Cargando…

Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Medical boards and other practitioner boards aim to protect the public from unsafe practice. Previous research has examined disciplinary actions against doctors, but other professions (e.g., nurses and midwives, dentists, psychologists, pharmacists) remain understudied. We sought to desc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spittal, Matthew J., Studdert, David M., Paterson, Ron, Bismark, Marie M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5134271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27908294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0748-6
_version_ 1782471433482403840
author Spittal, Matthew J.
Studdert, David M.
Paterson, Ron
Bismark, Marie M.
author_facet Spittal, Matthew J.
Studdert, David M.
Paterson, Ron
Bismark, Marie M.
author_sort Spittal, Matthew J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Medical boards and other practitioner boards aim to protect the public from unsafe practice. Previous research has examined disciplinary actions against doctors, but other professions (e.g., nurses and midwives, dentists, psychologists, pharmacists) remain understudied. We sought to describe the outcomes of notifications of concern regarding the health, performance, and conduct of health practitioners from ten professions in Australia and to identify factors associated with the imposition of restrictive actions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all notifications lodged with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency over 24 months. Notifications were followed for 30–54 months. Our main outcome was restrictive actions, defined as decisions that imposed undertakings, conditions, or suspension or cancellation of registration. RESULTS: There were 8307 notifications. The notification rate was highest among doctors (IR = 14.5 per 1000 practitioners per year) and dentists (IR = 20.7) and lowest among nurses and midwives (IR = 2.0). One in ten notifications resulted in restrictive action; fewer than one in 300 notifications resulted in suspension or cancellation of registration. Compared with notifications about clinical care, the odds of restrictive action were higher for notifications relating to health impairments (drug misuse, OR = 7.0; alcohol misuse, OR = 4.6; mental illness, OR = 4.1, physical or cognitive illness, OR = 3.7), unlawful prescribing or use of medications (OR = 2.1) and violation of sexual boundaries (OR = 1.7). The odds were higher where the report was made by another health practitioner (OR = 2.9) or employer (OR = 6.9) rather than a patient or relative. Nurses and midwives (OR = 1.8), psychologists (OR = 4.5), dentists (OR = 4.7), and other health practitioners (OR = 5.3) all had greater odds of being subject to restrictive actions than doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive actions are the strongest measures health practitioner boards can take to protect the public from harm and these actions can have profound effects on the livelihood, reputations and well-being of practitioners. In Australia, restrictive actions are rarely imposed and there is variation in their use depending on the source of the notification, the type of issue involved, and the profession of the practitioner.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5134271
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51342712016-12-15 Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study Spittal, Matthew J. Studdert, David M. Paterson, Ron Bismark, Marie M. BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Medical boards and other practitioner boards aim to protect the public from unsafe practice. Previous research has examined disciplinary actions against doctors, but other professions (e.g., nurses and midwives, dentists, psychologists, pharmacists) remain understudied. We sought to describe the outcomes of notifications of concern regarding the health, performance, and conduct of health practitioners from ten professions in Australia and to identify factors associated with the imposition of restrictive actions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all notifications lodged with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency over 24 months. Notifications were followed for 30–54 months. Our main outcome was restrictive actions, defined as decisions that imposed undertakings, conditions, or suspension or cancellation of registration. RESULTS: There were 8307 notifications. The notification rate was highest among doctors (IR = 14.5 per 1000 practitioners per year) and dentists (IR = 20.7) and lowest among nurses and midwives (IR = 2.0). One in ten notifications resulted in restrictive action; fewer than one in 300 notifications resulted in suspension or cancellation of registration. Compared with notifications about clinical care, the odds of restrictive action were higher for notifications relating to health impairments (drug misuse, OR = 7.0; alcohol misuse, OR = 4.6; mental illness, OR = 4.1, physical or cognitive illness, OR = 3.7), unlawful prescribing or use of medications (OR = 2.1) and violation of sexual boundaries (OR = 1.7). The odds were higher where the report was made by another health practitioner (OR = 2.9) or employer (OR = 6.9) rather than a patient or relative. Nurses and midwives (OR = 1.8), psychologists (OR = 4.5), dentists (OR = 4.7), and other health practitioners (OR = 5.3) all had greater odds of being subject to restrictive actions than doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive actions are the strongest measures health practitioner boards can take to protect the public from harm and these actions can have profound effects on the livelihood, reputations and well-being of practitioners. In Australia, restrictive actions are rarely imposed and there is variation in their use depending on the source of the notification, the type of issue involved, and the profession of the practitioner. BioMed Central 2016-12-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5134271/ /pubmed/27908294 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0748-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Spittal, Matthew J.
Studdert, David M.
Paterson, Ron
Bismark, Marie M.
Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study
title Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study
title_full Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study
title_short Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study
title_sort outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5134271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27908294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0748-6
work_keys_str_mv AT spittalmatthewj outcomesofnotificationstohealthpractitionerboardsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT studdertdavidm outcomesofnotificationstohealthpractitionerboardsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT patersonron outcomesofnotificationstohealthpractitionerboardsaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT bismarkmariem outcomesofnotificationstohealthpractitionerboardsaretrospectivecohortstudy