Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Paramedicine Board of Australia v Vanderberg - [2024] QCAT 382

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Paramedicine Board of Australia v Vanderberg[2024] QCAT 382

Paramedicine Board of Australia v Vanderberg[2024] QCAT 382

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Paramedicine Board of Australia v Vanderberg [2024] QCAT 382

PARTIES:

Paramedicine Board of Australia

(applicant)

v

Roy Vanderberg

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR 34 of 2023

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Ms K Nielsen, Paramedicine Panel Assessor

Mr L Parker, Paramedicine Panel Assessor

Mrs K Thomson, Public Panel Assessor

ORDERS:

  1. In respect of allegation 1 in the referral, pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
  2. In respect of allegation 2 in the referral, pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(ii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.
  3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent is reprimanded.
  4. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to this decision.
  5. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the review period for the conditions is nine (9) months from the date of this decision.
  6. Each party bear its own costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent was a registered paramedic – where the respondent performed an episiotomy in an attendance on a patient – where the episiotomy was not clinically indicated and was outside the respondent’s clinical scope of practice – where the parties agree that this constitutes professional misconduct – whether the conduct is appropriately characterised as such

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent also failed to maintain adequate records of the attendance – where the parties agree that this constitutes unprofessional conduct – whether the conduct is appropriately characterised as such

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the parties agree as to the appropriate sanction for the conduct – where the Tribunal ought not depart from agreed sanction unless it is outside the permissible range – whether the sanction is appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Health Ombudsman v Kumar [2024] QCAT 132

Health Ombudsman v Vale [2020] QCAT 363

Medical Board of Australia v Griffiths (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 822

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Finlay [2018] QCAT 275

Paramedicine Board of Australia v Clark (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 1192

Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On 10 February 2023, the Paramedicine Board of Australia (Board) referred disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, Mr Roy Vanderberg, to the Tribunal pursuant to s 193B(3) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law).  The referral contains two allegations in respect of conduct that took place on 27 June 2019, whilst the respondent was employed as a paramedic by the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) and held registration as a paramedic with the Board.
  2. [2]
    The parties have filed a statement of agreed facts and reached an agreed position on characterisation and sanction as follows:
    1. in respect of allegation 1, the respondent be found to have behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;
    2. in respect of allegation 2, the respondent be found to have behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct;
    3. the respondent be reprimanded;
    4. conditions be imposed on the respondent’s registration; and
    5. the conditions be reviewed nine months after their imposition.
  3. [3]
    It is in those circumstances that the Tribunal decides this matter on the papers pursuant to s 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). 
  4. [4]
    However, notwithstanding the parties’ agreed position, it is for the Tribunal to determine the appropriate characterisation of the conduct and the sanction to be imposed.  The Tribunal ought not readily depart from an agreed position unless the sanction falls outside a permissible range.[1]

What are the relevant facts?

  1. [5]
    On 27 June 2019 in the course of his employment, the respondent performed an episiotomy on a QAS patient (Patient A), when providing care to Patient A, who was in the process of giving birth in a regional area in Queensland. At the time of performing the episiotomy the respondent was working with another advanced care paramedic.  
  2. [6]
    After performing the episiotomy, the respondent and his partner took Patient A to hospital where they handed over care of patient A and child to the hospital. They performed a verbal handover and then remained at the hospital for approximately one hour before being dispatched to another job.  The respondent’s partner completed an electronic Ambulance Report Form (eARF) for Patient A and gave it to the hospital about 24 hours later. No separate ambulance form was completed for the child.
  3. [7]
    The two allegations arising from that incident are, in summary, that the respondent:
    1. inappropriately undertook the episiotomy; and
    2. failed to complete, within a reasonable period, appropriate records of the episiotomy undertaken on Patient A and the aftercare provided to Patient A and child.

What are the respondent’s circumstances ?

