Scope of Practice: Shot Down.

When it comes to shooting down dangerous attempts to expand non-medical practitioners' scope of practice, TMA's advocacy army once again proved to be expert marksmen in 2019. Medicine trained its scope on bills that would have allowed nurse practitioners, chiropractors, and optometrists, among others, to wade into the practice of medicine.

One eye of the future, one eye on the past.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess if the GOC considers relevant factors at all stages of its deliberations into misconduct, as required by the determinations in the cases of Cohen, Zygmunt, and Azzam, and to assess whether those circumstances described in the Hearings Guidance and Indicative Sanctions as warranting removal of an optician from the relevant registers lead to that outcome. Design/methodology/approach The consideration of specific factors in determining impairment of fitness to practise was compared with their subsequent consideration when determining the severity of sanction. Additionally, cases that highlighted aggravating circumstances deemed as serious enough to warrant removal were monitored. Pearson's χ2 test was used to detect any variation from the expected distribution of data. Findings In total, 42 cases met the inclusion criteria. Each of the four factors considered was more likely to be heard when determining sanction having first been factored in to the consideration of impairment. Where risk of harm was identified as an aspect of an optician's misconduct, the sanctions of suspension or removal were no more likely to be imposed. Where dishonesty was involved, they were more likely to result in suspension or removal. Originality/value The GOC do, in general, factor the rulings of High Court appeal cases into their deliberations on the impairment of fitness to practice and, where dishonesty is involved, consider their own guidance in determining which sanction to apply. The authors were unable to show that placing the safety of patients at risk was more likely to result in removal from the register.

Asynchronous Medicines Legislation for Non-Medical Prescribing.

National registration of Australian health practitioners aimed to facilitate workforce mobility. Non-medical prescribers, including nurses, podiatrists and optometrists, are overseen by National Boards which, in some cases, specify a formulary from which their health practitioners may prescribe. All prescribers must comply with their respective State or Territory's legislation. If prescribing a medicine that is a benefit under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), additional restrictions may apply. National Board and PBS prescribing formularies were compared and State and Territory medicines legislation was interrogated regarding non-medical prescribing. Discrepancies were identified between the approved formularies for non-medical prescribers, PBS prescribing formularies and medicines allowed to be prescribed under jurisdictional legislation. Asynchronous medicines legislation provides potential for health professionals to either inadvertently or knowingly breach legislation following national changes to health policy. Consideration should be given to the development of consistent legislation and its uniform commencement across all Australian jurisdictions.