Reinstatement of Previously Deregistered Health Professionals in Australia: Legal Determinations of Risk, Patient Safety, and Public Interest

Q3 Social Sciences Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-02-20 DOI:10.1177/0067205x221146334
J. Millbank
{"title":"Reinstatement of Previously Deregistered Health Professionals in Australia: Legal Determinations of Risk, Patient Safety, and Public Interest","authors":"J. Millbank","doi":"10.1177/0067205x221146334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Each year approximately 60 registered health practitioners in Australia have their registration cancelled for reasons of serious misconduct or, less commonly, impairment or criminal conviction. Cancellation remains in force unless the practitioner successfully brings a later application to be restored to the register. While the decision to deregister takes place in a public tribunal process, with published reasons, throughout most of Australia determinations concerning reinstatement are undertaken by professional Boards in private. This research examines available reinstatement decisions concerning 86 health practitioners to analyse how the health regulatory system in Australia determines questions of public interest and public safety when deciding whether deregistered health practitioners who seek reinstatement are now ‘fit and proper’ to practise their profession again. There is a considerable body of case law on the meaning of fitness to practise for health professionals, and the process by which it can be assessed. However, there is remarkably little legislative content or administrative guidance to structure the reinstatement inquiry, assist applicants in the process or to ensure consistency of decision-making, in particular by drawing attention to broader public protection factors. Reinstatement determinations would be improved through the introduction of structured guidance on how to apply the paramount objective of public protection. The article also suggests that having all reinstatement determinations take place in public with published reasons would improve public understanding of, and confidence in, the reinstatement process.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"3 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x221146334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Each year approximately 60 registered health practitioners in Australia have their registration cancelled for reasons of serious misconduct or, less commonly, impairment or criminal conviction. Cancellation remains in force unless the practitioner successfully brings a later application to be restored to the register. While the decision to deregister takes place in a public tribunal process, with published reasons, throughout most of Australia determinations concerning reinstatement are undertaken by professional Boards in private. This research examines available reinstatement decisions concerning 86 health practitioners to analyse how the health regulatory system in Australia determines questions of public interest and public safety when deciding whether deregistered health practitioners who seek reinstatement are now ‘fit and proper’ to practise their profession again. There is a considerable body of case law on the meaning of fitness to practise for health professionals, and the process by which it can be assessed. However, there is remarkably little legislative content or administrative guidance to structure the reinstatement inquiry, assist applicants in the process or to ensure consistency of decision-making, in particular by drawing attention to broader public protection factors. Reinstatement determinations would be improved through the introduction of structured guidance on how to apply the paramount objective of public protection. The article also suggests that having all reinstatement determinations take place in public with published reasons would improve public understanding of, and confidence in, the reinstatement process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚先前注销的卫生专业人员的恢复:风险、患者安全和公共利益的法律决定
澳大利亚每年约有60名注册保健从业人员因严重的不当行为或不太常见的损害或刑事定罪而被取消注册。除非该从业员成功地将日后的申请恢复至注册簿,否则取消注册仍有效。虽然撤销登记的决定是在公开法庭程序中作出的,并有公布的理由,但在澳大利亚,大多数关于恢复登记的决定都是由专业委员会私下作出的。本研究调查了86名医疗从业人员的现有复职决定,以分析澳大利亚的卫生监管系统在决定寻求复职的已注销医疗从业人员现在是否“适合和适当”再次执业时,如何确定公共利益和公共安全问题。有相当多的判例法规定了保健专业人员适合行医的意义,以及可以对其进行评估的程序。但是,在恢复调查的结构、在程序中协助申请人或确保决策的一致性方面,特别是提请注意更广泛的公共保护因素方面,立法内容或行政指导非常少。通过引入关于如何应用公共保护这一最重要目标的结构化指导,将改进恢复的决定。文章还建议,所有恢复决定都公开进行,并公布原因,这将提高公众对恢复过程的理解和信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
No Place Like Home? Alienage, Popular Sovereignty and an Implied Freedom of Entry into Australia Under the Constitution Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia Foreign Interference and the Incremental Chilling of Free Speech Reviewing Review: Administrative Justice and the Immigration Assessment Authority Managing Ownership of Copyright in Research Publications to Increase the Public Benefits from Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1