On 8 February 2024, the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) heard a charge of professional misconduct laid by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand (the Council) against Ms Denise Georgina Perkins, a registered nurse of Raetihi (the Nurse). The hearing took place by way of audio-visual link. The Nurse did not attend the hearing.

Charge

In Charge 1, the PCC alleged that the Nurse made Facebook posts and comments in which she communicated offensive or inappropriate rhetoric and information related to the COVID-19 vaccine and that these comments were disparaging of nurses and other health professionals.

In Charge 2, the PCC alleged that the Nurse shared a letter addressed to her from the Deputy Registrar of the Nursing Council regarding two anonymous complaints made to the Nursing Council about her conduct. In the comments on this Facebook post, the Nurse had exchanges with two individuals which the PCC alleges were offensive and/or inappropriate comments that amount to professional misconduct.

The PCC says that both Charges separately and/or cumulatively is conduct that is malpractice and/or negligence in the Nurses’ scope of practice and that she has brought discredit to the nursing profession pursuant to sections 100(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act.

The Charge is set out in full in the Schedule attached to the full decision.

Background

The Nurse was working as a registered nurse at Ruapehu Health Ltd. Her Annual Practising Certificate expired in June 2022, and she is no longer working as a registered nurse.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government announced that workers in the health and disability sector would be required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and must have received their first vaccination before the close of 15 November 2021. The Nurse shared a photo and 1new.co.nz story as well as information regarding COVID-19 vaccine exemption certificates, along with her own statements. Following the two Facebook posts, the Nurse then shared links to the New Zealand Pharmaco Vigilance Centre and to an organisation New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) along with her own statements on her Facebook page.

The Nursing Council received separate complaints – referred to as notifications – regarding the Nurses’ social media activity. Both notifiers advised they wished to remain anonymous. The Nursing Council wrote to the Nurse to advise her of the notifications received and that they had been referred to the Health and Disability Commissioner. The following day, the Nurse shared the letter and notifications to her Facebook page. In the comments on the post the Nurse had an exchange with two health professionals Ms A and Ms N. The Nurses’ Facebook page was publicly accessible in that her posts were able to be viewed by people who were not Facebook friends with her.

Findings

The two Charges (including particulars) of professional misconduct are established separately and cumulatively as malpractice. In particular the Tribunal found that the statements made by the Nurse were vitriolic and an inappropriate reaction in respect of the post following receipt of the notice of notifications.  It was disrespectful of the complaint process and the role of the Nursing Council and the Health and Disability Commissioner.  Her posts relating to the two health professionals were highly offensive.

While the Nurse is entitled to hold her own view and make personal choices in regard to vaccination, the statements in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Government’s roll out programme were highly unprofessional and inappropriate falling below the behaviour expected of a nurse.

The Nurse’s conduct has brought, and is likely to bring, discredit to the nursing profession pursuant to ss100(1)(a) and 100(1)(b) of the Act. Her conduct is deserving of a disciplinary sanction.

Penalty

The Tribunal ordered:

• Suspension of practice for a period of 12 months
• Conditions on practice following return to practice
• Censure
• Payment of 30% of the Tribunal’s hearing and the PCC’s investigation, fixed at $8,000.  

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.