Two doctors fail to respond over professional competence audit

Medics found in breach of Medical Practitioners Act at fitness-to-practise inquiry

Two doctors have been found in breach of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 at a Medical Council fitness-to-practise inquiry.

It was alleged that both doctors failed to co-operate with an audit conducted by the Professional Competence Committee of the Medical Council.

Under the 2007 Medical Practitioners Act, doctors have must enrol in a professional competence scheme, spend 50 hours a year on continuous professional development and participate in one clinical audit each year.

Doctors seeking to renew their professional registration are required to complete an annual declaration that they have enrolled in and are complying with the requirements of a specific competence scheme.

READ MORE

Professional competence

Doctors have to record participation in these activities with the professional competence scheme and must inform the Medical Council they are maintaining their professional competence activities.

Neither doctor appeared at the inquiries on Tuesday.

The first case heard allegations against Dr Lourens Erasmus, with an address in South Africa, in relation to professional misconduct and failure to comply with the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.

It was alleged that Dr Erasmus, following an audit by the Professional Competence Committee (PCC) of the Medical Council, failed to submit documents which could be used by the Medical Council to assess whether or not he was meeting requirements for professional competence.

It was also alleged he failed to respond adequately to the correspondence sent by the PCC.

Registered post

The inquiry heard Dr Erasmus was sent notice of the inquiry by registered post to his address in South Africa and by email, but he did not reply on several occasions.

Gráinne Behan, an executive with the professional competence section of the Medical Council, told the inquiry doctors have a legal requirement to maintain professional competence.

Ms Behan said Dr Erasmus was one of 1,000 doctors selected to participate in an audit between May 2011 and April 2012.

Dr Erasmus’s Irish address, or information about where he practised in Ireland, was not given at the inquiry but it is understood he was working as a registered GP in Ireland during this period.

The inquiry heard Dr Erasmus practised in Ireland for five years until February 2012, when he returned to South Africa. He has since retired and is still living in that country.

Even if doctors only work part time, or are retired and have their names on the register, they have to show they are maintaining their competence if they are to remain on the register, the inquiry heard.

Dr Erasmus was sent several letters and emails reminding him to respond to the request for an audit by the PCC, but did not reply.

The committee found Dr Erasmus not guilty of professional misconduct but in contravention of the Medical Practitioners Act because he failed to respond adequately to the correspondence.

Declared compliance

He failed to submit adequate documentation required by the Medical Council for the purpose of monitoring declared compliance with the council.

In the second case, it was alleged Dr Syed Munir failed to comply with an audit by the PCC by failing to submit required documents, and failed to respond adequately to correspondence sent to him by the professional competence section of the Medical Council.

The inquiry heard Dr Munir, with an address in Dublin 15, worked in anaesthesia in a Dublin hospital which was not specified.

Dr Munir qualified from the University of Punjab in Pakistan with a Bachelor of Medicine and a Bachelor of Surgery in 1991 and registered with the Irish Medical Council in 2005.

Ms Behan co-ordinated an audit in 2012 and said she contacted Dr Munir on numerous occasions, but he did not respond.

Dr Munir was found not guilty of professional misconduct but guilty of contravention of the Medical Practitioners Act, because he failed to submit documents required by the Medical Council for the purpose of assessing compliance with the council’s continuous professional development requirements.

He was found guilty in contravention of the Act because he failed to comply with the council’s requirements when he became subject to an audit.

The fitness-to-practise committee’s decision will be forwarded to the board of the Medical Council which will decide on what sanction to impose on the doctors.