Frank, Cathy Sheila
CPSO#: 71131
Summary
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur non nulla sit amet nisl tempus convallis quis ac lectus. Curabitur aliquet quam id dui posuere blandit. Vivamus suscipit tortor eget felis porttitor volutpat. Curabitur arcu erat, accumsan id imperdiet et, porttitor at sem. Vestibulum ac diam sit amet quam vehicula elementum sed sit amet dui. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Pellentesque in ipsum id orci porta dapibus.
Former Name: No Former Name
Gender: Female
Languages Spoken: English
Education: McMaster University, 1997
Practice Information
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit amet aliquam vel, ullamcorper sit amet ligula. Donec sollicitudin molestie malesuada. Donec rutrum congue leo eget malesuada. Nulla quis lorem ut libero malesuada feugiat.
Specialties
Specialty | Issued On | Type |
---|---|---|
Obstetrics and Gynecology | Effective:30 Jun 2002 | RCPSC Specialist |
Postgraduate Training
Please note: This information may not be a complete record of postgraduate training.Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistr, 01 Jul 1997 to 30 Jun 1998
PostGrad Yr 1 - Obstetrics and Gynecology
Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistr, 01 Jul 1998 to 30 Jun 1999
PostGrad Yr 2 - Obstetrics and Gynecology
Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistr, 01 Jul 1999 to 30 Jun 2000
PostGrad Yr 3 - Obstetrics and Gynecology
Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistr, 01 Jul 2000 to 30 Jun 2001
PostGrad Yr 4 - Obstetrics and Gynecology
Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistr, 01 Jul 2001 to 30 Jun 2002
PostGrad Yr 5 - Obstetrics and Gynecology
Registration History
Action | Issue Date |
---|---|
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate | Effective: 01 Jul 1997 |
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate | Effective: 30 Jun 2002 |
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate | Effective: 19 Jan 2009 |
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate | Effective: 19 Jan 2009 |
Terms and conditions amended by member | Effective: 14 Sep 2011 |
Terms and conditions amended by member | Effective: 15 Jan 2013 |
Terms and conditions amended by member | Effective: 22 May 2013 |
Terms and conditions amended by member | Effective: 21 Oct 2014 |
Terms and conditions amended by member | Effective: 27 Apr 2016 |
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee | Effective: 26 Feb 2018 |
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee | Effective: 26 Feb 2018 |
Expired: Resigned from membership. | Expiry: 18 Sep 2019 |
Previous Hearings
Dr. Frank is an obstetrician and gynecologist who received her certificate of registration authorizing independent practice from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“the College”) in June 2002. At the relevant time, she practised in St. Thomas and/or London.
Between 2009 and 2012, more than 30 patients filed complaints with the College regarding their treatment by Dr. Frank. Investigations into the patient complaints revealed that Dr. Frank had failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession in the care and treatment of patients and demonstrated a lack of knowledge amounting to incompetence in the following respects:
- failing to adequately investigate causes of patients’ symptoms prior to deciding on surgical management;
- failing to obtain informed consent before performing surgeries or procedures;
- failing to adequately document informed consent discussions and the manner in which she conducted gynecological surgeries;
- performing surgeries and procedures in a manner inconsistent with the standards of practice of the profession; and
- failing to adequately monitor and assess post-operative patients, including those exhibiting symptoms of complications.
Patient A
Patient A was referred to Dr. Frank for heavy menstrual bleeding in 2003. Dr. Frank offered Patient A an ablation or a laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy ("LAVH"). Patient A initially chose an ablation but changed her mind to an LAVH. Dr. Frank performed the LAVH.
Prior to proceeding with an LAVH, and in breach of the standard of practice, Dr. Frank failed to complete necessary investigations to diagnose dysfunctional uterine bleeding, such as ordering an ultrasound and blood work. Dr. Frank failed to record any discussion of any options other than ablation and LAVH or any discussion of specific risks of the surgical options in Patient A’s medical record, contrary to the standards of practice. Patient A does not recall any such discussion.
Following the surgery, Dr. Frank failed to adequately address Patient A’s follow-up care needs, in breach of the standards of practice. She allowed Patient A to be discharged without an examination, despite a hemoglobin reading that had dropped significantly, and a description by the nurse of Patient A as being pale, bruised and diaphoretic. While documenting that this was due to the patient’s desire to leave, she did not document that this was against medical advice. Dr. Frank also failed to adequately document the assessments of Patient A upon her re-attendance twice to the hospital. Patient A was readmitted by her family physician on her third attendance and seen by a different gynecologist. Patient A ultimately was found to have internal bleeding with a large pelvic hematoma, bruising of her lower abdomen, and vault cellulitis, which were caused by the LAVH.
Patient B
Patient B saw Dr. Frank in 2007 on referral for cystocele and vaginal vault prolapses from a urologist. Dr. Frank offered a posterior repair and possible Nichol's sling. Dr. Frank's record failed to reflect any discussion of alternative options or of any specific risks for the patient in undergoing the procedures, in breach of the standards of practice.
Dr. Frank attempted the surgical procedures, but was not able to complete all of the intended repairs so she discontinued the procedure. Patient B's prolapse returned and Dr. Frank then referred her to a urogynecologist for ongoing management. The College did not allege that Dr. Frank’s performance of the surgery or referral to a urogynecologist after the surgery failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession.
Patient C
Patient C was referred to Dr. Frank for dysmenorrhea. Dr. Frank obtained an ultrasound, which was unremarkable. Patient C was then booked for an LAVH, which Dr. Frank performed. Dr. Frank failed to adequately investigate the possible causes of menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea before booking Patient C for an LAVH. She did not record eliciting a history of pelvic pain, did not check TSH (though Patient C had known hypothyroidism on replacement), did not perform an endometrial biopsy or a pap test, and did not evaluate uterine size and mobility.
Patient C’s tolerance for surgical risk from the LAVH was very low because her child was scheduled for surgery four days after her own surgery. Dr. Frank failed to record having discussed with Patient C any specific risks of the LAVH. It was Patient C’s recollection that Dr. Frank advised her that she would be well enough to accompany her child to surgery in four days and that the LAVH was a simple operation.
Following the LAVH, Patient C experienced low blood pressure, requiring a fluid bolus, and a significant drop in hemoglobin. There is no evidence in the record that Patient C was assessed by a physician, but she was nonetheless discharged from hospital. Patient C returned to another hospital some days later and was ultimately diagnosed with a hematoma and underwent subsequent surgery. Dr. Frank's failure to monitor for, identify and treat Patient C's complication represents a failure to adequately follow up on her patient post-operatively in breach of the standard of practice.
Patient D
Dr. Frank managed Patient D's pregnancy after 32 weeks' gestation. According to Patient D, when she saw Dr. Frank at 34 weeks' gestation, she reported decreased fetal movement. Dr. Frank recorded that there was fetal movement, but there was no documentation in Dr. Frank's record about kick counting (to measure fetal movement) nor of advising the patient to go to hospital triage to have the baby assessed if there was decreased fetal movement. This lack of documentation breached the standard of practice.
At 35 weeks, Patient D presented to the emergency department and found the fetus was deceased. Patient D was then booked for an induction of labour. Dr. Frank ordered 800 mcg of Misoprostol every four hours, which was an inappropriately high dose for induction of a term 35 week pregnancy and in breach of the standard of practice. Dr. Frank also failed to obtain Patient D’s informed consent to her off-label use of Misoprostol in breach of the standard of practice.
Patient E
Patient E saw Dr. Frank in 2005 for pain associated with ovarian cysts and a family history of ovarian cancer. Dr. Frank conducted a laparoscopic right salpingo-oophorectomy and left ovarian resection.
When Patient E was later reassessed by Dr. Frank post-operatively, Patient E was complaining of pain. An ultrasound was done and revealed a 9cm left adnexal mass. Dr. Frank recommended to Patient E that this mass be removed in its entirety by way of laparotomy. Dr. Frank failed to document any other options for treatment or management offered to the patient and failed to document the specific risks of the laparotomy, in breach of the standards of practice.
Patient F
Patient F was referred to Dr. Frank by her family physician for irregular periods and consideration of an endometrial ablation. Dr. Frank saw Patient F in April 2009 and scheduled her for an endometrial ablation, which she performed in May. Dr. Frank failed to perform the required investigations (for example, blood work and ultrasound) to determine the cause of the irregular periods before proceeding with an endometrial ablation.
