The RACGP has lodged a submission to NHPO’s investigation on procedural measures to protect GPs under investigation.
The RACGP has slammed the amount of time that AHPRA is taking to investigate doctors in its submission to a National Health Practitioner Ombudsman investigation.
The consultation, which is looking into delay and procedural safeguards for doctors facing immediate action, closed for submissions last month.
It follows an uptick in complaints from health practitioners regarding immediate action and how administrative delays have impacted practitioners.
A recurring theme in the complaints has been the timespan of the process, with the delay in outcomes further marred by insufficient communication.
This lack of communication, according to the RACGP submission, has been a cause of distress for complainants, having a profound impact on mental health that then inhibits accurate investigations into the capacity of said practitioners.
The submission repeatedly mentioned that limited communication during the investigation went on to inhibit accurate assessment of mental health conditions.
“For practitioners with pre-existing mental health conditions, the regulatory process can be deeply stigmatising,” the RACGP wrote.
“The system appears poorly equipped to respond to the severe impacts of prolonged restrictions on practitioners’ mental health, careers, and livelihoods.”
“Practitioners must be referred to appropriate support services and provided with resources to assist them during this process.”
A study published in 2023 found that the current regulation system was causing mental distress due to a lack of processing information disclosure.
The study found that while health practitioner regulators are mandated to protect the public, there was no preclusion for simultaneous concern for the wellbeing of practitioners.
Aside from a reported lack of communication in the processing phase, the RACGP submission stated there has been a lack of critical urgency in the processing timespan.
“It appears AHPRA is allowed overly generous timeframes to determine how to respond to concerns raised about a practitioner,” the RACGP stated.
Related
The college acknowledged the complexity of certain investigations, but argued that the current standards were inadequate.
“The subsequent investigation and resolution of these matters often extends far beyond what could reasonably be considered ‘as quickly as practicable’ under section 162 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law,” the submission said.
In relation to immediate action, the submission also mentioned an apparent lack of urgency when investigation complaints resulted in a suspended registration.
The college went on to advocate that, in cases of immediate action restrictions, prioritisation of said cases should occur to alleviate mental pressure on complainants.
The submission also outlined key demands for improvement.
These included administrative reforms on the timeframe and processing of investigations and the adoption of interim systems so that investigations do not obstruct patient care.
