Search

Objectives To determine whether ‘older doctors’ (aged over 65) are at higher risk of notifications to the medical regulator than ‘younger doctors’ (aged 36–60 years) regarding their health, performance and/or conduct. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting National dataset of 12,878 notifications lodged with medical regulators in Australia between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2014. Participants All registered doctors in Australia aged 36–60 and >65 years during the study period. Main outcome measures Incidence rates of notifications and incidence rate ratios of notifications (older versus younger doctors). Results Older doctors had higher notification rates (90.9 compared with 66.6 per 1000 practitioner years, p < 0.001). Sex-adjusted incidence rate ratios showed that older doctors had a higher risk of notifications relating to physical illness or cognitive decline (incidence rate ratio = 15.54), inadequate record keeping (incidence rate ratio = 1.98), unlawful use or supply of medications (incidence rate ratio = 2.26), substandard certificates/reports (incidence rate ratio = 2.02), inappropriate prescribing (incidence rate ratio = 1.99), disruptive behaviours (incidence rate ratio = 1.37) and substandard treatment (incidence rate ratio = 1.24). Older doctors had lower notification rates relating to mental illness and substance misuse (incidence rate ratio = 0.58) and for performance issues relating to problems with procedures (incidence rate ratio = 0.61). Conclusions Older doctors were at higher risk for notifications relating to physical or cognitive impairment, records and reports, prescribing or supply of medicines, disruptive behaviour and treatment. They were at lower risk for notifications about mental illness or substance misuse. Incorporating knowledge of these patterns into regulatory practices, workplace adjustments and continuing education/assessment could enhance patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent media reports have highlighted the risks to patients that may occur when practitioners in the chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professions provide services in an unethical or unsafe manner. Yet research on complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists is limited. Our aim was to understand differences in the frequency and nature of formal complaints about practitioners in these professions in order to inform improvements in professional regulation and education. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analysed all formal complaints about all registered chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists in Australia lodged with health regulators between 2011 and 2016. Based on initial assessments by regulators, complaints were classified into 11 complaint issues across three domains: performance, professional conduct, and health. Differences in complaint rate were assessed using incidence rate ratios. A multivariate negative binomial regression model was used to identify predictors of complaints among practitioners in these professions. Results: Patients and their relatives were the most common source of complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists. Concerns about professional conduct accounted for more than half of the complaints about practitioners in these three professions. Regulatory outcome of complaints differed by profession. Male practitioners, those who were older than 65 years, and those who practised in metropolitan areas were at higher risk of complaint. The overall rate of complaints was higher for chiropractors than osteopaths and physiotherapists (29 vs. 10 vs. 5 complaints per 1000 practice years respectively, p < 0.001). Among chiropractors, 1% of practitioners received more than one complaint – they accounted for 36% of the complaints within their profession. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates differences in the frequency of complaints by source, issue and outcome across the chiropractic, osteopathic and physiotherapy professions. Independent of profession, male sex and older age were significant risk factors for complaint in these professions. Chiropractors were at higher risk of being the subject of a complaint to their practitioner board compared with osteopaths and physiotherapists. These findings may assist regulatory boards, professional associations and universities in developing programs that avert patient dissatisfaction and harm and reduce the burden of complaints on practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]