skip to content

Jackiewicz, Allan Wojciech

CPSO#: 51975

MEMBER STATUS
Expired: Failure to Renew Membership as of 16 Aug 2018
CPSO REGISTRATION CLASS
None as of 15 Jan 2010

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: Male

Languages Spoken: English, Polish

Education:Academy of Medicine, Warsaw, 1981

Practice Information

Primary Location of Practice
Practice Address Not Available

Hospital Privileges

No Privileges reported.


Hospital Notices

Source:  Hospital
Active Date:  May 27, 2014
Expiry Date:  
Summary:  
On July 10, 2014, Niagara Health System notified the College that Dr. Allan Jackiewicz' s hospital privileges were restricted, effective May 27, 2014.

Source:  Hospital
Active Date:  January 17, 2014
Expiry Date:  
Summary:  
On January 20, 2014, Niagara Health System notified the College that Dr. Alan W. Jackiewicz's gynaecological privileges were suspended, effective January 17, 2014.

Specialties

Specialty Issued On Type
Obstetrics and Gynecology Effective:23 Nov 1987 RCPSC Specialist

Registration History

Action Issue Date
First certificate of registration issued: Postgraduate Education Certificate Effective: 14 Jun 1982
Expired: Terms and conditions of certificate of registration Expiry: 30 Jun 1983
Subsequent certificate of registration Issued: Independent Practice Certificate Effective: 01 Feb 1988
Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate Effective: 15 Jan 2010
Terms and conditions imposed on certificate Effective: 15 Jan 2010
Terms and conditions amended by Discipline Committee Effective: 22 Nov 2010
Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 10 Dec 2016
Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 09 Jan 2017
Terms and conditions amended by Inquiries, Complaints and Repo Effective: 21 Oct 2017
Expired: Failure to Renew Membership Expiry: 16 Aug 2018

Previous Hearings

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 05 Dec 2018
Summary:

On December 5, 2018, Dr. Jackiewicz entered a plea of no contest and the Discipline Committee 
found that he committed an act of professional misconduct in that he has failed to maintain the 
standard of practice of the profession and that he is incompetent. 

PART I – UNCONTESTED FACTS 
 
1.    Dr. Jackiewicz is 63 years old. He received his certificate of registration for independent 
practice in obstetrics and gynaecology from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario 
(“College”) in 1988. At the relevant times, he practised in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and held 
privileges at the Niagara Health System (“NHS”). 

Registrar’s Investigation Arising from Information Received from the NHS 

2.    In November 2013, the College received information regarding Dr. Jackiewicz from Dr. 
Joanna Hope, Interim Chief of Staff of NHS. Dr. Hope advised that Dr. Jackiewicz had 
voluntarily ceased booking surgeries, following a hospital report with respect to his surgical 
practice. At the time of the report, Dr. Jackiewicz had full gynaecological surgery privileges, and 
was practising under a restricted certificate of registration with respect to his obstetrics practice.  
In accordance with an Order of the Discipline Committee of the College from 2010, Dr. 
Jackiewicz was prohibited from managing labour and delivery for all pregnancies with some 
exceptions: he was permitted to perform elective or on-demand caesarean-section deliveries and 
he was permitted to act as a surgical assistant to other hospital-based caesarean-sections when a 
College-approved obstetrician is performing the caesarean-section as the most responsible 
physician and is in attendance for the duration of the procedure. 

3.    In her letter, Dr. Hope confirmed that Dr. Jackiewicz’s hospital privileges had not 
changed and that he was performing only surgical assists and pursuing his office-based practice 
in accordance with the 2010 Discipline Committee Order.   

4.    On the basis of this information, and the materials provided by NHS, the Inquiries, 
Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”) approved the appointment of investigators under 
section 75(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (“Code”) in order to conduct a 
broader investigation into Dr. Jackiewicz’s surgical practice. 

5.    On January 8, 2014, College Investigator requested information from the NHS regarding 
Dr. Jackiewicz including: personnel and medical staff office files; minutes of meetings, 
correspondence, medical or hospital staff complaints or incident reports; internal or external 
reviews of his practice; patient complaints; and any patient hospital statistics pertaining to Dr. 
Jackiewicz.   

