Yau, Patrick Wing Nin (CPSO#: 66515)

Current Status: Active Member as of 13 Aug 2017

CPSO Registration Class: Restricted as of 12 Apr 2017

Indicates a concern or additional information

Summary

Former Name: No Former Name

Gender: Male

Languages Spoken: Cantonese, English

Education:University of Toronto, 1993

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Suite 402
4190 Finch Avenue East
Toronto ON  M1S 4T7
Phone: (416) 786-9620
Electoral District: 10
View Professional Corporation Information

Professional Corporation Information

Corporation Name: Dr. Patrick Yau Medicine Professional Corporation

Certificate of Authorization Status: Issued Date:  Sep 13 2010

Shareholders:
Dr. P. Yau ( CPSO# 66515 )

Business Address:
402 - 4190 Finch Avenue East
Toronto ON  M1S 4T7
Phone Number: (416) 786-9620

Hospital Privileges

Hospital Location
Scarborough Hospital-Birchmount Campus Toronto

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
General Surgery Effective: 30 Jun 1998 RCPSC Specialist

Postgraduate Training

Please note: This information may not be a complete record of postgraduate training.

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1993 to 30 Jun 1994
PostGrad Yr 1 - General Surgery

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1994 to 30 Jun 1995
Resident 2 - General Surgery

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1995 to 30 Jun 1996
Resident 3 - General Surgery

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1996 to 30 Jun 1997
Resident 4 - General Surgery

McMaster University, 01 Jul 1997 to 30 Jun 1998
Resident 5 - General Surgery

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 01 Jul 1993
Transfer of class of registration to: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 30 Jun 1998
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 12 Apr 2017
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate by Discipline Committee Effective: 12 Apr 2017
Suspension of registration imposed: Discipline Committee Effective: 13 May 2017
Suspension of registration removed Effective: 13 Aug 2017

Practice Restrictions

Imposed By Effective Date Expiry Date Status  
Discipline Committee Effective: 12 Apr 2017 Active View Details [+]
            As from 11:59 pm, April 12, 2017, by order of the Discipline Committee of the
            College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the following terms, conditions
            and limitations are imposed on the certificate of registration held by Dr.
            Patrick Wing Nin Yau:

            (i)   Dr. Yau will not perform the revision surgery referred to as band over
                  bypass outside of a hospital setting; 

            (ii)  Dr. Yau will meet in-person with patients who reside in the GTA for a
                  pre-surgical consultation in respect of gastric banding on a day that is
                  prior to surgery and will document the consultation. For patients that
                  reside outside the GTA, Dr. Yau will conduct a telephone consultation on
                  a day that is prior to surgery day and will document the consultation;
                  and

            (iii) Dr. Yau will not act as a Medica1 Director of an Out-of-Hospital Premise
                  for a period of one (1) year.


Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 12 Apr 2017
Summary:

On April 12, 2017, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Patrick Wing Nin Yau committed an 
act of professional misconduct in that he has failed to maintain the standard of practice of the 
profession. 
  
Dr. Yau is a general surgeon who received his certificate of registration authorizing independent 
practice in Ontario in 1998 and has held privileges at Scarborough General Hospital since 1999.  
In addition, he held the position of a medical director and practised general surgery, including 
bariatric surgery, at the Prince Arthur Surgical Centre Inc. (“the Clinic”), an Out of Hospital 
Premise, located in Toronto, which offered weight loss surgical procedures, including adjustable 
laparoscopic gastric banding. The Clinic ceased operations as of March 22, 2017.  
 
Patient A 
 
In November 2013, Patient A attended at the Clinic for bariatric surgery with Dr. Yau.  
 
Prior to meeting Dr. Yau in 2013, Patient A had two previous bariatric surgeries. At the time of 
her initial surgery, Patient A had a Body Mass Index (“BMI”) of 41 and was morbidly obese.  
 
In a pre-surgery questionnaire, Patient A indicated that she hoped to reduce her BMI to 21. She 
also participated in a telephone pre-surgical consultation with a Clinic nurse, during which her 
BMI was noted to be 26, based on her self-reported weight and height. In addition, prior to 
surgery, Dr. Yau conducted a telephone consultation with Patient A, as she resided in another 
province, but did not note Patient A’s BMI at the time.  
 
On the day of the surgery, Patient A was weighed by Clinic staff.  Her BMI was recorded as 
being 24.9, which is 10 lbs. less than the weight she self-reported during the telephone pre-
surgical consultation with a Clinic nurse, and is considered to be in the normal range.  
 
