'Unfit' doc ran clinics that did urine drug tests without gloves, announced results within other patients' earshot

An Ontario doctor whose clinic staff handled urine samples with bare hands—or sometimes with gloves that had holes in them—and did the tests at the reception counter with coffee and food just inches away has had his licence revoked and must pay $10,370 in investigation and hearing costs. Dr. Bijan Pardis, a Toronto family physician whose discipline history goes back 11 years, has admitted to most of the allegations made against him by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which based the charges in large part on video evidence, unannounced visits and reports from an expert investigator hired by the college. The investigation uncovered multiple problems in his practice. According to the decision document written by the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal, Dr. Pardis failed to maintain proper infection prevention and control in his four addiction treatment clinics. At one location, a staff member tested a urine sample without gloves, with coffee on the same desk, then failed to wash his hands after. About an hour later, the same staff member tested another urine sample, again without gloves, but this time with coffee and peanut butter on the desk. Read: N.S. doctor has license to practise revoked after camera hidden in clinic washroom At other locations, college investigators found reception staff and a physician wearing “visibly perforated gloves” that were not medical grade, an overfilled sharps container and urine specimen bottles disposed of in a black garbage bag rather than the required yellow biomedical waste bags. Patients’ privacy was also an issue at Dr. Pardis’ clinics, according to the decision document. Urine test results were, on occasion, communicated within earshot of other patients and computer monitors displaying patient records were positioned in areas that could be viewed easily by patients as they walked by. Dr. Pardis’ incompetence went beyond his failure to train clinic staff properly in infection control and privacy protection, according to the decision document. He was also substandard in his charting, assessment, prescribing and treatment. He used “essentially identical templates for every encounter, his notes lacked sufficient detail and he conducted incomplete assessments,” wrote the tribunal. In one case, Dr. Pardis did not have any notes corresponding to 32 clinical encounters with a particular patient. He also provided an initial dose of methadone that was greater than what was permitted for a high-risk patient. Dr. Pardis also hired a patient who was on methadone and entrusted this patient to store and dispense take-home methadone doses for himself and others. The patient was subsequently seen on video talking to another patient about how to obtain illicit drugs and offering $20 for every person this patient refers to the clinic. Read: Doctor who chose to do elective surgery instead of attending to severely bleeding patient must pay $85,000 in costs On two occasions the patient on staff provided methadone bottles to a patient without requiring the doses to be witnessed while he was in the clinic. Dr. Pardis himself assessed and provided this same patient with a prescription for methadone, even though he didn’t have any identification for this patient. Dr. Pardis was also charged with conflict of interest in relation to a pharmacy where he has a 49% ownership interest. According to the decision document, many of the prescriptions issued by Dr. Pardis were filled at this pharmacy and he was seen on a videotape directing patient to fill his prescription there. In making its decision the tribunal took into account multiple breaches, dating back to 2010, that led to a 2017 undertaking that restricted Dr. Pardis from practising family medicine. The tribunal found Dr. Pardis incompetent based on standards of the Regulated Health Professions Act–ruling him "unfit to continue to practise." The tribunal also concluded that Dr. Pardis had committed an act of professional misconduct, engaged in an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine, and had a conflict of interest. “Dr. Pardis’s misconduct and incompetence was extensive, multi-faceted and lengthy. His actions go well beyond isolated incidents; indeed, in many respects, they reflect patterns and repetitions of the same or similar problems,” wrote the tribunal. “In our view, he is past the point of rehabilitation. Specific deterrence can only be achieved by removing his privilege to practise, and is necessary as general deterrence to demonstrate to the profession that lines have to be drawn where integrity, competence, governability and professionalism have been lost.” Read: Doctor found culpable in patient's narcotic addiction ends 50-year career with forced resignation

'Unfit' doc ran clinics that did urine drug tests without gloves, announced results within other patients' earshot

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics