Approaches to management of complaints and notifications about health practitioners in Australia

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudette S. Satchell ◽  
Merrilyn Walton ◽  
Patrick J. Kelly ◽  
Elizabeth M. Chiarella ◽  
Suzanne M. Pierce ◽  
...  

In 2005, the Australian Productivity Commission made a recommendation that a national health registration regimen and a consolidated national accreditation regimen be established. On 1 July 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health practitioners came into effect and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) became the single national oversight agency for health professional regulation. It is governed by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law). While all states and territories joined NRAS for registration and accreditation, NSW did not join the scheme for the handling of complaints, but retained its existing co-regulatory complaint-handling system. All other states and territories joined the national notification (complaints) scheme prescribed in the National Law. Because the introduction of NRAS brings with it new processes and governance around the management of complaints that apply to all regulated health professionals in all states and territories except NSW, where complaints management remains largely unchanged, there is a need for comparative analysis of these differing national and NSW approaches to the management of complaints/notifications about health professionals, not only to allow transparency for consumers, but also to assess consistency of decision making around complaints/notifications across jurisdictions. This paper describes the similarities and differences for complaints/notifications handling between the NRAS and NSW schemes and briefly discusses subsequent and potential changes in other jurisdictions.

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 353
Author(s):  
Claudette S. Satchell ◽  
Merrilyn Walton ◽  
Patrick J. Kelly ◽  
Elizabeth M. Chiarella ◽  
Suzanne M. Pierce ◽  
...  

In 2005, the Australian Productivity Commission made a recommendation that a national health registration regimen and a consolidated national accreditation regimen be established. On 1 July 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health practitioners came into effect and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) became the single national oversight agency for health professional regulation. It is governed by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law). While all states and territories joined NRAS for registration and accreditation, NSW did not join the scheme for the handling of complaints, but retained its existing co-regulatory complaint-handling system. All other states and territories joined the national notification (complaints) scheme prescribed in the National Law. Because the introduction of NRAS brings with it new processes and governance around the management of complaints that apply to all regulated health professionals in all states and territories except NSW, where complaints management remains largely unchanged, there is a need for comparative analysis of these differing national and NSW approaches to the management of complaints/notifications about health professionals, not only to allow transparency for consumers, but also to assess consistency of decision making around complaints/notifications across jurisdictions. This paper describes the similarities and differences for complaints/notifications handling between the NRAS and NSW schemes and briefly discusses subsequent and potential changes in other jurisdictions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 217-233
Author(s):  
Elaine Jefford ◽  
Samantha J. Nolan ◽  
Julie Jomeen

BACKGROUNDThis review builds upon previous work exploring the concept of Midwifery Abdication, within the national midwifery literature. This article focuses on Australian legal literature, court/tribunal decisions and coronial or coroner's court findings.OBJECTIVETo explore Midwifery Abdication and whether it is evident within Australian caselaw.DATA SOURCESAustralian Legal literature, coronial findings, and court/tribunal decisions reported by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, during 2005–2020.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA1,246 cases were located using the presented search terms. Use of exclusion criteria resulted in the inclusion of 41 cases.METHODSWhile there are no validated tools to appraise caselaw, this review followed a robust protocol that guides the preparation and reporting of systematic reviews. Midwifery Abdication was identified using previously validated, interrelated constructs.RESULTSMidwifery Abdication occurred in 41 cases; that included one or more previously identified constructs. In line with the associated integrative review, a midwife's professional identity, environmental hierarchy and associated culture of social obedience are all shown to act as influencing factors in Midwifery Abdication.LIMITATIONSRigorous and reproducible processes were used; however, limited search functionality of some data sources may have resulted in inadvertent omission of cases. While this review relates to case law in one high-income country it provides a platform for further international research.CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGSAcknowledging Midwifery Abdication in Australian caselaw may serve to strengthen the midwifery voice and encourage an enhanced educational and reflective focus on midwifery philosophy and decision-making. Midwifery education must empower midwives to embrace their autonomous status while enhancing their abilities to optimize informed decision-making within a woman-centered midwifery philosophy.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie M. Bismark ◽  
Martin Fletcher ◽  
Matthew J. Spittal ◽  
David M. Studdert

In 2010 Australia established a national registration and accreditation scheme, covering more than 620000 health practitioners. The data held by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency is a remarkable platform for research aimed at improving health practitioner regulation, health care quality and workforce planning.