6.    The College subsequently received the information requested from NHS. This included 
the reports of two external experts who had been retained by NHS to review patient charts and to 
opine on the standard of practice with respect to gynaecologic surgeries performed by Dr. 
Jackiewicz. The experts retained by NHS were Dr. Mathias Gysler and Dr. Arthur Zaltz.    

7.    Dr. Gysler’s report was based on his review of 70 patient charts from NHS. In his report, 
dated August 30, 2013, Dr. Gysler opined in part as follows: 
                                      2 

      Review of the information provided raises great concern regarding Dr. 
      Jackiewicz’s practice. 

      The recorded increase in complications is unacceptable in my opinion.  Review of 
      the material raises serious questions about the quality of care provided by Dr. 
      Jackiewicz and his competency with preoperative assessments, accuracy in 
      diagnosis and intraoperative care.  Post-operative care is virtually absent.  On 
      initial review one could ask if this is only an issue of documentation, but in 
      reviewing both the abstracted data and 70 records in great detail, I conclude that 
      Dr. Jackiewicz does not recognize the hospitals’ standard of practice or just does 
      not know about his responsibilities as a surgeon or physician.  The stark contrast 
      in care and documentation provided by his colleagues would indicate that he 
      ought to know better and that the organization and medical staff at [NHS] are 
      practicing at the standard expected in Ontario.  This review would indicate that 
      continuation of this practice presents a major risk to patients and the 
      organization. 

8.    Similarly, Dr. Zaltz had been retained by NHS to review Dr. Jackiewicz’s standard of 
care with respect to gynaecologic surgery. In his report, dated November 4, 2013, Dr. Zaltz 
indicated that he reviewed 71 charts, wherein 18 had complications (a rate of 25%) – 11 of which 
were potentially avoidable and at least 6 were life threatening. Dr. Zaltz opined, in part, as 
follows: 
      Based on my review of these charts, I believe that Dr. Jackiewicz has the pre-
      requisite surgical skills to handle the cases he has undertaken.  In many cases, the 
      patients had uncomplicated procedures and were discharged in one day. 
      However, there were 7 cases that needed to go back to the operating room for the 
      management of bleeding complications. Given that Dr. Jackiewicz has very rapid 
      OR times, it is my opinion that the speed of his surgery appears to have led to a 
      failure to insure that all bleeding was appropriately dealt with prior to the 
      conclusion of the case.  A careful and attentive surgeon will spend time checking 
      and rechecking for bleeding at the end of the case.  This necessarily adds time to 
      every operation.  Under one hour times for an LAVH would not allow for this. 
      I have listed eight cases where the indication for surgery and/or the procedures 
      chosen were questionable. 
      … 
      I am left with the impression that Dr. Jackiewicz favors a surgical approach for 
      menstrual problems as a primary choice, as opposed to a rigorous trial of non-
      surgical alternatives.  This is supported by the lack of pathology in many of the 
      uteri removed and questionable management of other cases.  Many patients 
      having hysterectomies were very young.  

      In some of the more complicated cases, where there were extensive pelvic 
      adhesions, having a bowel or bladder injury is not uncommon and he did seek the 
      appropriate consultation.  There was one unrecognized cystotomy, found at the 
                                      3 

      work-up of a vascular complication that required only catheter management.  The 
      other unrecognized bowel injury is the index case.  In this case, there was 
      extensive adhesiolysis around the bowel which likely led to the complication.  It 
      was not recognized intraoperatively and the patient presented a week later in 
      septic shock. 

9.    On December 31, 2013, Dr. Jackiewicz provided comments to Dr. Gysler and Dr. Zaltz 
in response to their respective reports. 

10.   On January 17, 2014, Dr. Hope wrote to the College to advise that Dr. Jackiewicz’s 
gynaecological privileges had been suspended, effective immediately, pending a special meeting 
of the NHS’s Medical Advisory Committee (“MAC”).   

