The AMA’s recent submission to an AHPRA review is aimed at streamlining an often-clunky element of supervision.
Workforce and training is receiving a lot of attention from the heavy hitters in health this week after the AMA released its submission on AHPRA’s review of the Supervised Practice Framework.
Supervised practice is often a registration requirement overseas trained doctors, docors returning to practice after an absence or doctors who are subject to an undertaking imposed by the medical board or a tribunal.
The AMA said it supported improvements to make the framework “clearer, more robust, more flexible and easier to understand”.
This prompt for improvement by the AMA has come from reported inefficiencies in the current system.
“AMA members have reported that assessments are conducted incrementally, and when issue are identified, applicants are asked to make corrections, which can take several weeks to be processed,” the AMA stated.
“Only once these corrections are addressed does the assessment proceed to the next section, repeating the cycle; this approach delays outcomes.”
There were also reported instances of applications taking up to eight months to complete despite prior completion of the RACGP process.
This has placed a strain on both applicants and supervisors according to the AMA, and could hinder timely workforce integration.
Workforce integration is especially topical, with both the RACGP and AMA Queensland releasing workforce strategies over the last two weeks.
“The AMA urges greater consistency in assessment timelines, along with the implementation of streamlined, efficient and supportive administrative processes,” the AMA stated.
“The AMA remains engaged in this consultation process and looks forward to commenting on a draft revised framework when released for consultation.”
Rural and regional areas have been significantly affected by the current model given how the required supervision levels are only sustainable within large metropolitan hospitals with adequate resources.
“In the rural and remote context, the Supervised Practice Framework has faced criticism for their rigid application of supervision levels, often disregarding the nuanced insights provided by experienced supervisors,” the AMA stated.
“A more collaborative approach could enhance the framework’s responsiveness and better align it with real-world clinical practice.
“Strong consideration must be given to encouraging and developing innovative remote models of supervision, particularly for healthcare professionals residing and working in rural, regional, and remote contexts.
An update of supervisor standards was also suggested by the AMA, with recommendations to allow supervisors more time to engage with education materials and students themselves.
Independence in supervision assessment was another recommendation, with concerns raised over potential conflicts of interest when assessments are conducted by same-practice practitioners.
“Supervisors often lack guidance on what constitutes an acceptable submission, leading to uncertainty and inconsistency in assessments,” the AMA stated.
“What is deemed acceptable by one assessor may be rejected by another, resulting in a process that feels arbitrary and reliant on guesswork.
“Standardised examples and clearer criteria would enhance transparency, reduce administrative burden, and improve confidence in the framework’s fairness and reliability.”
