Clinicians' experiences of inquiries following mental health related homicide: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This aim of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences of clinicians involved with inquiries into the mental health care of patients who were perpetrators of homicide in New Zealand. METHODS: Our purposive sample comprised ten clinicians working in New Zealand district health board mental health services. These clinicians were individually interviewed. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. The coding framework was checked and peer reviewed by an independent researcher. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: the inquiry process; emotional burden; impact on team dynamics; changes to individual clinical practice; and perceptions of inquiries being influenced by organisational culture. Clinicians involved with inquiries reported significant anxiety and disrupted multidisciplinary team dynamics. Some participants found inquiries led to changes to their clinical practice and perceived that a punitive organisational culture limited learning. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians perceived inquiries as threatening, anxiety provoking and primarily concerned with protecting organisational interests. Communication of the inquiry process and ensuring inquiry findings are disseminated may enhance clinicians' experiences of inquiries and facilitate their participation and their reflection on changes to clinical practice that could contribute to improving services. Support for clinicians and multidisciplinary teams should be emphasised by the commissioning agency.

The conduct of inquiries: a qualitative study of the perspectives of panel members who investigate mental health related homicide.

BACKGROUND: Inquiries into mental health related homicides may be held to identify failures in care and areas for improvement, accountability and to enhance public confidence. However, inquiries do not always achieve these aims. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of members of inquiry panels who conduct inquiries into mental health related homicides in order to identify elements that would constitute a good inquiry. METHODS: We selected a sample of inquiry panel members comprising 15 senior clinicians, legal experts and consumer advisors. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants raised concerns related to: (1) orientation of the panel to the inquiry task; (2) clarity of the process; and (3) impact of the inquiry. Most participants recognised that inquiries require a focus on mental health systems and sensitivity to families and clinicians. They reported difficulties in clarifying purposes, attending to cultural aspects of the case, having a clear method tailored to the mental health context, formulating recommendations and disseminating findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our participants perceived a number of weaknesses in the process by which inquiries into mental health related homicides had been conducted, and recommendations formulated and implemented. There is an opportunity to address these and thereby potentially improve the effectiveness and value of inquiries.

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.

Mental Health Inquiries in the Case of Homicide.

We aimed to identify features of New Zealand government-commissioned inquiries into the provision of mental health services after homicides committed by service users. The analysis of five reports from 1992 to 2016 identified similarities across reports, which included documenting a process; responding to a set terms of reference; detailing a case chronology, risk assessment, team and system issues; making recommendations and giving opportunities to clinicians to respond to adverse comments. Differences included selecting key informants and acknowledging limitations of scope. The inquiries did not specify a means to disseminate findings to stakeholders and follow up recommendations. Unrealised opportunities include attention to relationships between stakeholders and ways to support learning from inquiries. There is no standardised approach to conducting statutory inquiries into mental health services following a homicide. This limits the value of such inquiries for learning and service improvement. We recommend a standardised framework be developed to guide inquiries.

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.

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.

Eyes and Ears on Patient Safety: Sources of Notifications About the Health, Performance, and Conduct of Health Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe the sources of notifications of concern ("notifications") regarding the health, performance, and conduct of health practitioners from 14 registered professions in Australia. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 43,256 notifications lodged with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Health Professional Councils Authority between 2011 and 2016. We used descriptive statistical analysis to describe the characteristics of these notifications, including their source, issue and domain, and subject. RESULTS: Patients and their relatives lodged more than three-quarters (78%) of notifications regarding clinical performance, including diagnosis, treatment, and communication. Fellow practitioners were a common source of notifications about advertising and titles. Self-reports commonly related to health impairments, such as mental illness or substance use. Other agencies played a role in reporting concerns about prescribing or supply of medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Various actors in the healthcare system play different roles in sketching the picture of healthcare quality and safety that notifications present to regulators. Improved understanding of which sources are most likely to raise which concerns may enhance regulators' ability to identify and respond to patient safety risks.

Regulating for compassion?

In 2009, the Health and Disability Commissioner considered whether a right to be treated with compassion should be added to New Zealand's Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights. Before making his recommendation, the Commissioner explored the nature of compassion, its place as a virtue in medicine, and the implications of the proposed law change.

Families of victims of homicide: qualitative study of their experiences with mental health inquiries.

BACKGROUND: Investigations may be undertaken into mental healthcare related homicides to ascertain if lessons can be learned to prevent the chance of recurrence. Families of victims are variably involved in serious incident reviews. Their perspectives on the inquiry process have rarely been studied. AIMS: To explore the experiences of investigative processes from the perspectives of family members of homicide victims killed by a mental health patient to better inform the process of conducting inquiries. METHOD: The study design was informed by interpretive description methodology. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five families whose loved one had been killed by a mental health patient and where there had been a subsequent inquiry process in New Zealand. Data were analysed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Families in this study felt excluded, marginalised and disempowered by mental health inquires. The data highlight these families' perspectives, particularly on the importance of a clear process of inquiry, and of actions by healthcare providers that indicate restorative intent. CONCLUSIONS: Families in this study were united in reporting that they felt excluded from mental health inquiries. We suggest that the inclusion of families' perspectives should be a key consideration in the conduct of mental health inquiries. There may be benefit from inquiries that communicate a clear process of investigation that reflects restorative intent, acknowledges victims, provides appropriate apologies and gives families opportunities to contribute.

