17 November 2017

Mandatory notifications rise sharply, says AHPRA


AHPRA received more mandatory notifications against health practitioners in the year to June 30 than in any other year since the national scheme began, according to the agency’s annual report released earlier this week.

There were 6898 notifications received concerning health practitioners, which represented an increase of 32.1% nationally and involved 1.6% of the registration base.

The top three complaints related to clinical care (42.8%), medication issues (11.9%) and health impairment (8.4%).

Of those complaints, nearly half resulted in regulatory action being taken, and immediate action was taken to restrict or suspend registration a total of 320 times.

In addition, nearly 5000 practitioners had their registrations monitored in the last financial year, with the majority of cases related to additional requirements in relation to suitability and eligibility for registration.

AHPRA said it was continuing to look for ways to improve the experience of both notifiers and practitioners involved in the notifications process, including collecting data using surveys and in-depth interviews.

“Practitioner feedback highlighted satisfaction with initial communication, their opportunity to respond, the outcome of notifications and the content of letters explaining the reasons for decisions,” AHPRA said in its report.

Some concerns were expressed about the involvement of notifiers in the notifications process and its transparency and timeliness, the agency said.

“They [practitioners] also highlighted areas for improvement – as with notifier feedback, practitioners said there could be greater transparency and improved timeliness.”

Something to say?

Leave a Reply

1 Comment on "Mandatory notifications rise sharply, says AHPRA"

Notify of

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
1 year 2 months ago

Many medical practitioners make complaints because of grudges and someone sharing their pie. Some due to plain jealousy and /or cause trouble. Their maybe a clinical opinion which retrospectively may seem to have had an adverse outcome . This is exploited by a colleague who gets an opportunity.