Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decisions Nursing Council notice of recent Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decisions
Nurse guilty of misconduct in lying to obtain sick leave
A Te Awamutu registered nurse, Therese Leach, has been found guilty of professional misconduct following false claims for sick leave when she was working at Waikato Hospital.
Leach was granted sick leave over a period of two months on the grounds that her son was unwell with cancer and was receiving treatment at the Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland.
When requested to provide confirmation of her son’s illness, Leach provided a false email from a Starship doctor stating she was off work due to her son being hospitalised. During this time, she also received petrol vouchers from sympathetic colleagues at the hospital.
When her son was subsequently found to have been well, the Waikato District Health Board dismissed Leach for taking excessive sick leave and for falsifying records and laid a complaint with the Nursing Council. The district health board reported that the nurse had given no explanation for her actions.
Leach did not engage in the disciplinary process or attend the tribunal hearing. No evidence was presented about why she behaved the way she did or any stresses that she may have been under at the time. Her clinical nurse manager told the tribunal that Leach had been a good nurse and she had no knowledge of any personal reasons why she may have lied about her son’s illness.
The tribunal condemned Leach’s behaviour, saying that there could not be a more cynical way to obtain sick leave than claiming that her child was gravely unwell. It had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that she had lied. It said honesty was a prerequisite for a nurse and found her guilty of professional misconduct.
Leach’s registration was cancelled, she was censured, ordered to pay 30 per cent of costs, and conditions were placed on her practice.
The tribunal noted that if Leach wished to practise, she would have to convince the Nursing Council of her suitability to do so both in terms of her honesty; her grasp of ethical principles and demonstrate what steps she had taken to rehabilitate herself to ensure that such behaviour would not occur again.
Inappropriate intimate relationship with patient spouse
A senior, highly qualified and experienced nurse, who entered into an intimate relationship with the spouse of a patient, has been found guilty of bringing discredit to the nursing profession and malpractice.
The tribunal said nurses must be aware such a relationship is wrong. “It is for the nurse either to take the initiative to back away from the relationship or be prepared to compromise, if not completely abandon, his or her career,” it said.
While codes of conduct might not expressly reference spouses or family members, the tribunal rejected the view that there is little guidance from written ethical guidelines on such matters. It said it is clear that in providing care, nurses must consider the total family unit of patient.
In this case the patient was significantly disabled and dependent on nursing care and support. The tribunal found that in entering and continuing the relationship the nurse ignored her duties to patient and wider family members.
“The nurse had an ongoing professional responsibility to him, despite whatever views he may have had, because of his vulnerability as the husband of a patient so critically and suddenly ill.”
The tribunal said the nurse’s experience should have led her to conclude that the relationship with the husband of a patient was inappropriate and a breach of ethical standards. It was clear that she was aware ethical issues were involved and after a period changed jobs so that she no longer worked at the same hospital with the patient.
It found that the nurse’s ongoing denial of a breach of obligations meant a penalty was required so she clearly realised that she had breached standards and the state of denial was not maintained.
A penalty was also required to send a message to others in the nursing profession that such a relationship was ethically and professionally inappropriate.
The nurse was charged $21,000 toward costs of the prosecution of the charges, censured and suspended for six months with the suspension suspended for 12 months provided that there was no complaint or issue arising in that time. She was also ordered to work under supervision.
All identifying details of those involved and the location were suppressed. Name suppression was given to the nurse in order to “give her to the opportunity to work and strive towards re-establishing her senior position in the nursing profession in which she can continue to make a valuable and professional contribution”.
