Dialogue Volume 10 Issue 2 2014 | Page 55

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES reviewed were found to meet the standard of practice of the profession, but most of the charts reviewed by the expert, Dr. X, revealed scant documentation, boundary violations with one patient who was also an employee, diabetes management inadequacies in a couple of the patients, the failure to have written opioid prescribing agreements with all patients, many unnecessary laboratory tests, scant history and physical examinations, no clear or accurate diagnoses documented, inadequate progress notes, and generally poor documentation overall. Of particular concern to the Committee was Dr. Wu’s inappropriate delegation of controlled acts to individuals not qualified to perform those acts. Finally, Dr. Wu, even after being apprised of his shortcomings and entering into an undertaking with the College, breached that undertaking in the area of prescribing, supervision and charting. Of great concern to the Committee is the fact that this is not the first time Dr. Wu has been before the Discipline Committee for breaching an undertaking. Physicians must take their undertakings with this College seriously and to breach an agreement shows a blatant disregard for the authority of the College and a lack of respect for the profession. In mitigation, the Committee is aware of Dr. Wu’s admission and cooperation with the College on these present matters but, nonetheless, finds that the public will be protected only if Dr. Wu is completely prohibited from prescribing controlled substances in the future, does not delegate to any person any controlled act and that, after a lengthy suspension, he be assessed by a College appointed assessor and that he abide by any and all recommendations of the assessor arising out of that assessment. Dr. Wu must also be deterred from any further breach of his undertakings with the College. The Committee concluded that a long suspension is necessary to make it clear to Dr. Wu that his misconduct is very serious and repeated misconduct of this nature will not be tolerated. Any further breach of his undertaking or failure to comply with the Committee’s Order will raise the fundamental issue of Dr. Wu’s governability as a member of the profession. The Committee has discretion to award costs in cases it deems appropriate. The Committee finds that this is such a case and orders that Dr. Wu should pay the tariff rate for the one-day hearing that took place. Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name. Order The Committee ordered and directed that: 1.  e Registrar suspend Dr. Wu’s certificate of registraTh tion for a period of six months. 2.  e Registrar place the following terms, conditions Th and limitations on Dr. Wu’s certificate of registration: a)  r. Wu shall not issue new prescriptions or renew D existing prescriptions for any of the following substances: i)  narcotic drugs (from the Narcotic Control Regulations made under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C., 1996, c. 19); ii)  narcotic preparations (from the Narcotic Control Regulations made under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C., 1996, c. 19); iii)  controlled drugs (from Schedule G of the Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, S.C., 1985, c. F-27); and iv)  benzodiazepines/other targeted substances (from the Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances Regulations made under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act., S.C., 1996, c. 19) (collectively referred to as the “restricted substances”) b)  r. Wu shall post a clearly visible sign in his waitD ing room. This sign shall state as follows: “Dr. Wu cannot prescribe narcotic drugs, narcotic preparations, controlled drugs, benzodiazepines and other targeted substances.” A sign reflecting this restriction will also be posted in Chinese. c)  r. Wu shall not delegate to any other person D any Controlled Act as that term is defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. d)  pproximately one month after the completion of A the suspension, Dr. Wu shall undergo an assessment of his family practice by a College-appoint- DIALOGUE • Issue 2, 2014 55