Doctor who began relationship with patient has been censured
A general practitioner who began a relationship with a patient whose wife and children were also under her care has been censured and ordered to pay $31,000 in costs.
A New Zealand Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decision, released yesterday, said the GP (referred to as Dr O) had breached the patients’ rights code for failing to maintain professional boundaries.
The hearing was held in Nelson in May 2022, and followed a 2020 report from the Health and Disability Commissioner, which found the GP had breached the code.
According to the tribunal decision, Dr O had worked at a health centre for almost 16 years. The N family – a couple and their children – were her patients.
In September 2018, Dr O and Mr N became Facebook friends. The two spoke several times at Mr N’s workplace, and communicated on Facebook.
The doctor told Mr N she was not comfortable with him messaging her socially while seeing him as a patient, and at the end of September 2018, she transferred his care to another practitioner.
In mid-October 2018, Mrs N became aware of the relationship, and sought medical treatment for stress. Her appointment was with Dr O, who at this point raised the relationship with her colleagues, telling them she did not feel comfortable treating Mrs N.
Mrs N was seen by another doctor that day. Dr O texted Mr N to let him know about the appointment, breaching Mrs N’s privacy.
The doctor developed feelings towards Mr N, and the pair continued to message each other on Facebook and see each other. In January 2019, Mr N moved out of the family home.
A charge laid by the Professional Conduct Committee, appointed by the Medical Council of New Zealand, outlined three particulars.
Firstly, that Dr O had entered into a close relationship with Mr N while he, as well as his wife and children, were her patients.
Secondly, Dr O had ended her doctorpatient relationship with Mr N so she could further her personal relationship with him; and, thirdly, that she had breached Mrs N’s privacy and patient confidentiality.
Weighing in on these charges, the tribunal said that while it was established the doctor and patient had entered into a relationship, Mr N was not a vulnerable patient and there was no suggestion of improper contact during consultations. Although Mr N had initiated the relationship, this did not condone the doctor’s complicity, the ruling said. The tribunal found there was not enough evidence to show Dr O had transferred Mr N to another doctor so she could further the relationship, but upheld the charge about the privacy breach.
The tribunal censured the doctor, and ordered her to disclose the tribunal decision to future employers for two years. She will be required to pay $31,234 in costs.