Assignment Task

Overview of events 
1. At about 3.00 pm on Friday 28 February 2014 a visitor arrived at Bungarribee  House asking to see her husband who had been admitted to the Acute Ward  of the mental health facility of Western Sydney Local Health District the day  before. 
2. As RN Sumintra Prasad was returning from the handover she responded to  the request, and went to look for the patient, but did not find him in his room or  the other places she looked. She asked a colleague to check the bathroom of  the patient’s room, and he did so, only to find the patient collapsed on the floor, apparently having taken his own life. The alarm was raised but the  patient could not be resuscitated.  
3. RN Harivadan Pandya had been assigned to look after the patient during that  shift, but he had departed the ward about half an hour beforehand to travel to  another facility to commence another shift.  
4. Upon RN Pandya’s early departure RN Prasad had picked up the behavioural  observation of the patient that was due at 2.40 pm, being just before she went  to handover at about 2.45 pm.  
5. The manner and cause of the death of the patient was a matter for the  coroner. The task of this Professional Standards Committee is to inquire into  the conduct of RN Prasad and RN Pandya during their shifts that day and the  care exercised by them towards the patient. 
6. The care exercised by RN Pandya fell significantly below the standard  reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or  experience, and we have found unsatisfactory professional conduct. We have  decided to reprimand RN Pandya, place restrictions on his employment,  require supervision and that he undertake some further education. 
7. The care exercised by RN Prasad in leaving for handover fell significantly  below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level  of training or experience. We have found unsatisfactory professional conduct,  and have cautioned RN Prasad. Whilst there were weaknesses in the other  aspects of RN Prasad’s conduct we did not find unsatisfactory professional  conduct.  
The proceedings 
8. At the directions hearing the Chair of the Committee had made an order under clause 7(1)(b)(iv) of Schedule 5D of the National Law directing that the name  of the patient and any information that would identify the patient not be  published. That order was confirmed at the commencement of the hearing  and continues. The patient is referred to as Patient A.
9. The proceedings were heard on 6, 7 and 8 December 2016. By s170 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (the National Law) we  were able to inquire into the complaints concerning RN Prasad and RN  Pandya at the same time (the ‘Pandya Complaint’ and the ‘Prasad  Complaint’). It was convenient that both matters be heard together. The  inquiries concerned the one patient over the course of a shift when both were  rostered for duty in the Acute Ward. 
10. The Health Care Complaints Commission was the Complainant in each case,  and both complaints were dated 10 June 2016.  
11. Mr Feneil Shah appeared for the Health Care Complaints Commission. Mr  Matthew Byrne of the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association’ represented RN  Harivadan Pandya. Ms Patricia Robertson of the NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association represented RN Sumintra Prasad. 
12. At the commencement of our inquiry the Commission handed up amended  particulars of the Pandya Complaint deleting some of the particulars and  amending others. There was no objection to our inquiry proceeding on the  basis of the amendments. The amended Pandya Complaint was added to  Tab 1 of the two volumes of documents provided by the Commission in  support of both complaints. We received the material without any objection,  and the volumes were marked HCCC–1. 
13. At the commencement of the hearing the Commission handed up a further  statement from Ms Nazma Khan which was added to HCCC-1 as Tab 25A.  
14. Also handed up was an email attaching the Level 3 Behavioural Assessment  and Observation sheets for the three other patients allocated to the care of RN  Pandya on that shift in addition to Patient A. That material was added as Tab  20A to HCCC-1. A direction was made under clause 7(1)(b)(iv) of Schedule  5D of the National Law directing that the name of those patients and any  information that would identify the patients not be published.  
15. The material produced by the Commission included statements that had been  provided to the police for the coronial investigation, transcripts of interviews with the Human Resources Department of Western Sydney Local Health  District and also the responses in correspondence to questions asked by the  Commission, sometimes answered directly by the individuals and on  occasions through a representative.  