Patient A consented to the gastric banding surgery and Dr. Yau attempted the surgery on that 
day. However, the surgery could not be completed due to many dense adhesions that made 
dissection difficult. A tiny perforation was diagnosed and surgically repaired. The surgery was 
aborted, a drain was placed and the patient was sent to the hospital for observation. She was 
ultimately discharged home without complications.  
 
The College retained an expert in bariatric surgery, lap-band procedures and laparoscopy who 
opined that Dr. Yau fell below the standard of practice of the profession in deciding to perform 
the gastric banding surgery on Patient A when the bariatric surgery, including gastric banding, 
was not indicated given this patient’s normal BMI. The expert further noted that Dr. Yau’s 
decision to proceed with surgery exposed the patient to potential harm or injury, particularly 
given the risk that the patient’s well-functioning gastric bypass could be damaged during 
surgery.  
 
During the investigation, Dr. Yau advised the College that he missed the BMI noted as 24.9 on a 
computerized printout from an assessment done on the day of surgery and, inadvertently, 
proceeded with the surgery based on the initial numbers. Dr. Yau also advised the College that 
he has since, on his own initiative, implemented a number of changes to his practice, including 
improved documentation of patient discussions and indications for surgery, dictation of pre-
operative notes and scrutinization of all patients’ vitals, including morphological values, BMI, 
height and weight on the surgery day.  
 
Patient B 
 
In January 2012, Patient B attended the Clinic for a laparoscopic gastric banding procedure to 
assist him in losing weight. In addition to obesity, Patient B suffered from Type 1 Diabetes and 
hypertension, both of which were medically controlled.  
 
During Patient B’s post-surgery overnight stay in the clinic, the nurses documented abnormal 
and high glycemic results. At the time of his discharge from the clinic the next morning, Patient 
B’s blood sugar and glucose levels were not verified or recorded by the Clinic nurse.  
 
Following his discharge from the Clinic, Patient B boarded a plane as he resided in a different 
province. Upon landing, he checked into a hotel and was found deceased the following morning.  
The cause of death was attributed to bacterial meningitis and it was noted that diabetic 
ketoacidosis was a significant condition contributing to his death.  
 
Dr. Yau was not on the premises during Patient B’s post-surgery overnight stay at the Clinic. He 
was not notified about Patient B’s elevated glycemic results and did not see Patient B prior to his 
discharge. At the time of Patient B’s discharge, the Clinic’s Discharge Protocol only required 
that a diabetic patient be advised upon discharge if he or she tested “outside of parameters”.  
 
The expert retained by the College concluded that Dr. Yau fell below the standard of practice of 
the profession in his role as a medical director of the Clinic in that he failed to ensure that an 
appropriate policy was in place at the Clinic for the post-operative management and discharge of 
diabetic patients.  
 
On April 12, 2017, the Committee ordered and directed on the matter of penalty and costs that: 
 
-  The Registrar suspend Dr. Yau’s certificate of registration for a period of three (3) months 
   effective May 13, 2017, at 12:01 a.m. 
-  The Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Yau’s Certificate 
   of Registration: 
   (i)   Dr. Yau will not perform the revision surgery referred to as band over bypass outside 
         of a hospital setting; 
   (ii)  Dr. Yau will meet in-person with patients who reside in the GTA for a pre-surgical 
         consultation in respect of gastric banding on a day that is prior to surgery and will 
         document the consultation. For patients that reside outside the GTA, Dr. Yau will 
         conduct a telephone consolation on a day that is prior to surgery day and will 
         document the consultation; and  
   (iii) Dr. Yau will not act as a Medical Director of an Out-of-Hospital Premise for a period 
         of one (1) year.  
-  Dr. Yau attend before the panel to be reprimanded. 
-  Dr. Yau pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.00 within thirty (30) days of the 
   date this Order becomes final.

Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): April 12, 2017

Concerns

Source: ICR Committee
Active Date: September 15, 2017
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person and Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" or a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Program (“SCERP”) is required by the College by-laws to be posted on the register, along with a note if the decision has been appealed. A “caution-in-person” disposition requires the physician to attend at the College and be verbally cautioned by a panel of ICRC. A SCERP is one of the dispositions that the College’s ICRC may make in connection with a matter before it, and this disposition requires the member to complete an education and remediation program specified for the member. A note will also be posted when all the elements of the SCERP have been completed.

Summaries will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. This posting requirement only applies to decisions arising out of a complaint dated on or after January 1, 2015 or if there was no complaint, the first appointment of investigators dated on or after January 1, 2015.

See PDF for the summary of a decision made against this member in which the disposition includes a Caution-in-Person and a SCERP:
Download Full Document (PDF)