The publication of impaired doctors' identity by Australian and New Zealand tribunals: law, practice, and reform.

For doctors with mental health or substance use disorders, publication of their name and sensitive medical history in disciplinary decisions may adversely impact their health and may reinforce barriers to accessing early support and treatment. This article challenges the view that naming impaired doctors or disclosing the intimate details of their medical condition in disciplinary decisions always serves the public interest in open justice. We analysed and compared the approach of Australian and New Zealand health tribunals to granting orders that suppress the name and/or medical history of impaired doctors. This revealed that Australian tribunals are less likely to grant non-publication orders compared to New Zealand, despite shared common law history and similar medical regulatory frameworks. We argue that Australian tribunals could be more circumspect when dealing with sensitive information in published decisions, especially where such information does not directly form a basis for the decision reached. This could occur without compromising public protection or the underlying goals of open justice. Finally, we argue that a greater distinction should be made between those aspects of decisions that deal with conduct allegations, where full details should be published, and those that deal with impairment allegations, where only limited information should be disclosed.

Regulation in Need of Therapy? Analysis of Regulatory Decisions Relating to Impaired Doctors from 2010 to 2020.

Doctors' mental wellbeing is a critical public health issue. Rates of depression, anxiety, and substance use are higher than in the general population. Regulating unwell doctors who pose a public risk is challenging, yet there is little research into how medical regulators balance the need to protect the public from harm against the benefits of supporting and rehabilitating the unwell doctor. We analysed judgments from Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, United Kingdom, Ontario, and Singapore between 2010 and 2020 relating to impaired doctors. We found similarities in how decision-makers conceptualise impairment, how they disentangle impairment from associated conduct or performance complaints, and how regulatory principles and sanctions are applied. However, compared to other jurisdictions, Australian courts and tribunals tended to prioritise deterrence above the rehabilitation of the impaired doctor. Supporting impaired doctors' recovery, when appropriate, is critical to public protection and patient safety.

Protection, Prevention or Punishment? A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Regulatory Immediate Action against Medical Practitioners.

Medical regulators protect the public from unsafe, unwell, or unscrupulous medical practitioners. To facilitate a swift response to serious allegations, many regulators are equipped with far-reaching emergency powers to immediately suspend, or impose conditions on, medical practitioners' registration before facts are proven. Failing to take urgent action may expose the public to ongoing avoidable harm and may erode public trust in the profession. Equally, imposing immediate action in response to allegations that are not subsequently proven can precipitously and irreparably injure a practitioner's career and emotional wellbeing. This is the second of two articles published in the Journal of Law and Medicine that explores the emerging jurisprudence in relation to these emergency regulatory powers. This article compares the approaches to immediate action in seven countries, providing insights for policy-makers and decision-makers into how modern regulatory frameworks attempt to balance the inherent tensions between the profession, the public and the State.

Sexual misconduct by health professionals in Australia, 2011-2016: a retrospective analysis of notifications to health regulators.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the numbers of notifications to health regulators alleging sexual misconduct by registered health practitioners in Australia, by health care profession. DESIGN, SETTING: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and NSW Health Professional Councils Authority data on notifications of sexual misconduct during 2011-2016. PARTICIPANTS: All registered practitioners in 15 health professions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Notification rates (per 10 000 practitioner-years) and adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) by age, sex, profession, medical specialty, and practice location. RESULTS: Regulators received 1507 sexual misconduct notifications for 1167 of 724 649 registered health practitioners (0.2%), including 208 practitioners (18%) who were the subjects of more than one report during 2011-2016; 381 notifications (25%) alleged sexual relationships, 1126 (75%) sexual harassment or assault. Notifications regarding sexual relationships were more frequent for psychiatrists (15.2 notifications per 10 000 practitioner-years), psychologists (5.0 per 10 000 practitioner-years), and general practitioners (6.4 per 10 000 practitioner-years); the rate was higher for regional/rural than metropolitan practitioners (aRR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.31-2.30). Notifications of sexual harassment or assault more frequently named male than female practitioners (aRR, 37.1; 95% CI, 26.7-51.5). A larger proportion of notifications of sexual misconduct than of other forms of misconduct led to regulatory sanctions (242 of 709 closed cases [34%] v 5727 of 23 855 [24%]). CONCLUSIONS: While notifications alleging sexual misconduct by health practitioners are rare, such misconduct has serious consequences for patients, practitioners, and the community. Further efforts are needed to prevent sexual misconduct in health care and to ensure thorough investigation of alleged misconduct.

