GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Australian Journal of Public Administration, Wiley, Vol. 77, No. 4 ( 2018-12), p. 624-643
    Abstract: Decision makers who assess complaints and/or notifications in the NSW and the National health practitioner schemes were surveyed using case studies to identify the contributory factors to their decision‐making. Despite some minor legislative differences, no significant differences in approach were identified, although some structural differences, in terms of the roles that decision makers played, may impact on the foci at assessment.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0313-6647 , 1467-8500
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2020825-X
    SSG: 3,6
    SSG: 3,7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Australian Health Review, CSIRO Publishing, Vol. 44, No. 2 ( 2020), p. 180-
    Abstract: Objective. The aim of this study was to summarise the process and outcomes of complaints from five regulated health professions in Australia, and to compare these between the national and New South Wales (NSW) systems. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study of all complaints lodged from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2013 for medicine, nursing and midwifery, dentistry, psychology and pharmacy registered practitioners. Data were extracted from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, the NSW Health Professional Councils’ Authority and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission databases. The main outcome measures were frequencies and percentages of process decisions and outcomes. Results. Systems differed in classification of complaints as conduct (national 47%; NSW 22%) and performance (national 45%; NSW 71%). Thirty-eight per cent of complaints were investigated or managed through a health or performance stream (national 40%; NSW 34%), but the national system investigated more matters (national 35%; NSW 6%). Over 50% of complaints resulted in ‘no further action’ (national 60%; NSW 70%). The most common action was caution or counsel (national 12%; NSW 15%), followed by conditions, (national 10%; NSW 5%). Practitioner registration surrender was more common with the NSW than national system (national 0.1%; NSW 1.3%), but registration suspensions or cancellations were similar (national 0.6%; NSW 1.0%). Conclusion. The main difference between the two systems is the administrative decision as to how complaints are assessed. In NSW, a classification of a complaint as ‘performance’ usually means the complaint is not investigated; rather, the practitioner is assessed by peers and may be required to undergo further education and training. Reaching agreement and understanding of complaints that should be investigated and those appropriate for performance review would strengthen a national approach to health complaint regulation. What is known about the topic? The national system of managing healthcare complaints is relatively new (since 2010) compared with the NSW system (since 1993). Annual reports of the regulatory authorities provide summaries of types and outcomes of complaints separately for each profession, and separately for NSW and the national system, but we do not know how the two systems directly compare in terms of complaint management or their outcomes. What does this paper add? This study examined how different types of complaints are managed between the two systems and whether there are any differences in outcomes. The types of complaints are almost identical between the two systems, but classification of complaints as ‘performance’ or ‘conduct’ differed. Immediate action is more common in the national than NSW system, especially for health impairment and boundary crossing. Health impairment complaints are much less likely to be discontinued at the assessment stage in NSW compared with the national system. The NSW and national systems are similar in terms of complaints proceeding to either an investigation or performance or health assessment, but the national system investigates more than the NSW system. For many types of complaints the outcomes were similar between systems, but there were clear differences for some types of complaints, such as health impairment and boundary crossing. What are the implications for practitioners? An efficient and fair regulatory system is crucial for maintaining practitioner trust, as well as trust of the public. This study shows that there are many similarities between the national and NSW systems in terms of process and outcomes, but there are differences in the way some types of complaints are assessed between the two systems. This knowledge may assist regulatory authorities in their efforts to achieve a nationally consistent approach to complaints.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0156-5788
    Language: English
    Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2082451-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    CSIRO Publishing ; 2020
    In:  Australian Health Review Vol. 44, No. 1 ( 2020), p. 15-
    In: Australian Health Review, CSIRO Publishing, Vol. 44, No. 1 ( 2020), p. 15-
    Abstract: Objective The aims of this study were to profile the most common complaints and to examine whether any demographic factors are associated with receiving a complaint for five health professions in Australia. Methods A national cohort study was conducted for all complaints received for medicine, nursing/midwifery, dentistry, pharmacy and psychology from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2013 (18 months). Data were collected from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), the New South Wales (NSW) Health Professional Councils’ Authority and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. The frequency and risk of complaints were summarised for the five professions and by demographic information. Results There were 545283 practitioners registered with AHPRA between 1 July 2012 and 31 December 2013, consisting of 20935 dentists, 101066 medical practitioners, 363040 nurses/midwives, 28370 pharmacists and 31872 psychologists. During the study period there were 12616 complaints, corresponding to an annual rate of 1.5 per 100 practitioners. Complaints