Standard, spring 2012 - College of Nurses of Ontario

Discipline decisions
professional misconduct when she
administered medications earlier
than ordered and documented untrue
statements.
The Panel found that the facts
supported a finding of professional
misconduct as alleged. The Panel
found that the Member physically,
verbally and emotionally abused
Client A, and that her behaviour
was disgraceful, dishonourable and
unprofessional.
Submissions on order
The College and the Member sought
an oral reprimand and a three-month
suspension. The Member would
be required to complete specified
remediation activities in preparation
for two meetings with a nursing
expert. For 12 months after returning
to practice, the Member would be
required to advise the College of her
employers, provide employers with
a copy of the Panel’s decision and
reasons, and only practise for an
employer who agreed to advise the
College if the Member breached the
standards of practice of the profession.
Panel order
The Panel accepted the joint
submission as reasonable and in
the public interest. The Member
accepted responsibility for her actions
and cooperated with the College by
agreeing to the facts.
Stewart John Lethbridge
IB14578
Allegations and plea
The College alleged that the Member
sexually and emotionally abused the
client; exchanged personal email
messages with the client; asked the
client to delete their correspondence;
failed to document that he received
a handwritten note from the client;
failed to document his observations,
interactions and interventions with
the client over a five-day period; and
failed to follow the client’s treatment
plan.
The Member admitted the
allegations, and the College and
the Member submitted a written
statement to the Panel in which they
agreed to the following facts.
Agreed facts
The Member worked as a staff nurse
in a mental health facility. The
client had frequent admissions to
the psychiatric unit over a five-year
period, spending approximately twothirds
of that time at the facility.
A month after the client’s fourth
admission, the Member’s coordinator
met with the Member to express
concerns about the Member’s
preferential treatment of the client
and to get the Member’s agreement
to follow the treatment plan. Three
months later, the coordinator
addressed ongoing concerns about
the Member’s preferential treatment
of the client and failure to abide by
the treatment plan.
The client’s psychologist renewed
concerns about the Member’s
boundaries four months later,
and suggested they were creating
attachment issues for the client. A
formal investigation ensued, raising
a number of concerns. The Member
spent a substantial amount of time
with the Client, even when not
assigned. He did not follow the
treatment plan and discouraged the
client from attending therapy. He
helped the client find an apartment,
even though this was the job of a
social worker, and attended at the
apartment. On his day off, the
Member attended the funeral of the
client’s sibling despite having been
advised by the care team not to
attend, and failed to document his
interactions with the client at the
funeral, such as hugging the client
and rubbing the client’s back. The
Member gave the client a poem
signed FFE (Friends For Ever) and he
was seen walking down the hall with
his arm around the client. He also
received a handwritten note from the
client and did not document it.
Approximately eight months later,
(only one month after the client’s
last discharge from the facility), the
Member and the client exchanged a
series of emails. The Member referred
to a “naughty pic” he had of the
client. In another series of emails, the
Member asked the client to ensure
that his correspondence with the client
was deleted. Later, the Member wrote
comments of a sexual nature.
Much later, the client complained
to a psychiatrist of painful
recollections of a relationship with
the Member three years earlier,
and disclosed the emails. When
initially confronted with the emails,
the Member denied authorship or
ownership, and suggested they had
been sent by someone else with the
same name.
Finding
The Panel found that the facts
supported a finding of professional
misconduct as alleged. The Panel
found the Member’s behaviour to
be disgraceful, dishonourable and
unprofessional.
Submissions on order
The College and the Member sought
an oral reprimand and a five-month
suspension. The Member would be
required to complete remediation
activities in preparation for three
meetings with a regulatory expert.
For 18 months after returning to
practice, the Member would be
required to advise the College of
his employers, provide employers
College of Nurses of Ontario the standard spring 2012
35