The question about professionalism and being a professional. Based on Dennis Tu scenario: Dennis Tu ‘the respondent’ is a 27-year-old former enrolled…

Question Answered step-by-step The question about professionalism and being a professional. Based on Dennis Tu scenario:Dennis Tu “the respondent” is a 27-year-old former enrolled nurse. He was registered from October 2013 until 28 February 2019, when his registration lapsed upon his failure to apply for its renewal. The conduct the subject of the referral occurred between 2015 and 2018, when the respondent was aged between 22 and 25 years. The referral contains four “Allegations”.Allegation 1 relates to the respondent’s conviction of criminal offences in the Magistrates Court on 5 May 2016. On that day the respondent pleaded guilty to three offences, namely, one count of possession of a dangerous drug between 29 October 2014 and 19 December 2014, one count of stealing as a servant on 25 July 2015, and one count of possessing a dangerous drug on 25 July 2015. The offences committed on 25 July 2015 related to the respondent stealing a vial of diazepam from the hospital where he was then working. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months’ probation and no convictions were recorded.Allegation 2 is an alleged breach of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland). Pursuant to that provision, the respondent was required to notify the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia of the fact that he had been the subject of a finding of guilt for offences punishable by imprisonment within seven days of his court appearance on 5 May 2016. The respondent failed to provide such notice within the prescribed period, and did not disclose such matter when he submitted an application to renew his nursing registration on 31 May 2016.Allegation 3 alleges misappropriation of hospital medication and equipment. The respondent was contracted through a nursing agency to work a night shift at a hospital over the night of 16 June to 17 June 2017. Observations of the respondent’s behaviour by other staff led to the respondent’s bag being searched and items located. The respondent, when questioned, admitted to stealing syringes and medication. The respondent later wrote a letter of apology to the nursing agency and resigned from his position.Allegation 4 relates to the respondent’s conviction in the Supreme Court of an offence of possession of a dangerous drug, namely, methylamphetamine, in a quantity exceeding two grams. The circumstances of that offence were somewhat unusual, in that the offence was brought to the attention of police when the respondent, undoubtedly under the influence of methylamphetamine, drove a motor vehicle erratically into the car park of the Police Station, ran to the side entrance of the station, where he was met by police officers, and threw a clip seal bag containing 3.4 grams of methylamphetamine at the feet of the police officers. A search of the respondent’s motor vehicle revealed two more clip seal bags, one of which contained 1.171 grams of methylamphetamine. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, with an immediate parole release order.The applicant submits that the conduct the subject of Allegations 1, 2 and 4 should be characterised as professional misconduct. The applicant submits in relation to Allegation 3 that the respondent’s failure to report his criminal convictions would normally constitute unprofessional conduct but that the Tribunal may adopt an approach whereby such conduct is treated secondary to the primary misconduct and as an aggravation of the totality of the conduct, which should be characterised as professional misconduct.The applicant acknowledges that the respondent displayed some initial insight and remorse by self-notification to the Office of the Health Ombudsman of the criminal charges the subject of Allegation 1, correspondence to his hospital managers, in which he admitted culpability and expressed his remorse, and by his cooperation with the administration of justice by timely pleas of guilty in the criminal proceedings. On the other hand, the respondent’s failure to engage with regulatory authorities, including in the proceedings before the Tribunal, casts some doubt on his current insight into the responsibilities of professionals and the role played by regulatory bodies in upholding the standards of the profession and protecting the public.The respondent’s misconduct was serious and has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. Maintenance of professional standards and public confidence in the profession requires an order for sanction that adequately expresses the denunciation of the Tribunal for such behaviour. In those circumstances, the Tribunal accepts the submission on behalf of the applicant that such a period of further preclusion from practice is required to meet the protective purposes of sanction.A. Summarise the case of Dennis Tu. B. Analyse the case, using the language of the Profession definitions to explain why this situation occurred.C. Explain how your review of the case of Dennis Tu will influence your professional and personal behaviour in the future.   Health Science Science Nursing HEALTH PHAR1017 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)