence. Dr. Bhatt has demonstrated a longstanding pattern of humiliating female colleagues, nurses, and patients. The Committee wished to send a message to this physician to ensure that he ceases this misconduct. The Committee agreed with the joint submission on penalty, and felt it appropriate that the Order implements a system of checks and balances so that Dr. Bhatt’ s improvements in behaviour may be maintained.
44
Dialogue Issue 1, 2017