Professional Standards for Specialist Medical Administrators: Over-the-top Downunder?

In Australia, there are only two publicly reported disciplinary cases against specialist medical administrators. In the most recent decision of Medical Board of Australia v Gruner, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirmed that specialist medical administrators owe patients and the public the same professional obligations as medical practitioners with direct patient contact. More controversially, the Tribunal also held that medical administrators have a professional obligation only to accept roles with clear position descriptions that afford them sufficient time and resources to ensure the safe delivery of health services. We argue that this imposes unrealistic expectations on medical administrators engaged by rural, regional, or private health services that already struggle to attract and retain specialist medical expertise. This may exacerbate existing health inequalities by disincentivising specialist medical administrators from seeking fractional appointments that assist under-funded areas of workforce shortage.

Age and gender patterns in health service utilisation: Age-Period-Cohort modelling of linked health service usage records.

BACKGROUND: Health service utilisation changes across the life-course and may be influenced by contextual factors at different times. There is some evidence that men engage less with preventive health services, including attending doctors' clinics, however the extent to which this varies temporally and across different age groups is unclear. This study aimed to describe age or cohort effects on engagement with GPs among employed mothers and fathers in Australia, and differences in these trends between men and women. METHODS: We linked data from the 'Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children' with administrative health service records from Medicare. We used a small-domain estimation Age-Period-Cohort method to describe patterns in health service use among working-age male and female parents in Australia while adjusting for employment status and controlling for time-invariant factors. Our small-domain method assumes a smooth response surface of Age, Period and Cohort. RESULTS: Male parents have lower health service engagement than women of the same age at the same time period. Men's pattern of health service use across time is likely explained entirely by ageing. That is, we find that patterns in health service utilisation among men are largely driven by age effects, with no evidence of periods or cohort effects in health service engagement for men between 2002 and 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in health service utilisation between male and female parents at all age-period-cohort combinations highlight a need for more research to examine the extent to which this level of health service use among Australian men meets men's health needs, as well as barriers and enablers of health service engagement for men. Absence of evidence for period effects suggests that there is little shift in gendered patterns of health service utilisation during the observed period.

Health impairment allegations against doctors: Qualitative analysis and insights for Australian general practitioners.

METHOD: A thematic analysis was conducted of semistructured interviews with 21 doctor-patients and four doctors' health experts. RESULTS: Doctor-patient participants had experienced a past or family psychiatric history, personal loss or trauma, access to drugs at work, workplace stress or recent patient death or suicide. Many avoided seeking care and were significantly unwell when notified to medical regulators. Regulatory processes caused distress, symptom relapse, suicidality, financial pressures and work difficulties. Doctor-patient participants sought assistance from GPs, doctors' health services, medical defence organisations, recovery groups and benevolent associations. DISCUSSION: When treating doctor-patients, GPs can consider targeted mental health screening, openly discussing mandatory reporting obligations and accessing advice from their medical defence organisation or local doctors' health service. Trust and clear communication benefits doctor-patients and the wider communities they serve.

The publication of impaired doctors' identity by Australian and New Zealand tribunals: law, practice, and reform.

For doctors with mental health or substance use disorders, publication of their name and sensitive medical history in disciplinary decisions may adversely impact their health and may reinforce barriers to accessing early support and treatment. This article challenges the view that naming impaired doctors or disclosing the intimate details of their medical condition in disciplinary decisions always serves the public interest in open justice. We analysed and compared the approach of Australian and New Zealand health tribunals to granting orders that suppress the name and/or medical history of impaired doctors. This revealed that Australian tribunals are less likely to grant non-publication orders compared to New Zealand, despite shared common law history and similar medical regulatory frameworks. We argue that Australian tribunals could be more circumspect when dealing with sensitive information in published decisions, especially where such information does not directly form a basis for the decision reached. This could occur without compromising public protection or the underlying goals of open justice. Finally, we argue that a greater distinction should be made between those aspects of decisions that deal with conduct allegations, where full details should be published, and those that deal with impairment allegations, where only limited information should be disclosed.

