News
AHPRA naming Bill recommended by Senate Committee
The proposed legislation will allow information regarding complaints to be made public before investigations are complete.
The RACGP is concerned about the Bill’s potential impact on practitioners.
New legislation set to change the way medical practitioners are regulated has been recommended in a final report issued by Queensland’s Health and Environment Committee (HEC).
Should amendments to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law pass the state’s Legislative Assembly, they would be automatically adopted nationwide (excluding Western Australia and South Australia) and allow information on complaints to be made public before investigations are complete.
The RACGP is one of a number of medical groups to have voiced their opposition to the Bill, due to the potential impact it could have on practitioners, especially in cases where the complaint is not upheld.
However, in its report, Queensland’s HEC said the changes are ‘appropriate’.
‘The Committee notes the significant concerns raised by submitters about the impact that issuing a public statement may have on a practitioner, including reputational damage, potential loss of income and employment, and the impact on practitioners’ mental health and wellbeing,’ the report states.
‘The Committee also acknowledges the impact that these powers may have on practitioners’ rights to procedural fairness and natural justice, given that public statements may be issued prior to the completion of an investigation or any determination of a matter by a tribunal.
‘However, on balance, the Committee considers that the powers are appropriate and will assist AHPRA, National Boards and the Health Ombudsman in protecting and promoting the health and safety of the public.’
In forming its position, the HEC noted that the threshold for using the power is ‘high’ and that AHPRA and the Health Ombudsman had made undertaking to use the power to issue public statements ‘judiciously’ and only when necessary to protect the public from people who pose a ‘serious risk’ to health and safety.
In a submission made before the HEC published its final recommendation, the RACGP said it understands the intent of the law but remains concerned about the potential impacts for practitioners.
‘The threshold to be applied needs to be further clarified, to make it clearer when this power could be applied or what steps would be taken before this power is applied,’ the submission stated.
‘It is important that the definition of “reasonable belief” be centred on facts and known events.
‘Decisions on clinical risk should be made by those with the appropriate clinical expertise and professional judgement regarding the true likelihood of serious harm.’
According to the report, several other submitters – including the AMA, Australian Association of Psychologists, Queensland Law Society and Avant Mutual – also expressed concerns about giving increased powers to regulators to disclose information to certain people, including previous employers and associates.
The college also pointed out that GPs already lack confidence in the National Law and that the proposed changes may lead to more defensive medicine due to fear of vexatious complaints or prosecutions.
‘The current system … is perceived to focus more on the prosecution of practitioners than the protection of patient safety through remediation of the issues that led to the complaint,’ the submission stated.
‘Undergoing an investigation for a complaint can be an extremely stressful and time‐consuming process, that can have significant reputational and professional consequences, regardless of whether the practitioner in question is at fault.’
The RACGP also opposed other proposed amendments to the National Law, including changes that would:
- empower National Boards to take disciplinary action against a person who continues to practice or use a protected title after their registration has lapsed
- permit a National Board to refer matters to another entity after a preliminary assessment of the notification, if it decides the subject matter may be dealt with by that entity.
Meanwhile, the HEC supported removing a ban on testimonials, but recommended that these provisions not be repealed until the
independent review of cosmetic surgery has been completed, and accompanying guidelines and educational material have been published.
Log in below to join the conversation.
AHPRA complaints National Law vexatious
newsGP weekly poll
Is it becoming more difficult to access specialist psychiatric support for patients with complex mental presentations?