16. The information was useful and of assistance. However, we do not take much  from any variations and gaps in the versions of events given by the individuals.  The information was collected in different circumstances and for different  purposes, with the questions being asked in different contexts. We do not  draw any adverse inferences from those apparent inconsistencies. 
17. We received, without objection, a folder of material on behalf of RN Prasad,  marked SP 1. Ms Robertson also handed up some material explaining the  source of photographs of the Acute Unit and relating to a referee report by Mr  Chy Ong a Nurse Unit Manager at Bungarribee House – added to SP-1. 
18. Mr Byrne provided a folder of material which we received without objection  and marked HP-1. Within the bundle at Tab 10 was an extract from the Public  Health System Nurses and Midwives (State) Award 2015. During the course  of the hearing Mr Byrne supplemented that item by the 2011 version of the  Award from 2011 as was in operation at the time of the events being  considered – all accepted, without objection, and marked “HP-2. 
19. At the commencement of our inquiry we were advised that a proposed  witness, Ms Nazma Khan the Team Leader on the relevant day, had suffered  chest pains, collapsed outside the hearing room and had been taken by  ambulance to hospital for assessment and observation. Ms Khan was unable  to attend the hearing. No application was made by any of the parties for an  adjournment of the proceedings. Within the material provided by the  Commission were a number of statements of Ms Khan and related  correspondence (Tabs 21 to 26, and 25A of HCCC-1). Where information  provided by Ms Khan was in conflict with other materials and oral evidence we  exercised caution, but only because Ms Khan was unavailable for cross examination to be tested on those points.
20. In addition to the documents received we heard evidence from Mr Arthur  Medida, Ms Christine Muller as the Commission’s expert, Ms Sumithira  Joseph, Mrs Dhanasagree Naik (by telephone) as a referee for RN Pandya,  and Mr Chy Ong (by telephone) as a referee for RN Prasad. RN Pandya and  RN Prasad also gave evidence. 
21. Ms Joseph referred to a General Information policy document of Western  Sydney Local Health District which she said required that staff must obtain  permission before proceeding on meal breaks, or completion of duty, or to  leave the ward for any reason. The document was later provided to us and  was received, without objection, and marked HCCC-2. 
22. The parties took no objection to us proceeding on the basis that we consider,  at the one time, whether the either complaint amounted to unsatisfactory  professional conduct and if so then proceeding to give consideration to the  exercise of our powers under s146B of the National Law.  
23. At the conclusion of the evidence Mr Shah made oral submissions concerning  the complaint against RN Pandya.  
24. Mr Shah handed up proposed protective orders with respect to RN Pandya  and RN Prasad.  
25. Mr Byrne made oral submissions on behalf of RN Pandya, but we did not have  sufficient time to receive all the submissions during the hearing.  
26. At the conclusion of the hearing day Mr Byrne wished to consider whether he  would make further submissions in respect of some aspects of the complaint against RN Pandya and also in respect of the proposed protective orders.  
27. The Chair of the Committee made the following directions, with the agreement  of the parties: 
• The Commission to file and serve written submissions in respect of the  Prasad Complaint on Monday, 12 December 2016; 
• Mr Byrne to file and serve any written further submissions in respect of  the Pandya Complaint and also the proposed protective orders by  Tuesday, 13 December 2016; 
• Ms Robertson to file and serve written submissions in respect of the  Prasad Complaint and also the proposed protective orders by Tuesday,  13 December 2016; and 
• the Commission to file and serve any responses to those submissions by  Wednesday 14 December 2016. 
28. Those submissions were received and have been considered. Commission’s application to recuse 
29. Immediately after the lunch adjournment on Tuesday, 6 December Mr Shah  made an application that the inquiry could not continue unless two members of  the Committee, Babette Smith and Michael Hagarty, recuse themselves. The  application was based on apprehension of bias, in circumstances where Ms  Smith was a member of a Tribunal in proceedings before the NSW Civil and  Administrative Tribunal and in those proceedings Michael Hagarty had been a  witness called on behalf of a respondent to a complaint brought by the  Commission. Mr Shah had instructed counsel in those proceedings. The  Commission’s submissions to the Tribunal had contained particular criticism of  the evidence given by Mr Hagarty. Although the hearing had concluded, the  Tribunal was yet to publish its decision.  