  1. [8]
    At the time of the incident, the respondent:
    1. had been a paramedic for more than 35 years; and
    2. had practised as a critical care paramedic (CCP) for over twenty years; and
    3. was the Officer in Charge of a QAS station; and
    4. had no tribunal disciplinary history.
  2. [9]
    As a consequence of the respondent’s actions on 27 June 2019, he was removed from duties as an operational paramedic the next day and placed on alternative duties.  The QAS investigation into his actions resulted in disciplinary findings that the respondent had failed to comply with QAS Clinical Procedure Physiological Cephalic Birth and had practiced outside of his credentialed scope of practice in treating Patient A.  On 2 June 2020, the QAS terminated the respondent’s employment. 
  3. [10]
    The QAS notified the Office of the Health Ombudsman (OHO) of the incident on 28 June 2019, who in turn referred the matter to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) on 31 October 2019.  Whilst the Board proposed to take immediate action against the respondent in the form of a suspension, on 12 December 2019 it determined to take immediate action in the form of accepting an undertaking from the respondent not to practice as a paramedic.  That undertaking remains in force.  The respondent remains registered with the undertaking noted on his registration. 
  4. [11]
    On 7 January 2020, the Board notified the respondent it decided to investigate whether the respondent had practiced outside his scope of practice by performing the episiotomy on Patient A and whether his documentation in relation to Patient A was adequate and/or appropriate.  Almost three years later, it determined to refer the respondent to the Tribunal.
  5. [12]
    The respondent has filed an affidavit in the proceeding.  In it, he:
    1. sets out his qualifications and work history with the QAS;
    2. confirms he has not been able to practice as a paramedic since 12 December 2019;
    3. sets out, as an explanation for his actions on the day the following matters:
      1. he did not think Patient A’s labour was progressing;
      2. he wrongly thought that a ridge of bunched skin on the baby’s head, which had crowned, was the umbilical cord;
      3. he considered the baby was distressed and something had to be done;
      4. he was concerned the baby’s life was at risk; and
      5. he acted in good faith;
    4. acknowledges that his assessments were wrong, the episiotomy was not clinically indicated, he acted outside his scope of practice and he performed the procedure incorrectly causing Patient A harm in the process;
    5. acknowledges that although he acted in good faith, his professional knowledge and practice was substantially deficient;
    6. says in respect of the record keeping:
      1. he gave a very comprehensive verbal handover to a midwife as he was still concerned about the baby;
      1. he was aware of the importance of filling out an eARF, which is an electronic form that should be completed on an iPad provided by QAS to staff for this purpose.  The form needs to be completed in all circumstances when a patient is treated;
      1. based on his training, the Primary Care Officer was the person who downloaded and completed the eARF on their iPad under their registration number.  The other paramedic on shift was the Primary Care Officer on this job and he saw her opening the task relating to this matter on the iPad and begin to complete the eARF for Patient A;
      2. once the task was open under his co-worker’s registration number, he could not open the same eARF under his registration number;
      3. he saw his coworker using the iPad on the ramp of the hospital and believed she was completing the eARF for the matter;
      4. they got sent out on a succession of cases which continued until the end of the shift and it was generally not uncommon to be sent away to another case before the paperwork for the then present case had been finished;
      5. he later learned the eARF for Patient A was submitted the next morning;
      6. he admits in accordance with QAS procedures he did not comply with certain obligations concerning the eARF, that he should have reviewed the eARF, especially with respect to the episiotomy entries and he should have signed it and participated in its timely completion. He acknowledges there should have been a separate eARF submitted for the baby and this was not done; and
      7. he accepts it is appropriate for the Tribunal to decide that his deficient conduct in respect of the eARF was unprofessional conduct;
    7. acknowledges that in performing the episiotomy, he made a poor clinical decision, believing he was running out of time.  He acknowledges a gap in his knowledge of obstetrics that an episiotomy could be part of a standard cephalic delivery assisted by a paramedic.  He is profoundly disappointed that he had not recognised the correct procedures at the time.  He wholly acknowledges that the procedure was outside his clinical scope of practice;
    8. states that although at the time, he felt it was necessary to perform this procedure to save the baby, he now understands and acknowledges that it was not necessary, and that he should not have performed the procedure.  He deeply regrets performing this procedure and that he caused harm to Patient A due to the deficiency in his clinical understanding;
    9. says the experience has taught him a significant lesson; and
    10. informs the Tribunal that:
      1. since the termination of his employment with the QAS, he has returned to his electrical trade and operated a medical equipment supply and repair business.  He has, through this job, continued to engage with the health care industry and to understand contemporary issues in medical technology;
      2. he has remained connected to the paramedicine profession by participating in professional development activities where possible, in addition to engaging with the profession through his biomedical repair business;
      3. in his biomedical repair business, he supplies and repairs medical equipment, he regularly operates all the equipment used for paramedicine practice while servicing and commissioning ambulance equipment for medical centres, projects and special events;
      4. the attendance on Patient A was the most traumatic job he had ever attended;
      5. he has not practiced since the investigation process started which has been very difficult for him, given his preceding 35 years of practice.  He has put his family through stress, humiliation and discomfort by reason of his error and he attributes the incident as being one factor which contributed to the breakdown of his marriage.  His income has suffered; and
      6. one of his top priorities is to regain the ability to pursue his passion for paramedical work and if he is permitted to retain his registration and return to practicing paramedicine, it would be appropriate as a condition of his registration for the Tribunal to require him to undergo an educational program concerning a paramedic’s permitted scope of practice and record keeping obligations and to require a period of supervision, all of which he is willing to do.  He is also willing to submit to conditions on his practice for ongoing mentoring and supervision. 

