Order on Consent – Dr. Elizabeth Barbrick-Crozier

On August 1, 2024 a complaint was filed by the Registrar against Dr. Elizabeth Barbrick-Crozier regarding Dr. Barbrick-Crozier’s care of Patient A during the intrapartum period. The Investigation Committee (the “Committee”) investigated the complaint and discovered evidence which led the Committee to conclude that Dr. Barbrick-Crozier’s conduct, specifically the failure to properly interpret and reassess fetal heart rate tracing, may constitute professional misconduct as outlined in sections 57(1)(a) and (a.1) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, RSPEI 1988, c.R-10.1 (the “RHPA”),  and section 34.(1)(z) of the Medical Practitioners Regulations, or incompetence as outlined in section 57(2)(a)(i)and (ii) of the RHPA.

Sections 57(1)(a) and (a.1) of the RHPA state as follows:

               57.         Professional misconduct

               (1)          The conduct of a respondent may be found to constitute professional misconduct if

(a)          the respondent contravenes this Act, the regulations, the bylaws, standards of practice, code of ethics or practice directions in a manner that, in the opinion of the investigation committee or the hearing committee, relates to the respondent’s suitability to practise a regulated health profession;

(a.1)      in the opinion of the investigation committee or the hearing committee, the conduct is harmful to the best interests of a client or other person, or to the integrity of the profession;

Section 34(1)(z) of the Medical Practitioners Regulations states as follows:

               34.         Conduct that constitutes professional misconduct

(1)          Pursuant to clause 57(1)(e) of the Act, in addition to the matters set out in subsection 57(1) of the act, professional misconduct by a member includes

               ….

(z)           engaging in conduct or an act relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by medical practitioners as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional;

Sections 57(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the RHPA state as follows:

               57.         Incompetence

               (2)          The conduct of a respondent may be found to constitute incompetence where

                              (a)          an act or omission of the respondent

                                             (i) demonstrates a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment,

(ii) demonstrates disregard for the safety or welfare of a client,

The Committee determined that Orders should be issued pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the RHPA. Dr. Barbrick-Crozier accepted the findings of the Committee and consented to the following Orders:

1. Dr. Barbrick-Crozier shall be issued a reprimand by the Registrar for failure to properly interpret and reassess fetal heart rate tracing, and;
2. Dr. Barbrick-Crozier shall be issued a fine in the amount of $2,000.00 to be paid within 6 months of signing this order.

Upon completion of the requirements of these Orders, the discipline process pertaining to the Registrar complaint against Dr. Barbrick-Crozier, will be concluded.