If the regulator is going to operate like the law, it should come with the same checks and balances, says AGPA.
The Australian General Practice Alliance, which represents practice owners, is calling for AHPRA investigations to be held to higher standards on the grounds that “you should not lose your civil liberties and rights because you’re medically qualified”.
It’s the latest in a series of scathing submissions to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman investigation into the way AHPRA and the national boards manage immediate action, where a health practitioner is suspended or forced to alter their practice pending the outcome of an investigation.
Immediate action is not unique to doctors – health practitioners in any of the 16 regulated health professions can be subject to immediate action – but doctors are the health profession most affected by immediate action.
According to AHPRA’s 2024 annual report, doctors alone accounted for 419 out of the 808 total cases of immediate action that year.
So far, the AMA, RACGP and Avant have all written submissions focussing on the mental health impacts on doctors subject to immediate action and the fact that AHPRA is not held to any specific time frames for its investigations.
The AGPA submission, penned by deputy chair Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, called for the regulator to run investigations more like law enforcement does.
“On the part of the doctor being notified about, the immediate action is seen as precipitous, can be catastrophic and has repercussions at the time of implementation and for quite some time after,” the submission read.
“For that reason … a proper ‘charge-sheet’ [should be] required together with evidence and due process, procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence.
“There are many instances of notifications that are not valid even though this may not be discovered until after the event.
“For this reason it is imperative that the normal workings of the legal system and indeed the investigatory processes that apply in the police force should also apply in the medical profession.”
Related
In line with other organisations, AGPA felt that a reasonable timeline for AHPRA to bring forward its formal case was one week.
Writing about his own personal experience supporting peers who had been on the receiving end of immediate action, Dr Haikerwal said doctors were “immediately traumatised” and relied heavily on counsel from their medical indemnifiers.
“The agency and Board need to give out clear guidance about rights and responsibilities through this process because it is really for each individual quite a unique, challenging and instantly career limiting – until they have proven themselves,” Dr Haikerwal wrote.
“It would be better if they are seen as more dispassionate if not completely neutral and seeking the truth and clarity rather than inquisitor, prosecutor and judge and jury seeking to sanction and punish and end careers.”
The consultation period for the NHPO review is now closed.
If this article caused distress or if you are prompted to reach out for support, these services are available:
Doctors4doctors crisis support hotline: 1300 374 377
Lifeline: 13 11 14
Beyond Blue: 1300 22 46 36
