‘Concerns remain’: RACGP responds to AHPRA public statements proposal

The RACGP has said it remains concerned about changes to National Law that will allow AHPRA and National Boards to issue public statements about practitioners who have a complaint brought against them.
 
In a college submission responding to consultation about the proposals – which AHPRA says will allow warnings to be issued about registered practitioners who are under investigation or the subject of disciplinary proceedings and pose a serious risk –the college has outlined a number of misgivings.
 
‘While the RACGP understands the intent of the changes … careful consideration of the potential impacts the statements could have on practitioners is needed,’ the submission states.
 
The college acknowledged that the threshold for making a public statement ‘is set at a high level’, and welcomed the suggestion that AHPRA and the National Boards will not ‘name and shame’ people being investigated before a formal outcome has been reached.
 
However, it also noted a potential area of confusion.
 
‘[T]here is tension between the statement that the new power does not enable the ‘naming and shaming’ of practitioners or other people being investigated before there is a formal outcome, and the apparent proposed approach that supports public statements being issued while investigations or disciplinary hearings remain ongoing,’ the college feedback states.
 
‘This is concerning and is at odds with principles of natural justice.’
 
While noting that the circumstances which would allow a public statement to be made are ‘clear’, the RACGP in particular calls for more transparency around the ‘reasonable belief’ and ‘serious risk’ thresholds.
 
According to the college, clarity around the working definition of ‘serious risk’ would protect the rights of affected practitioners and ensure the naming power is applied ‘fairly and uniformly’.
 
The RACGP also advises that the ‘serious risk’ threshold be considered by an independent entity ‘with appropriate clinical expertise and professional judgement’ to allow them to assess the true likelihood of serious harm.
 
The submission highlights the need to balance protecting the public with safeguarding the integrity of a system that presumes practitioners are innocent until proven guilty.
 
‘Public statements should be made as a last resort, after all other avenues for risk mitigation have been explored, and only after the investigation is complete with all appeals processes exhausted and/finalised,’ the college states.
 
‘It must be made clear to an affected person that AHPRA will proceed to issue a public statement in the absence of a stay of the decision (court order) or an interim injunction, even if the person indicates they will lodge an appeal.’

The presence of show cause and appeals processes in the proposal is welcomed, as is the obligation to revoke a public statement if the grounds for making it no longer exist or never existed.

However, the RACGP believes this does not go far enough in addressing the potential fallout from a public statement where a practitioner is not at fault.
 
‘In the event of a public statement being significantly revised or revoked, AHPRA and the National Boards must actively and transparently remediate the reputational damage imposed on the affected person,’ the submission states.
 
Meanwhile, the RACGP believes that lawmakers should give more focus to the impact of sharing statements on social media.
 
‘Clarification of the controls that will be put in place to protect the affected persons from a potential social media ‘pile-on’ is imperative,’ the college states.
 
‘Unnecessary publication on social media channels will serve to intensify public discourse, further damaging the practitioner’s reputation and significantly impacting their wellbeing and that of their families and colleagues.
 
‘Affected persons must be assured that the publication of revisions and revocations are commensurate with the publication of the original statement.’
 
The responsibility to take those steps in the event of a revoked statement should be with AHPRA and the medical boards rather than the individual concerned, the college contends.
 
Awareness campaigns focused on the new power, directed at both consumers and practitioners, are recommended, while the college also highlights existing concerns over the regulator’s processes.
 
‘The RACGP has received member feedback indicating that practitioner confidence in AHPRA is low due to its handling of vexatious complaints, lack of capacity, its unpredictable timelines and non-transparent processes,’ the college states.
 
‘A comprehensive and tailored awareness and education campaign will assist with avoiding misunderstandings among practitioners and consumers.’ 
 
It stressed AHPRA’s obligation to provide support to practitioners, to minimise the mental health impacts of a public statement.

‘The proposed approach provides limited clarification around areas of significant concern for practitioners, particularly threshold tests and the making, revision or revoking of public statements,’ the submission concludes.
 
‘Further explanation is required to ensure that the new Regulatory Guide chapter is fit for purpose and provides practitioners with robust and transparent information.’
 
AHPRA opened the consultation earlier this year. The change to the National Law that would give AHPRA and the National Boards the ability to use the power has not yet been made.
 
The regulation agency is due to publish a new chapter on public statements in its regulatory guide.
 
Log in below to join the conversation.

AHPRA vexatious complaints