Patient G
Patient G saw Dr. Frank in September 2006 for severe abdominal pain. The pain was somewhat, although not completely, cyclical, and thus should have been investigated as potentially chronic pelvic pain via a multidisciplinary approach. An ultrasound was done and was normal. Dr. Frank offered the patient an LAVH. Dr. Frank failed to investigate and propose a cause of Patient G's pain before proceeding with an LAVH, in breach of the standard of practice. Dr. Frank's record failed to reflect having offered Patient G any non-surgical treatments. The LAVH was performed in November 2006, but did not resolve Patient G's pain.
Patient H
Dr. Frank, the on-call physician, attended to Patient H when she was admitted to hospital in labour in 2008. During the second stage of labour, while pushing, a fetal bradycardia occurred. As a result, Dr. Frank performed a forceps delivery with midline episiotomy. Dr. Frank failed to document obtaining consent for either procedure and the patient states that no informed consent discussion took place.
When Dr. Frank repaired the midline episiotomy, she failed to note a fourth degree laceration. Patient H was required to return and undergo a primary repair of the fourth degree laceration procedure seven days later. Dr. Frank fell below the standard of practice by failing to identify the fourth degree tear at the time of her repair of the episiotomy immediately after delivery.
Patient I
Patient I saw Dr. Frank in 2009 for problems regarding menorrhagia and a prior laparotomy for a ruptured ovarian cyst that had become infected. Dr. Frank failed to complete necessary steps to identify the cause of Patient I’s symptoms before scheduling Patient I for an LAVH.
Dr. Frank performed the LAVH. She documented in the operative report that Patient I's right ovary looked abnormal and that she removed it. This was Patient I's only ovary (as her other ovary had been previously removed in another surgery). The removal of Patient I's ovary was not discussed with Patient I before the surgery, nor with any family member during the surgery. Dr. Frank's failure to discuss the removal of the ovary with Patient I meant that Patient I had no opportunity to consent to a procedure that rendered her prematurely menopausal.
Patient I only became aware that her ovary had been removed when she reviewed her medical records several years later. Dr. Frank failed to meet the standard of practice by failing to obtain informed consent for the removal of Patient I's ovary.
Patient J
Patient J saw Dr. Frank in April 2005 regarding an ultrasound that revealed a fibroid in her uterus. She was asymptomatic at that time and did not want any treatment. She saw Dr. Frank again in January 2006 on referral from her family physician as her fibroid was increasing in size.
In her reporting letter to the referring physician, Dr. Frank documented having discussed with Patient J the possibility of complications of an increasing fibroid including the remote possibility of cancer. She only documented discussing two options for treatment of the fibroid: embolization and an LAVH. Dr. Frank failed to document discussion of other non-invasive treatment options. Patient J proceeded with an LAVH due to her misunderstanding of the degree to which cancer was a risk and her lack of understanding of other treatment options.
Patient K
Patient K initially saw Dr. Frank in October 2003 for pain associated with fibroids. Dr. Frank performed a diagnostic laparoscopy in January 2004. Patient K was later re-referred and seen by Dr. Frank in January 2007 for heavy menses and a large uterine fibroid. Dr. Frank's record reflects only having offered Patient K an LAVH to address the fibroid. Dr. Frank’s medical record fails to reflect any discussion of non-surgical options or of any specific risks of an LAVH for Patient K, even though she had increased risk due to the fibroid and two previous caesarean sections, contrary to the standards of practice. Dr. Frank also failed to perform an investigative step necessary to rule out cancer, namely an endometrial biopsy in advance of the LAVH.
Dr. Frank performed the LAVH in April 2007. She failed to adequately document the procedure in her operative note, as it did not clearly describe how the procedure was performed.
Patient L
Patient L was seen by Dr. Frank in March 2006, after having been referred for heavy, irregular bleeding. Dr. Frank failed to conduct required steps, which would have provided more information about Patient L’s treatment options, specifically, an endometrial biopsy, before proceeding with an LAVH. Patient L was booked on the first visit for an LAVH. Dr. Frank performed the LAVH. Dr. Frank failed to adequately document the procedure in the operative note, as it does not clearly set out how the procedure was performed, in breach of the standard of practice.
Patient M
Patient M was seen by Dr. Frank in May 2006 for menorrhagia. Dr. Frank failed to take the appropriate investigative step of obtaining an endometrial biopsy before proceeding with an LAVH.
Dr. Frank discussed some other options with Patient M, but booked Patient M for an LAVH on the first visit. Dr. Frank failed to document discussion of risks specific to Patient M. Patient M does not recall having been advised of the risks associated with the procedure. Patient M faced a specific risk of damage to her bladder because of her previous history.
Dr. Frank performed the LAVH. Dr. Frank failed to adequately document the procedure in the operative note, as it does not clearly set out how the procedure was performed, in breach of the standard of practice.
Patient O
Patient O was referred to Dr. Frank for prenatal care and delivery of her fourth child. Following the delivery of her fourth child, Patient O saw Dr. Frank and discussed surgical sterilization. Dr. Frank offered her a tubal ligation, which was then performed. Dr. Frank's record does not reflect any discussion of alternative options or of any specific risks of the procedure, in breach of the standard of practice.
Patient P
Dr. Frank managed Patient P's pregnancy and attended for her delivery. Patient P was admitted for a post-dates induction in May 2006. After Patient P pushed for approximately one hour, Dr. Frank delivered the baby using forceps. Patient P experienced a third-degree tear of the perineum. Dr. Frank failed to record any discussion with Patient P of the indication for forceps, the risks and benefits of forceps, or the alternatives to forceps use, and Patient P does not recall any such discussion.
Patient Q
Patient Q saw Dr. Frank in October 2005 for heavy, painful periods. Dr. Frank ordered an ultrasound, which was found to be normal. Patient Q was subsequently booked for an LAVH. Dr. Frank failed to take the required step of obtaining an endometrial biopsy preoperatively.
Dr. Frank failed to document discussion of risks specific to Patient Q, in particular the increased risk of bladder injury as a result of Patient Q’s prior caesarean sections. Dr. Frank failed to document which medical management options were discussed and the advice given to Patient Q as to each of those options given Patient Q’s specific circumstances. It was Patient Q's understanding that Dr. Frank was recommending a hysterectomy for her.
Dr. Frank failed to adequately document the procedure in her operative note, as it did not clearly describe how the procedure was performed.
Patient R
Patient R, in her first pregnancy, was seen by Dr. Frank for prenatal care. She was admitted to hospital in August 2005 for induction of labour. Patient R had a prolonged second stage of labour followed by a failed forceps delivery by Dr. Frank. Dr. Frank then planned for the patient to go for a caesarean section, which she carried out approximately three hours later when an OR became available. In view of Patient R's prolonged labour and the failed forceps delivery, Dr. Frank should have, but did not, order prophylactic antibiotics prior to the caesarean section.
Following surgery, Patient R presented with an abnormal ECG and developed a fever, which continued for five days. Dr. Frank failed to appropriately document and coordinate Patient R's post-operative care and failed to ensure appropriate assessment of the patient. Patient R was found to have an intra- abdominal abscess which was drained by another physician seven days after the caesarian section.
Patient S
Patient S was seen by Dr. Frank in 2008 for heavy menstrual cycles. She was found to have multiple fibroids. She wished to avoid surgery and was given a prescription for an Evra patch. However, she later attended at hospital with abdominal pain, heavy flow and a palpable suprapubic mass. On the same day, she saw Dr. Frank who noted pain and bleeding. Dr. Frank ordered an ultrasound which found a large uterus with multiple fibroids. Dr. Frank booked Patient S for an LAVH. Dr. Frank failed to document the details of alternative treatment options that were discussed or the specific risks for Patient S, contrary to the standards of practice.
The surgery was completed in December 2008. Dr. Frank’s operative note indicated that, following the introduction of the laparoscope, a small bowel puncture due to the trocar placement was identified. Dr. Frank obtained an intra-operative general surgery consultation and, on advice, proceeded to a laparotomy (abdominal approach). Given the size of the uterus and the presence of multiple fibroids, Dr. Frank should have used an abdominal rather than a laparoscopic approach. The manner in which Dr. Frank conducted the surgery therefore breached the standard of practice.
