Search

Objective: Immediate 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. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 11 200 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. Results: Of 13 939 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. Conclusions: Health 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 topic: Health 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (1) To determine the distribution of formal patient complaints across Australia's medical workforce and (2) to identify characteristics of doctors at high risk of incurring recurrent complaints. Methods We assembled a national sample of all 18 907 formal patient complaints filed against doctors with health service ombudsmen ('Commissions') in Australia over an 11-year period. We analysed the distribution of complaints among practicing doctors. We then used recurrent-event survival analysis to identify characteristics of doctors at high risk of recurrent complaints, and to estimate each individual doctor's risk of incurring future complaints. Results The distribution of complaints among doctors was highly skewed: 3% of Australia's medical workforce accounted for 49% of complaints and 1% accounted for a quarter of complaints. Short-term risks of recurrence varied significantly among doctors: there was a strong dose-response relationship with number of previous complaints and significant differences by doctor specialty and sex. At the practitioner level, risks varied widely, from doctors with <10% risk of further complaints within 2 years to doctors with >80% risk. Conclusions A small group of doctors accounts for half of all patient complaints lodged with Australian Commissions. It is feasible to predict which doctors are at high risk of incurring more complaints in the near future. Widespread use of this approach to identify high-risk doctors and target quality improvement efforts coupled with effective interventions, could help reduce adverse events and patient dissatisfaction in health systems. [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]