discipline summaries
Aggravating factors
1. After signing a voluntary undertaking with the hospital, Dr. Bhatt was unpleasant and unprofessional to a female doctor in August 2015.
2. Dr. Bhatt’ s abusive behaviour towards colleagues, staff, and patients spanned several years.
3. Despite receiving warnings about his behaviour, Dr. Bhatt did not stop his misconduct.
4. Dr. Bhatt was in a position of authority as Chief of Medicine at the hospital. In this position, he should have acted as a role model to fellow physicians and staff. His behaviour indicates that he has gotten away with harassment and denigration in the workplace. The profession must strongly assert that this is unacceptable behaviour.
5. The Committee was particularly alarmed by a volunteer fundraiser’ s complaint that Dr. Bhatt was rude and used inappropriate language with her while complaining that an individual donation was too small. After she wrote a letter to hospital administrators about the behaviour, Dr. Bhatt confronted the volunteer in her office.
Mitigating factors 1. This was Dr. Bhatt’ s first appearance before the
Committee. 2. He has accepted responsibility for his actions through his plea.
3. He has saved others from the burden and strain of testifying. He has also saved the College the substantial costs of conducting a contested hearing.
4. He has ceased working on call as well as working in the ICU. These were the two most stressful aspects of his work.
5. He has been regularly meeting with his psychiatrist.
6. According to hospital staff members interviewed by the College more recently, his behaviour has improved. This demonstrates that Dr. Bhatt has the ability to display consideration and thoughtfulness to others when he so chooses.
The Discipline Committee directed the Registrar to suspend Dr. Bhatt’ s certificate of registration for a four-month period; place terms and conditions and limitations on his practice, including participating in the ProBE program and ongoing monitoring; appear before the panel to be reprimanded; and pay costs to the College in the amount of $ 5,000. At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Bhatt waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand.
Order For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor’ s Name.
Dr. STEPHEN ROSE JAMES
Practice Location: Toronto
Area of Practice: Anesthesiology( Pain mAnagement)
Hearing InformATion: Uncontested Allegations, STATement of FacTS, Joint Submission on Penalty
On November 16, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Stephen James committed acts of professional misconduct, in that he failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession; and he engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Committee also found Dr. James is incompetent. Dr. James is an anesthesiologist practising in pain management. His practice at the time relevant to these proceedings was at the Rothbart Centre for Pain Care. Specifically, the findings of professional misconduct relate to his care and treatment, including his infection control practices, of: Patients A to F as well as the additional seven( Patients T to Z) identified by Toronto Public Health. In addition, he engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct including by:
• Providing an Interview Prep Document to nursing
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
Issue 1, 2017 Dialogue 45