Australian and New Zealand doctors' experiences of disciplinary notifications, investigations, proceedings and interventions relating to alleged mental health impairment: a qualitative analysis of interviews.

When poor mental health impairs a doctor's ability to safely practise medicine, poor patient outcomes can result. Medical regulators play a critical role in protecting the public from impaired doctors, by requiring monitoring and treatment. However, regulatory processes may paradoxically harm doctors, with potential adverse implications for the community. There is little prior research examining the experiences of doctors with prior mental health or substance use challenges who are subject to regulatory notifications and processes relating to their health. Therefore, we explored this issue through the thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants reported that mandated treatment improved aspects of their health, but that fear of regulatory processes delayed them seeking treatment. Participants recognised being significantly unwell at the time of regulatory notification. Participants told us that regulatory processes triggered psychological distress, symptom relapse, and adverse financial and vocational implications. They also told us that these processes eroded their trust in regulators and regulatory processes. To improve health outcomes for unwell doctors and to create safer healthcare for the community, we propose: 1) greater awareness and education of the medical profession about the thresholds and requirements for mandatory reporting of health impairment; 2) better integrating specialised doctors' health services into existing regulatory pathways; and 3) adoption of a more therapeutic approach to regulation by medical regulators.

Vocational and psychosocial predictors of medical negligence claims among Australian doctors: a prospective cohort analysis of the MABEL survey.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the association between medical negligence claims and doctors' sex, age, specialty, working hours, work location, personality, social supports, family circumstances, self-rated health, self-rated life satisfaction and presence of recent injury or illness. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study of Australian doctors. PARTICIPANTS: 12 134 doctors who completed the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life survey between 2013 and 2019. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Doctors named as a defendant in a medical negligence claim in the preceding 12 months. RESULTS: 649 (5.35%) doctors reported being named in a medical negligence claim during the study period. In addition to previously identified demographic factors (sex, age and specialty), we identified the following vocational and psychosocial risk factors for claims: working full time (OR=1.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.94) or overtime hours (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.23), working in a regional centre (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.08), increasing job demands (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30), low self-rated life satisfaction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.91) and recent serious personal injury or illness (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72). Having an agreeable personality was mildly protective (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00). When stratified according to sex, we found that working in a regional area, low self-rated life satisfaction and not achieving work-life balance predicted medical negligence claims in male, but not female, doctors. However, working more than part-time hours and having a recent personal injury or illness predicted medical negligence claims in female, but not male, doctors. Increasing age predicted claims more strongly in male doctors. Personality type predicted claims in both male and female doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable risk factors contribute to an increased risk of medical negligence claims among doctors in Australia. Creating more supportive work environments and targeting interventions that improve doctors' health and well-being could reduce the risk of medical negligence claims and contribute to improved patient safety.

Medical negligence claims and the health and life satisfaction of Australian doctors: a prospective cohort analysis of the MABEL survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between medical negligence claims and doctors' self-rated health and life satisfaction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Registered doctors practising in Australia who participated in waves 4 to 11 of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey between 2011 and 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-rated health and self-rated life satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 15 105 doctors in the study, 885 reported being named in a medical negligence claim. Fixed-effects linear regression analysis showed that both self-rated health and self-rated life satisfaction declined for all doctors over the course of the MABEL survey, with no association between wave and being sued. However, being sued was not associated with any additional declines in self-rated health (coef.=-0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02, p=0.39) or self-rated life satisfaction (coef.=-0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07, p=0.91) after controlling for a range of job factors. Instead, we found that working conditions and job satisfaction were the strongest predictors of self-rated health and self-rated life satisfaction in sued doctors. In analyses restricted to doctors who were sued, we observed no changes in self-rated health (p=0.99) or self-rated life satisfaction (p=0.59) in the years immediately following a claim. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior overseas cross-sectional survey studies, we show that medical negligence claims do not adversely affect the well-being of doctors in Australia when adjusting for time trends and previously established covariates. This may be because: (1) prior studies failed to adequately address issues of causation and confounding; or (2) legal processes governing medical negligence claims in Australia cause less distress compared with those in other jurisdictions. Our findings suggest that the interaction between medical negligence claims and poor doctors' health is more complex than revealed through previous studies.