11.   On or about January 18, 2014, Dr. Jackiewicz delivered the expert report of Dr. William 
Mundle to the MAC. Dr. Mundle had reviewed the surgical history of Dr. Jackiewicz, along with 
the reports of Dr. Gysler and Dr. Zaltz, Dr. Jackiewicz’s responses to each of those reports, as 
well as a collection of charts. Dr. Mundle’s opinion was supportive of Dr. Jackiewicz’s surgical 
practice. 

12.   A special meeting of the MAC was held on January 30, 2014 to consider the status of Dr. 
Jackiewicz’s gynaecological surgical practice.  After hearing submissions by Dr. Jackiewicz, the 
MAC upheld the suspension of Dr. Jackiewicz’s gynaecological privileges and formulated a set 
of recommendations that had to be completed prior to any reinstatement of his privileges. The 
recommendations included, among other things, a restriction on Dr. Jackiewicz’s surgical 
procedures to one particular NHS site, the requirement for a second surgical opinion prior to 
scheduling major procedures and a mentorship arrangement with Dr. Joshua Polsky, who would 
act as a surgical assistant for all major procedures and would conduct pre- and post-surgical 
mentoring sessions with Dr. Jackiewicz.         

13.   Following the release of the MAC’s recommendations, Dr. Jackiewicz requested a 
hearing before the Board of Directors of NHS (“Board”).  The six-day hearing took place in May 
2014.  During the hearing, Dr. Jackiewicz presented evidence to the Board including the report 
by Dr. William Mundle.  On June 9, 2014, the Board issued its decision to accept the 
recommendations of the MAC and to uphold the restrictions on Dr. Jackiewicz’s hospital 
privileges. 

14.   In January 2015, Dr. Jackiewicz notified the College that he would not be renewing his 
surgical privileges.  In response, the ICRC directed Dr. Jackiewicz to enter into an undertaking 
reflecting the restriction of his practice to office-based obstetrical/gynaecological practice. In 
May 2015, the College was further advised that Dr. Jackiewicz would not sign the undertaking, 
and would be applying to the College for a change in his scope of practice in respect of 
hyperbaric medicine.   

15.   At the College’s request, Dr. Tom Stewart, Chief of Staff at NHS, provided an update in 
June 2015 with respect to Dr. Jackiewicz. Dr. Stewart advised that, as directed by the MAC and 
adopted by the Board, Dr. Joshua Polsky had acted as Dr. Jackiewicz’s Mentor for the purpose of 
supervising a specified number and type of gynaecological surgical procedures. Dr. Polsky had 
                                      4 

submitted reports to NHS in July, October and December 2014 corresponding to three separate 
occasions in which he supervised Dr. Jackiewicz in the operating room. 

16.   In his third report, dated December 20, 2014, Dr. Polsky opined as follows: 
      In summary, Dr. Jackiewicz lacks the requisite skill to perform simple 
      laparoscopic procedures, let alone more complicated cases.  His techniques are 
      out-dated and dangerous.  He has done nothing to improve his skills.  By his own 
      admission, he has not attended a CME on laparoscopic surgery in years.  His 
      over confidence in his abilities leads to inappropriate case selection and unsafe 
      intraoperative techniques. 
      In my opinion the three sessions are a representative sample of operative cases 
      that allow me to make my assessment.  In accordance with the MAC directive, I 
      have evaluated Dr. Jackiewicz’s selection criteria for surgical cases and his 
      operative technique and I find them both deficient.  It is for these reasons that I 
      must resign the mentorship of Dr. Jackiewicz. 

17.   Dr. Stewart further advised in his June 26, 2015 letter that Dr. Jackiewicz had given an 
undertaking not to exercise his NHS privileges at that time.   

18.   In October 2015, Dr. Stewart advised the College that the MAC had considered an 
application for reappointment by Dr. Jackiewicz at a special meeting held on August 18, 2015.  
The MAC recommended that the Board deny his application for re-appointment on the basis that 
Dr. Jackiewicz did not meet the criteria for re-appointment; specifically, a demonstrated ability 
to provide patient care at an appropriate level of quality and efficiency.  

19.   With the intention of relying on the independent reports prepared for NHS, the College 
retained Drs. Gysler and Zaltz in June 2015 and November 2015, respectively. The College also 
retained Dr. Polsky to opine on Dr. Jackiewicz’s standard of care with respect to the surgical 
procedures he observed while acting as his Mentor in 2014. On June 27, 2016, the College 
received Dr. Polsky’s report regarding the nine surgical procedures that he had observed and 
discussed with Dr. Jackiewicz.  Dr. Polsky opined that in all of the cases reviewed, Dr. 
Jackiewicz fell below the standard of care and that, due to his lack of knowledge, judgment and 
ability, Dr. Jackiewicz placed patients at undue risk and potential harm. Dr. Polsky stated: 
      As stated previously in this report, Dr. Jackiewicz’s patient positioning and trocar 
      placement techniques are antiquated.  There were instances where I told him how 
      I perform my cases in my centre, and the visualization techniques that I teach the 
      residents.  Dr. Jackiewicz ignored all my suggestions and offers to display and 
      teach the techniques.  During one of our OR change overs, I asked if he had been 
      to a CME event for laparoscopy recently.  He stated that it was all the same 
      people giving the same talks about things that he already knew.  In further 
      discussions about some of the professors that I had studied under at the 
      University of Western Ontario and the University of Toronto, he stated that he 
      taught them and that there was nothing that he needed to learn from them.  It was 
      at this time that I realized that Dr. Jackiewicz was not amenable to suggestion or 
                                      5 

      recommendation.  I am concerned that he will not alter any of his techniques or 
      seek further CME in the future. 

20.   On or about July 15, 2016, Dr. Jackiewicz sent a letter to the College in response to the 
report of Dr. Polsky. 

Dr. Jackiewicz’s Care and Treatment of Patient A 

21.   In his letter of June 26, 2015, Dr. Stewart referred to the care and treatment provided by 
Dr. Jackiewicz to a patient on November 17, 2014.  Patient A had experienced a perforation and 
excessive bleeding following an endometrial ablation. Shortly after the adverse event, NHS 
retained Dr. Zaltz to review the standard of care provided to Patient A. In his report, dated 
December 2, 2014, Dr. Zaltz concluded: 
      In summary, I have concerns about Dr. Jackiewicz’s insight and judgement in 
      managing this life threatening post-operative complication.  The patient’s care 
      was guided by the nurses, anaesthesiologist and his colleague, rather than by the 
      attending surgeon who wanted to proceed by an approach that all others present 
      agreed was not safe.  In my discussion with Dr. Jackiewicz, I was surprised that 
      even several weeks later he could not simply state, that in retrospect, LAVH was 
      the wrong decision.  Revisiting this repeatedly, he finally agreed that a 
      laparoscopic approach was wrong and stated “maybe I was not quite aware of 
      her condition”. 
      In my opinion, Dr. Jackiewicz demonstrated a complete lack of judgment when 
      faced with this complication.  Even at this point I cannot be confident that he has 
      the insight to realize that he did not make the appropriate decisions in the 
      management of this case.  Thankfully for the patient, the team was able to 
      override his decision.  Therefore, Dr. Jackiewicz did not meet the standard of 
      care required of a gynecologist in managing [Patient A]’s care. 

22.   As Dr. Jackiewicz was under the mentorship/supervision of Dr. Polsky at the time he 
performed the procedure on Patient A, Dr. Polsky was also asked by NHS to review the standard 
of care provided to Patient A pre-, intra- and post-operatively.  In his report, dated May 8, 2015, 
Dr. Polsky concluded:  
      In summary there are two areas where Dr. Jackiewicz falls below the standard of 
      practice in [Patient A’s] case.  First, he did not properly evaluate the bleeding 
      that occurred intraoperatively and rule out a perforation prior to placement of the 
      Foley balloon.  Second, he did not properly decide to abandon the laparoscopic 
      approach to the exploration given [Patient A]’s clinical scenario and reluctantly 
      proceeded to laparotomy only after debate with colleagues and co-workers. 
      In my opinion, Dr. Jackiewicz lacks the clinical judgment to evaluate the situation 
      at hand, and he is also unable to make timely decisions to appropriately manage 
      surgical cases in order to ensure patient safety.  In addition, Dr. Jackiewicz does 
      not have insight into his own surgical abilities and is unable to realize his 
      limitations.  These deficiencies would affect all surgical scenarios. 
                                      6 

