In 2014 and 2015, Dr Vigours was a registered medical practitioner and was working first as an Intern and then as a Resident at P Hospital.
Patient A In 2014, Dr Vigours was in a personal relationship with Patient A.
Patient A had a recurring urinary tract infection. Around February 2014, Dr Vigours provided Patient A with a quantity of Cephalexin obtained from the P Hospital. At this time, Dr Vigours was an intern and the medication he provided was outside his allocated intern position.
Dr Vigours did not keep the required clinical records of this medication nor did he perform the required clinical assessment and investigation before providing it to Patient A.
Dr Vigours also took blood tests from Patient A at the P Hospital. At this time, Dr Vigours was not involved in Patient A's clinical treatment. Prior to this blood test, two doctors who had been involved in Patient A's clinical treatment had decided that she did not need to have a blood test.
Dr Vigours obtained the result from this blood test and communicated his interpretation of it to Patient A.
Patient B Between 2014 and 2015, Dr Vigours was in a personal relationship with Patient B.
During this relationship, Patient B had recurring urinary tract infections. In January 2015, Dr Vigours prescribed Amitriptyline to Patient B. Dr Vigours issued this prescription without creating the required clinical record and without making the required clinical assessment.
In August 2015, Dr Vigours prescribed Trimethoprim to Patient B without creating the required clinical record and without undertaking the required clinical assessment.
Between November 2014 and August 2015, Dr Vigours provided Patient B with a quantity of Cephalexin obtained from the P Hospital without creating the required clinical record and without undertaking the required clinical assessment.
On two occasions in May and July 2015, Dr Vigours engaged in sexual activity with Patient B at P Hospital when he was rostered on shift. He denied this in his statement but conceded to it at the hearing.
Patient C Between 30 April and 4 May 2015, Patient C was an inpatient at the P Hospital. Prior to April 2015, Patient C and Dr Vigours had been in a personal relationship.
During Patient C's admission, Dr Vigours paid a social visit to her and lay on her hospital bed with her and watched a movie with her whilst he was working an overnight shift.
The Tribunal found that each of the conduct of Dr Vigours stated above amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct.
His conduct suggests that he may fail to recognise and address ambiguities or complexities in his role as a medical practitioner.
The unsatisfactory professional conducts are of sufficient seriousness that when considered together, they justify the suspension or cancellation of Dr Vigour's practitioner's registration. Accordingly, the Tribunal cancelled his registration.
Cancellation was more appropriate in this case because Dr Vigours should, if he wishes to resume practice as a medical practitioner, have the onus of proving that he is a fit and proper person to be a medical practitioner. He was not permitted to apply for a review of the cancellation order for 3 months.
Dr Vigours was reprimanded and ordered to pay the Commission's costs.