In Whose Interest? Recent Developments in Regulatory Immediate Action against Medical Practitioners in Australia.

"Immediate action" is a powerful regulatory tool available to Medical Boards. It protects the public from harm by restricting a medical practitioner's registration after allegations have been made, but before wrongdoing is proven. This article charts the development of these coercive powers in Australia and examines the legal, socio-political and ethical justification for supplementing a well-defined "public risk" test with a broad and controversial "public interest" test that leaves medical practitioners vulnerable to inconsistent decision-making. Compared to overseas jurisdictions, immediate action powers in Australia offer fewer procedural protections. The regulatory response to perceived threats to public trust and confidence in the medical profession needs to be proportionate, transparent, effective, and consistent, to protect the public while also being fair to practitioners.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims.

BACKGROUND: The distribution of malpractice claims among physicians is not well understood. If claim-prone physicians account for a substantial share of all claims, the ability to reliably identify them at an early stage could guide efforts to improve care. METHODS: Using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, we analyzed 66,426 claims paid against 54,099 physicians from 2005 through 2014. We calculated concentrations of claims among physicians. We used multivariable recurrent-event survival analysis to identify characteristics of physicians at high risk for recurrent claims and to quantify risk levels over time. RESULTS: Approximately 1% of all physicians accounted for 32% of paid claims. Among physicians with paid claims, 84% incurred only one during the study period (accounting for 68% of all paid claims), 16% had at least two paid claims (accounting for 32% of the claims), and 4% had at least three paid claims (accounting for 12% of the claims). In adjusted analyses, the risk of recurrence increased with the number of previous paid claims. For example, as compared with physicians who had one previous paid claim, the 2160 physicians who had three paid claims had three times the risk of incurring another (hazard ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.84 to 3.41); this corresponded in absolute terms to a 24% chance (95% CI, 22 to 26) of another paid claim within 2 years. Risks of recurrence also varied widely according to specialty--for example, the risk among neurosurgeons was four times as great as the risk among psychiatrists. CONCLUSIONS: Over a recent 10-year period, a small number of physicians with distinctive characteristics accounted for a disproportionately large number of paid malpractice claims.

Identification of practitioners at high risk of complaints to health profession regulators.

BACKGROUND: Some health practitioners pose substantial threats to patient safety, yet early identification of them is notoriously difficult. We aimed to develop an algorithm for use by regulators in prospectively identifying practitioners at high risk of attracting formal complaints about health, conduct or performance issues. METHODS: Using 2011-2016 data from the national regulator of health practitioners in Australia, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 14 registered health professions. We used recurrent-event survival analysis to estimate the risk of a complaint and used the results of this analysis to develop an algorithm for identifying practitioners at high risk of complaints. We evaluated the algorithm's discrimination, calibration and predictive properties. RESULTS: Participants were 715,415 registered health practitioners (55% nurses, 15% doctors, 6% midwives, 5% psychologists, 4% pharmacists, 15% other). The algorithm, PRONE-HP (Predicted Risk of New Event for Health Practitioners), incorporated predictors for sex, age, profession and specialty, number of prior complaints and complaint issue. Discrimination was good (C-index = 0·77, 95% CI 0·76-0·77). PRONE-HP's score values were closely calibrated with risk of a future complaint: practitioners with a score ≤ 4 had a 1% chance of a complaint within 24 months and those with a score ≥ 35 had a higher than 85% chance. Using the 90th percentile of scores within each profession to define "high risk", the predictive accuracy of PRONE-HP was good for doctors and dentists (PPV = 93·1% and 91·6%, respectively); moderate for chiropractors (PPV = 71·1%), psychologists (PPV = 54·9%), pharmacists (PPV = 39·9%) and podiatrists (PPV = 34·0%); and poor for other professions. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of PRONE-HP in predicting complaint risks varied substantially across professions. It showed particular promise for flagging doctors and dentists at high risk of accruing further complaints. Close review of available information on flagged practitioners may help to identify troubling patterns and imminent risks to patients.

