Warning to Shrewsbury doctor who recorded false observations
A Shrewsbury doctor who recorded false observations before claiming her patient lied about what happened in a consultation has received a warning.
Dr Imrana Puttaroo was working at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital as a junior doctor when a patient was brought in having had dizzy spells in February 2017.
A colleague who had spoken on the phone to the patient asked her to go to hospital as he was concerned she may have suffered a gastro-intestinal bleed.
Dr Puttaroo saw the patient and recorded that she had carried out a chest examination, blood pressure, and temperature checks and examined her arms and legs for full range of movement.
She had in fact carried out none of those checks and sent the patient home, and when the patient complained to the hospital that the doctor had made up false notes, Dr Puttaroo said the patient was lying.
After the patient's husband backed up claims against the doctor, she told a superior that "everyone does it", referring to recording false observations.
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service hearing was told Dr Puttaroo's dishonesty could have led to harm to the patient and her behaviour to mislead her colleagues was a "serious departure" from the Good Medical Practice guidance.
Struggled
It heard that Dr Puttaroo, who was doing her second foundation year at the hospital, had struggled with the stress of the job and took negative criticism with "immaturity".
But the hearing also heard that she has developed a good level of insight following the incident, has attended several courses to combat professional deficiencies and even delivered presentations on honesty and probity to other doctors, candidly citing her own mistakes and what she has learned from them.
Dr Puttaroo was considered not impaired to continue practicing, but given a formal warning.
The tribunal's determination read: "In February 2017, Dr Puttaroo examined a patient and dishonestly recorded observations that did not take place. Dr Puttaroo then misled colleagues when asked about the observations, indicating that the patient was lying or confused, or that she had mis-documented her observations.
"This conduct does not meet the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated.
"Whilst the Tribunal has found that a finding of impaired fitness to practise is not required for the reasons set out in the determination, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning."