A 16-year-old rugby player, consent and a Saturday final
At 6:40 pm on a Tuesday in a Whangārei physiotherapy clinic, a 16-year-old Year 12 student is brought in by a 17-year-old teammate. During rugby training he planted his right leg and twisted, felt a pop, and has a tense effusion. He is on crutches, non-weight-bearing, and wants to know whether he can play in the Saturday final. His mother is at work and has not answered her phone; his father is not listed as a contact. The clinic has no after-hours GP. The physiotherapist suspects an ACL rupture but has not examined him. The ACC45 form is partly completed. The teammate is in the waiting room and has already asked twice what is wrong. The physiotherapist is the only clinician on site; the receptionist is about to leave.
1. What are the key consent, privacy and legal considerations before you examine and treat this young person?
Read the worked answer
Consent in New Zealand is governed by the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (Right 7). Age alone does not determine competence: a 16-year-old may be competent to consent if he understands the nature, risks, benefits and alternatives. I would first see him alone in a private room, introduce myself, explain confidentiality under the Privacy Act 2020 and the Health Information Privacy Code, and check his understanding. I would not discuss his diagnosis with the teammate. If he is competent, I can examine and provide low-risk care with his consent; however, because a suspected ACL rupture may require referral, imaging and significant restrictions, I would actively involve a guardian. I would try the mother again, send a message, and document attempts. If treatment cannot wait and there is risk of harm, I can provide necessary emergency care; this is not an emergency. I would also consider safeguarding: a 17-year-old teammate bringing him is not necessarily a concern, but I would ask who cares for him and whether he has a safe home. I would complete the ACC45 accurately and not promise ACC cover. If he discloses anything concerning, I would follow the Children's Act 2014 guidance.
2. Outline your assessment and clinical reasoning, including how you will address his goal of playing on Saturday.
Read the worked answer
Assessment should be systematic: observe gait and effusion, check neurovascular status, active and passive range, ligament tests (Lachman, pivot shift, varus/valgus), meniscal tests, patellar apprehension, and Ottawa knee rules to decide on X-ray. I would not force a painful examination; analgesia and relaxation matter. My provisional diagnosis may be ACL rupture, but I must exclude fracture, patellar dislocation, meniscal tear and physeal injury because he is 16 and still growing. I would explain that a Saturday final is three days away and that returning with an unstable knee risks further injury and long-term damage. Shared decision-making matters: his goal is important, so I would discuss what is known and unknown, offer crutches, compression, relative rest, and a plan for review with a sports physician or orthopaedic referral. I would not clear him to play. If he is adamant, I would document capacity and risks, involve his mother, and offer a safe alternative such as a sideline role. Early MRI may not change initial management; referral is more important. I would give a written plan and complete ACC forms.
3. His mother arrives 40 minutes later and says she does not want him to have 'expensive scans' and wants him back on the field next week. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
His mother's refusal of scans is not automatically neglect. I would explore her reasons - cost, fear, previous experiences, transport, mistrust - and provide information about ACC contributions, public referral pathways and the risks of an unstable knee. I would respect an informed refusal if she has capacity and is acting in his best interests, but I would clarify that returning to the field next week is unsafe without assessment. I would document the discussion, advise red flags such as locking, inability to weight-bear and neurovascular change, and offer a review. If I believed he was at significant risk of harm or that treatment was being withheld negligently, I would escalate to my professional lead or follow child protection guidance. I would not argue or label her. Culturally, I would ask who else in the whānau should be involved and offer a family meeting. The key is to maintain engagement and safety rather than win the disagreement.