Discussion and Sanction

  1. [13]
    Whilst the parties have agreed that the admitted conduct constitutes professional misconduct, it is necessary for the Tribunal to determine, pursuant to s 196 of the National Law:
    1. How to characterise the respondent’s conduct; and
    2. The appropriate disciplinary sanction.
  2. [14]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent’s conduct contained in the agreed facts for allegation one constitutes professional misconduct as defined by s 5(a) of the National Law, that is, conduct which was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered paramedic with equivalent training or experience where:
    1. he acted outside his scope of practice and the episiotomy was not clinically indicated;
    2. the QAS Clinical Practice Procedure Cephalic Birth did not permit or authorise him to undertake the episiotomy;
    3. he performed the episiotomy incorrectly and caused actual harm to Patient A and the child in that:
      1. he failed to undertake a thorough prior clinical assessment. He did not seek decision support for his planned treatment pathway of performing the episiotomy via QAS clinical consultation;
      2. he did not use appropriate sterile equipment;
      3. the episiotomy was cut at the wrong angle;
      4. Patient A was not administered any or any appropriate pain relief at the time. Patient A’s statement from July 2020 includes that the pain she suffered was the worst ever in her life and that as at that time she was experiencing ongoing issues;
      5. the resulting laceration was excessively large and caused significant damage to Patient A’s labia and perineum, with tissue being wrongly incised; and
      6. the child’s scalp was nicked; and
    4. it is not alleged that he set out with any malice or intent to harm.
  3. [15]
    As to allegation two, the respondent has recognised he should have signed the eARF for Patient A and in doing so reviewed it and contributed content to it concerning the episiotomy, and the eARF was delayed in submission.  Further, there was no eARF for the baby.  Balanced against this, are the workload which the respondent and his partner had on the day, that the verbal handover was adequate for immediate care purposes, there were no health issues for the baby and the QAS found that a disciplinary charge of failing to complete patient care documentation in a timely manner was not substantiated.  Weighing these factors, the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent’s conduct contained in the agreed facts is properly characterised as unprofessional conduct, that is conduct which is of a lesser standard than might reasonably be expected of him by the public or his professional peers.
  4. [16]
    The Board makes submissions that the respondent’s admitted conduct “breached the Board’s Code of Conduct” and sets out a number of specific provisions said to have been ‘breached”.  As observed by the Tribunal in Health Ombudsman v Kumar:[2]

Section 41 of the National Law accords to codes or guidelines the status of evidence in relevant disciplinary proceedings. In doing so, the legislation makes clear what, in the absence of legislative provision, might otherwise be the subject of uncertainty or argument. The “wide-ranging consultation” required prior to formulation and promulgation of the codes required by s 41 of the National Law suggests the contents of professional codes or guidelines can be a valuable piece of evidence in assessing whether specific conduct falls below the prescribed s 5 standards.

However, the legislation neither accords that evidence particular weight or importance nor makes any finding of “breach” of a code or guideline a pre-condition for meeting the statutory definitions. The legislation includes eight forms of conduct, including specified transgressions and contraventions, as included within the definition of “unprofessional conduct”. Contravention or “breach” of the codes or guidelines is not included. Nor indeed are professional codes or guidelines mentioned at all.

Indeed, it is doubtful whether it is correct to refer to the codes being “breached” at all – at least in so far as that word connotes a prescribed standard non-adherence to which is productive of related outcomes….”

