Complaint risk among mental health practitioners compared with physical health practitioners: a retrospective cohort study of complaints to health regulators in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To understand complaint risk among mental health practitioners compared with physical health practitioners. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to analyse complaint risk and a multivariate regression model to identify predictors of complaints. SETTING: National study using complaints data from health regulators in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: All psychiatrists and psychologists ('mental health practitioners') and all physicians, optometrists, physiotherapists, osteopaths and chiropractors ('physical health practitioners') registered to practice in Australia between 2011 and 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence rates, source and nature of complaints to regulators. RESULTS: In total, 7903 complaints were lodged with regulators over the 6-year period. Most complaints were lodged by patients and their families. Mental health practitioners had a complaint rate that was more than twice that of physical health practitioners (complaints per 1000 practice years: psychiatrists 119.1 vs physicians 48.0, p<0.001; psychologists 21.9 vs other allied health 7.5, p<0.001). Their risk of complaints was especially high in relation to reports, records, confidentiality, interpersonal behaviour, sexual boundary breaches and the mental health of the practitioner. Among mental health practitioners, male practitioners (psychiatrists IRR: 1.61, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.85; psychologists IRR: 1.85, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.07) and older practitioners (≥65 years compared with 36-45 years: psychiatrists IRR 2.37, 95% CI 1.95 to 2.89; psychologists IRR 1.78, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.14) were at increased risk of complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health practitioners were more likely to be the subject of complaints than physical health practitioners. Areas of increased risk are related to professional ethics, communication skills and the health of mental health practitioners themselves. Further research could usefully explore whether addressing these risk factors through training, professional development and practitioner health initiatives may reduce the risk of complaints about mental health practitioners.

Why do surgeons receive more complaints than their physician peers?

BACKGROUND: Compared with other doctors, surgeons are at an increased risk of medicolegal events, including patient complaints and negligence claims. This retrospective study aimed to describe the frequency and nature of complaints involving surgeons compared with physicians. METHODS: We assembled a national data set of complaints about surgeons and physicians lodged with medical regulators in Australia from 2011 to 2016. We classified the complaints into 19 issues across four domains: treatment and procedures, other performance, professional conduct and health. We assessed differences in complaint risk using incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Finally, we used a multivariate model to identify predictors of complaints among surgeons. RESULTS: The rate of complaints was 2.3 times higher for surgeons than physicians (112 compared with 48 complaints per 1000 practice years, P < 0.001). Two-fifths (41%) of the higher rate of complaints among surgeons was attributable to issues other than treatments and procedures, including fees (IRR = 2.68), substance use (IRR = 2.10), communication (IRR = 1.98) and interpersonal behaviour (IRR = 1.92). Male surgeons were at a higher risk of complaints, as were specialists in orthopaedics, plastic surgery and neurosurgery. DISCUSSION: Surgeons are more than twice as likely to attract complaints as their physician peers. This elevated risk arises partly from involvement in surgical procedures and treatments, but also reflects wider concerns about interpersonal skills, professional ethics and substance use. Improved understanding of these patterns may assist efforts to reduce harm and support safe practise.

Views on mandatory reporting of impaired health practitioners by their treating practitioners: a qualitative study from Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the views and experiences of health sector professionals in Australia regarding a new national law requiring treating practitioners to report impaired health practitioners whose impairments came to their attention in the course of providing treatment. METHOD: We conducted a thematic analysis of in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 health practitioners and 4 medicolegal advisors from Australia's 6 states, each of whom had experience with applying the new mandatory reporting law in practice. RESULTS: Interviewees perceived the introduction of a mandatory reporting law as a response to failures of the profession to adequately protect the public from impaired practitioners. Mandatory reporting of impaired practitioners was reported to have several benefits: it provides treating practitioners with a 'lever' to influence behaviour, offers protections to those who make reports and underscores the duty to protect the public from harm. However, many viewed it as a blunt instrument that did not sufficiently take account of the realities of clinical practice. In deciding whether or not to make a report, interviewees reported exercising clinical discretion, and being influenced by three competing considerations: protection of the public, confidentiality of patient information and loyalty to their profession. CONCLUSIONS: Competing ethical considerations limit the willingness of Australian health practitioners to report impaired practitioner-patients under a mandatory reporting law. Improved understanding and implementation of the law may bolster the public protection offered by mandatory reports, reduce the need to breach practitioner-patient confidentiality and help align the law with the loyalty that practitioners feel to support, rather than punish, their impaired colleagues.

Reporting of health practitioners by their treating practitioner under Australia's national mandatory reporting law.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, nature and outcomes of reports about health practitioners made by their treating practitioners under Australia's new mandatory reporting system. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective case file review and analysis of treating practitioner reports received by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency between 1 November 2011 and 31 January 2013, and of the outcomes of the completed investigations of these reports to November 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of treating practitioners and reported practitioners; nature of the care relationship; grounds for report; regulatory action taken in response to report. RESULTS: Of 846 mandatory reports about medical practitioners, 64 (8%) were by treating practitioners. A minority of reports (14 of 64) were made by a practitioner-patient's regular care provider; most (50 of 64) arose from an encounter during an acute admission, first assessment or informal corridor consultation. The reported practitioner-patients were typically being treated for mental illness (28 of 64) or substance misuse (25 of 64). In 80% of reports (50 of 64), reporters described practitioner-patients who exhibited diminished insight, dishonesty, disregard for patient safety, or an intention to self-harm. CONCLUSIONS: The nature and circumstances of the typical treating practitioner report challenge assumptions expressed in policy debates about the merits of the new mandatory reporting law. Mandatory reports by treating practitioners are rare. The typical report is about substance misuse or mental illness, is made by a doctor who is not the patient's regular care provider, and identifies an impediment to safely managing the risk posed by the practitioner-patient within the confines of the treating relationship.