Patient T
Dr. Frank performed an LAVH on Patient T in 2007. During the surgery, Dr. Frank used a
laparoscopic LigaSure device for a vaginal approach for cauterization of the uterosacral and cardinal ligaments. The shaft length of the instrument may have increased the risk of injury to the patient which could have been avoided with a different approach or method, such that it amounted to a breach of the standard of practice. Patient T presented to the emergency department a few days following surgery with urinary incontinence, and also presented to Dr. Frank’s office. Dr. Frank ultimately facilitated Patient T being seen by further specialists and she was diagnosed with a ureterovaginal fistula, subsequently undergoing reparative surgery.
Patient U
Dr. Frank performed an LAVH on Patient U in 2010. During the surgery, Dr. Frank used a laparoscopic LigaSure device for a vaginal approach to divide the tissues up the broad ligament. The shaft length of the instrument may have increased the risk of injury to the patient which could have been avoided with a different approach or method, such that it amounted to a breach of the standard of practice. Patient U experienced a ureteric vaginal fistula following surgery.
Patient V
Dr. Frank performed an LAVH on Patient V in 2009. During the surgery, Dr. Frank used a laparoscopic LigaSure device for a vaginal approach. The uterosacral and cardinal ligaments were cauterized and cut using the laparoscopic LigaSure device. The shaft length of the instrument may have increased the risk of injury to the patient which could have been avoided with a different approach or method, such that it amounted to a breach of the standard of practice.
Following the surgery, Dr. Frank failed to address in a timely way Patient V’s post-operative complications, specifically what was eventually identified as a bowel perforation sustained during the surgery. Dr. Frank should have arranged for a general surgical consultation and a restricted diet earlier in light of Patient V’s symptoms of bloody bowel movements, abdominal distension, severe pain, and a suspicion of bowel perforation.
Patient W
Dr. Frank assumed the prenatal care of Patient W in April 2005. Patient W attended at hospital and was seen by others on three occasions in October 2005. Dr. Frank was then notified of Patient W’s re- attendance at hospital, assessed her, and admitted her to hospital with a spontaneous rupture of membranes. An ultrasound showed a fetal heart rate of 133 and decreased amniotic fluid. Dr. Frank prescribed a 50 mcg dose of Misoprostol to augment labour.
There was a non-reassuring difficulty in registering a fetal heart rate. Dr. Frank then performed an emergency caesarean section. The infant was delivered and could not be resuscitated.
The use of Misoprostol for the induction of labour was not appropriate in this case and breached the standard of practice. Misoprostol can cause tetanic uterine contractions. Dr. Frank failed to obtain Patient W’s informed consent for an off-label use of Misoprostol.
Immediately after the delivery, Dr. Frank performed a tubal ligation. Patient W did not consent to the tubal ligation. Dr. Frank failed to document any discussion with Patient W about a tubal ligation in her office records nor to document performance of the tubal ligation in her operative note in a timely manner, which breached the standard of practice.
Patient X
Patient X was seen by Dr. Frank in 2005 on referral for menorraghia. Patient X was booked for an LAVH on her first visit. Dr. Frank's medical records do not reflect any discussion of specific alternative options for Patient X, nor of any specific risks of the surgery, in breach of the standards of practice. Dr. Frank failed to conduct or document necessary investigative steps to ascertain the cause of the menorraghia prior to booking Patient X for an LAVH, specifically, Dr. Frank's record does not document any physical examination prior to recommending an LAVH, nor does Patient X recall Dr. Frank having conducted one.
Patient BB
Patient BB saw Dr. Frank in 2003 for menorrhagia, pelvic pain, and stress incontinence. Dr. Frank obtained an ultrasound, which was found to be normal. At a subsequent appointment, Dr. Frank scheduled Patient BB for an LAVH and a tension free transvaginal tape procedure, which she later conducted. Dr. Frank failed to document in Patient BB’s medical record any discussion of non-surgical options or of any specific risks related to the procedures.