Correction to: Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study.

The original article [1] contains a major error whereby all rates in Table 2 are mistakenly presented as 50% of their true values; this error was caused by a miscalculation in annualising the original values that represented the rates.

Vexatious, Misconceived and Avoidable Reports by Peers to Medical Regulators: A Qualitative Study of Health Practitioners in Australia.

The introduction of a mandatory duty to report health practitioners who engage in notifiable conduct has heightened concerns about the potential for notifications to be motivated by rivalry or spite, rather than genuine concern for patient safety. The research discussed in this article explores the views and experiences of health sector professionals in Australia regarding vexatious and misconceived notifications by doctors against other doctors. Interviewees believed most mandatory reports are made on strong grounds with sound motives. Under-reporting was seen as a more significant problem than over-reporting. Three types of inappropriate reports are identified: misconceived reports resulting from a misunderstanding of the reporting thresholds; vexatious reports made with the intention of causing trouble for another practitioner; and avoidable reports where the threshold for reporting need not have been reached if colleagues or employers provided early appropriate support. In light of recent mandatory reporting laws, this article offers recommendations that may assist in supporting appropriate reports and reducing the number of inappropriate reports.

Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Medical boards and other practitioner boards aim to protect the public from unsafe practice. Previous research has examined disciplinary actions against doctors, but other professions (e.g., nurses and midwives, dentists, psychologists, pharmacists) remain understudied. We sought to describe the outcomes of notifications of concern regarding the health, performance, and conduct of health practitioners from ten professions in Australia and to identify factors associated with the imposition of restrictive actions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all notifications lodged with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency over 24 months. Notifications were followed for 30-54 months. Our main outcome was restrictive actions, defined as decisions that imposed undertakings, conditions, or suspension or cancellation of registration. RESULTS: There were 8307 notifications. The notification rate was highest among doctors (IR = 29.0 per 1000 practitioner years) and dentists (IR = 41.4) and lowest among nurses and midwives (IR = 4.1). One in ten notifications resulted in restrictive action; fewer than one in 300 notifications resulted in suspension or cancellation of registration. Compared with notifications about clinical care, the odds of restrictive action were higher for notifications relating to health impairments (drug misuse, OR = 7.0; alcohol misuse, OR = 4.6; mental illness, OR = 4.1, physical or cognitive illness, OR = 3.7), unlawful prescribing or use of medications (OR = 2.1) and violation of sexual boundaries (OR = 1.7). The odds were higher where the report was made by another health practitioner (OR = 2.9) or employer (OR = 6.9) rather than a patient or relative. Nurses and midwives (OR = 1.8), psychologists (OR = 4.5), dentists (OR = 4.7), and other health practitioners (OR = 5.3) all had greater odds of being subject to restrictive actions than doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive actions are the strongest measures health practitioner boards can take to protect the public from harm and these actions can have profound effects on the livelihood, reputations and well-being of practitioners. In Australia, restrictive actions are rarely imposed and there is variation in their use depending on the source of the notification, the type of issue involved, and the profession of the practitioner.

Suicide by health professionals: a retrospective mortality study in Australia, 2001-2012.