      Other areas of concern include the evaluation and counseling of [Patient A] 
      preoperatively, and Dr. Jackiewicz’s ability to respond to pages promptly.  
      Ultrasound results can affect the risks and benefit profile of the procedures 
      offered.  If large fibroids are found, then the option of an endometrial resection 
      may not be appropriate.  There is also possibility that [Patient A]’s counseling on 
      her surgical options and the surgical complications of an endometrial resection 
      may have been deficient.  By the incident reports, Dr. Jackiewicz needed to be 
      paged three times in order to have him arrive at the PARR.  Any delay in 
      response, may result in further complications. 

Registrar’s Investigation Arising from Information Received from Dr. Amie Cullimore 

23.   On October 1, 2015, the College received information regarding Dr. Jackiewicz from Dr. 
Amie Cullimore of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at St. Joseph’s Healthcare in 
Hamilton. The letter outlined her concerns of substandard care provided to a patient by Dr. 
Jackiewicz.     

24.   On the basis of this information, the ICRC approved the appointment of investigators 
under section 75(1)(a) of the Code in order to conduct a broader investigation into Dr. 
Jackiewicz’s office practice. 

25.   The College retained Dr. Andrew Browning to opine on Dr. Jackiewicz’s care and 
treatment of patients.  Dr. Browning reviewed 25 charts, observed Dr. Jackiewicz in his office on 
March 21, 2016, and interviewed Dr. Jackiewicz on June 17, 2016.  Dr. Browning opined that 
Dr. Jackiewicz’s care and treatment in 10 of 25 patient charts fell below the standard of practice 
of the profession and displayed a lack of judgment which exposed those patients to harm.  Dr. 
Browning stated, in part: 
 
      Interactions with Dr. Jackiewicz provided the impression that he feels he does not 
      need to follow guidelines because he thinks he knows best.  When not following 
      the guidelines and preferred treatment modalities, Dr. Jackiewicz does not 
      document any explanation for the deviation.  When he does not use a preferred 
      treatment for CIN3 there was no documentation that the patient was aware they 
      were receiving the non-preferred treatment and there was no documentation that 
      the preferred treatment was offered in the form of a referral to a colposcopist who 
      performs excisional procedures. 
      In several cases there appeared to be a trend to perform cryotherapy to the cervix 
      when the procedure was not indicated based on December of 2012 SOGC 
      guidelines.  Dr. Jackiewicz’s attitude at the interview appeared to be that he felt 
      the procedure was “harmless” hence it is justified.  Like most procedures in 
      medicine, cryotherapy to the cervix can have complications, can as well be quite 
      uncomfortable and it can alter the anatomy of the cervix.  Cryotherapy should not 
      be performed on women unless it is clearly indicated. 
      In a couple of cases Dr. Jackiewicz did not sample the endometrium in women 
      over the age of 40 with abnormal bleeding.  There was no explanation for the 
      omission of this important test to rule out endometrial pathology.  Similarly, there 
                                      7 

      was no real understandable explanation for how an abnormal lab test was 
      reviewed and dealt with.  Dr. Jackiewicz suggested that it was “all on the 
      computer”, but a reviewer of the chart had no means of confirming appropriate 
      treatment secondary to the documentation provided. 

26.   Dr. Browning also indicated that after reviewing the 25 charts, he could not find evidence 
of a case where a treatment option was mentioned that involved a referral to a gynaecologist with 
surgical privileges that Dr. Jackiewicz did not have.  Dr. Browning stated: 
 
      When I asked Dr. Jackiewicz what he did with cases where patients requested or 
      required  surgical  management  that  he  could  not  provide,  the  answer  was 
      concerning.  It implied that no one could do the things he did, i.e. for example 
      “endometrial resection” and “difficult hysterectomies”.  It also implied that he 
      was  hesitant  to  refer  patients  to  other  gynecologists  in  his  region  and  hence 
      sometimes he just referred them “to Toronto”. 

27.    Dr.  Browning  requested  and  reviewed  further  charts  of  the  last  five  cases  that  Dr. 
Jackiewicz referred to other gynaecologists for possible surgical intervention.  In reviewing the 
cases received, Dr. Browning noted: 
      … one of them was referred after he would have received the College request.  
      The other four cases did have scenarios where patients were referred to the same 
      gynecologist in all four cases.  The last referral forwarded was in November of 
      2015 with no other cases forwarded until the one that occurred after the College 
      letter went out.  This would mean that from November of 2015 to May of 2016 
      (five  months),  Dr.  Jackiewicz  had  no  cases  where  the  patient  was  referred  to 
      another  gynecologist  for  consultation  regarding  surgical  options  that  Dr. 
      Jackiewicz  could  not  perform  in  his  office  practice.    When  we  discussed  this 
      surprising  lack  of  cases  that  were  referred  to  other  gynecologists,  Dr. 
      Jackiewicz’s response was that he just did not have many cases that he needed to 
      refer out.  If this is the case, it would be helpful if Dr. Jackiewicz documented the 
      treatment  options  that  were  discussed with  applicable  cases.    As  previously 
      mentioned,  there  was  very  little  evidence  or  documentation  that  the  surgical 
      options not offered by Dr. Jackiewicz, i.e. endometrial ablation for example, are 
      being discussed as options for appropriate patients. 

28.  During Dr. Browning’s half day of direct observation, he also noted that in discussing 
treatment  options  with  patients,  Dr.  Jackiewicz’s  discussions  did  not  involve  explanations  of 
procedures that Dr. Jackiewicz did not offer: 
      For example, endometrial ablation was not mentioned in cases of menorrhagia 
      and diagnostic laparoscopy was not mentioned in cases of pelvic pain.  When I 
      asked Dr. Jackiewicz about this observation, he noted that he would discuss other 
      surgical options at follow up visits if initial treatments did not work.  At my day of 
      observation,  I  did  not  witness  patients  being  offered  education  on  treatment 
      modalities that Dr. Jackiewicz could not perform.  In my opinion, patients need to 
                                      8 

      be educated on all of their treatment options for their diagnoses.  To not offer and 
      convey all reasonable treatment options would be a deviation from the standard 
      of care. 

29.  On or about August 10, 2016, Dr. Jackiewicz sent a letter to the College in response to 
the report of Dr. Browning.   

30.  Dr. Browning reviewed Dr. Jackiewicz’s response to his report and provided additional 
comments to the College.  In his response, Dr. Browning did not change the conclusions reached 
in his initial report.  

Interim Order 

31.   On December 8, 2016, after the referral to discipline was made, the ICRC ordered terms, 
conditions and limitations to be placed on Dr. Jackiewicz’s certificate of registration.   

32.   Pursuant  to  the  Order,  Dr.  Jackiewicz  was  required  to  obtain  a clinical supervisor 
acceptable  to  the  College  by  January  9,  2017 for  his  gynaecological  office  practice.    As  of 
January 9, 2017, Dr. Jackiewicz had not obtained a clinical supervisor acceptable to the College 
and, as such, he was required to cease practising medicine until he obtains a clinical supervisor. 

DISPOSITION 
 
Dr. Jackiewicz did not renew his membership with the College in 2018. As a result, his 
certificate of registration expired on August 16, 2018. Dr. Jackiewicz entered into an 
Undertaking to the College on November 19, 2018, by which he agreed never to apply or re-
apply for registration as a physician in Ontario or any other jurisdiction.   
 
In light of the undertaking to not reapply, on December 5, 2018, the Discipline Committee 
ordered and directed that: 
-  Dr. Jackiewicz attend before the panel to be reprimanded. 
-  Dr. Jackiewicz pay to the College costs in the amount of $10,180.00, within thirty (30) days 
   of the date of this Order.


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Hearing Date(s): December 5, 2018

 

Committee: Discipline
Decision Date: 22 Nov 2010
Summary:

On November 22, 2010, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of 
Ontario found that Dr. Jackiewicz has committed an act of professional misconduct in that he 
failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and in that he engaged in conduct or 
an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the 
circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or 
unprofessional. 
 
Significant deficiencies were identified in Dr. Jackiewicz's obstetrical practice in relation to 
multiple patients and in his charting relating to both his obstetrical and gynaecological practices. 
Among other things, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Jackiewicz: 
 
a)    failed to follow accepted antenatal clinical practice in both low and high risk pregnancies, 
      such as failing to assess symphysis - fundal heights prior to 30 weeks; 
 
b)    failed to appropriately manage second stage labour by, for example, performing 
      unindicated operative vaginal deliveries; 
 
c)    failed to abandon in a timely manner operative vaginal deliveries if deliveries were not 
      forthcoming; 
 
d)    undertook high risk procedures such as trial of forceps and twin vaginal delivery in the 
      Labour and Delivery suite when they ought to have been done in an operating room; 
 
e)    failed to have the customary and necessary help available for planned high risk 
      procedures, such as a paediatrician, anaesthesiologist and operating room staff; 
 
f)    failed to conduct and document an adequate fetal assessment before and after performing 
      an external cephalic version; 
 
g)    failed to promptly assess a patient at risk of placental abruption when requested to do so 
      by nursing staff;  
 
h)    failed to adequately interpret the results of fetal heart rate tracing; and 
 
i)    failed to thoroughly inspect a patient's vagina following  post-partum hemhorraging. 
 
The Discipline Committee directed and ordered that: 
 
1.    Dr. Jackiewicz attend before the panel to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand 
      to be recorded on the Register; 
 
2.    The Registrar impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on Dr. Jackiewicz's 
      certificate of registration:    
 
      a.    For an indefinite period of time, Dr. Jackiewicz shall be prohibited from engaging 
            in the management of labour and delivery for all pregnancies with the following 
            exceptions: 
              
      i.    Dr. Jackiewicz shall be permitted to perform elective or 
            on-demand caesarean-section deliveries; and  
              
      ii.   Dr. Jackiewicz may act as a surgical assistant to other 
            hospital-based caesarean-sections when a College-approved 
            obstetrician is performing the caesarean-section as the most 
            responsible physician and is in attendance for the duration of the 
            procedure; 
              
b.    For an indefinite period of time, Dr. Jackiewicz shall inform all obstetrical 
      patients of the term, condition and limitation referenced in paragraph 3(a) 
      above;  
              
c.    Dr. Jackiewicz shall contact the College immediately to arrange at his own 
      expense to attend a program in communications that is satisfactory to the 
      College, which will involve multiple one-on-one sessions with a 
      College-approved instructor (the "Instructor"), incorporating principles of 
      counseling, guided reflection, tailored feedback, and other modalities 
      customized to the specific needs of Dr. Jackiewicz as assessed by the 
      Instructor.  The Instructor will make reports to the College regarding Dr. 
      Jackiewicz's progress and compliance and Dr. Jackiewicz shall 
      successfully complete this program;  
              
d.    With respect to his gynecological and office-obstetrical practices, Dr. 
      Jackiewicz shall, within 30 days from the date of this Order, retain a 
      College-approved clinical supervisor, who will sign an undertaking in the 
      form attached hereto as Schedule "A" (the "Supervisor"). For a period of 
      six months commencing on the day the Supervisor is retained, Dr. 
      Jackiewicz may practice only under the supervision of the Supervisor.  
      Upon completion of this period of supervision, Dr. Jackiewicz shall 
      undergo an assessment of his office-obstetrical and gynecological clinical 
      practices by a College-appointed assessor who has not previously assessed 
      Dr. Jackiewicz's practice in any respect.   This assessment will be limited 
      to determining if Dr. Jackiewicz is in compliance with this Order and 
      whether or not Dr. Jackiewicz's practice is below the standard of practice 
      of the profession.  The assessment may include a review of Dr. 
      Jackiewicz's hospital and office charts and interviews by the assessor.  
      The assessor shall report the results of this assessment to the College. 
              
