As per Section 39.3 of the Health Professions Act the following public notice is given:
Name of Registrant: Sacha Murtonen (“Registrant”)
The Inquiry Committee determined that it would seek a consent order from the Registrant under ss. 33(6)(c) and 36 of the Health Professions Act (the “Act”) after concluding that she had collaborated with another registrant in completing the Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Assessment Tool. The Registrant executed the consent order on July 24, 2016.
Under terms of the Consent Order, the Registrant: (a) undertook not to repeat the conduct of engaging in unethical behaviour by collaborating with another registrant in completing QAP assessments; (b) consented to a reprimand in relation to her unethical conduct of breaching the College’s Statement of Understanding in the Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Assessment Tool by collaborating with another registrant; (c) undertook to write a reflective essay of not less than 1200 words outlining the circumstances of her breach, her experience with the Inquiry Committee process and what she had learned from this process; (d) undertook to complete the BCDHA Module F1: Ethics and Jurisprudence at her cost within six months; and (e) agreed to pay $1,000 towards the College’s costs of investigation in accordance with the Tariff of Costs under the College bylaws.
Reasons for action:
On April 4, 2016, the Inquiry Committee initiated an own motion investigation under s. 33(4)(c) of the Act in response to information it had received suggesting that the Registrant had collaborated with another registrant in completing the QAP Assessment.
The investigation revealed data demonstrating that the Registrant and another registrant completed the QAP Assessment Tool at the same time, in the same location, and submitted identical responses, with the exception of one question, and achieved the same score. The Registrant acknowledged the requirement for individual completion of the QAP Assessment Tool but still collaborated with another registrant in completing it. The Registrant apologized in writing for her conduct.
Following investigation, the Inquiry Committee determined that the Registrant had engaged in unethical behaviour by failing to comply with the Statement of Understanding on her completion of the QAP Assessment Tool by collaborating with another registrant, which behaviour constituted professional misconduct. The Inquiry Committee determined that the appropriate remedial action was a consent order with an undertaking not to repeat the conduct, consent to a reprimand, a requirement to take an ethics course at her cost, a requirement to complete a reflective paper, and a requirement to pay investigative costs.