discipline summaries
judgment in the areas of Pap screening, use of
glucometer, use of otoscope, H pylori screening,
ordering diagnostic testing such as mammography,
pelvic ultrasound, thyroid ultrasound and abdomi-
nal ultrasound, office emergency procedures, peri-
odic screening, management of diabetes, chest pain
assessment, use of Rourke or developmental record
and Ontario immunization schedule.
• In 15 out of 23 charts, Dr. Ng’s practice is likely to
expose his patients to harm/injury.
• In five out of five patients observed, Dr. Ng’s prac-
tice may expose his patients to harm/injury.
With respect to Dr. Ng’s infection control practice,
Dr. Z opined as follows:
• Dr. Ng carried out improper reprocessing multi-use
equipment and displayed a lack of knowledge of
proper reprocessing process.
• Once hygiene product was available in his office
after the Toronto Public Health investigation, he
did not utilize it once during the patient observa-
tions on June 8, 2015; he did not manage sharps
appropriately; he did not document hepatitis B
status properly; he did not manage multi-dose vials
properly; he did not have controls for refrigerated
items; he did not understand or carry out syndrom-
ic surveillance.
“Dr. Ng’s clinical practice created a definite risk
of harm for patients who attended his office prior to
February 27, 2015. The risk was one of transmission
of respiratory, enteric and blood borne pathogens,
and transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms
such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA).The nature of the harm ranged from pos-
sible acute infection to colonization with a risk of fu-
ture infection. Depending on the pathogen, infection
could have caused significant morbidity and even
mortality. It is not possible to quantitate the prob-
ability of the harm … any patient may have been
exposed to harm,” Dr. Z stated.
66
Dialogue Issue 2, 2017
Reasons for Penalty
The Committee was informed that Dr. Ng signed an
undertaking on February 22, 2016, resigning from
the College effective immediately and undertaking to
neither apply nor re-apply as a physician to practise
medicine in Ontario or in any other jurisdiction after
the effective date of the undertaking.
The protection of the public is of paramount
importance in the well-established principles that
govern the selection of a penalty in a disciplinary
proceeding. Other principles to be considered are the
maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of
the medical profession and in its ability to regulate
itself effectively in the public interest; specific deter-
rence as it applies to the member; general deterrence
in relation to the membership as a whole; and, the
rehabilitation of the member where applicable.
The Committee considered the nature and extent of
the findings of professional misconduct in this case.
The Committee was shocked and appalled by the
filthy and deplorable conditions in Dr. Ng’s office as
well as the multiple instances of inadequate infection
control procedures. Dr. Ng’s lack of knowledge and
judgment in this regard is extreme, and he continu-
ally placed his patients at risk of harm in a variety of
ways, including from the transmission of respiratory,
enteric, and blood borne pathogens.
Dr. Ng’s clinic was shut down by Toronto Public
Health because of unsanitary conditions. When his
clinic was ultimately permitted to reopen, the Col-
lege’s re-inspection revealed continuing infection
control issues. Dr. Ng had been given a chance to ad-
dress his deficiencies in exposing patients to infection
but he failed to do so adequately.
Dr. Ng’s misconduct and incompetence was not
limited to poor hygiene and inadequate infection
control at his clinic. Th