An audiologist quits mid-day leaving patients without coverage; which statement is true regarding professional duty?

• A. He was justified in leaving because follow-up visits are not charged
• B. He should have called the patients to inform them there would be a charge for follow-up visits
• C. He can be charged with patient abandonment
• D. He should report the owner to the licensure board

Answer: (C)

When a clinician ends care for a patient, there is a professional duty to ensure the patient isn’t left without access to needed services. Quitting mid-day without coverage or a plan for continuity breaks that duty and can be considered patient abandonment. The key idea is ensuring ongoing, safe access to care and making reasonable arrangements for another provider to take over, or at least giving proper notice and guidance on how to obtain follow-up care.

Because of that duty, the statement that describes the situation as patient abandonment is correct. It reflects the ethical and professional expectation that patients not be left abruptly without a plan for their care.

Why the other ideas aren’t the right emphasis here: leaving because follow-up visits aren’t charged doesn’t address patient safety or continuity of care. Simply notifying patients about future charges does not resolve the immediate risk to ongoing care. Reporting the owner to the licensure board is an action that may be relevant in cases of broader misconduct, but it isn’t the immediate interpretation of the clinician’s responsibility in this scenario; the core issue is abandonment due to lack of continuity of care.