Order on Consent – Dr. Suhasini Datar

On October 29, 2024 a complaint was filed by JD against Dr. Suhasini Datar regarding Dr. Datar’s work as a locum anesthesiologist at the Prince County Hospital. The specific concern was the lack of perioperative documentation completed by Dr. Datar. The Investigation Committee (the “Committee”) investigated the complaint and discovered evidence which led the Committee to conclude that Dr. Datar’s conduct 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 sections 34.(1) (q) and (z) of the Medical Practitioners Regulations, or incompetence as outlined in section 57(2)(a)(i) of the RHPA.

Section 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 practice 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;

Sections 34(1) (q) and (z) of the Medical Practitioners Regulations state 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

                ….

(q)           failing to maintain the records and accounts that are required by the College to be kept by members with respect to their practice;

                ….

(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;

Section 57(2)(a)(i) of the RHPA states 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,

The Committee determined that several Orders should be issued. Dr. Datar accepted the findings of the Investigation Committee and consented to the following Orders:

1.            Dr. Datar shall be issued a letter of reprimand by the Registrar for failure to maintain the         standards set by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society regarding preoperative and postoperative documentation;

2.            Dr. Datar shall be required to complete a course, pre-approved by the College, focusing on pre-operative assessment and pre- and post-operative documentation such as education provided by Getting in Right First Time (GIRFT) program of the National Health Service (NHS) England. This course is at the expense of Dr. Datar and should be completed within 6 months of the date this document is signed, with proof of attendance provided to the College; and,

3.            In the event that Dr. Datar applies to become a member of the College in the future, her registration, if granted, shall be subject to a condition requiring she practise under supervision in accordance with the College’s supervision policy.        

Upon completion of the requirements of these Orders, the discipline process pertaining to the JD complaint against Dr. Datar, will be concluded.