Medico-legal secrecy in New Zealand.

In the absence of the right to sue for medical negligence, the New Zealand Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) and the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) have become the centrepieces of New Zealand's medico-legal system. This article examines the claim that for both bodies secrecy, by name suppression, is the default position and that the private interests of doctors are elevated above the legitimate public interest in the performance of medical professionals. In particular, it examines HDC's blanket policy of suppressing the names of complainants, practitioners, hospitals, District Health Boards and geographical locations, and HPDT's stated but wavering commitment to openness. The authors conclude that both bodies may have failed, albeit in different ways, to recognise the legitimate and significant public interest in the names of those few practitioners found in breach of professional standards.

No-fault compensation in New Zealand: harmonizing injury compensation, provider accountability, and patient safety.

In 1974 New Zealand jettisoned a tort-based system for compensating medical injuries in favor of a government-funded compensation system. Although the system retained some residual fault elements, it essentially barred medical malpractice litigation. Reforms in 2005 expanded eligibility for compensation to all "treatment injuries," creating a true no-fault compensation system. Compared with a medical malpractice system, the New Zealand system offers more-timely compensation to a greater number of injured patients and more-effective processes for complaint resolution and provider accountability. The unfinished business lies in realizing its full potential for improving patient safety.

Accountability sought by patients following adverse events from medical care: the New Zealand experience.

BACKGROUND: Unlike Canada's medical malpractice system, patients in New Zealand who are dissatisfied with the quality of their care may choose between 2 well-established medicolegal paths: one leads to monetary compensation and the other to nonmonetary forms of accountability. We compared the forms of accountability sought by patients and families in New Zealand who took different types of legal action following a medical injury. This study offers insights into the forms of accountability sought by injured patients and may help to inform tort-reform initiatives. METHODS: We reviewed compensation claims submitted to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), New Zealand's national no-fault insurer, following injuries associated with admission to a public hospital in 1998 (n = 582). We also reviewed complaint letters (n = 254) submitted to the national Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) that same year to determine the forms of accountability sought by injured patients. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to compare sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics of patients who sought nonmonetary forms of accountability with those of patients who claimed compensation. RESULTS: Of 154 injured patients whose complaints were sufficiently detailed to allow coding, 50% sought corrective action to prevent similar harm to future patients (45% system change, 6% review of involved clinician's competence) and 40% wanted more satisfying communication (34% explanation, 10% apology). The odds that patients would seek compensation were significantly increased if they were in their prime working years (aged between 30 and 64 years) (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-2.41) or had a permanent disability as a result of their injury (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14-2.70). When injuries resulted in death, the odds of a compensation claim to the ACC were about one-eighth those of a complaint to the HDC (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.23). INTERPRETATION: Injured patients who pursue medicolegal action seek various forms of accountability. Compensation is important to some, especially when economic losses are substantial (e.g., with injury during prime working years or severe nonfatal injuries). However, others have purely nonmonetary goals, and ensuring alternative options for redress would be an efficient and effective response to their needs.

The patients' complaints system in New Zealand.

Since 1996 New Zealand has had a Code of Patients' Rights enforceable by complaints to an independent ombudsman. Patients are entitled to receive health care of an appropriate standard, to give informed consent, and to complain to a health commissioner about perceived malpractice. The commissioner investigates and reports on complaints, recommends practice changes by providers, is a gatekeeper to discipline by professional boards, and acts as a public advocate for patient safety. In this paper the current commissioner describes New Zealand's experience with the patients' complaints system and discusses the implications for the quality of health care.

Supervisory responsibilities of specialists.

The public hospital system in New Zealand is heavily reliant on junior doctors for the day-to-day provision of medical care to hospital patients. Specialists have supervisory responsibilities for junior doctors during the day, as leaders of clinical teams, and after hours when they are on call. Due to changes in the health system over the past 20 years, there has been a change in the nature and level of specialist supervision required. Under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights, where aspects of clinical care are delegated to junior doctors, specialists have a duty to provide supervision with reasonable care and skill and in accordance with professional standards.

Professional burnout - a regulatory perspective.

When people in industry or government burnout, the resulting inefficiencies and logjams may frustrate and even harm the citizenry. However, the stakes are higher in health care. If doctors and nurses burnout, one of two things is likely to happen: they are forced to stop work because they can no longer cope with the demands of their job, leaving a gap in an already overstretched health workforce; or they soldier on, and in an exhausted state are more likely to make a mistake that harms a patient. In our respective roles as former Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC), and chairman of the Medical Council, we have seen the harm caused by burnout in the medical profession. In this article, we seek to describe the problem and suggest some strategies to address it.

The use of CPR in New Zealand: is it always lawful?

Since its development in the early 1960s, the use of CPR in the hospital setting has undergone intriguing changes. After initially being used very selectively, at the discretion of the doctor, the use of CPR rapidly expanded to the point that it was promptly begun on all patients having a cardiac arrest in hospital, regardless of the underlying illness. However, it soon became evident that the use of CPR on all patients created problems. In response to this, DNR orders were developed. The standard policy of New Zealand hospitals is now for CPR to be attempted on all patients having a cardiac arrest unless a DNR order is in place. We argue that this approach is not consistent with New Zealand law and that current policies should be amended to bring them into line with the Code of Rights and New Zealand law generally.