Peterborough cardiologist cleared of wrongdoing
Dr. Bill Hughes has been found not guilty of treating excessive number of patients
Prominent Peterborough cardiologist Dr. Bill Hughes has been found not guilty of seeing an excessive number of patients and performing too many tests on them.
A disciplinary panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario wrote in a decision released Thursday that there was insufficient proof he had committed an act of professional misconduct, or that he was incompetent.
The four panel members wrote that they were unimpressed with the prosecution’s sole witness, B.C. cardiologist Dr. Dave Massel, who served as the college’s expert in the case.
“The committee found that Dr. Massel’s evidence lacked objectivity,” reads the 48-page ruling.
Hughes, former president of the Ontario Association of Cardiologists, held a news conference at his Kawartha Cardiology Clinic in Peterborough Thursday and expressed relief over the ruling.
“It has been four years of extreme stress and very difficult for me, family and staff,” he said. “It is impossible to describe how utterly devastating of a process this is,” he told reporters, adding that his reputation has been damaged by Massel’s opinions.
The college’s website shows that Hughes has been ordered to appear before a panel of its Inquiries, Complaints and Reporters Committee “to be cautioned” three times in re- sponse to unrelated complaints and concerns.
One complaint was about Hughes rushing through a patient’s appointments and communicating poorly. The committee said he has a “lengthy history” of such complaints.
The not-guilty decision stemmed from an investigation the college began in 2012, following a settlement in a malpractice suit involving the unexpected death of young patient. The college appointed Massel as its medical inspector and asked him to review 24 randomly selected patient charts as well as one from the patient who died.
Based on Massel’s opinion, the case was referred to the college’s discipline committee and a hearing took place over 14 days earlier this year.
Hughes’ lawyer, Anne Spafford, argued that Massel did not approach his role with an open mind.
Massel argued otherwise, even though early on in his work, he expressed strong criticisms of Hughes, according to a memo from a college investigator. She had taken notes, apparently unbeknownst to Massel, during a phone conversation with him. He was quoted as saying: “Outrageous, should be in jail, ripping off the system.”
The investigator also wrote that Massel had concerns regarding Hughes’ OHIP billings.
While Massel did not deny making these statements, he was unwilling to admit he did, the decision points out. At the same time, he speculated the comments were “born of frustration.”
The discipline committee noted that its job was not to weigh in on how much the testing cost the province.
“Cost of testing is a concern which we acknowledge, but our role is to decide if (Hughes) in his testing practices, failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession,” states the decision.
Panel members noted that Hughes and others had testified that testing facilities at the clinic were not profitable.
The committee rejected Massel’s assertion that 70 per cent of the tests ordered in the charts he reviewed were unnecessary because they did not meet American guidelines.
In coming to their decision, panellists wrote that they took into account there are no alternative testing facilities in the area. They took issue with Massel’s “rigidity” over what guidelines should be followed. He had opined that American testing guidelines are more widely accepted that the more permissible Ontario ones. In exonerating Hughes, the panel wrote that it took into consideration that his practice is unique. He serves Peterborough and the surrounding area, which is largely rural and has an aged and unhealthy population. “While the arrangement of (Hughes’) practice is different from that of the college’s expert, and in all likelihood the majority of physicians who practice cardiology, it appears designed specifically to cope with . . . the demographics of this under-serviced area,” as well as a philosophy of aggressive diagnosis and treatment, a desire to see patients quickly and a desire to have necessary lab facilities and specialty clinics available, the decision states.