Characteristics and predictors of regulatory immediate action imposed on registered health practitioners in Australia: a retrospective cohort study.

ConclusionsHealth practitioner regulatory boards in Australia rarely used immediate action as a regulatory tool, but were more likely to do so in response to mandatory notifications or notifications pertaining to substance abuse or sexual misconduct.What is known about this topicHealth practitioner regulatory boards protect the public from harm and maintain quality and standards of health care. Where the perceived risk to public safety is high, boards may suspend or restrict the practice of health practitioners before an investigation has concluded.What does this paper add?This paper is the first study in Australia, and the largest internationally, to examine the frequency, characteristics and predictors of the use of immediate action by health regulatory boards. Although immediate action is rarely used, it is most commonly employed in response to mandatory notifications or notifications pertaining to substance abuse or sexual misconduct.What are the implications for practitioners?Immediate action is a vital regulatory tool. Failing to immediately sanction a health practitioner may expose the public to preventable harm, whereas imposing immediate action where allegations are unfounded can irreparably damage a health practitioner's career. We hope that this study will assist boards to balance the interests of the public with those of health practitioners. PMID: 32854820 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Source: Australian Health Review - Category: Hospital Management Authors: Tags: Aust Health Rev Source Type: research