Why you should Google before you hire
Why you should Google before you hire
March/April Edition, 2008: As Dr Jayant Patel or 'Dr Death' awaits an extradition hearing in the United States, the circumstances surrounding his appointment to a Queensland hospital again emerge, along with the missing documents and questionable processes that resulted in him failing to disclose his previous work history.
The employment history ofDr Jayant Patel did not spark red lights during the recruitment process in Queensland—even though the circumstances surrounding his departure from his previous position as a surgeon at Kaiser Permanente in Portland were unclear. Meanwhile further information was readily available in the public domain regarding his disciplinary hearing, which resulted in him being banned from undertaking certain operations.
The information available involved details on Dr Patel’s problematic career: He was found guilty of gross negligence by regulators in New York in 1984, before later moving to Oregon where again, regulators reported negligence and ordered Dr Patel to cease working on particular surgeries.
But on arrival to Australia in 2003, Dr Patel was able to find work as a surgeon, without disclosing the truth about his prior working history. Back then, Dr Patel formally applied for a vacant position in Bundaberg Hospital, thus commencing the formal procedure of application selection, referee checks, accreditation from the Queensland Medical Board and applications for the necessary Visas.
When seeking registration in Australia, the Queensland Medical Board reviewed his credentials that were later found by the 2005 Bundaberg Hospital Commission to not have included documents explaining his past experience and disciplinary actions in the US. One document from the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners, actually explicitly stated that Patel was not permitting to perform certain surgeries, yet this did not appear at any point in the process of his appointment.
The Commission found that in order to register as a medical practitioner in Queensland, Dr Patel submitted to the Board an extensive application form. Dr Patel answered ‘no’ three times to questions asking if his medical registration had been affected in another country by suspension or cancellation or ‘any other way.” It is here that Dr Patel is alleged to have committed fraud, given his registration as a health practitioner had indeed been compromised in two places overseas.
Dr Patel, in supporting his application in Queensland, also proceeded to supply a document to the Board claiming it was a ‘Verification of Licensure’ issued by the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners. This document was actually only part of the official certificate, the part that disclosed he had been restricted from practicing certain surgeries, was omitted.
From there, Dr Patel also failed to disclose he had been disciplined by the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct in 1984—and that in 2001 his New York licence was actually surrendered after he failed to contest disciplinary actions proceeding in Oregon.
When the application was checked by the Medical Board, it was assessed by a Registration Officer who the Commission found would routinely ‘receive, collate and check applications.” It seems it was here again that Dr Patel’s previous trouble in the US was overlooked: Checked and sent to the Registration Advisory Committee, members agreed to approve him as a specialist for an area in need of a surgeon.
The Commission found just months after his appointment Dr Patel was promoted to the position of Director of Surgery, even though he was not registered by the Queensland Medical Board on their specialist register. Again with this promotion, his previous experience in hospitals in the United States did not show up on the radar – potentially because it was assumed his credentials had been assessed on his initial appointment.
It seems, even with Dr Patel’s alleged fraudulent activity, the problem in his appointment was not so much a lack of information. Simple inquiries, even just Googling the term ‘Jayant Patel would have revealed the disciplinary action by the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct in 1984. The reasons for Dr Patel’s disciplinary action were clear, “for entering patient histories and physicals without examining patients, failing to maintain patient records and harassing a patient for cooperating with the New York Board’s investigation.”
During the Commission one nurse actually revealed that in mid 2004 her suspicions about Dr Patel inspired her to undertake a ‘Google’ search where she discovered his restrictions to undertake surgery in Oregon. She informed fellow colleagues but did not go further with her findings, and later told the commission she felt Dr Patel’s assessment came down to ‘whoever registers him, and management.”
The case of Dr Patel highlights an area of concern around the appointment of overseas trained doctors to hospitals desperately in need of staff in Australia. The Commission, in its conclusion in 2005 found that within the Australian medical profession, it would be almost impossible for someone to pass themselves off as registered medical practitioner. This is because any impostor would face serious difficulties in obtaining the necessary documentation to pass through the red tape. So why, with an overseas trained practitioner is the system so different?
Although the Commission suggests Bundaberg has extensively revolutionised its processes around employment, the case highlights the severe circumstances of a system of accreditation that breaks, while also pointing out the difficulties of staff shortages in the hospital system.
Indeed Dr Patel’s credentials crossed borders and may provide a worthy excuse for difficulties in realising his records were far from clean. However in the case of medical practitioners, the need to ensure an individual is who they say they are should be the highest of concerns—with as much scrutiny as possible over the application process and the records involved.