A panel of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal convened via an audiovisual link on 26 February 2024 to hear 2 charges of professional misconduct laid by a Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand against the practitioner, Mr Michael Joie Sobrevilla, registered nurse of Dunedin (the Nurse).

Charges

The first charge alleges that in 2017 the Nurse acted inappropriately towards a caregiver, while in his role as her manager. The second charge concerns inappropriate behaviour toward two student nurses in March 2022 while in his role as Clinical Nurse Manager and Registered Nurse (RN) mentor to the students.

The full charges can be found in the Decision at Appendix A.

Background

The Nurse gained his registration as a nurse in New Zealand on 16 October 2013 after completing a BScN at Bagulo Central University in the Philippines.

From 2013 the Nurse was employed by a Rest Home as the Unit Manager. The inappropriate conduct is alleged to have occurred during this time.

On unspecified dates in 2017, the Nurse acted inappropriately towards a caregiver while in his role as her manager.

Two nursing students, Ms D and Ms N began a four-week clinical placement at a Rest Home. On a number of dates in March 2022 the Nurse made inappropriate comments and acted inappropriately towards the two nursing students.

The hearing proceeded on an agreed summary of facts basis with the Nurse accepting the inappropriate charge was professional misconduct.

Finding

The Tribunal finds that the Nurse’s conduct did not reach the standards expected of a registered nurse. In not treating his colleagues with respect and harassing them in the workplace, he has breached the standards set in the Code of Conduct. This amounts to negligence within his scope of practice under section 100(1)(a).

The Tribunal also finds that reasonable members of the public, on hearing the totality of facts and circumstances of these charges would tend to think the reputation of the nursing profession was lowered and so the conduct is likely to bring discredit to the profession under section 100(1)(b).

The conduct amounts to negligence and conduct likely to bring discredit to the profession and is sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary sanction.

Penalty

The Tribunal ordered:

• Censure under s 101(1)(d)
• Conditions imposed on practising certificate under s 101(1)(c)
• Costs of $5734.72 under section 101(1)(f)

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.