Patient DD
Patient DD was seen by Dr. Frank in 2003 for menometrorrhagia. An ultrasound showed an ovarian cyst which was noted to be not simple. Dr. Frank booked Patient DD for an endometrial ablation and a diagnostic laparoscopy with possible ovarian cystectomy. Dr. Frank failed to document in Patient DD’s medical record any discussion of specific alternative options, or of specific risks related to these procedures. During the surgery, Patient DD’s uterus was perforated. The College does not allege that Dr. Frank’s performance of the surgery failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession.
Patient EE
Patient EE was referred to Dr. Frank in 2009 for post-menopausal bleeding, hot flashes, and atrophic vaginitis. Dr. Frank ordered an ultrasound and subsequently performed an endometrial biopsy. Dr. Frank then carried out an LAVH with bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (BSO) in January 2010. Dr. Frank failed to document having discussed the specific risks of the LAVH and BSO along with the risks of not having surgery, such as the risk of progression, spread, and mortality.
The pathology from the LAVH and BSO showed that Patient EE had two types of cancer: a well differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma and an adult granulosa cell tumour. Follow-up for these cancers should have included a pelvic exam every three to four months for the first two years and every six months for up to five years. Dr. Frank failed to advise Patient EE of the pathology findings and of the appropriate frequency of follow up required, in breach of the standard of practice, rather advising her to attend for follow up in one year’s time.
Patient AAA
Dr. Frank was the physician on-call at the hospital who managed Patient AAA when she was admitted to hospital in labour in 2006. After one hour of pushing, the fetal heart rate tracing showed variable decelerations. Dr. Frank decided to deliver the baby by forceps. Dr. Frank failed to adequately assess and document the station and position of the fetal head before doing this. She then tried using forceps four times. She re-applied the forceps three times (including a change of forceps type). Each time, she noted that the forceps "slipped off." The trial of forceps lasted approximately half an hour. Dr. Frank failed to meet the standard of practice of the profession in her multiple uses of the forceps. Dr. Frank failed to document in the record having received informed consent to proceed with a trial of forceps. Patient AAA does not recall having provided informed consent.
Dr. Frank moved to a caesarean section. However, and in breach of the standard of practice, Dr. Frank failed to appropriately arrange anaesthesia support before starting the trial of forceps, which then resulted in a delay of 48 minutes for anaesthesia to arrive. Dr. Frank failed to adequately document how she performed the caesarean section. In particular, she failed to properly document the position of the baby at birth. She recorded the delivery as a "breech extraction" in her delivery summary, but did not make any reference to this in her operative note, stating there that it was in a vertex presentation.
Patient AAA and her baby both experienced significant complications following the birth. The baby required resuscitation and transfer to another hospital.
The Facts Regarding Penalty
Prior Decisions
- In 2009, the College's Complaints Committee issued a decision in which it required Dr. Frank to attend to be cautioned. The concerns of the Complaints Committee related to Dr. Frank's management of a twin pregnancy, including inadequate documentation and the failure to order appropriate bloodwork and glucose testing.
- In 2016, the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee ("ICRC") issued a decision in which it required Dr. Frank to attend to be cautioned. This decision was disposed of at the same time as some of the complaints at issue in the discipline case. The ICRC's concerns related to Dr. Frank's prenatal care of the patient in 2006 and, specifically, her failure to appropriately manage/investigate the patient’s weight gain, hypertension and decreased fetal movement.
Undertakings
- Dr. Frank has been the subject of a number of undertakings with the College as a result of prior complaints, reports, and practice assessments. At the time of the hearing, Dr. Frank's practice was restricted as a result of undertakings entered into in 2011 and 2014, as well as an interim undertaking entered into in 2016 pending the current hearing, in lieu of an interim order.
- On January 19, 2009, Dr. Frank provided an undertaking agreeing to undergo a practice assessment and abide by recommendations of the assessor. She also agreed to complete the College's Medical Record-Keeping course as well as the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada ("SOGC") ALARM course.
- The 2009 Undertaking arose as a result of concerns regarding Dr. Frank's clinical care arising from two public complaints. As a result of the two public complaints, the College initiated an investigation into Dr. Frank's practice. The 2009 Undertaking was entered into in resolution of the investigation.
- On September 14, 2011, Dr. Frank agreed to an undertaking restricting her ability to practise obstetrical and gynecological surgery. Under the 2011 Undertaking, Dr. Frank was not permitted to practise gynecological or obstetrical surgery, unless as part of a remediation program. She also could not apply for gynecological or obstetrical privileges, and was not permitted to practise as the most responsible physician in respect of any gynecological or obstetrical patients in any hospital. The 2009 Undertaking also remained in effect.
- The 2011 Undertaking arose after St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital said that it would be conducting an external review into Dr. Frank's practice at the hospital. Dr. Frank subsequently voluntarily resigned her staff appointment at the hospital and this was reported to the College.
- On December 7, 2012, Dr. Frank signed a further undertaking. Under this undertaking, the 2011 Undertaking remained in effect, meaning that the restrictions on Dr. Frank's ability to practise obstetrical and gynecological surgery continued. In addition, under the 2012 Undertaking, Dr. Frank agreed to a two-year period of clinical supervision. She also agreed not to perform ultrasound procedures without further training if the College deemed that her training and certification were not appropriate. She further agreed to complete a program in medical ethics.
- The 2012 Undertaking resulted from recommendations made by assessors under the 2009 Undertaking.
- On October 21, 2014, Dr. Frank executed another undertaking, which replaced the 2009 and 2012 Undertakings. The 2011 Undertaking restricting Dr. Frank's scope of practice to exclude obstetrical and gynecological surgery remained in effect. In addition, under the 2014 Undertaking, Dr. Frank could not conduct ultrasound testing, interpret ultrasound images, or perform ultrasound-guided procedures unless she completed remediation and reassessment. Dr. Frank also agreed to ongoing clinical supervision. The undertaking included an Individualized Education Plan to be completed by Dr. Frank.
- The 2014 Undertaking arose as a result of the recommendations from a clinical supervisor retained under the 2012 Undertaking.
- On April 27, 2016, Dr. Frank provided an undertaking in lieu of an interim order pending the disposition of the discipline case. Under this undertaking, Dr. Frank agreed to practise under a clinical supervisor who would submit reports to the College at least once per quarter. The restrictions on her scope of practice from the 2011 and 2014 Undertakings remained in effect.
Practice Restrictions At the Date of the Hearing
- Dr. Frank had existing practice restrictions at the time of the hearing as a result of her undertakings to the College:
- under the 2011 Undertaking, Dr. Frank was not permitted to:
- practise in the area of gynecological or obstetrical surgery unless she as part of a remediation program pre-approved by the College and supervised by a preceptor who was to act as most responsible physician ("MRP") for all patients;
- apply for gynecological or obstetrical surgery privileges at any hospital , orengage in the practice of medicine as the MRP in respect of any obstetrical or gynecological patients, at any hospital.
- the terms of the 2014 Undertaking that were not completed remained in effect. Specifically:
- while Dr. Frank could be the MRP performing ultrasounds on her own patients, she could only do so under the supervision of her clinical supervisor.
- while Dr. Frank could be the MRP performing ultrasound-guided procedures on her own patients, she could only do so under the supervision of the clinical supervisor, meaning that Dr. Frank's ultrasound-guided procedures could only be performed in the clinical supervisor's clinic and where a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist was to always be available on the premises to intervene if required. Although Dr. Frank was permitted to perform ultrasound-guided procedures in these circumstances, Dr. Frank had ceased performing these procedures.
- the clinical supervisor was required to select and review a minimum of fifteen charts per month related to imaging, ultrasound-guided procedures and pelvic and pregnancy ultrasounds and meet with Dr. Frank once every month. The clinical supervisor was also required to provide quarterly reports to the College.
- until final disposition of the Discipline Committee proceeding, Dr. Frank had been required to practise under the guidance of a clinical supervisor with respect to all areas of her practice. The clinical supervisor was to review at least fifteen of Dr. Frank's patient charts from all areas of her practice once every month and meet with Dr. Frank once every month. The clinical supervisor was also required to submit written reports to the College at least once a quarter.
- the 2014 Undertaking required reassessment of Dr. Frank's practice following the required remediation. In the process of agreeing to the 2016 Undertaking, Dr. Frank agreed to submit to a reassessment of her practice by an assessor or assessors selected by the College, to take place six months after she had returned to practise following the conclusion of the Discipline Committee proceeding.
