When a female doctor refused to accept a patient’s claim she was ‘toxic’

Posted November 03, 2019 09:33:51 A female nurse who refused to admit a woman with an emergency in her emergency department because she was too ill to drive was “toxic” and “grossly incompetent”, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) has found.

Dr Sally McCallister had not received the woman’s written informed consent, the college’s annual review of practice found.

The report, released on Monday, also criticised the “horrific” treatment the nurse received at the hands of the woman.

Dr McCallisters response to the woman was “disgusting” and she was “treated like a criminal” during the emergency, it said.

The RACGP has called for a full investigation into the nurse’s treatment.

The woman had been admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital’s emergency department after suffering a severe allergic reaction to a product from the pharmacy that was marketed to treat severe allergies.

The product, GlaxoSmithKline’s Glucosamine, was prescribed by a nurse to the patient to treat her severe allergies, the RACgp report said.

When the woman refused to get the drug, Dr McCalister asked her to sit down.

The nurse, who had a history of “poor judgement and poor judgment skills”, refused to give the woman her medication.

The incident happened in March 2019.

Dr McMillister said the nurse was “overreacting” and said she was treating the patient “like a criminal”.

The nurse was taken to the ER, where she had a CT scan, the report said, and the patient was later transferred to the ICU.

“The RN has acted in a grossly negligent manner,” the report stated.

“This was an absolute gross and gross breach of the law.”

The report also found Dr McCalls response to Dr Watson was “gross” and called for her to be reprimanded.

The college said it would now be investigating the case.

Dr Watson’s response The nurse said she could not be interviewed about the incident.

“I’m not sure I can really go into it, because it’s not relevant,” she told ABC News.

“What I was looking at was a patient that was suffering a very serious allergy. “

“She had a severe reaction, but she was not being taken to hospital to be treated. “

“We knew the product was prescribed to treat a serious allergic reaction.” “

The nurse’s response to Ms Watson was to “take this seriously” and to make sure the patient would receive the correct medication. “

We knew the product was prescribed to treat a serious allergic reaction.”

The nurse’s response to Ms Watson was to “take this seriously” and to make sure the patient would receive the correct medication.

“When I was talking to the nurse about the response to that patient, she was telling me, ‘You’ve got to do what’s right, you’ve got a responsibility to do it, you can’t do anything like that’,” Dr McCalla said.

“But that was a gross disregard of the fact that the patient wasn’t being taken into hospital to receive that medication.”

The college’s chief executive, Dr Andrew Kelly, said the incident highlighted the need for greater clarity around the use of products to treat serious allergic reactions.

“It’s clear that we need more clarity around prescribing products to the people who need them,” Dr Kelly said.