The physio accessed the records of 48 people who were not his patients. Photo / 123rf
A junior physiotherapist working at an Auckland hospital accessed the files of gunshot and stabbing victims, highly sensitive organ transplant patients and in one case, lab results for someone who had overdosed.
None of the people were his patients and many of the 44 files he looked at were accessed outside of his work hours.
Three of the files were classified as “high priority”, one of which related to a fatal stabbing homicide.
His actions in looking at the files without any reason to do so sparked a wider audit into all files the physio had accessed during his employment.
After that audit, it was found he’d accessed 44 patient records for people he had no involvement with, and admitted he had no business accessing them when confronted by Te Whatu Ora.
Today, at a hearing of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, the physio, who has ongoing name suppression, accepted that what he did was inappropriate, but it was borne from a place of “professional curiosity”.
The physio was fired by Te Whatu Ora before a referral was made to the Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand by both his former employer and by himself. The board then charged him with professional misconduct at the tribunal.
This morning, Te Whatu Ora’s professional leader for physiotherapy, Gloria Paterson, said that after the physio accessed three high-profile files, an alert was triggered within its audit team.
On one day, the physio accessed the files of two stabbing victims, one of whom died, and a third person admitted to an emergency department, who also died from their injuries.
The patient information for one of these people was accessed eight times in a single day.
Also accessed in the same year were the psychiatric mental health records for several people, including their clinical notes, as well as the file for another ED patient with suspected poisoning.
Paterson said that it would have been immediately clear from an electronic cover page on a patient’s file whether or not it would have been relevant to the physio’s work.
“He often took a deeper delve even after it should have been clear to him [there was] no need for physiotherapy,” Paterson told the tribunal this morning.
Paterson said the organ donor process was strictly confidential, and it was particularly concerning that the man had accessed patient information regarding two liver transplants and a heart transplant.
Amberley James was counsel for the Professional Conduct Committee prosecuting the physio at the tribunal on behalf of the Physiotherapy Board.
James said the man’s actions were unlawful and unjustified.
“His repeated decision to access the files of people who were not his patients is a clear breach of one of the cornerstones of his professional obligations,” she said.
James said he accessed a large number of sensitive files, which showed a pattern of inappropriate conduct.
James said when confronted with his conduct following an audit of his access, he admitted going into the files but said he’d seen patients admitted to the hospital and was curious about the severity of their injuries or health conditions.
The physio’s lawyer, Adam Holloway, told the tribunal that it was a simple case that shouldn’t have been elevated to the tribunal at all; a process he noted had cost the Physiotherapist’s Board more than $100,000 in legal fees already.
Holloway said his client had never contested that accessing the files was inappropriate, and had done the right thing from the start in terms of owning up.
Holloway urged the tribunal not to suspend his client from practising as a physio, and that he’d already taken a number of rehabilitative steps.
The physio read a statement before the tribunal and said that it was his first job, he had a passion for physiotherapy, and while he accepts accessing patient records was inappropriate, it was borne from a desire to be better at his job and to impress his superiors.
“I wanted to be a nerd,” he told the tribunal, adding that he was going through multiple personal issues and work was all he had at the time.
“In hindsight ... I overlooked accessing patient information who were not in my care.
The physio said that the access to the records fell into two categories: viewing patients who would likely become physiotherapy patients, and others whom he was simply professionally curious about.
He told the tribunal that he wanted to learn more about certain conditions, which helped him to get a full picture of the kinds of cases that could be relevant to his work as a physiotherapist.
The physio said he had proactively undertaken professional development and training on patient privacy, was candid with friends and colleagues about his mistakes and had learnt his lesson and would be extremely careful if he was allowed to continue practising.
The tribunal found the physio guilty of bringing the profession of physiotherapy into disrepute, and will issue its penalty decision in writing at a later date.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.