But full regulatory histories should have an expiry date, says the college.
The RACGP is balancing protecting notifiers and doctors as it works to strengthen AHPRA’s approach to sexual misconduct.
In February 2023, following media reports of health practitioners reoffending after being found to have committed sexual misconduct or a sexual boundary violation, state and federal health ministers committed to reforms.
The proposed reforms involved three changes to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, consultation on which ended earlier this year.
Arguably the biggest amendment was requiring the national board to publish a practitioner’s full regulatory history if they were found to have committed sexual misconduct or a sexual boundary violation.
The AMA and the RACGP expressed concerns over a practitioner’s entire regulatory history being permanently published. The AMA called for the scope to be narrowed to publication of sexual boundary violations or sexual misconduct only.
At a health ministers meeting in Brisbane in April, the ministers backed reforms to publicise proven serious sexual misconduct allegations in perpetuity.
Last week, the RACGP published a new submission on the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, a follow-on from their earlier submission to the national consultation.
Speaking to The Medical Republic, RACGP president Dr Nicole Higgins said that publishing proven allegations of serious sexual misconduct supported patient safety and allowed for informed choice.
Dr Higgins added that it was important to have clear guidelines about what information would be published: if serious sexual misconduct was confirmed, “yes; however, if it is disproved, no; and if it’s complex, case by case”.
The RACGP’s submission said the group supported publication of a practitioner’s regulatory history, but there were concerns about permanent publication.
“It may be appropriate to publish information for a set period and then remove it from the register once it expires, which would be a similar approach to a Spent Convictions Scheme,” reads the submission.
“The RACGP does not have a firm position on a suitable expiry date for conditions.”
The college added the amendment might have unintended consequences.
“Tribunals may be less likely to make a finding against a practitioner that will result in the publication of information on the register,” reads the submission.
“This is because the impact on the practitioner is a relevant consideration.”
Dr Higgins added that transparency and protection for the notifier was important, as was transparency of the process for doctors and protection against malicious claims.
“That’s been the balance that we’ve had to tread,” she said.
“As a female GP who works a lot with trauma related to transgressions of sexual boundaries and sexual assault, it’s really important that we have the clear lines in the sand about what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
“We want to make sure that the process is transparent, clear and simple, and accountable.”
The amendments also included a proposal to embed a requirement for doctors to seek a reinstatement order from a tribunal before applying for re-registration.
The RACGP supported this nationally consistent approach.
“A requirement that re-registered practitioners attend ongoing counselling with a peer and report to registration bodies for a stipulated period would support national consistency, provide transparency and encourage the practitioner to follow a path of non-recurrence of sexual transgressions with patients,” reads the college’s submission.
“While practitioners should be able to apply for a reinstatement order, there must be a mechanism to automatically reject this if they continually re-apply when their application has been refused multiple times.”
Related
Finally, the reforms proposed an amendment to prevent practitioners from going after notifiers, when claims were made in good faith.
It clarified that signing a non-disclosure agreement should not prevent someone from making a good-faith notification to AHPRA.
The RACGP was all in favour of strengthening support for notifiers.
“Our members do not support NDAs in the context of a sexual boundary violation or sexual misconduct,” reads the submission.
“If an NDA is made, however, the affected person should be informed that they can still make a notification to AHPRA or another regulatory body.
“Rather than making it an offence not to inform an affected person of their right to make a notification, it would be simpler to make NDA clauses void if notification advice is not given.”
Dr Higgins said she was confident the RACGP’s voice would be heard.