OBJECTIVES: To report age-standardised rates and methods of suicide by health professionals, and to compare these with suicide rates for other occupations. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective mortality study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: All intentional self-harm cases recorded by the National Coronial Information System during the period 2001-2012 were initially included. Cases were excluded if the person was unemployed at the time of death, if their employment status was unknown or occupational information was missing, or if they were under 20 years of age at the time of death. Suicide rates were calculated using Australian Bureau of Statistics population-level data from the 2006 census. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Suicide rates and method of suicide by occupational group. RESULTS: Suicide rates for female health professionals were higher than for women in other occupations (medical practitioners: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.52; 95% CI, 1.55-4.09; P < 0.001; nurses and midwives: IRR, 2.65; 95% CI, 2.22-3.15; P < 0.001). Suicide rates for male medical practitioners were not significantly higher than for other occupations, but the suicide rate for male nurses and midwives was significantly higher than for men working outside the health professions (IRR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.12-2.01; P = 0.006). The suicide rate for health professionals with ready access to prescription medications was higher than for those in health professions without such access or in non-health professional occupations. The most frequent method of suicide used by health professionals was self-poisoning. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate the need for targeted prevention of suicide by health professionals.

Reporting of health practitioners by their treating practitioner under Australia's national mandatory reporting law.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, nature and outcomes of reports about health practitioners made by their treating practitioners under Australia's new mandatory reporting system. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective case file review and analysis of treating practitioner reports received by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency between 1 November 2011 and 31 January 2013, and of the outcomes of the completed investigations of these reports to November 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of treating practitioners and reported practitioners; nature of the care relationship; grounds for report; regulatory action taken in response to report. RESULTS: Of 846 mandatory reports about medical practitioners, 64 (8%) were by treating practitioners. A minority of reports (14 of 64) were made by a practitioner-patient's regular care provider; most (50 of 64) arose from an encounter during an acute admission, first assessment or informal corridor consultation. The reported practitioner-patients were typically being treated for mental illness (28 of 64) or substance misuse (25 of 64). In 80% of reports (50 of 64), reporters described practitioner-patients who exhibited diminished insight, dishonesty, disregard for patient safety, or an intention to self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: The nature and circumstances of the typical treating practitioner report challenge assumptions expressed in policy debates about the merits of the new mandatory reporting law. Mandatory reports by treating practitioners are rare. The typical report is about substance misuse or mental illness, is made by a doctor who is not the patient's regular care provider, and identifies an impediment to safely managing the risk posed by the practitioner-patient within the confines of the treating relationship.

Sexual harassment in the medical profession: legal and ethical responsibilities.

Sexual harassment of women in medicine has become a subject of national debate after a senior female surgeon stated that if a woman complained of unwanted advances her career would be jeopardised, and subsequent reports suggest that sexual harassment is a serious problem in the medical profession. Sexual harassment of women in the medical profession by their colleagues presents substantial legal, ethical and cultural questions for the profession. Women have enforceable legal rights to gender equality and freedom from sexual harassment in the workplace. Both individual offenders and employers face significant legal consequences for sexual harassment in every Australian state and territory, and individual medical practitioners and employers need to understand their legal and ethical rights and responsibilities in this context. An individual offender may be personally liable for criminal offences, and for breaching anti-discrimination legislation, duties owed in civil law, professional standards and codes of conduct. An employer may be liable for breaching anti-discrimination legislation, workplace safety laws, duties owed in contract law, and a duty of care owed to the employee. Employers, professional colleges and associations, and regulators should use this national debate as an opportunity to improve gender equality and professional culture in medicine; individuals and employers have clear legal and ethical obligations to minimise sexual harassment to the greatest extent possible.

A step towards evidence-based regulation of health practitioners.

In 2010 Australia established a national registration and accreditation scheme, covering more than 620 000 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.

