An orthopaedic doctor who asked a 16-year-old female patient of his out for coffee has been requested to consent to undertaking and to be censured by a fitness-to-practice committee.
It was alleged that the doctor, whose identity at the direction of the committee has been anonymised, on June 28th, 2018, while working in a hospital in the south of the country, engaged in inappropriate conduct.
The inquiry heard that the patient, who was unaccompanied, attended the fracture clinic at the hospital that morning around 10.30am regarding a fracture in her foot, which after examination the doctor concluded had healed.
The alleged inappropriate conduct included that during the consultation the doctor asked the patient if she was single, what time she was free, said to her they could go out for coffee or a meal and he would ring her later that evening.
It was also alleged that during the consultation the doctor asked the patient for her number, put her number into his phone, called her mobile phone number and asked her to save his mobile phone number.
The doctor, who became registered in 2014, maintained in a subsequent investigation into his conduct, that these interactions occurred after the consultation had concluded and that it was social chat.
It was also alleged that the doctor made three phone calls to the patient between 6.30pm and 7pm that evening.
It was further alleged that the doctor knew or ought to have known the patient was under 18 years old at the time.
It was alleged that the doctor abused his professional position by attempting to form a relationship of a personal nature with the patient.
Two independent investigations were subsequently carried out into the doctor’s conduct.
The patient, who did not attend the inquiry, said in one of these investigations that she felt “really uncomfortable” and recorded parts of the conversation on Snapchat on her mobile phone.
During an investigation the doctor said he was surprised to find out that the patient had made these recordings.
The patient also took a screen grab of when the doctor phoned her.
She said that she left the consultation upset and phoned her mother immediately.
Her mother said that her daughter was hysterical on the phone and she blamed herself for not accompanying her to the consultation.
The day after the consultation a complaint was made to the hospital regarding the doctor’s behaviour.
The inquiry heard that in dictating the patient’s letter of discharge, and before he phoned her that evening, the doctor recorded her age as 16 years old, which he subsequently described as “a miscalculation”.
The doctor told investigators he may have been dictating several charts that day and that he didn’t accept that he realised she was 16 years old when he contacted her later that evening.
Neasa Bird, barrister for the chief executive of the Medical Council said that there have been serious consequences arising from the doctor’s behaviour.
[ Doctor highlighted in Irish Times investigation suspended from practisingOpens in new window ]
She said it caused a child to be upset, who also felt the need to record a conversation and that she would not go to hospital or an appointment on her own and had a fear of doctors.
The inquiry heard that during an investigation held in September 2019 the doctor confirmed that the interaction between him and the patient should not have occurred and that he regarded her as “a young lady, a young patient”.
When asked whether he should have informed himself at the time of the patient’s age, he said that he considered that normally a minor would be accompanied by a parent or guardian.
The inquiry heard that the patient’s date of birth was on a sticker on her file, her chart and on the referral letter.
Ms Bird submitted that it was the view of the chief executive that a consent to undertaking and censure would absolutely not be an appropriate sanction and that an absolute minimum sanction would be an undertaking with conditions attached to the doctor’s registration.
Marie Culliton, chair, said that in circumstances where there were admissions as to the factual allegations and that they amounted to professional misconduct under the expected standards test that the committee were inviting the doctor, who did not appear to be in attendance at the inquiry, to undertake not to repeat the conduct and to consent to be censured.
Cathal Murphy, barrister for the doctor, confirmed that his client was prepared to give such an undertaking and to be censured.
The committee directed that, to protect the identity of the patient, that her identity, that of her family and the doctor be anonymised in any reporting.
The committee will prepare a report to council explaining the reasons as to why they proceeded as they did.