Roman Hasil and the Whanganui DHB - Health and Disability ...

Health and Disability Commissioner
on 27 March, and notified Dr A. The relevant service managers were also notified about
the incident. The DHB received a complaint from Patient K’s mother on 4 April 2006.
The DHB commenced an investigation into the incidents, led by the Service Manager,
Surgical and Support Services. On 31 March 2006, an investigation meeting took place
and was attended by Dr Hasil, his support person, Dr A, the Service Manager and the
General Manager, Human Resources.
When confronted with the allegations, Dr Hasil confirmed that they were true — he had
been consuming alcohol while on call. He cited mitigating circumstances of being under
pressure due to the absence of his family, and said that it was a one-off occurrence. In
response to this inquiry, the DHB submitted that those who attended the meeting
described Dr Hasil as frank, apologetic, believable and suitably embarrassed. The Service
Manager said that the two episodes were accepted as part of the same “binge”. Dr A
acknowledged on reflection that Dr Hasil’s explanation that he had had a drink the night
before “really didn’t wash because he was on call the night before as well”. Dr Hasil
submitted that, in retrospect, it was sad that no real steps had been taken to address the
possibility of alcohol misuse as a result of that notification. He said that “alcohol misuse
can lead to a disease process” and that “under extreme stress, doctors are liable to
become ill, like other members of the community”.
Dr Hasil was given a written warning, and was required to write letters of apology to the
complainants, and to give an assurance that he had sought medical help. The Service
Manager advised Dr Hasil that Medical Advisor Dr C would be informed of the outcome
of the meeting as he had statutory obligations and might have to inform the Medical
Council of the matter.
Dr C recalls contacting the Medical Council to seek advice about Dr Hasil in early April
2006. Dr C stated that he discussed the situation with a Council staff member but only in
a hypothetical sense. He did not mention Dr Hasil’s name. After further consideration
and perusal of the Medical Council’s guidelines, he decided not to inform the Council of
the outcome of the meeting. Dr C informed the Service Manager, Surgical and Support
Services, that they needed to remind Dr Hasil that they might need to take a different
approach if there was any recurrence in the future.
Dr C considered that reporting the matter to the Medical Council might be counterproductive.
He felt they would be reporting a health issue which, as far as he knew, was
unfounded. Dr C recalls telling the Service Manager that they needed to be open-handed
with Dr Hasil — that if he needed any support or assistance, they were more than happy
to provide it. Dr C said that the problem was that they had not identified a specific
alcohol problem so it was difficult to suggest a specific programme of intervention.
The Medical Council has no record of Dr C having contacted it in late March–early April
2006. The Medical Council advised me that its Health Manager would usually be
responsible for taking telephone calls about such concerns. If she were unavailable, the
responsibility would fall to another member of the Health Team or the Council’s
Registrar. The Health Manager keeps an informal log of telephone calls, and has no note
of a telephone call from Dr C during late March–early April 2006.
32 February 2008