Complaint Findings BPC
"The Hearing Panel has studied the material submitted in COM06-14.
After serious consideration, the Panel has concluded that there is no case to be answered in the context of the complaint, and has recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
The complaint references points 1, 2, 7, 8, and 14 of the Ethical Code. Taking these individually:
Point 1: Registrants must at all times act in a way that they reasonably believe to be in
the best interest of their patients. At all times the welfare of the patient must be paramount and every care taken to ensure that the patient is not exploited in any way. In the early years of the therapy, the Registrant allowed more than ordinary flexibility in contact outside sessions and then latterly brought the boundaries back into the more standard practice of containing communication within sessions. The Complainant may have experienced the boundaries set down in the later stage of therapy as inconsistent, however, the Ethical Guidelines are clear that “if a registrant is unsure of the appropriateness of any existing or proposed relationship or conduct that might affect … a patient…, a senior colleague … should be consulted for advice.” [Clause 1(d)] On this issue, the Hearing Panel found that the Registrant had consulted two supervisors on this issue, both of whom endorsed her approach. Therefore, the Registrant adhered to the Ethical Guidelines.
Point 2: Registrants must take all reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality of information acquired through their practice and protect the privacy of individuals and organizations about whom information is held. The complaint alleges that the Registrant violated this confidentiality by sharing information about the Complainant with another of the Registrant’s patients, who coincidentally was in the same supervision group as the Complainant. The Hearing Panel found this allegation to be unsubstantiated. Any breach of confidentially occurred as a result of boundary breaking by the Complainant, who arrived at the Registrant’s consulting room at an unscheduled time, in a condition apparently affected by alcohol, and refused to leave. In addition to disrupting sessions of other patients, the Complainant exposed herself and her relationship with the Registrant. This was not in the control of the Registrant and therefore is not an ethical breach.
Point 7: Registrants must restrict their practice within the limits of their own competence and seek professional consultation or supervision in any situation which may reach this limit. As a matter of good practice, registrants should exercise clinical judgment in considering whether to seek a medical opinion about a patient. The Hearing Panel noted that the Registrant sought supervision throughout this case, including specialist supervision from the Clinic for Dissociative Studies, and wrote to the GP seeking a referral to the Clinic for Dissociative Studies. The Panel found no ethical breach in the Registrant’s practice in this regard.
Point 8: Registrants must, at the beginning of treatment, make clear to the patient, or whoever holds legal parental responsibility for a child in treatment, the principles and practicalities of the treatment offered and assure that as far as possible they are maintained. The Registrant adhered to this principle by providing written guidance as outlined in her Appendix 1. The exceptions she made to this have already been addressed above in the discussion of Clause 1(b) and were found by the Hearing Panel to be within the bounds of the Code of Ethics.
Point 14: Registrants shall, in all their professional work value integrity, impartiality and respect for patients and seek to establish the highest ethical and clinical standards in their work. The Hearing Panel found no basis for any ethical violation in this category.
As a result of the Hearing Panel’s findings, the BPC has accepted its recommendation to dismiss this complaint without prejudice."