Page Section: Centre Content Column

Director of Proceedings v Clark – Registered Nurse

Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, Nur09/122D

In a decision dated 9 September 2009, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found registered nurse Sandra Clark guilty of professional misconduct.

Ms Clark had admitted one charge of professional misconduct arising from the actions she took between 16 and 21 June 2008 when she amended and altered the clinical record of a former client. The matter proceeded by way of an agreed summary of facts.

At the time of the events that were the subject of the charge Ms Clark was working at Birkenhead Lodge Rest Home on Auckland's North Shore. In June 2008 the Health and Disability Commissioner commenced an investigation into the adequacy of care provided by Birkenhead Lodge to the former client. On 3 June 2008 the rest home was asked to provide all relevant medical records for the client, including care plans, progress notes, wound care and medication charts. Some time shortly later Ms Clark was asked to assist with preparing documents for the purpose of providing them to the Commissioner.

Ms Clark commenced work on the documents during the week beginning 16 June and completed the process by Saturday 21 June 2008. The documents were submitted to the Health and Disability Commissioner. In the course of the Commissioner's investigation it was noted that a number of the documents provided by Birkenhead Lodge had an automatic date printed on them which was later than the date hand written on the form.

Ms Clark was subsequently interviewed by staff from the Commissioner's office in relation to her part in the client's care. In the course of that interview she initially stated that the documents were completed contemporaneously. However, when conflicting dates were put to her, she confirmed that a number of documents were not completed contemporaneously and that she had "pre-dated" a number of the documents.

After finding Ms Clark guilty of professional misconduct the Tribunal imposed the following penalty on Ms Clark:

(1)   That she undertake an educational programme within 12 months of the date of the decision;

(2)   Censure;

(3)    A fine $1500. 00;

(4)   An award of costs of 25% of and incidental to the Tribunal's costs of hearing including the costs of the Health and Disability Commissioner's investigation and the costs of the Director of Proceedings.

An earlier order granting Ms Clark interim name suppression was lifted.

A link to the Tribunal's decision is available at http://www.hpdt.org.nz/default.aspx?tabid=235

Appeal to the High Court

Following the release of the Tribunal's decision Ms Clark took an appeal to the High Court seeking to overturn the order declining her permanent name suppression. Ms Clark cited distress and embarrassment to herself and her family arising from publication as well as its effect on her health and its impact on her current employment and future job prospects as the grounds for seeking suppression.

The High Court dismissed the appeal finding that the degree of embarrassment Ms Clark and her family might experience by virtue of her name being published was limited to a level of embarrassment that is inevitable when one's colleagues and the local community come to know of a finding of professional misconduct and that publication in this instance did not jeopardise either her health, her current employment or her future career prospects.