Psychologist, Mr Glenn Michael Ross (the Practitioner) had been practising independently for around one year when Patient A (who had a history of self-harm, borderline personality disorder, anxiety, and depression) was referred to him.
Allegations
The Psychology Board of Australia (the Board) referred the Practitioner to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) and sought findings that he had engaged in professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct with respect to Patient A based on three allegations:
Allegation 1:
The Practitioner failed to establish and/or maintain the professional boundaries that should, and ordinarily do, exist between a psychologist and a client.
In particular, it was alleged that he made disclosures about his personal life to Patient A; communicated with her via text message and email (including outside of business hours); failed to take appropriate steps to clarify and reiterate professional boundaries in circumstances where she made disclosures to him of her personal and/or sexual attraction toward him; visited her in his personal capacity when she was hospitalised following a suicide attempt; hugged her; and viewed photographs of her (at her request) wearing only lingerie on her mobile phone.
Allegation 2:
The Practitioner failed to appropriately manage the termination of his professional relationship with Patient A. Despite a suggestion by his supervisor that he terminate his professional relationship with her, the Practitioner did not do so until one month later when he unilaterally terminated her therapy. He delayed the termination due to his own serious health issues and concerns in finding an alternative practitioner until after the Christmas break. The termination letter failed to adequately address her continuity of care and/or risk of suicide.
Allegation 3:
The Practitioner failed to maintain accurate and adequate clinical records responding to the services rendered to Patient A. For example, he failed to refer in his clinical notes to his email communication with her in circumstances where she had expressed suicidal ideation; and he failed to make a notation in his clinical notes of his visit to her in hospital. There was no record of the nature of the treatment being provided and ways in which Patient A was attaining treatment goals. His notes could not have effectively facilitated continuity of care.
Findings
The Tribunal was satisfied that the Practitioner engaged in the alleged conduct, which amounted to conduct that was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience and constituted professional misconduct.
However, it considered the Practitioner’s level of experience and was not satisfied that his conduct was such that it was inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession. Rather, in the Tribunal’s view, the Practitioner’s conduct ‘…was an example of an inexperienced practitioner, who was treating a very complex patient, who was professionally out of his depth and failed to recognise this. He exhibited poor judgement’.
The Tribunal accepted that in some of the Practitioner’s decision making he was ‘well meaning if misguided’. Ultimately, his ‘poor judgement and decision making, and lack of skill led to a cascade of errors’.
It was noted that there was nothing deliberate about his conduct, and that he (misguidedly) believed he was acting appropriately and in Patient A’s best interests.
The Practitioner had not renewed his registration and allowed it to lapse. It was therefore not possible for the Tribunal to impose conditions on his registration, suspend or cancel his registration. The Tribunal ultimately ordered that the Practitioner be reprimanded.
To read the decision in Psychology Board of Australia v Ross (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 110 (9 February 2023) click here.
