VETERINARY SURGEONS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 529)
ORDER MADE BY AN INQUIRY COMMITTEE OF
THE VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD OF HONG KONG

It is hereby notified that an Inquiry Committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong (“the Board”), after due inquiry held in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, found that Dr STIENSMEIER Martin Johannes (“Dr STIENSMEIER”) (Registration No.: R000083) was guilty of misconduct in a professional respect in that on 21 October 2007, when the complainant brought her dog, which had undergone a surgical procedure the day before by another veterinary surgeon of Dr STIENSMEIER’s clinic, to Dr STIENSMEIER for consultation and treatment, Dr STIENSMEIER failed to take appropriate or adequate action to control the animal’s post-operative bleeding, in circumstances where the animal was showing signs of hemorrhagic discharge.

Pursuant to section 19 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, the Inquiry Committee ordered on 20 January 2012 that:

(i) Dr STIENSMEIER be reprimanded in writing and that the Secretary record the reprimand on the register;

(ii) Dr STIENSMEIER do complete within 2 years of the date of the order 20 hours of continuing professional development (CPD) not to count towards the Board’s CPD certification programme in courses approved by the Board in advance, 10 hours of which shall be in client communication and 10 hours of which shall be in internal medicine;

(iii) in the event Dr STIENSMEIER fails to comply with order (ii), the Secretary shall remove his name from the register until he completes the CPD so ordered or the expiry of 2 years whichever is sooner.

Particulars of the Matter to which the Order Relates

The complainant’s dog was brought to Dr STIENSMEIER for consultation and treatment with signs of hemorrhagic discharge following a spay operation performed the day before by another veterinary surgeon. The inquiry committee considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the failure by Dr STIENSMEIER to advise immediate hospitalization, investigation by packed cell volume blood test, abdominal tapping or ultrasound, blood transfusion, or re-operation by way of laporatomy represented a falling short of the professional standard expected among veterinary surgeons in Hong Kong at the material time.

Professor WONG Yuk-shan, BBS
Chairman, the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong

VETERINARY SURGEONS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 529)  

ORDER MADE BY AN INQUIRY COMMITTEE OF  

THE VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD OF HONG KONG

It is hereby notified that an Inquiry Committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong (the “Board”), after due inquiry held in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, found Dr WANG Chen Lien (“Dr WANG”) (Registration No.: R000433) guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect in that, during the period between about 7 May 2009 and 9 May 2009, Dr WANG prescribed and/or administered inappropriate dosage(s) of the medication “Lasix” to the complainant’s dog, resulting in a deterioration of the dog’s medical condition.

Pursuant to section 19 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, the Inquiry Committee ordered on 18 June 2012 that a warning letter be served on Dr WANG.

Particulars of the Matter to which the Order Relates

The complainant’s dog, a 12-year old Maltese, was brought to Dr WANG for consultation and treatment of heart disease in the period between about 7 May 2009 and 9 May 2009.  Dr WANG administered Intravenous fluids and prescribed certain medication, including “Lasix”, for the dog’s treatment.  The inquiry committee found that Dr WANG failed to meet the standard expected of veterinary surgeons at the material time for the following reasons.  First, the dosage of “Lasix” prescribed for home care on 9 May 2009 was high according to the opinion of the expert in veterinary cardiology who gave evidence for the Secretary to the Board.  Second, as pointed out by the same witness, there was no record of resting respiratory rate and no thoracic radiograph was taken to evaluate the required dosage of this drug.  Third, Dr WANG should not have relied on the owner’s judgment of the clinical condition of the dog regarding the decision of reducing the dosage and should have advised the owner to come back to the clinic within 48 hours for further evaluation, instead of 7 days, since the dog’s clinical condition was not stable when discharged from the clinic.

Professor WONG Yuk-shan, BBS

Chairman, the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong

ORDER MADE BY AN INQUIRY COMMITTEE OF

THE VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD OF HONG KONG

It is hereby notified that an Inquiry Committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong (the “Board”), after due inquiry held in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong (the “Ordinance”), found Dr FAN, Clement Ka Man (“Dr FAN”) (Registration No.: R000203) guilty of the disciplinary offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect in that, on about 7 June 2009, after he had performed a surgical operation on the complainant’s dog, he failed to provide appropriate and/or adequate post-operative care and/or advice in relation to the dog, in circumstances where post-operative bleeding in the surgical wound was still continuing or to be expected when the animal was discharged from his clinic. In particular, the Inquiry Committee found that Dr FAN fell short of the standard expected among general practitioners in veterinary medicine at the material time in failing to instruct his staff to request the owner to bring the dog back in response to the telephone call or calls made by the owner in the evening following discharge in which the owner informed staff of the clinic concerned of a continuing bleeding problem.

Pursuant to section 19 of the Ordinance, the Inquiry Committee ordered on 12 July 2012 inter alia, that, (1) a letter of reprimand be served on Dr FAN by the Secretary with the reprimand not to be recorded on the register; (2) Dr FAN do complete 40 hours of Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) in internal medicine within a period of 2 years from the date of the order in courses approved in advance by the Board with such CPD not to count towards the Board’s CPD certification programme; and (3) in the event he fails to complete the CPD so ordered within the period of 2 years from the date of the order, the Secretary shall remove his name from the register and not restore it to the register until he has completed the CPD concerned.

