As for Strom (read below) in Regina the punishment reeks of interference that the Hospital Authority would lobby for. I wonder if the six nurses that complained to the nursing association were ever named. I speculate if they even existed that they were directed to do so. No group of nurses would ever do this.
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/
"In finding her guilty, the SRNA wrote its intent was not to “muzzle”
Strom. …also suggested a $5,000 fine — “to drive home” that SHE SHOULD
NOT PUBLICLY CRITICIZE HER PROFESSION [emphasis mine]— plus $25,000 to
help cover costs of the investigation and hearing..." Oh, of
course not - how could huge fines and publicly disgracing Nurse Strom
possibly be construed as muzzling her? Saskatchewan Registered Nurses'Association might as well have announced a free pass for any of its members inclined to neglect seniors in health facilities. - Kate
COMPLAINING ABOUT GRANDDAD'S CARE ON FACEBOOK COULD COST NURSE $30Gs
Ashley Martin, Regina Leader-Post
Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:56:45 EST PM
REGINA, Sask. - Registered nurse Carolyn Strom said if she had known
the outcome two years ago, she would not have taken to social media to
criticize her grandfather’s long-term care.
As her drawn-out disciplinary hearing continued Friday in Regina,
Strom’s lawyer Marcus Davies and the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses’
Association (SRNA) counsel Roger Lepage put forth their submissions on
penalty — Lepage suggesting $30,000 total.
Strom took to Facebook on Feb. 25, 2015, to comment on the care of her
recently deceased grandfather at a long-term care facility in Macklin.
She suggested a lack of compassion and education among staff.
Her disciplinary hearing began Feb. 10, 2016. In October, the SRNA
discipline committee found Strom guilty of professional misconduct, as
her Facebook post was found to “harm the standing of the profession of
nursing,” under the Registered Nurses Act.
As proceedings wrapped up Friday afternoon, discipline committee
chairman Chris Etcheverry gave Strom an opportunity to speak.
“Thanks for asking me to talk,” Strom said. “It’s been a very
stressful couple of years, and it’s just very surreal … having to sit
and listen to your life and yourself being discussed.”
It has been a “very taxing” time, both financially and health-wise.
“Had I known that this would be the outcome, I wouldn’t have said what
I said, and I’ve definitely learned from what’s gone on,” said Strom.
In finding her guilty, the SRNA wrote its intent was not to “muzzle” Strom.
The discipline committee will render its written decision as soon as possible.
Lepage argued Strom’s penalty should include a formal reprimand placed
on the public register, course work, and a review of professional
standards and the Canadian Nurses’ Association code of ethics.
He also suggested a $5,000 fine — “to drive home” that she should not
publicly criticize her profession — plus $25,000 to help cover costs
of the investigation and hearing, which so far tallies almost
$143,000.
Davies disputed this, arguing the SRNA should pay all expenses as it
failed to negotiate an agreement in good faith.
As both parties attempted to resolve the case through a consensual
resolution agreement (CRA) between March 25 and Aug. 20, 2015, Lepage
said Davies and Strom would not co-operate within the required four
months, resulting in the hearing.
Davies said the issue was the SRNA’s “accusatory language” and
“inflammatory” claims, including accusing Strom of “professional
incompetence.” The wording didn’t improve after amendments.
Strom had agreed to the investigation committee’s conditions —
education, and reviewing standards and ethics. She had made “every
effort to try to resolve this without coming here,” said Davies.
“She was being punished for actually trying to reach an agreement by consent.”
Any fine should be “nominal in nature,” $1,000 or less, Davies said,
as “she’s already paid an awful lot” in this process: The
investigation has cost her tens of thousands of dollars in travel
expenses and missed work.
This is the SRNA’s first disciplinary hearing related to social media.
Lepage referenced five cases that could inform the penalty — including
one in which a nursing home employee published derogatory posts and
personal information about residents of the home, and one in which a
teacher blasted his employer for alleged homophobia.
Davies said, aside from the use of Facebook, Strom’s case does not
compare, and a $30,000 penalty would be “way out of line.”
Strom’s Facebook post alleged some staff were not “up to speed” on
end-of-life care and could use a refresher.
Strom, a registered nurse in the Prince Albert Parkland Health Region,
often uses social media as a health advocate, but this post was
written as a grieving granddaughter. The Macklin facility is part of
the Heartland Health Region.
As the hearing began a year ago, six registered nurses who cared for
Strom’s grandfather said they felt her Facebook post had tarnished
their reputations.
Strom generally referenced “staff” and did not criticize nurses in her post.
In its verdict, the discipline committee ruled Strom had breached the
CNA code of ethics, which promotes respect, meaningful communication
and collaboration with other health-care workers.