  1. [17]
    In this case, the respondent has admitted his conduct and that agrees that that conduct bears a certain character.  For the reasons expressed in Kumar which I have already extracted, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it should make findings that the respondent “breached the Code of Conduct” when it has made findings that it is satisfied, based on the respondent’s admissions, that certain conduct is made out, and that conduct has a certain characterisation. It is evident by reason of his admissions that the respondent’s conduct fell below a number of prescriptions contained in the Code of Conduct.
  2. [18]
    When turning to sanction, it is important that these proceedings are protective in nature and not punitive.  The Tribunal must regard the health and safety of the public as paramount.[3]
  3. [19]
    The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to maintain professional standards and public confidence in the profession and to protect the public. The sanction in a particular case must be considered based on the peculiar facts and something crafted which best achieves those purposes.
  4. [20]
    Relevant factors for the Tribunal to consider when determining what sanction is appropriate include both personal and general deterrence, the maintenance of professional standards and the maintenance of public confidence, insight and remorse of the practitioner and the fitness of the practitioner to practice at the time of the hearing.[4]
  5. [21]
    Other considerations may include a practitioner’s disciplinary history before or after the conduct, delay from the time the investigation started to finalisation in the Tribunal and any other mitigating matters specific to the particular circumstances.[5] 
  6. [22]
    The Board acknowledges that the respondent has developed appropriate remorse and insight and has been cooperative in seeking to resolve these proceedings.  The respondent has admitted from the outset of these proceedings that he performed the episiotomy with its consequent shortcomings.  He has provided sworn evidence (as set out above) as to his deep regret for his acts and for causing harm.  Particularly in relation to allegation two, the Board accepts he has demonstrated real self-reflection. 
  7. [23]
    The Tribunal notes the parties have agreed a reprimand, which the authorities recognise is a serious matter for a professional person and is not a trivial penalty.  It accepts the Board’s submissions that a reprimand marks, from the perspective of general deterrence in particular, the clear inappropriateness of such conduct to the profession and the broader community.  That is important in this case because, whilst there was no absence of good faith, the respondent’s actions were very serious, and resulted in actual harm to Patient A and the child.  Even allowing for the fact that obstetric cases are, according to the Board’s expert evidence filed in the proceeding, not a common occurrence for paramedics and there is a high degree of stress involved, it is critical to the public’s confidence in our health system that attending paramedics act in accordance with established procedures, particularly when managing unusual and stressful cases, to ensure the best outcomes possible for patients. Acting within established scope of practice and in accordance with the QAS (or other operative) guidelines  helps to achieve this position.
  8. [24]
    The respondent’s time away from practice, from approximately 12 December 2019, is a relevant factor on sanction.  Whilst he remains registered, he has not practised as a paramedic for almost five years.  This time away has enabled him to develop insight, particularly in respect of obligations related to acting within his scope of practice and the significant purposes for record keeping, which assist the Tribunal to be confident that the safety of the public will not be threatened by a return to practice with appropriate conditions for education, and, thereafter, mentoring.[6] 
  9. [25]
    The parties have proposed conditions which require education directed to permitted scope of practice and record keeping, and once that is satisfactorily completed, that the practitioner must be mentored.  Those conditions are directed to addressing the shortcomings the respondent has acknowledged he has had, which is proper.
  10. [26]
    It is also a consideration that disciplinary matters should be brought to justice quickly.[7]  The conduct giving rise to this matter occurred more than five years ago now.
  11. [27]
    The Tribunal has reviewed each of the comparator cases proffered and is satisfied, by reference to them, that the sanction proposed is within the permissible range. 
  12. [28]
    In the only case involving a paramedic, Paramedicine Board of Australia v Clark (Review and Regulation),[8] the respondent paramedic was held to have engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5(a) and (c) of the National Law in that he failed to provide adequate clinical care to the patient in deciding to withhold resuscitation; he engaged in further professional misconduct within section 5(a) of the National Law in failing to communicate effectively with team members during the provision of clinical care to the patient and when deciding to withhold resuscitation and in providing false or misleading information during the provision of the clinical care and when making the decision to withhold resuscitation.  This conduct was not an allegation that put Mr Clark’s honesty, knowledge or state of mind at issue.
  13. [29]
    He and his partner had arrived at the scene to find the patient was conscious and responsive, although making incomprehensible sounds.  Over the next 48 minutes, the patient’s condition deteriorated and she ultimately died.  An investigation conducted by Ambulance Victoria determined that whilst Mr Clark’s initial actions were “reasonable and appropriate to the expected skill level”, things went awry when the patient suffered a cardiac arrest and Mr Clark incorrectly formed the view that the patient was in asystole — in lay terms, ‘flatlining’.  Mr Clark said to his partner and two other colleagues who had arrived shortly beforehand that they should not attempt to resuscitate the patient.  In doing so, Mr Clark ignored concerns expressed by one of the other paramedics, who said it “did not feel right” and the silence of another paramedic and the ambulance community officer.  Further, while he spoke to a clinician at Ambulance Victoria, he told the clinician that the patient had been in asystole and they had withheld resuscitation (rather than seeking advice as to the appropriate course).
  14. [30]
    The Tribunal imposed a sanction of a reprimand, and a 5-year preclusion period from the date of its order, as well as an order prohibiting Mr Clark from providing any health service during that period.  It observed there was limited evidence of remorse, insight and rehabilitation.  As Mr Clark had not worked as a paramedic for three years prior to the Tribunal’s reasons, this is an effective preclusion period of eight years; however Mr Clark made no submissions as to the impact of delay and had let his registration lapse.  The Board properly accepts this case is objectively more serious than Mr Vanderberg’s case. The respondent today has also demonstrated remorse and insight.
  15. [31]
    In Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Finlay,[9] the practitioner was a registered nurse with no prior history of disciplinary action who had been registered and had practised for in excess of 20 years when the conduct giving rise to the allegations occurred.  She undertook clinical examinations and treatment of 34 patients over a three month period.  She failed to adequately document the majority of those examinations and treatments.  She did not seek or obtain medical practitioner assessment when required to do so for a large number of those patients, and she practised outside the scope of her practise as a nurse by variously administering medications which required medical practitioner approval; discharging patients without medical practitioner approval; failing to properly assess and monitor patients; and syringing an ear without medical practitioner approval.
  16. [32]
    There was no evidence that any patients were harmed as a result of the treatment, however the Tribunal recorded the assessors’ view was that there was significant potential for adverse outcomes given the treatments provided.
  17. [33]
    The Tribunal accepted the conduct occurred against the background of systemic cultural issues in the hospital where she worked, the respondent was passionate about emergency care and had spent much of her professional career in that field.  The respondent had shown a high level of insight into her conduct, had acknowledged where she had acted below professional standards and was committed to addressing her conduct through further education.  She had practised subject to onerous supervision conditions for five years, had been demoted and had been supervised and managed as a level 1 registered nurse which is usually held by new graduate registered nurses in circumstances where she has practised as a nurse for over 27 years.  When disciplinary action was taken, the respondent was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and was reprimanded with the imposition of mentoring conditions with a 12 month review period.
  18. [34]
    This decision supports the position that conditions that are suitably targeted, are appropriate where there is an experienced practitioner who has performed at a substantially lesser standard than is acceptable, but who has insight, expressed remorse and is committed to improving.
  19. [35]
    The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the parties’ proposed sanction is within the permissible range of sanctions for the respondent’s conduct. 
  20. [36]
    The Tribunal has derived assistance from the assessors on questions of fact and thanks the assessors for their thoughtful engagement and assistance.

Orders

  1. [37]
    The Tribunal makes the following order(s):
  1. In respect of allegation 1 in the referral, pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
  1. In respect of allegation 2 in the referral, pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(ii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.
  2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent is reprimanded.
  3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to this decision.
  4. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law  (Queensland), the review period for the conditions is nine (9) months from the date of this decision.

ANNNEXURE A — SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

Undertake education

  1. The Practitioner is to undertake and successfully complete a program of education, approved by the Paramedicine Board of Australia (Board), including a reflective practise report, in relation to a paramedic’s permitted scope of practice and record keeping obligations.
  1. Within 28 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the Practitioner must, on the approved form (HPN24), nominate for approval by the Board an education course, assessment or program (the Education) addressing the topic(s) required. The Practitioner must ensure:
  1. the nomination includes a copy of the curriculum of the Education;
  2. the education must include an assessment component; and
  3. the Education consists of a minimum of 3 sessions with each session being at least 1 hour in duration.
  1. The Practitioner must complete the Education within 6 months of the Board’s approval of the education.
  1. Within 28 days of the completion of the Education, the Practitioner must provide to Ahpra:
  1. evidence of successful completion of the education; and
  2. a reflective practice report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the Practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to this condition and how the Practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the Education into the Practitioner’s practise.

