Disclaimer: Decisions may vary depending on the circumstances. The reasons for a decision must be considered in light of the evidence and the actual issues pertaining to the allegation.
Case 1
Allegation
The physiotherapist did not determine an appropriate diagnosis or treatment plan when providing physiotherapy for the patient’s pelvic floor dysfunction.
Investigation
The evidence obtained during the investigation did not support referral of this matter for a hearing.
Decision
There was no evidence of unprofessional conduct. The complaint was dismissed. However, to improve practice and to prevent similar complaints, the Complaints Director strongly recommended that the physiotherapist review the following:
- Communication Standard of Practice
- Consent Guide for Alberta Physiotherapists
- Pelvic Health Guide
- Good Practice: Effective Communication to Improve Therapeutic Relationships
Case 2
Allegations
- The physiotherapist failed to obtain the patient’s informed consent prior to undertaking wound debridement of a sacral ulcer.
- The physiotherapist falsely documented that the patient agreed with the physiotherapist providing wound debridement to the patient’s sacral ulcer.
Investigation
The evidence obtained during the investigation did not support referral of this matter for a hearing.
Decision
There was no evidence of unprofessional conduct. The complaint was dismissed. To improve practice and avoid future misunderstandings the physiotherapist was provided with the following recommendations:
- Only document that an individual is in agreement with any procedure when the individual actually states that they are in agreement.
- If the individual has not expressly stated that they are in agreement, the clinician is documenting their impression that the party is in agreement. It is more accurate to document that the individual “seemed to be in agreement” or “appeared to be in agreement.”
Case 3
Allegations
- On one or more occasions the physiotherapist failed to perform comprehensive assessment procedures.
- On one or more occasions the physiotherapist failed to obtain verbal or written consent from the patient for physiotherapy treatment and for using the services of support personnel.
- The physiotherapist failed to maintain comprehensive, timely and legible patient treatment records.
- The physiotherapist performed a TMJ treatment on the patient that resulted in increased clicking and locking in their right TMJ joint accompanied by right inner ear pain and temporal headache. The symptoms were significant and ongoing.
Investigation
The evidence obtained during the investigation did not support referral of this matter for a hearing.
Decision
The complaint was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of unprofessional conduct to refer this matter for a hearing. The physiotherapist was provided with the following recommendations to improve practice:
- The clinic policy for “Consent for Collection, Use and Disclosure” of personal information policy be separated and distinct from Consent for Treatment policy. Although both are consent concerns, the specific requirements for each are very different. Review Consent Guide for Alberta Physiotherapists prior to revising the clinic consent policies.
- Obtain verbal consent for spinal manipulation each time the treatment is provided.
- Use of Support Personnel
- Revise the clinic intake information to include the clinic’s use of support personnel in the provision of some aspects of treatment.
- Revise the physiotherapy assistant job description to include introduction to the patient prior to the provision of any services.
- Routine practice processes be in place and followed regardless of any assumptions of prior or expected knowledge.
Case 4
Allegations
- On or about November 5, 2020, while providing physiotherapy treatment to [...], did one or more of the following to [...]
- Told her that “you have to keep the girls happy”, or words to that effect, in reference to [...]’s breasts;
- Told her that “I bet this is how your baby was conceived”, or words to that effect;
- Told her that you “doubt these were the clothes you were wearing when you made the baby”, or words to that effect.
- On or about November 5, 2020, Mr. Deis failed to provide adequate ongoing informed consent while assessing [...]’s hip, the particulars of which include:
- Prior to engaging in the assessment, failed to explain that Mr. Deis was going to perform an assessment of [...]’s hip while she was positioned on her back with her legs raised to her chest and while at the same time Mr. Deis was kneeling on the treatment table;
- Failed to obtain [...]’s consent prior to positioning himself on the treatment table.
Investigation
The evidence obtained during the investigation supported referral of this matter for a hearing.
Findings
The Hearing Tribunal finds that Mr. Deis is guilty of unprofessional conduct in all aspects of Allegation 1, and guilty specifically of sexual misconduct on Allegation 1(b) and 1(c). The Hearing Tribunal finds that Allegation 2(a) is proven, but the conduct does not amount to unprofessional conduct and that Allegation 2(b) is not proven.
Orders
- Mr. Deis shall receive a reprimand. The Hearing Tribunal's written reasons for decision (“the Decision”) shall serve as a reprimand.
- Mr. Deis’s practice permit will be suspended for a period of two (2) months, to be commenced within 30 days of the date when the Hearing Tribunal’s decision is issued, or within such other period of time as agreed to by the Complaints Director.
- Upon completion of the two (2) month period of suspension referred to in paragraph (b), Mr. Deis will be eligible for reinstatement of his practice permit, provided that he provides proof of successful completion to the Complaints Director of PBI Education’s Professional Boundaries and Ethics (PB-24) course (to be taken at his own cost).
- Mr. Deis will pay 30% of the costs of the investigation and hearing. The first payment will be due 30 days after Mr. Deis’s practice permit is reinstated, or within 4 months of the date that his practice permit is suspended, whichever is sooner, and will be payable in equal monthly payments over a period of 24 months thereafter.
- Decision of the Hearing Tribunal on allegations (posted June 22, 2022)
- Decision of the Hearing Tribunal on sanctions (posted November 22, 2022)