Mandatory reports of concerns about the health, performance and conduct of health practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency and characteristics of mandatory reports about the health, competence and conduct of registered health practitioners in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review and multivariate analysis of allegations of "notifiable conduct" involving health practitioners received by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) between 1 November 2011 and 31 December 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Statutory grounds for reports, types of behaviour reported, and incidence of notifications by profession, sex, age, jurisdiction and geographic area. RESULTS: Of 819 mandatory notifications made during the study period, 501 (62%) related to perceived departures from accepted professional standards, mostly standards of clinical care. Nurses and doctors dominated notifications: 89% (727/819) involved a doctor or nurse in the role of notifier and/or respondent. Health professionals other than the respondents' treating practitioners made 46% of notifications (335/731), and the profession of the notifier and respondent was the same in 80% of cases (557/697). Employers made 46% of notifications (333/731). Psychologists had the highest rate of notifications, followed by medical practitioners, and then nurses and midwives (47, 41 and 40 reports per 10 000 practitioners per year, respectively). Incidence of notifications against men was more than two-and-a-half times that for women (46 v 17 reports per 10 000 practitioners per year; P < 0.001) and there was fivefold variation in incidence across states and territories. CONCLUSIONS: Although Australia's mandatory reporting regime is in its infancy, our data suggest that some of the adverse effects and manifest benefits forecast by critics and supporters, respectively, have not materialised. Further research should explore the variation in notification rates observed, evaluate the outcomes of reports, and test the effects of the mandatory reporting law on whistleblowing and help-seeking behaviour.

The role of boards in clinical governance: activities and attitudes among members of public health service boards in Victoria.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the nature and extent of governance activities by health service boards in relation to quality and safety of care and to gauge the expertise and perspectives of board members in this area. METHODS: This study used an online and postal survey of the Board Chair, Quality Committee Chair and two randomly selected members from the boards of all 85 health services in Victoria. Seventy percent (233/332) of members surveyed responded and 96% (82/85) of boards had at least one member respond. RESULTS: Most boards had quality performance as a standing item on meeting agendas (79%) and reviewed data on medication errors and hospital-acquired infections at least quarterly (77%). Fewer boards benchmarked their service's quality performance against external comparators (50%) or offered board members formal training on quality (53%). Eighty-two percent of board members identified quality as a top priority for board oversight, yet members generally considered their boards to be a relatively minor force in shaping the quality of care. There was a positive correlation between the size of health services (total budget, inpatient separations) and their board's level of engagement in quality-related activities. Ninety percent of board members indicated that additional training in quality and safety would be 'moderately useful' or 'very useful'. Almost every respondent believed the overall quality of care their service delivered was as good as, or better than, the typical Victorian health service. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, health service boards are engaged in an impressive range of clinical governance activities. However, the extent of engagement is uneven across boards, certain knowledge deficits are evident and there was wide agreement among board members that further training in quality-related issues would be useful.

Prevalence and characteristics of complaint-prone doctors in private practice in Victoria.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics of doctors who are repeated subjects of complaints by patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Case-control study of doctors about whom patients had complained to the Victorian Health Services Commissioner between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009. PARTICIPANTS: 384 doctors in private practice; cases comprised 96 doctors who were the subject of four or more separate complaints; and the control group comprised 288 doctors who were the subject of a single complaint over the study period. RESULTS: Among doctors in private practice in Victoria, 20.5% (95% CI, 19.7%-21.3%) experienced at least one complaint over the decade. Among doctors who were the subject of a complaint, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.6%-5.4%) had four or more complaints, and this group accounted for 17.6% (95% CI, 16.3%-19.0%) of all complaints to the Victorian Health Services Commissioner. Multivariate analyses showed that surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 8.90; 95% CI, 3.69-21.50) and psychiatrists (OR, 4.59; 95% CI, 1.46-14.43) had higher odds of being in the complaint-prone group than general practitioners. Doctors trained overseas had lower odds of being complaint-prone than those trained in Australia (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: A small group of doctors in private practice in Victoria account for nearly 18% of complaints. Interventions to improve patient satisfaction and public confidence in health services should target complaint-prone subgroups of practitioners.