Professor WONG Yuk-shan, BBS

Chairman, the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong

VETERINARY SURGEONS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE

(CHAPTER 529)

ORDER MADE BY AN INQUIRY COMMITTEE OF

THE VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD OF HONG KONG

It is hereby notified that an inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong (the “Board”), after due inquiry in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong (the “Ordinance”), found Dr CHEN Chi Chi (“Dr CHEN”) (Registration No.: R000245) guilty of the disciplinary offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect in respect of two charges, that: (1) on or about 1 October 2009, Dr CHEN carried out an operation on the complainant’s dog which was inappropriate and ought not to have been carried out in the then medical circumstances of the case (“charge (1)”); and (2) on a date unknown, after Dr CHEN had provided treatment to the said dog in September to November 2009 and compiled medical records in relation thereto, which ought to be contemporaneous in nature, he materially altered, or caused, permitted or suffered to be materially altered, the said medical records, in a manner which appeared as if all entries therein were contemporaneously made, thereby creating misapprehension as to the history of the compilation of the said records (“charge (2)”).

Pursuant to section 19 of the Ordinance, the inquiry committee ordered on 16 August 2012 that:

1.           Dr CHEN be reprimanded in writing with such reprimand to be recorded by the Secretary of the Board (the “Secretary”) on the register;

2.           Dr CHEN shall undertake 30 hours of continuing professional development (“CPD”) within two years of the date of the order in courses in internal medicine with emphasis on decision-making and differential diagnosis approved by the Board in advance with such courses not to count towards the Board’s CPD certification programme;

3.           in the event Dr CHEN fails to comply with paragraph 2 of the order, the Secretary shall remove his name from the register and not restore it to the register unless and until he has completed the CPD so ordered; and

4.           the following restriction shall be specified in Dr CHEN’s practising certificate and remain in force for a period of two years from the date of the order, that

“Dr CHEN shall perform orthopaedic surgery only after consultation with and the agreement of another veterinary surgeon registered in Hong Kong who has at least five years experience as a registered veterinary surgeon in Hong Kong with each such consultation to be recorded in Dr CHEN’s medical records.”

Particulars of the Matters to Which the Order Relates

On about 1 October 2009, the complainant brought her 8-month-old dog, which was then having difficulties in walking due to severe pain in its right hind leg, to Dr CHEN’s clinic for consultation.  Dr CHEN diagnosed the dog to be suffering from a dislocated joint in its right hind leg, and performed orthopaedic surgery to reconstruct the said joint by steel plates and screws.  With respect to charge (1), the inquiry committee noted that the surgery undertaken by Dr CHEN was a major invasive and irreversible procedure, especially for a young dog, and found that other conservative measures were available to Dr CHEN, which should have been adopted before surgery was carried out.  The inquiry committee also found that the positioning and collimation of the radiographs taken by Dr CHEN were insufficient to demonstrate Dr CHEN’s claimed diagnosis in support of carrying out the surgery concerned.  With respect to charge (2), the inquiry committee was of the view that a truthful contemporaneous medical record is essential for public trust in the profession and ethically necessary.  On Dr CHEN’s own admission, there were two sets of medical records relating to the same events with different content.  The inquiry committee did not consider the reasons for this put forward by Dr CHEN to be the important issue.  The standard expected in the profession is (and was at the material time) for there to be one contemporaneous account of events. Any amendments or additions made to this account had to be properly noted as subsequent amendments or additions and dated. The inquiry committee found that the multiple differences between Dr CHEN’s two sets of medical records caused misapprehension to them and would have done so to any reader. Further, the inquiry committee strongly disagreed with any suggestion that “clinical freedom” justified amendment of medical records without the amendment or addition being noted as such and dated.

Professor WONG Yuk-shan, BBS

VETERINARY SURGEONS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE

(CHAPTER 529)

ORDER MADE BY AN INQUIRY COMMITTEE OF

THE VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD OF HONG KONG

It is hereby notified that an inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong (the “Board”), after due inquiry in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong (the “Ordinance”), found Dr SHUEN Yi Man, Patricia (“Dr SHUEN”) (Registration No.: R000102) guilty of the disciplinary offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect in that, during the period from 21 August 2007 to 31 August 2007, Dr SHUEN failed to make any or any proper record about a burn injury suffered by a dog while under Dr SHUEN’s care in the medical record of the dog concerned, including details of the extent and nature of, and any treatment that might have been rendered for, the burn injury.

Pursuant to section 19 of the Ordinance, the inquiry committee ordered on 25 August 2012 that Dr SHUEN be reprimanded in writing with the reprimand not to be recorded on the register.

Particulars of the Matter to Which the Order Relates

The dog concerned was brought to Dr SHUEN’s clinic to undergo an operation for treatment of its vesical calculus and prostatitis on 21 August 2007.  The operation was successfully performed by Dr SHUEN and the dog was hospitalised in her clinic for ten days.  The inquiry committee found, on the balance of probabilities, that the dog suffered a burn injury from the heat source used by Dr SHUEN during the surgery.   Although there was no mention of heat burn in Dr SHUEN’s clinical records in relation to the dog, she recorded the dog was suffering pitting oedema in hind legs and low albumen count from 23 August 2007.  Dr SHUEN gave the dog canine plasma on 23 and 24 August 2007 and performed blood transfusion on 27 August 2007.  The inquiry committee was of the view the treatment showed that Dr SHUEN recognized the dog was losing protein consistent with a diagnosis of heat burn.  The inquiry committee considered that Dr SHUEN should have recognised the clinical signs to support a diagnosis or differential diagnosis of heat burn and found that Dr SHUEN’s failure to make any or any proper record about the burn injury in the medical records of the dog, including details of the extent and nature of, and any treatment that might have been rendered for, the burn injury was a falling short of the standard expected in the profession at the material time and was not commensurate with her training and skill.

Professor WONG Yuk-shan, BBS

Chairman, the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong