In my post After action review, Paramedic disciplined for 1.5 minute delay in responding (November 8, 2025) I reported on a decision by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) that dealt with, amongst other things, a complaint that a paramedic had delayed their response to an emergency call in order to get food.

The issue of paramedic delays has again been considered by QCAT in Health Ombudsman v Cole [2026] QCAT 10 (13 February 2026) (and I cannot explain why it only appeared in my daily case alerts today). Before looking at the case, it is necessary to remember that the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) has three categories of conduct that can lead to disciplinary measures; they are defined in s 5 and are, in order of seriousness:

“unsatisfactory professional performance” which means:

… the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised by, the practitioner in the practice of the health profession in which the practitioner is registered is below the standard reasonably expected of a health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.

“unprofessional conduct” which means

…professional conduct that is of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of the health practitioner by the public or the practitioner’s professional peers, and includes—

(a) a contravention by the practitioner of this Law, whether or not the practitioner has been prosecuted for, or convicted of, an offence in relation to the contravention; and

(b) a contravention by the practitioner of—

(i) a condition to which the practitioner’s registration was subject; or.

(ii) an undertaking given by the practitioner to the National Board that registers the practitioner; and

(c) the conviction of the practitioner for an offence under another Act, the nature of which may affect the practitioner’s suitability to continue to practise the profession; and

(d) providing a person with health services of a kind that are excessive, unnecessary or otherwise not reasonably required for the person’s well-being; and

(e) influencing, or attempting to influence, the conduct of another registered health practitioner in a way that may compromise patient care; and

(f) accepting a benefit as inducement, consideration or reward for referring another person to a health service provider or recommending another person use or consult with a health service provider; and

(g) offering or giving a person a benefit, consideration or reward in return for the person referring another person to the practitioner or recommending to another person that the person use a health service provided by the practitioner; and

(h) referring a person to, or recommending that a person use or consult, another health service provider, health service or health product if the practitioner has a pecuniary interest in giving that referral or recommendation, unless the practitioner discloses the nature of that interest to the person before or at the time of giving the referral or recommendation.

And “professional misconduct” which means:

(a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(b) more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner’s profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

In this case the respondent Paramedic faced three allegations. The allegations are set out in [8] but have been reformatted as a list, below.

  1. ‘… concerned delays from 4 to 37 minutes in notifying the QAS of her movements following completion of callouts’.
  2. ‘… involved a response delay of 5 minutes to a Code 2B incident’; and
  3. ‘… a delay of 10 minutes in responding to a Code 1B incident’.

We’re not told exactly when these events occurred but the respondent paramedic was first placed on alternative duties in May 2023 so it must have been before that date.  We’re told of the internal measures including further education in [10] so the inference is that by the time this matter came before the Tribunal she was back ‘on the road’ and working effectively as a paramedic (see also [24] quoted below).

The tribunal found that all the allegations were proved; (1) amounted to ‘unsatisfactory professional performance’; (2) amounted to ‘unprofessional conduct’ and (3) was ‘professional misconduct’.

The Tribunal said (at [12]-[14]):

In respect of the first of the allegations of delay in responding to the Code 1B incident, the actual period of delay was more likely to have been less than five minutes and in the order of two to three minutes. In the respondent’s response to this allegation, she stated:

I cannot recall the specifics of this incident, but I did not intentionally delay responding. It is possible I was using facilities at the time. I now recognise that if this was the case I should have notified IPCEN by radio immediately.

The second thing to note in respect of the delay concerning the Code 2B incident is that there was no suggestion of any adverse consequences arising from that delay.

In respect of the second allegation of delay in responding  [ie number 3 in the list above], it is clearly a serious example of a failure to respond. The respondent fully accepts the seriousness of her failure in this regard, and in her response said:

I acknowledge the specifics outlined are correct. On that day I was emotionally fragile and made poor decisions. I proceeded to Espresso Moto for coffee after signing on and was dispatched a Code 1B while awaiting my order. I did not appreciate how much time had passed until contacted by OPCEN. This decision undoubtedly demonstrated poor decision-making and is something I have grappled with since the incident.

The Tribunal thought that the first allegation was only ‘a minor example of conduct falling below that expected of a paramedic by the public’. The second allegation (the Code 2B incident) that too, on its own may have only warranted a finding of unsatisfactory professional performance but it was at that time a second incident and hence the finding of the more serious ‘unprofessional conduct’ ([19]). As for the ‘second allegation of delay’ that is complaint 3 in the list above, the Tribunal said (at [20]) ‘there can be no room for doubt that when looked at objectively it clearly falls within the description of what constitutes professional misconduct’.

The Tribunal was however lenient in its outcome.  It said (at [24]-[25]):

… in reaching an appropriate outcome it is necessary to bear in mind not only the seriousness of the subject conduct but also the mitigating factors in favour of the respondent. There is no suggestion of any untoward conduct on the part of the respondent prior to the subject conduct, nor of any untoward conduct since. Further, the respondent has already been dealt with in a quite comprehensive manner via internal disciplinary action.

There also can be no doubt that the respondent has full insight into the nature and seriousness of her conduct and is deeply remorseful and ashamed. In this regard her conduct and these resultant proceedings have affected her both emotionally and physically. Also, not only has the respondent readily admitted to her conduct, but has cooperated fully in these proceedings. Finally, the respondent of her own volition has undertaken further education, including steps designed to prevent such conduct occurring in the future.

(The internal discipline by QAS included the issue of a ‘final warning’, a period on alternative duties with reduced pay, mandatory education on the Code of Conduct and Public Sector Ethics as well as retraining on QAS SOPs and a requirement to complete a Return to Clinical Practice program ([10])).

The Tribunal concluded (at [26] that:

… the respondent is a person who is a dedicated paramedic and one who takes pride in doing the best she can professionally.  The Tribunal is readily satisfied that the conduct of the respondent that brought her before the Tribunal occurred at a particularly stressful time in her life and was clearly out of character . It was for those reasons, the Tribunal made the recommendation that it did concerning the reprimand.

The outcome (at [1]) was that with respect to allegations (1) and (2) the paramedic was ‘cautioned’; with respect to allegation (3) she was ‘reprimanded’ with a ‘strong’ recommendation that notice of the reprimand be removed from the public record after 4 months.  There was no order as to costs. 

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.