- therefore, since 2011, Dr. Frank had been prohibited from performing any obstetrical or gynecological surgeries. Since 2012, Dr. Frank's ability to perform ultrasounds and ultrasound- guided procedures had been restricted. Dr. Frank's practice as of the date of the hearing consisted of reproductive endocrinology and infertility, office gynecology and early obstetrical care.
Monitoring Reports
- The College received reports from Dr. Frank's clinical supervisors under her undertakings and, most recently, under the 2014 and 2016 Undertakings. The recent reports received from Dr. Frank's clinical supervisor were consistently positive. While Dr. Frank's most recent clinical supervisor under the 2014 and 2016 Undertakings raised criticisms in individual cases, the number of criticisms declined over time. He did not raise any significant practice concerns.
Disposition
On February 26, 2018, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that:
- the Registrar suspend Dr. Frank's certificate of registration for twenty-four (24) months, to commence at 12:01 a.m., February 27, 2018.
- the Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Frank's certificate of registration:
- Dr. Frank shall practise only in the areas of reproductive endocrinology and infertility, office-based gynecology and early obstetrical care (i.e. before 20 weeks of pregnancy);
- Upon returning to practice following the suspension of her certificate of registration, Dr. Frank shall comply with any College policy regarding re-entering practice in existence at the time of her resumption of practice. Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any program pursuant to the College policy regarding re•entering practice shall, at a minimum, require that:
- Dr. Frank initially perform ultrasound-guided procedures only in a clinic belonging to a clinical supervisor and where a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist is/are always available on the premises to intervene if required; and,
- Approximately six (6) months following Dr. Frank's return to practice, Dr. Frank undergo a reassessment of her practice (the "Reassessment") by a College-appointed assessor or assessors (the "Assessor(s)"). Dr. Frank shall cooperate fully with the Reassessment, which may include a review of Dr. Frank's patient charts, direct observation, interviews with staff and/or patients, and/or other tools deemed necessary by the College. The results of the Reassessment shall be reported to the College, and, if requested to do so by the College, Dr. Frank shall abide by the recommendations of the Assessor(s). Any of those recommendations of the Assessor(s) which are limitations and/or restrictions on Dr. Frank's practice and/or which the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee identifies as limitations and/or restrictions on her practice shall be included on the public register as terms, conditions, or limitations on her Certificate of Registration for the purposes of section 23 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended;
- Dr. Frank shall only practise in a group setting which has been approved by the College;
- Dr. Frank shall consent to sharing of information among the Assessor(s), any of her Clinical Supervisor(s), and the College as any of them deem necessary or desirable in order to fulfill their respective obligations;
- Dr. Frank shall consent to the College making appropriate enquiries of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and/or any person who or institution that may have relevant information, in order for the College to monitor and enforce her compliance with the terms of this Order;
- Dr. Frank shall submit to, and not interfere with, unannounced inspections of her Practice Locations and patient charts by a College representative for the purposes of monitoring her compliance with the terms of this Order;
- Dr. Frank shall give her irrevocable consent to the College and to her Assessor(s) to make enquiries of her patients regarding medical services provided by her in order to ensure that she is documenting all information relevant to her practice in an accurate way;
- Dr. Frank shall consent to the College providing any Chief(s) of Staff or a colleague with similar responsibilities at any location where she practises with any information the College has that led to this Order and/or any information arising from the monitoring of her compliance with this Order; and,
- Dr. Frank shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with implementing the terms of this Order.
- Dr. Frank attend before the panel to be reprimanded.
- Dr. Frank to pay to the College costs in the amount of $10,180.00, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Concerns
Source: Member
Active Date: September 18, 2019
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Summary of the Undertaking given by Dr. Cathy Sheila Frank to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, effective September 18, 2019:
College investigations were conducted into whether Dr. Frank failed to maintain the standard of practice and was incompetent in her transgender care practice, and/or engaged in professional misconduct in her fertility practice. In the face of these allegations, Dr. Frank resigned from the College and has agreed never to apply or reapply for registration as a physician in Ontario or any other jurisdiction.
Download Full Document (PDF)