A panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (“BCCNM” or the “College”) conducted a hearing to determine, pursuant to section 39 of the
Health Professions Act, RSBC 1996, c. 183 (the “Act” or the ”HPA”), whether Paul Perry, a Nurse Practitioner, failed to comply with the Act, a regulation or a bylaw, whether he failed to comply with a standard imposed under the Act, whether he committed professional misconduct, or whether he practised incompetently.
The Panel found that the Registrant committed professional misconduct and did not meet BCCNM standards, pursuant to s. 39(1)(b)(c)(d) of the Act when he, practising as a primary care Nurse Practitioner and working with a vulnerable and high-risk population of men-who-have-sex-with men:
solicited detailed and personal sexual histories from clients when the level of detail in these histories was not clinically indicated;
recorded the sexual histories in the permanent clinical records of the clients using non-clinical descriptors;
solicited extensive histories from clients relating to “coming out” experiences, and on more than one occasion these histories included information about past sexual, physical, and/or psychological trauma and those clients were not appropriately referred to supportive services.
The Panel found that the Registrant also committed professional misconduct when he breached the terms of a consent agreement with the College and breached undertakings with the College when he accepted employment with the University of Northern British Columbia and did not provide the appropriate disclosure regarding the ongoing investigation into his nursing practice.
The Panel found that the Registrant practised incompetently as a primary care Nurse Practitioner when he created documentation in his clients’ permanent clinical records that was not clear, concise, objective and/or legible due to numerous spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, used abbreviations that were not standard, and had numerous inconsistencies between subjective and objective observations. Further, the Registrant was incompetent when he provided psychological counselling to clients that he was not appropriately trained or qualified to do, he did not adhere to best practice guidelines when he ordered diagnostic interventions and/or prescribed medications for clients without a clear clinical indication, and failed to document necessary clinical indicators when he prescribed drugs, including allergies.
The Panel also found that the Registrant breached standards when he practised outside of the scope of a Nurse Practitioner in the Family Medicine stream when he provided cognitive behavioural therapy to clients when he was not qualified to do so, and diagnosed a client with hyperthyroidism on the basis of a single TSH test and failed to refer the client to an endocrinologists and/or provide appropriate follow-up.
The full decision of the Panel
can be found here. The Panel ordered that certain clinical information from the decision be redacted to protect the interests and/or identity of individuals other than the College or Registrant pursuant to section 39.3 of the Act.
The Panel will deliberate on the appropriate penalty and costs. That determination will be made public when final.
Inquiry should be directed to