30. Mr Shah acknowledged that at the commencement of the hearing earlier that  morning the Chair had drawn to the attention of the parties that Mr Hagarty  had been a witness in NCAT proceedings where Ms Smith was a member of  the Tribunal. No objection had been raised. Mr Shah said he had since taken  further instructions in particular with respect to the written submissions in the  proceedings. 
31. The factual basis of the application was accepted by the Committee and was  not contested by Ms Robertson or Mr Byrne. Their concerns were with the possible disruption or delay to our inquiry. Ms Robertson tendered (marked as  SP-2) an email from Mr Shah of the previous week that had dealt, in general  terms, with conflict concerns. No issue of recusal had been raised. Mr Shah  said that if Mr Hagarty were to recuse himself then the application with respect  to Ms Smith would be withdrawn as having no basis. Mr Shah said the  application was in respect of an apprehension of bias, not actual bias. He  emphasised that the application did not involve any prediction about how  either of the Committee members would in fact approach their task. We  adjourned to consider the application. 
32. Ultimately it was not necessary for us to determine the application. During the  adjournment Mr Hagarty vacated his office as a member of the Committee.  
33. Section 170E of the Health Practitioner Regulation National (NSW) provides  that if one of the members constituting a committee vacates office for any  reason before the inquiry is completed then the inquiry may be continued and  a determination made by the remaining members of the Committee. On that  basis our inquiry was able to continue even though one member had vacated  office. 
Receiving evidence 
34. As set out above, the Committee received written material on behalf of the  parties and also heard oral evidence. By clause 2 of 5D of the National Law  we were able to receive all that material as evidence, and did so. 
35. The relevant legal principles that guide the Committee are well-established  and were not contested: applying the civil standard and considering  Briginshaw; what is to be reasonably expected of a practitioner; the protective  rather than the punitive function of a Professional Standards Committee; the  significant trust placed by patients in practitioners; and the importance of  protecting the public. 
36. Rather than proceed by way of summarising the documents and the oral  evidence we find it convenient to consider the evidence with reference to the  two complaints and the particulars provided. We commence with the complaint against RN Pandya, as he was the nurse who was specifically  allocated to look after Patient A on the day in question. 
Complaint against RN Pandya 
37. The complaint against RN Pandya concerns his conduct during the shift that  he worked at Bungarribee House on 28 February 2014. There are five parts of  the complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B(1)(a)  of the National Law: not notifying or giving advance notice of early departure;  leaving early; no handover; not undertaking observations; and, not keeping  proper records. 
38. The Commission submitted (and similarly for RN Prasad) that each of the  parts on their own could amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct and  that the Pandya Complaint could be made out upon one or more of the  particulars being found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct. We agree with that approach. The parts of the Pandya Complaint are essentially distinct  matters, each standing alone even though the events occur on the same shift  and in some respects rely on the same facts. We deal with each in turn. 
Part 1 of the Pandya Complaint – failing to give early advice to the team leader of an  early departure 
39. RN Pandya admitted in his statement and when giving evidence that he had  not advised the Team Leader at the start of his shift that he was leaving early.  The circumstances of him coming to work that shift require some explanation  in order to place his conduct in context. The background is also relevant to  other aspects of the Pandya Complaint. 
40. RN Pandya was employed within Western Sydney Local Health District and  most often worked at Cumberland Hospital. He was due to start his routine  shift at Cumberland Hospital campus at 2.30pm on 28 February 2014. He had  been requested to first undertake a shift at Bungarribee House at Blacktown  Hospital commencing at 7.00am and ordinarily to conclude at 3:30pm, and he  was therefore working a double shift. The shift at Bungarribee House was to  be counted as an overtime shift. 

 

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at UniLearnO. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.

Eureka! You've stumped our genius minds (for now)! This exciting new question has our experts buzzing with curiosity. We can't wait to craft a fresh solution just for you!

  • Uploaded By : Alon 
  • Posted on : October 06th, 2018

Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assistance