were most common for doctors and dentists (5% per annum per practitioner) and least common for nurses/midwives (0.5% per annum per practitioner). Sex (P & lt;0.01), age (P & lt;0.01) and country of birth (P & lt;0.01) were all associated with risk of complaint. The most common complaints were clinical care (44% of all complaints), medication (10%) and health impairment of the practitioner (8%). Types of complaints varied by profession, sex and age. Conclusions The risk of a complaint is low, but varies by profession and demographics. The types of complaints also vary by profession and demographics. Differences between professions is most likely driven by their different work tasks and work environments. What is already known on this subject? Although complaints are summarised annually from state and national health regulators, no overall national summary of complaints across professions exists. Thus, it is difficult to examine which complaints are most common, how professions differ from each other or what factors may be associated with risk and type of complaint. Previous studies have primarily focused on a single profession, such as medicine, where, for example, the number of prior complaints, sex, doctor speciality and age have been found to be associated with recurrent complaints. What does this paper add? This paper is the first of this kind to provide a national summary of all complaints from five of the most common health professions in Australia. We found that regardless of profession, men were at least twice as likely to have a complaint made against them than women. We also found that the types of complaint differed between men and women. There were similarities across professions for the most common types of complaints, but clear differences between professions were also noted. Not surprising, clinical care was typically the most common type of complaint for the five professions, but somewhat surprising was the inclusion of health impairment as one of the most common types of complaints. What are the implications for practitioners? Identifying the most common complaints, and the factors associated with these, may assist practitioners to understand their risk(s) of complaint and could potentially assist educators and regulators develop education programs that help reduce complaints.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0156-5788
    Language: English
    Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2082451-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Australian Health Review, CSIRO Publishing, Vol. 40, No. 3 ( 2016), p. 311-
    Abstract: In 2005, the Australian Productivity Commission made a recommendation that a national health registration regimen and a consolidated national accreditation regimen be established. On 1 July 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health practitioners came into effect and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) became the single national oversight agency for health professional regulation. It is governed by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law). While all states and territories joined NRAS for registration and accreditation, NSW did not join the scheme for the handling of complaints, but retained its existing co-regulatory complaint-handling system. All other states and territories joined the national notification (complaints) scheme prescribed in the National Law. Because the introduction of NRAS brings with it new processes and governance around the management of complaints that apply to all regulated health professionals in all states and territories except NSW, where complaints management remains largely unchanged, there is a need for comparative analysis of these differing national and NSW approaches to the management of complaints/notifications about health professionals, not only to allow transparency for consumers, but also to assess consistency of decision making around complaints/notifications across jurisdictions. This paper describes the similarities and differences for complaints/notifications handling between the NRAS and NSW schemes and briefly discusses subsequent and potential changes in other jurisdictions.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0156-5788
    Language: English
    Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2082451-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Australian Health Review, CSIRO Publishing, Vol. 40, No. 3 ( 2016), p. 353-
    Abstract: In 2005, the Australian Productivity Commission made a recommendation that a national health registration regimen and a consolidated national accreditation regimen be established. On 1 July 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health practitioners came into effect and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) became the single national oversight agency for health professional regulation. It is governed by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law). While all states and territories joined NRAS for registration and accreditation, NSW did not join the scheme for the handling of complaints, but retained its existing co-regulatory complaint-handling system. All other states and territories joined the national notification (complaints) scheme prescribed in the National Law. Because the introduction of NRAS brings with it new processes and governance around the management of complaints that apply to all regulated health professionals in all states and territories except NSW, where complaints management remains largely unchanged, there is a need for comparative analysis of these differing national and NSW approaches to the management of complaints/notifications about health professionals, not only to allow transparency for consumers, but also to assess consistency of decision making around complaints/notifications across jurisdictions. This paper describes the similarities and differences for complaints/notifications handling between the NRAS and NSW schemes and briefly discusses subsequent and potential changes in other jurisdictions.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0156-5788
    Language: English
    Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2082451-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...