Protection, Prevention or Punishment? A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Regulatory Immediate Action against Medical Practitioners.

Medical regulators protect the public from unsafe, unwell, or unscrupulous medical practitioners. To facilitate a swift response to serious allegations, many regulators are equipped with far-reaching emergency powers to immediately suspend, or impose conditions on, medical practitioners' registration before facts are proven. Failing to take urgent action may expose the public to ongoing avoidable harm and may erode public trust in the profession. Equally, imposing immediate action in response to allegations that are not subsequently proven can precipitously and irreparably injure a practitioner's career and emotional wellbeing. This is the second of two articles published in the Journal of Law and Medicine that explores the emerging jurisprudence in relation to these emergency regulatory powers. This article compares the approaches to immediate action in seven countries, providing insights for policy-makers and decision-makers into how modern regulatory frameworks attempt to balance the inherent tensions between the profession, the public and the State.

Hearing Parents' Voices: Parental Refusal of Cochlear Implants and the Zone of Parental Discretion.

It has been forty years since the first multi-channel cochlear implant was used in Australia. While heralded in the hearing world as one of the greatest inventions in modern medicine, not everyone reflects on this achievement with enthusiasm. For many people in the Deaf community, they see the cochlear implant as a tool that reinforces a social construct that pathologizes deafness and removes Deaf identity. In this paper, I set out the main arguments for and against cochlear implantation. While I conclude that, on balance, cochlear implants improve the well-being and broaden the open futures of deaf children, this does not justify mandating implants in circumstances where parents refuse them because this may compound unintended harms when society interferes in the parent-child relationship. For this reason, I argue that parental refusal of cochlear implantation falls within Gillam's concept of the zone of parental discretion.

Regulation in Need of Therapy? Analysis of Regulatory Decisions Relating to Impaired Doctors from 2010 to 2020.

Doctors' mental wellbeing is a critical public health issue. Rates of depression, anxiety, and substance use are higher than in the general population. Regulating unwell doctors who pose a public risk is challenging, yet there is little research into how medical regulators balance the need to protect the public from harm against the benefits of supporting and rehabilitating the unwell doctor. We analysed judgments from Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, United Kingdom, Ontario, and Singapore between 2010 and 2020 relating to impaired doctors. We found similarities in how decision-makers conceptualise impairment, how they disentangle impairment from associated conduct or performance complaints, and how regulatory principles and sanctions are applied. However, compared to other jurisdictions, Australian courts and tribunals tended to prioritise deterrence above the rehabilitation of the impaired doctor. Supporting impaired doctors' recovery, when appropriate, is critical to public protection and patient safety.

Sexual identity or religious freedom: could conversion therapy ever be morally permissible in limited urgent situations?

Conversion therapy refers to a range of unscientific, discredited and harmful heterosexist practices that attempt to re-align an individual's sexual orientation, usually from non-heterosexual to heterosexual. In Australia, the state of Victoria recently joined Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory in criminalising conversion therapy. Although many other jurisdictions have also introduced legislation banning conversion therapy, it persists in over 60 countries. Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of conversion therapy, which can include coercion, rejection, isolation and blame. However, if new biotechnologies create safe and effective conversion therapies, the question posed here is whether it would ever be morally permissible to use them. In addressing this question, we need to closely examine the individual's circumstances and the prevailing social context in which conversion therapy is employed. I argue that, even in a sexually unjust world, conversion therapy may be morally permissible if it were the only safe and effective means of relieving intense anguish and dysphoria for the individual. The person providing the conversion therapy must be qualified, sufficiently independent from any religious organisation and must provide conversion therapy in a way that is positively affirming of the individual and their existing sexuality.

