Physical therapist Rachael Hutchinson’s practice authority is suspended while the College of Health and Care Professionals of B.C. investigates a complaint. What that complaint is about, the college won’t say. Similarly, registered psychiatric nurse Madison Barnett was suspended last month by the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives, but the reasons for the suspension have been withheld by the college’s investigation committee. The legislation governing B.C.’s regulatory colleges for health professions changed on April 1 of this year, when the new Health Professions and Occupations Act (HPOA) took effect. Since then, colleges have issued “summary protection orders” against several of their registrants. These temporary orders place restrictions on a professional’s practice while the college investigates allegations of misconduct against them. The allegations are not proven, and the orders are intended to remain in place only until the investigation is concluded. Under the previous legislation, known as the Health Professions Act (HPA), these temporary orders against registrants were called “extraordinary actions to protect the public,” and they generally included at least a vague explanation of the nature of the allegations under investigation. While CTV News found no examples of extraordinary actions under the old HPA that omitted all details about the nature of a registrant’s alleged misconduct, the Hutchinson and Barnett cases—both published in July under the new HPOA—exclude such information. Asked whether the disclosure requirements in the new legislation differ from those under the old one, the provincial Ministry of Health acknowledged that the HPOA provides “a broader ability for the college to exercise discretion” in its assessment of the risk posed by a registrant’s alleged conduct. “Under the HPOA, the college registrar can exercise discretion over whether to withhold information from a summary protection order notice if the information disclosed could negatively impact the college’s investigation process, or if it is determined that that information may present a risk of harm to any person, including the person who filed the complaint,” the ministry said in a statement. “Under the Health Professions Act (HPA), regulatory colleges were required to publish ‘extraordinary actions to protect the public.’ The colleges had some discretion to limit disclosure; for instance, they could limit disclosure to protect the interests, including the identity, of the patient or someone else (aside from the health professional) affected by the matter.” The CHCPBC told CTV News it could not provide further comment about Hutchinson’s case, “including regarding the level of detail contained in the notice.” “The committee considered that the allegations were serious and that the respondent’s continued practice as a physical therapist may present a significant risk of harm to the public,” the order against Hutchinson reads, without explaining what those allegations are. “The committee considered that only a suspension of the respondent’s practice authority would be adequate to address the risks.” The BCCNM’s order regarding Barnett contains even less information, though it does, at least, specify that the information is being deliberately withheld. “The reasons for the order are withheld on the direction of the Investigation Committee,” the college’s statement reads. Asked for comment on the differences between reporting requirements under the HPA and the HPOA, the BCCNM acknowledged that the content of public notices “may vary” based on the new legislation. “Factors impacting the content of public notices may include preservation of evidence, safety considerations, or health-related information,” the college said.