2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 674
Author(s):  
Kerry J. Breen

A national registration scheme for health professionals was introduced in Australia 5 years ago, replacing the long-standing state-based schemes. This review examines whether the scheme has delivered what it promised and makes recommendations for change. The available evidence indicates that the scheme’s design and its implementation were rushed and that the legislation has serious flaws. Two parliamentary inquiries and the experience of registrants confirm that the system is more expensive, remote and bureaucratic than the previous state-based systems. The scheme has delivered benefits only in relation to portability of registration and a single national register. In addition, with two large jurisdictions participating in a ‘co-regulated’ mode, it is not truly a national scheme. To restore the confidence that health professionals need to have in the regulator, it is recommended that all jurisdictions seek to be ‘co-regulated’ and that the Australian Health Practitioners Registration Authority be pared back to providing a central database for national portable registration. What is known about the topic? Although selected aspects of the national registration scheme have been the subject of comment, a global critique of the strengths and weaknesses of the national registration scheme has not been published previously. What does this paper add? This critique identifies several legislative flaws in a scheme that has not met the aims set for it and that is not truly national. What are the implications for practitioners? Recommended changes to the scheme have the potential to increase practitioner confidence in the scheme while reducing costs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 784
Author(s):  
Owen M. Bradfield ◽  
Marie M. Bismark ◽  
David M. Studdert ◽  
Matthew J. Spittal

ObjectiveImmediate action is an emergency power available to Australian health practitioner regulatory boards to protect the public. The aim of this study was to better understand the frequency, determinants and characteristics of immediate action use in Australia. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 11200 health practitioners named in notifications to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) between January 2011 and December 2013. All cases were followed until December 2016 to determine their final outcome. ResultsOf 13939 finalised notifications, 3.7% involved immediate action and 9.7% resulted in restrictive final action. Among notifications where restrictive final action was taken, 79% did not involve prior immediate action. Among notifications where immediate action was taken, 48% did not result in restrictive final action. Compared with notifications from the public, the odds of immediate action were higher for notifications lodged by employers (mandatory notifications OR=21.3, 95% CI 13.7–33.2; non-mandatory notifications OR=10.9, 95% CI 6.7–17.8) and by other health practitioners (mandatory notifications OR=11.6, 95% CI 7.6–17.8). Odds of immediate action were also higher if the notification was regulator-initiated (OR=11.6, 95% CI 7.6–17.8), lodged by an external agency such as the police (OR=11.8, 95% CI 7.7–18.1) or was a self-notification by the health practitioner themselves (OR=9.4, 95% CI 5.5–16.0). The odds of immediate action were higher for notifications about substance abuse (OR=9.9, 95% CI 6.9–14.2) and sexual misconduct (OR=5.3, 95% CI 3.5–8.3) than for notifications about communication and clinical care. ConclusionsHealth practitioner regulatory boards in Australia rarely used immediate action as a regulatory tool, but were more likely to do so in response to mandatory notifications or notifications pertaining to substance abuse or sexual misconduct. What is known about this topicHealth practitioner regulatory boards protect the public from harm and maintain quality and standards of health care. Where the perceived risk to public safety is high, boards may suspend or restrict the practice of health practitioners before an investigation has concluded. What does this paper add?This paper is the first study in Australia, and the largest internationally, to examine the frequency, characteristics and predictors of the use of immediate action by health regulatory boards. Although immediate action is rarely used, it is most commonly employed in response to mandatory notifications or notifications pertaining to substance abuse or sexual misconduct. What are the implications for practitioners?Immediate action is a vital regulatory tool. Failing to immediately sanction a health practitioner may expose the public to preventable harm, whereas imposing immediate action where allegations are unfounded can irreparably damage a health practitioner’s career. We hope that this study will assist boards to balance the interests of the public with those of health practitioners.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Ann Elizabeth Main ◽  
Sarah Anderson

UNSTRUCTURED Introduced in 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme currently regulates 16 health professions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) as enforced in each state/territory. The National Law requires that National Boards must develop, consult on and recommend certain registration standards to the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council. These core registration standards are generally reviewed every five years in line with good regulatory practice. The registration standards for continuing professional development (CPD) and recency of practice (ROP) for most National Boards are currently under review. The aim of the systematic review is to support the National Boards to develop more consistent, evidence-based, effective standards that are clear, easy to understand and operationalise. It is designed to build on earlier research commissioned and/or undertaken by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) for previous reviews of the CPD and ROP registration standards and is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. This protocol outlines the scope and methodology that will be used to conduct a systematic review of evidence for continuing professional development and recency of practice to inform a review of the standards for regulated health professionals in Australia.


