Return
File Number: Mid12/221D
Practitioner: Jan Louise Scherp
Hearing Start Date:Hearing End Date:
Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:
Communication inadequate/inappropriate (Not Established)
Treatment - care inadequate/inappropriate (Not Established)
Additional Orders:
Name Suppression to Practitioner
Practitioner granted interim name suppression by order of consent
486MId12221D.pdf
Name Suppression to Practitioner
Practitioner declined permanent name suppression
532Mid12221D.pdf
Precis of Decision: Charge
At a hearing held 18 - 21 February 2013 the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal considered a charge of professional misconduct laid by the Director of Proceedings against Ms Jan Scherp, Midwife of Clyde (the Midwife).
The charge alleged that the midwife:
- Failed to communicate to her client or to other midwives or clinical staff at Southland Hospital information she had about a medical condition that could potentially compromise care provided during labour.
- When she began to feel unwell or experienced significant anxiety during the labour the midwife failed to adequately communicate this to the client, the client's partner, other midwives or clinical staff, potentially compromising the partnership between the client and her family during the labour.
- After completion of the second stage of labour, during which the client experienced a significant perineal tear and before the third stage of labour had been completed the midwife left the birthing room without first ensuring adequate midwifery or medical care for the client and the baby.
- After leaving the birthing room did not immediately ensure adequate midwifery or medical care for the client or her baby.
The Finding
The charge arose from a medical condition that the midwife was diagnosed with in 2003 and the impact of this condition on the care she provided during the delivery of a baby in February 2010. The midwife denied all particulars of the charge and the matter was fully defended.
The Tribunal found that as the midwife was able to control her medical condition, she was not under any obligation to inform her client or other midwivees or clinical staff of it; there was no breach of the partnership relationship between the midwife and her client; there was no breach of the relationship with professional colleagues or an obligation to inform them she was unwell; there was no potentional compromise to the care of the client as the staff midwife was in the room when the midwife became unwell. None of the particulars of the charge were made out. The Tribunal found that the midwife was not guilty of professional misconduct.
The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.