e.    With respect to his practice of elective or on-demand caesarian-sections, 
      as set out in paragraph 3(a)(i) above, Dr. Jackiewicz shall advise the 
      College when and if he begins performing elective or on-demand 
      caesarian-sections and shall comply with the following conditions: 
              
      i.    for a period of six months commencing the date on which he 
            begins performing elective or on-demand caesarean-sections, Dr. 
                  Jackiewicz shall obtain a consultation for all proposed elective or 
                  on-demand caesarian-sections contemplated or performed, which 
                  consultation shall be documented on the patient chart.  This 
                  consultation will consider whether the elective or on-demand 
                  caesarian-section is appropriate; 
              
            ii.   for a period of six months commencing the date on which he 
                  begins performing elective or on-demand caesarean-sections, Dr. 
                  Jackiewicz shall practice only under the supervision of the 
                  Supervisor.  Upon completion of this period of supervision, Dr. 
                  Jackiewicz shall undergo an assessment of his elective or 
                  on-demand caesarian section clinical practice by the same assessor 
                  identified in paragraph 3(d) above or another College-appointed 
                  assessor who has not previously assessed Dr. Jackiewicz's practice 
                  in any respect.   This assessment will be limited to determining if 
                  Dr. Jackiewicz is in compliance with this Order and whether or not 
                  Dr. Jackiewicz's practice is below the standard of practice of the 
                  profession.  The assessment may include a review of Dr. 
                  Jackiewicz's hospital and office charts, interviews by the assessor 
                  and direct observation of Dr. Jackiewicz's patient care.  The 
                  assessor shall report the results of this assessment to the College; 
                  and 
              
            iii.  for eighteen months, after the period of supervision set out in 
                  paragraph 3(e)(ii) above is complete, Dr. Jackiewicz shall undergo 
                  a review every six months by the same assessor identified in 
                  paragraph 3(e)(ii) above or another College-appointed assessor 
                  who has not previously assessed Dr. Jackiewicz's practice in any 
                  respect, who shall: 
              
                  1.    review the files of up to thirty randomly selected patients 
                        for whom Dr. Jackiewicz has performed an elective or 
                        on-demand caesarian-section to determine whether the 
                        caesarean-sections were appropriate in the cases under 
                        review; and 
                  2.    report the results of this review to the College. 
              
      f.    Dr. Jackiewicz shall be responsible for any and all costs associated with 
            implementing the terms of this Order.  
              
3.    Dr. Jackiewicz shall within 30 days pay the College its costs of this proceeding in 
      the amount of $3,650.00. 
              
              
              


Decision: Download Full Decision (PDF)
Appeal: No Appeal
Hearing Date(s): May 4, 2010

Concerns

Source: Member
Active Date: November 19, 2018
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Summary of the Undertaking given by Dr. Allan Wojciech Jackiewicz to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, effective November 19, 2018:

Dr. Jackiewicz’s certificate of registration expired in August 2018. In October 2016, allegations of incompetence and failure to maintain the standard of practice of the profession were referred to the Discipline Committee of the College. Dr. Jackiewicz has agreed never to apply or re-apply for registration as a physician in Ontario or any other jurisdiction.

 

Source: Compliance and Monitoring Department
Active Date: October 14, 2016
Expiry Date:
Summary:
Caution-in-Person:

A summary of a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee in which the disposition includes a "caution-in-person" 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 the Committee. The summary will be removed from the register if the decision is overturned on appeal or review. Note that this 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.
Download Full Document (PDF)