Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lynette Joan Loney
[2024] QCAT 313
•10 JULY 2024
| [2024] QCAT 313 | |
| QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | |
| OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION | |
| RINAUDO AM, Judicial Member | |
| Assisted by: | |
| DR FORRESTER | |
| MS BARKER | |
| MR HALLIDAY | |
| OCR 196 of 2023 | |
| NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant | |
| v | |
| LYNETTE JOAN LONEY | |
| Respondent | |
| BRISBANE | |
| WEDNESDAY, 10 JULY 2024 | |
| REASONS FOR DECISION | |
JUDICIAL MEMBER.: The respondent has agreed a set of facts and sanction with the applicant Board and there are no disputed facts to be resolved.
The respondent held registration as a registered nurse and as an enrolled nurse under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law) and was employed by the Sunshine Coast University Hospital as a registered nurse.
The respondent was at all times required to comply with the code of conduct of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (Board) and also the International Council of Nurses and Code of Ethics for Nurses in effect in Australia from 1 March 2018 to 9 November 2021 and the Board’s Registered Nurse Standards for Practice dated 1 June 2016.
The respondent first gained registration as an enrolled nurse on 15 April 2009 and as a registered nurse on 3 December 2010. On or about 31 May 2021, the respondent’s registration as an enrolled nurse lapsed and she failed to renew the registration. Her registration as a registered nurse was due for renewal on 31 May 2024 and I understand she has renewed her registration as a registered nurse.
On 21 August 2020, the Office of the Health Ombudsman, under section 91 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act), referred this matter to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to be dealt with by the Board under the National Law.
The notification stated that the respondent allegedly demonstrated aggressive/violent behaviour towards a patient and inappropriate communication with a patient (aggressive/abusive language).
Ground 1 involved a patient, Patient A, who:
(a)was 93 years of age;
(b)was in a ward receiving treatment after suffering a broken hip;
(c)had been diagnosed with dementia; and
(d)required assistance with personal care.
The respondent knew Patient A to be combative and uncooperative.
On 8 June 2020, when the respondent, who was being assisted by two personal service assistants, attempted to roll Patient A to complete a pad change and skin check, Patient A become combative and struck out and/or bit the respondent. The respondent, in response to the conduct, struck Patient A between one to four times with either an open hand or a closed fist.
In respect of ground 2, it is alleged that at the same time as the event particularised for ground 1, the respondent used disrespectful, aggressive and/or abusive and/or inappropriate language towards Patient A during the incident.
Having regard to the statement of agreed facts, the circumstances of both the allegations in ground 1 and ground 2 are agreed and accepted by the respondent. It is accepted that the behaviour exhibited by the respondent towards Patient A is properly categorised as professional misconduct.
The sanction which has been proposed and is accepted by the respondent is for a reprimand and a period of suspension of four months from the date of the Tribunal’s orders.
In considering whether the allegation amounts to professional misconduct, the Tribunal has noted the breaches of the relevant codes referred to in the referral and accepts that the conduct reaches the standard of professional misconduct.
In considering the sanction, the Tribunal has considered issues required to be considered, including that the purpose of the proceedings is to be protective, not punitive, and that the health and safety of the public is paramount.
The Tribunal has taken into account the seriousness of the conduct. However, the Tribunal has also taken into account the issue of insight and remorse, and accepts that:
(a)the respondent has otherwise not had any issues in respect of her conduct in the past; and
(b)has accepted and cooperated in agreeing to the facts and has undertaken courses which would show that she has insight and does have remorse in respect of what was no doubt a difficult situation to be in, albeit that it was not handled in the appropriate way.
Deterrence has also been considered and it is accepted by the Tribunal that the sanction meets the requirements of general and specific deterrence. It should be noted that the Tribunal was concerned that the suspension period should not have been any longer than four months as had previously been indicated.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed sanction is appropriate, having regard to the conduct of the respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
(a)that the respondent be reprimanded; and
(b)that a period of suspension of four months from today’s date is imposed in respect of the respondent’s registration as a registered or enrolled nurse.
Orders
1. The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
2. The respondent is reprimanded.
3. A period of suspension of four months from today’s date is imposed in respect of the respondent’s registration as a registered or enrolled nurse.
4. No order as to costs.
0
0
0