Spoonful of honey or a gallon of vinegar? A conditional COVID-19 vaccination policy for front-line healthcare workers.

Seven COVID-19 vaccines are now being distributed and administered around the world (figure correct at the time of submission), with more on the horizon. It is widely accepted that healthcare workers should have high priority. However, questions have been raised about what we ought to do if members of priority groups refuse vaccination. Using the case of influenza vaccination as a comparison, we know that coercive approaches to vaccination uptake effectively increase vaccination rates among healthcare workers and reduce patient morbidity if properly implemented. Using the principle of least restrictive alternative, we have developed an intervention ladder for COVID-19 vaccination policies among healthcare workers. We argue that healthcare workers refusing vaccination without a medical reason should be temporarily redeployed and, if their refusal persists after the redeployment period, eventually suspended, in order to reduce the risk to their colleagues and patients. This 'conditional' policy is a compromise between entirely voluntary or entirely mandatory policies for healthcare workers, and is consistent with healthcare workers' established professional, legal and ethical obligations to their patients and to society at large.

Characteristics and predictors of regulatory immediate action imposed on registered health practitioners in Australia: a retrospective cohort study.

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 11200 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 13939 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.

In Whose Interest? Recent Developments in Regulatory Immediate Action against Medical Practitioners in Australia.

"Immediate action" is a powerful regulatory tool available to Medical Boards. It protects the public from harm by restricting a medical practitioner's registration after allegations have been made, but before wrongdoing is proven. This article charts the development of these coercive powers in Australia and examines the legal, socio-political and ethical justification for supplementing a well-defined "public risk" test with a broad and controversial "public interest" test that leaves medical practitioners vulnerable to inconsistent decision-making. Compared to overseas jurisdictions, immediate action powers in Australia offer fewer procedural protections. The regulatory response to perceived threats to public trust and confidence in the medical profession needs to be proportionate, transparent, effective, and consistent, to protect the public while also being fair to practitioners.

Serving two masters? Recent legal developments regarding the professional obligations of medical administrators in Australia.

Medical administration is a recognised medical specialty in Australia. Historically, medical administrators have rarely been subjected to litigation or disciplinary hearings relating specifically to their administrative functions. However, the legal landscape for medical administrators in Australia appears to be shifting. In 2009, the Queensland Health Practitioners Tribunal heard two separate cases involving the professional conduct of medical administrators who were implicated in the scandal surrounding Dr. Jayant Patel at Bundaberg Hospital. In September 2010, judgment in one of those cases was delivered. This article reviews the tribunal's decision through the lens of relevant United Kingdom authorities and recent legislative changes in Australia regulating the health professions.

"Chartering" the limits of involuntary psychiatric treatment in Victoria: interpreting the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) in the age of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

The Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) allows for individuals with a serious mental illness to be treated on an involuntary basis either in a psychiatric hospital (on an involuntary treatment order) or in the community (on a community treatment order). The Act also establishes the Mental Health Review Board with the authority to review these orders within eight weeks of those orders being made and at least once every 12 months thereafter. This article analyses a recent decision of the board, Re Appeal of 09-085 [2009] VMHRB 1, in which the appellant challenged a decision of a psychiatrist to extend his community treatment order for a further 12 months. The appellant argued that aspects of his involuntary treatment under the Act amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment and therefore breached his right to freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment under s 10(b) of Victoria's recently enacted Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). Thus, the board was asked to consider whether the definition of "treatment" under the Act was compatible with the rights and freedoms enacted by the Charter. This was the first time that a Victorian court or tribunal had considered the impact of the Charter on involuntary psychiatric treatment. The decision was also a prelude to the Victorian Government's announcement that it would comprehensively review its mental health legislation, now the oldest in Australia. As this case highlights, in determining the future direction of mental health legislation and policy in Victoria, the Charter has been crucial.