Psychiatrist censured over patient's death

Another frustrating report where privacy rights are used to protect someone who was criminally negligent, from NZPA New Zealand

A psychiatrist should apologise to the family of a patient who was killed after deliberately stepping into traffic, the health and disability commissioner has found.

After a two-year investigation, a report released today by commissioner Ron Paterson has found breaches to its code of consumers' rights by the psychiatrist, known as Dr F.

The 24-year-old victim, referred to as Mr A, had been admitted to a hospital psychiatric ward for observation with symptoms of anxiety which had developed while his grandparents, with whom he lived, were away on holiday.

The report said Dr F formed the view Mr A was not suffering from a psychiatric illness, but that his judgment was impaired as a result of a head injury he received at the age of nine.

Mr A was then placed under the care of community mental health services and transferred to a rest home for respite care as a voluntary patient until his grandparents returned.

Two days later, Mr A left the home, followed by the home manager – Ms D – who tried to persuade him to return.

However, he deliberately stepped into oncoming traffic and was killed after being hit by a vehicle.

In September 2006, Mr A's mother laid a complaint to the commissioner about the appropriateness and adequacy of her son's care and treatment provided by the District Health Board, Dr F, a registered psychiatric nurse, the rest home and Ms D.

In the report, Mr Paterson said the lack of an appropriately thorough assessment by Dr F may have contributed to Mr A's lack of reassessment after he was transferred to the home.

Mr Paterson recommended Dr F review his practice "with a particular focus on improving his clinical judgement skills".

"Dr F should also ensure that he fully documents the rationale for his clinical decisions, and a clear management plan is recorded," the report said.

Mr Paterson also recommended Dr F apologise to Mr A's family for his breach of the code.

Others involved in the care of Mr A and investigated as part of the report were found not to have breached codes.