Nurse who 'choked' patient loses appeal against misconduct finding
A healthcare professional meant to provide care instead left a patient gasping ‘I can't breathe’ during a hospital procedure gone wrong.
A Bundaberg senior nurse has been found to have committed misconduct after his attempts to physically restrain a difficult patient during a CT scan instead escalated the situation and put staff and the patient at risk.
Andrew Fergusson was found guilty of misconduct by Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service chief executive Debbie Carroll in July 22, 2024 over the incident, leading to the nurse to ask the state’s industrial watchdog to overturn the decision.
The published decision of Queensland Industrial Relations Commission member Daniel Pratt said the incident unfolded at the hospital four months earlier on March 13, 2024.
It was alleged by several witnesses Mr Fergusson used “inappropriate” physical restraint techniques, made “threatening and inflammatory” comments to the patient, and refused repeated requests for security to be called when the patient became “agitated” and verbally abusive during the procedure.
Mr Pratt’s decision said these efforts included pushing the patient back down on the bed telling him “I’m bigger and stronger than you” and “you need to listen here”.
The decision said the nurse “placed his hands at the base of both sides of the patient’s throat, applying downward pressure to either side of the neck with his fingers in a choking manner, causing the patient to yell out about being ‘choked’ and that he ‘couldn’t breathe’”.
It said a “staff member told Mr Fergusson to let go of the patient’s neck, to which Mr Fergusson replied with words to the effect of ‘that is a trap squeeze’ and continued to hold his hands around the patient’s throat and neck area”.
During this time Mr Fergusson was asked “on at least three occasions” if security should be called, to which he said “no”.
“On the third time that the officer asked whether a call should be made to the security officers, the doctor who was present intervened, replying ‘yes’ to the officer’s request, and a radiographer subsequently called security for assistance,” Mr Pratt said in the decision.
Mr Fergusson, who was suspended during the WBHHS’s investigation, appealed Ms Carroll’s finding against him saying the investigation was inadequate, procedurally unfair, and he was held to an unreasonable standard of expectation.
Mr Pratt rejected these, supporting Ms Carroll’s findings “even though the situation was complex and difficult, Mr Fergusson acted in a way that was inappropriate because it heightened the patient’s agitation, and it was particularly inappropriate where alternative de-escalation techniques should have been used”.
“Ms Carroll accordingly concluded that Mr Fergusson by his conduct placed himself and colleagues at significant risk,” Mr Pratt said.
He said the investigation was procedurally fair as all of the witness statements had been provided to Mr Fergusson for response or rebuttal, and it was reasonable for Ms Carroll to rely on them as he did not deny any of their allegations.
Mr Pratt also rejected claims Mr Fergusson had been “ambushed” by his suspension pending the investigation, saying he was represented by his union at two meetings.
He confirmed Ms Carroll’s decision finding misconduct and dismissed the appeal.
The decision does not state what, if any, discipline was issued as a result of Ms Carroll’s decision.
