Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Farley
[2012] QCAT 447
•18 September 2012
| CITATION: | Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Farley [2012] QCAT 447 |
| PARTIES: | Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia |
| v | |
| Elaine Margaret Farley |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR123-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Ms Kerrie O'Callaghan, Acting Deputy President Assisted by: Dr Alan Barnard Ms Susan Johnson Ms Justine Powell |
| DELIVERED ON: | 18 September 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. No further action be taken. |
| CATCHWORDS: | HEALTH PROFESSION – NURSE – REVIEW – Where conditions imposed after a disciplinary proceeding – where the Tribunal had the function of reviewing whether further action was required – where all registrant had complied with all conditions – whether the conditions jointly proposed were adequate – where the Tribunal considered that no further action was necessary Nursing Act 1992, s 116(2)(a) |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
The Board referred a disciplinary proceeding to the Tribunal against Ms Farley in June 2010. The referral was heard by the Tribunal in April 2011.
The Tribunal made orders suspending Ms Farley’s nursing registration and placing conditions on her registration.
As required by the legislation[1] the Tribunal must review that decision.
[1] Section 116(2)(a) Nursing Act 1992.
The orders initially made by the Tribunal were to suspend Ms Farley’s registration for 18 months. That suspension was to be suspended upon the passage of 6 months and Ms Farley satisfying certain conditions.
Ms Farley has now complied with the conditions and the suspension on her registration was lifted by the Board in November 2011.
On review the Tribunal must determine whether or not any further action should be taken[2].
[2] Ibid.
The original referral involved conduct of Ms Farley wherein she engaged in inappropriate dealings with an elderly patient. The patient had made and had arranged substantial loans to her during the period June 2008 and February 2009.
At the hearing the Tribunal expressed concern she demonstrated a remarkable lack of insight about her conduct in that in the sixth months after the event, she still had not shown any insight and considered her actions not to be inappropriate.
The Tribunal was concerned that she had “compartmentalised” her relationship with the patient and saw her friendship with the patient as being outside her professional relationship.
When the matter came on for hearing her insight had improved as evidenced by the fact that she had embarked on an ethical program with a professional ethics instructor, Dr Mackintosh.
The Tribunal considered that as well as further ethical training Ms Farley needed to have cognitive behavioural therapy with a psychologist, consequently Ms Farley was required to satisfy the following conditions prior to the matter being reviewed:
a.At least fifteen sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy with a clinical psychologist approved by the Board and a report from the psychologist provided to the Board.
b.To undertake a further course from Dr Mackintosh upon providing Dr Mackintosh with the report from the clinical psychologist.
The Board and Ms Farley have provided joint submissions for consideration on this review.
They have provided copies of reports of clinical psychologist Ms Leivesley and Dr Mackintosh.
Ms Leivesley reported in September 2011 that:
a.She had seen Ms Farley for fifteen sessions from 17 May 2011-29 August 2011 and that;
b.Ms Farley had developed
i.better insight into past behaviours;
ii.appropriate decision making strategies; and
iii.insight into the reasons for and the attitudes and strategies required to maintain professional boundaries.
c.She no longer considered Ms Farley to require ongoing treatment.
d.She did not consider she would reoffend.
Dr Mackintosh reported on the 4 October 2011 that:
a.She had read Ms Leivesley’s report of September 2011 and agreed with her conclusions.
b.Ms Farley had completed extensive boundary education with her namely in two 2 day workshops (July 2010 and September 2011) and in a one on one session in September 2011.
The Board and Ms Farley jointly submit that on the basis:
a.Of the findings in the reports of Ms Leivesley and Dr Mackintosh;
b.That Ms Farley has complied fully with the orders; and
c.That the Board has lifted the suspension on her registration
it is appropriate that the Tribunal take no further action.
On review, the Tribunal may take a number of courses including “taking no action”[3].
[3] Sections 116(1) and (2) Nursing Act 1992.
The Tribunal considers on the basis of the evidence before it and the submissions of the parties that the purpose of the conditions imposed upon Ms Farley’s registration, namely to gain further insight into her conduct, has been achieved. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances that no further action is necessary and it orders accordingly.
0
0
0