Veteran nurse disciplined for emailing confidential patient information

In a major reversal, a Queensland court has ruled that a veteran nurse committed misconduct after emailing confidential patient information to her personal account while preparing a workplace complaint.

The Industrial Court of Queensland has overturned a previous ruling that cleared a Gold Coast clinical nurse of misconduct, finding she committed misconduct by emailing confidential patient information to her personal account while preparing a workplace complaint.

The decision reinstates Queensland Health’s original disciplinary findings, overturning the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s (QIRC) 2023 ruling, which had previously concluded that Shirley Nield’s actions did not constitute misconduct.

Nield, who worked in the neuroscience rehabilitation unit at Gold Coast University Hospital and served as an active union delegate, spent nearly 18 months compiling evidence for a formal complaint against her unit manager.

However, in the course of collecting that evidence, Nield accessed hospital records and emailed numerous internal documents to her personal email account, with the court hearing that, on occasion, a third party was also included.

In those limited instances, it was discovered that documents were shared with a union organiser.

Certain materials contained patient names and unique record numbers – sensitive information protected under privacy legislation and strict hospital protocols.

After lodging her workplace complaint in late 2021, Nield had her complaint rejected in January 2022 by the assistant director of nursing, Sue Samuels, who highlighted that several of the uploaded documents contained sensitive “health information”.

The matter escalated in October 2022 when Queensland Health issued a show-cause notice to Nield, outlining 11 allegations related to her unauthorised access and emailing of sensitive patient data and documents.

In relation to the first allegation, Nield denied failing to take reasonable steps to protect information stored by the hospital, arguing that she “didn’t access it from a source without permission”.

However, for the remaining 10 allegations, she admitted she shouldn’t have sent the information to her personal email, described herself as “remorseful”, and acknowledged that she “failed to take responsible steps to protect information stored by the GCHHS”.

In December 2022, Queensland Health found 10 of the 11 allegations against Nield were substantiated.

In a letter to her, the then acting executive director of people and operations of the service, Nigel Hoy, indicated that disciplinary consequences were being proposed, including a formal reprimand and a reduction in Nield’s classification level.

Commissioner Roslyn McLennan, who initially presided over the case after Nield appealed Hoy’s determination to the QIRC, ruled that Nield’s actions did not constitute misconduct.

The commission found that she had not knowingly breached confidentiality rules and that the matter should be addressed through “management action” rather than formal disciplinary measures.

In its ruling, the Industrial Court of Queensland, led by president Davis, criticised the commission for applying the “wrong test” and treating certain examples of misconduct – such as intentional wrongdoing – as if they were mandatory prerequisites.

The court held that the commission focused on Nield’s knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of the rules she breached, rather than assessing the seriousness of the breach itself.

While acknowledging that Nield may not have realised the full implications of her actions and had implemented basic security measures, the court found that these factors did not negate the improper nature of the conduct.

Although the commissioner accepted that Nield believed she was acting reasonably and within her rights, given her union involvement and personal circumstances, the court ruled that using confidential patient information for a personal workplace dispute – regardless of intent – constituted improper conduct.

The court’s ruling reinstates Queensland Health’s misconduct finding, meaning disciplinary proceedings will resume.

However, the judge signalled that Nield’s lack of deliberate wrongdoing and the possibility of handling the issue through management action are relevant factors that the decision-maker should consider when finalising any penalty.

Parties had until 14 October to file written submissions on costs, with opportunities for oral submissions if sought.