2002 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Robison ◽  
Gregory Kline

In health education and promotion, “risk factors” for disease gathered from epidemiological research form the basis from which the majority of recommendations to individuals for lifestyle change are made. Unfortunately, many health practitioners are unaware that this type of research was never intended to be applied to individuals. The result is ongoing public confusion and anxiety concerning health recommendations and a loss of credibility for health professionals. This article: 1) briefly reviews the most commonly encountered limitations inherent in epidemiological research; 2) explores the problems and potential negative consequences of incorrectly applying epidemiological research in health education and promotion; and 3) makes recommendations to help health practitioners more skillfully interpret and incorporate into their work findings from epidemiological research.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuma Gosha Kanfe ◽  
Nebyu Demeke Mengiste ◽  
Mohammedjud Hassen Ahmed ◽  
Gebiso Roba Debele ◽  
Berhanu Fikadie Endehabtu

BACKGROUND Evidence based practice is a key to increase effectiveness and efficiency of quality health services. To achieve this, utilization of health facility data (DHIS2 data) is required which is determined by knowledge and attitudes of health professionals. Thus, this study aimed to assess knowledge and attitudes of health professionals to use DHIS2 data for decision making. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and its associated factors among health professionals to use DHIS2 data for decision making at South west of Ethiopia 2020 METHODS Cross sectional quantitative study methods was conducted to assess Knowledge and Attitudes of health professionals to use DHIS2 data. A total of 264 participants were approached. SPSS version 22 software was used for data entry and analysis. Descriptive and analytical statistics including Bivariable and Multivariable analyses was done RESULTS Overall 130(49.2%) of the respondents had good knowledge to use DHIS2 data (95% CI: [43, 55.3]), whereas over 149 (56.4%) of the respondents had favorable attitudes towards the use of DHIS2 data for decision making purpose (95% CI: [53.2, 59.8]). Skills [AOR=2.20,95% CI:(1.16, 4.19)], Age [AOR= 1.92, 95% CI: (1.03, 3.59)] ,Resources[AOR=2.56, 95% CI:(1.35,4.86)], Staffing[AOR= 2.85, 95% CI : (1.49, 5.48)] and Experiences[AOR= 4.66, 95% CI: (1.94, 5.78)] were variables associated with knowledge to use DHIS2 data whereas Training [AOR= 5.59, 95% CI: (2.48, 5.42)], Feedback [AOR= 4.08, 95% CI: (1.87, 8.91)], Motivation [AOR=2.87, 95% CI: (1.36, 6.06)] and Health need [AOR=2.32, 95% CI: (1.10-4.92)] were variables associated with attitudes of health professionals to use DHIS2 data CONCLUSIONS In general, about half of the study participants had good knowledge of DHIS2 data utilization whereas more than half of respondents had favorable attitudes. Skills, resources, ages, staffing and experiences were the most determinant factors for the knowledge to use DHIS2 data whereas health need, motivation, feedback and training were determinant factors for attitudes to use DHIS2 data


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Livio Blasi ◽  
Roberto Bordonaro ◽  
Vincenzo Serretta ◽  
Dario Piazza ◽  
Alberto Firenze ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Multidisciplinary tumor boards play a pivotal role in the patients -centered clinical management and in the decision-making process to provide best evidence -based, diagnostic and therapeutic care to cancer patients. Among the barriers to achieve an efficient multidisciplinary tumor board, lack of time and geographical distance play a major role. Therefore the elaboration of an efficient virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (VMTB) is a key-point to reach a successful oncology team and implement a network among health professionals and institutions. This need is stronger than ever in a Covid-19 pandemic scenario. OBJECTIVE This paper presents a research protocol for an observational study focused on exploring the structuring process and the implementation of a multi-institutional VMTB in Sicily. Other endpoints include analysis of cooperation between participants, adherence to guidelines, patients’ outcomes, and patients satisfaction METHODS This protocol encompasses a pragmatic, observational, multicenter, non-interventional, prospective trial. The study's programmed duration is five years, with a half-yearly analysis of the primary and secondary objectives' measurements. Oncology care health-professionals from various oncology subspecialties at oncology departments in multiple hospitals (academic and general hospitals as well as tertiary centers and community hospitals) are involved in a non-hierarchic fashion. VMTB employ an innovative, virtual, cloud-based platform to share anonymized medical data which are discussed via a videoconferencing system both satisfying security criteria and HIPAA compliance. RESULTS The protocol is part of a larger research project on communication and multidisciplinary collaboration in oncology units and departments spread in the Sicily region in Italy. Results of this study will particularly focus on the organization of VMTB involving oncology units present in different hospitals spread in the area and create a network to allow best patients care pathways and a hub and spoke relationship. Results will also include data concerning organization skills and pitfalls, barriers, efficiency, number and type con clinical cases, and customers’ satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS VMTB represents a unique opportunity to optimize patient’s management in a patient centered approach. An efficient virtualization and data banking system is potentially time-saving, a source for outcome data, and a detector of possible holes in the hull of clinical pathways. The observations and results from this VMTB study may hopefully useful to design nonclinical and organizational interventions that enhance multidisciplinary decision-making in oncology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document