DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
the anesthesia will be administered in a safe manner in a hospital setting and that their anesthesiologist will have the requisite knowledge , skill , and judgment . Such an assumption by the public is a fair one .
PENALTY AND REASONS FOR PENALTY The Discipline Committee observed that Dr . Straka ’ s deficiencies , while serious , should be viewed in the context of the following mitigating circumstances :
• Dr . Straka had been practising under supervision pending the outcome of this hearing . The corresponding reports to the College were positive ;
• An integral part of his supervision was a review and approval of all pre-operative assessments , treatment plans , and observation of all intubations ;
• In April 2016 , Dr . Straka ’ s documentation had improved significantly , his preoperative assessments were complete , and there were no issues in respect of technical tasks ;
• The defence expert observed Dr . Straka in April 2016 discussing risks and benefits with patients about to undergo blocks ;
• Dr . Straka was cooperative throughout the investigation . His admission saved witnesses from having to testify and a lengthy hearing ; and
• The Committee was influenced by the defence expert ’ s opinion that Dr . Straka was remediable . The Committee viewed Dr . Straka ’ s improvement to date as a demonstration of his insight , motivation , and capacity to improve .
The Committee was concerned that there were remaining gaps in Dr . Straka ’ s knowledge and management in some circumstances . In particular , the Committee was concerned about his management of high risk or complicated patients and his administration of regional anesthesia . In addition , the Committee was concerned that Dr . Straka ’ s reaction to stress may compromise his judgment . It was clear to the Committee that a broad range of terms imposed on Dr . Straka ’ s certificate of registration would be necessary to ensure public safety . The Committee accepted that the proposed remedial plan detailed in the jointly submitted penalty was comprehensive and sufficiently broad to achieve the goal of protecting the public . The Committee was satisfied that the proposed penalty would protect the public and maintain its confidence in the profession . The administration of a reprimand would denounce the conduct and provide specific deterrence to the member . The reprimand enabled the Committee to emphasize to Dr . Straka that there are serious consequences of failing to maintain the standard of practice and that he is responsible to make all efforts necessary to successfully complete the required education . The broad range of rehabilitative terms , conditions , and limitations , including further education and supervision , was ordered to protect the public and maintain its confidence in the profession .
ORDER In summary , the Committee ordered a reprimand ; a broad range of terms , conditions and limitation on Dr . Straka ’ s certificate of registration , including further education and supervision , and an initial period during which Dr . Straka was not to perform anesthesia in a hospital setting on an on-call basis ; and costs in the amount of $ 10,000 . 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 .
At the conclusion of the hearing , Dr . Straka waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand .
70
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3 , 2017