Attend for mentoring

  1. The Practitioner must be mentored by another registered health practitioner in relation to a paramedic’s permitted scope of practice and record keeping obligations. For the purposes of this condition, ‘mentoring’ is defined as a relationship in which a skilled registered practitioner (the mentor) helps to guide the professional development of another practitioner.
  1. The mentoring must not commence until the Board is satisfied that the education component of the conditions has been satisfied.
  1. The mentoring must comprise a minimum of 4 sessions with each session being of 1 hour duration occurring over a 6 month period.
  1. Within 28 days of the notice of the Board’s written confirmation that the requirements of the education restrictions have been satisfactorily met, the Practitioner must, on the approved form (HPN16), nominate a person(s) to be approved by the Board to act as mentor. The Practitioner must ensure that the nomination is accompanied by acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA16), from the nominated person.
  1. Within 28 days of the notice of the Board’s written confirmation that the requirements of the education conditions have been satisfactorily met, the Practitioner must provide to Ahpra, on the approved form (HP16), acknowledgement that Ahpra may seek reports from the approved mentor on any or all of the following occasions:
  • at the conclusion of the mentoring relationship in order to confirm the outcomes of the mentoring;
  • whenever the mentor has a concern or becomes aware of a concern regarding the Practitioner’s conduct or professional performance, and
  • when otherwise requested by Ahpra or the Board.
  1. In the event an approved mentor is no longer willing or able to provide the mentoring required, the Practitioner is to provide a new nomination in the same terms as previous nominations.  Such nomination must be made by the Practitioner within 21 days of the Practitioner becoming aware of the termination of the mentoring relationship.
  1. Within 28 days of the conclusion of the mentoring the Practitioner must provide a report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the Practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to the condition requiring they attend for mentoring and outlining how the Practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the mentoring into their practice.

Conditions generally

  1. Within 21 days notice of the imposition of these conditions the Practitioner must provide to Ahpra, on the approved form (HPC), the contact details of a senior person, such as the Director of Medical Services, Director of Nursing, Senior Practice Manager, Senior Manager, Senior Partner, Proprietor, Owner, or equivalent (the senior person) at each current place of practice. In providing this form, the practitioner acknowledges that Ahpra will contact the senior person and provide them with a copy of the conditions on the Practitioner’s registration or confirm that the senior person has received a copy of the conditions from the Practitioner. The Practitioner will be required to provide the same form:
  • within seven days of the commencement of practice at each subsequent place of practice, and
  • within seven days of each and every notice of any subsequent alteration of these conditions.
  1. All costs associated with compliance with the conditions on their registration are at the Practitioner’s own expense.
  1. The review period of these conditions is 9 months.

Footnotes

[1]Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376, [91]–[93].

[2][2024] QCAT 132 (‘Kumar’), [34]–[36] (Judicial Member the Hon P Murphy SC, assisted by Professor P Baker, Dr J S Phipps and Ms C Ashcroft).

[3]Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act) s 4(2)(c).

[4]Health Ombudsman v Vale [2020] QCAT 363 (‘Vale’), [17] (Judicial Member McGill SC).

[5]Medical Board of Australia v Griffiths (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 822, [43].

[6]Vale (n 4), [28].

[7]Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374, [127].

[8][2023] VCAT 1192.

[9][2018] QCAT 275.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Paramedicine Board of Australia v Vanderberg

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Paramedicine Board of Australia v Vanderberg

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 382

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Judge Dann, Deputy President

  • Date:

    17 Oct 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Health Ombudsman v Kumar [2024] QCAT 132
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QCAT 132
Cite 2 - [2024] QCAT 132
Health Ombudsman v Vale [2020] QCAT 363
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 363
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 363
Medical Board of Australia v Griffiths [2017] VCAT 822
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] VCAT 822
Cite 2 - [2017] VCAT 822
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 376
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Finlay [2018] QCAT 275
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 275
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 275
Paramedicine Board of Australia v Clark (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 1192
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] VCAT 1192
Cite 2 - [2023] VCAT 1192
Stirling v Legal Services Commissioner [2013] VSCA 374
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] VSCA 374
Cite 2 - [2013] VSCA 374

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.