"Hello everybody, I'm Dr Nick!"THE CASE
The new Australian Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon is keen to develop a centralised national register for doctors and other health care professionals such as dentists, nurses and pharmacists.
One reason given to support this idea is that a centralised register will help prevent persons moving from state to state to avoid deregistration and other professional sanctions. The scheme was given legs by recent well publicised cases of medical misadventure in several states.
To most of this this seems like a terrific idea. The public could have confidence that their medical professionals were competent and trustworthy. Medical professionals should more easily be able to move from state to state. Currently medical professionals need to seek, and pay for, registration in each state to be able to practice.
But some doctor organisations are outraged. Dr Rosanna Capolingua, the President of the AMA is claiming that the national registration would not result in better patient protection. Frankly the AMA argument is a little hard to follow. I can't see how a centralised registration system can result in worse patient care. It rather looks like turf protection, and it is turf protection that has caused so many of the troubles in the state health care system in NSW and other states. The interests of patients are more important than the self-interests of officials in the AMA and the 12 medical colleges that are standing in the way of this change.
The real problem for these people is they are concerned that eventually external standards will be imposed upon them, currently medical colleges set their own standards. The system of peer accreditation (also called "the old boy network") has merits, but it also has obvious limitations. There is always the possibility (dare I say probability) of favouritism, nepotism, selective blindness, sinecures and rule bending. Most people who have worked in the public health sector will have seen examples of each of these.
The Australian Doctors Trained Overseas Association has a different view, it says that the current medical college system has stopped many overseas doctors from practising in Australia.
MY VERDICT
I wonder if dental, nursing and pharmacist organisations would be similarly discomfited by the imposition of national registration - I rather doubt it.
Judging by the tenacity and determinism of Nicola Roxon, I predict the AMA will lose this one.
The new Australian Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon is keen to develop a centralised national register for doctors and other health care professionals such as dentists, nurses and pharmacists.
One reason given to support this idea is that a centralised register will help prevent persons moving from state to state to avoid deregistration and other professional sanctions. The scheme was given legs by recent well publicised cases of medical misadventure in several states.
To most of this this seems like a terrific idea. The public could have confidence that their medical professionals were competent and trustworthy. Medical professionals should more easily be able to move from state to state. Currently medical professionals need to seek, and pay for, registration in each state to be able to practice.
But some doctor organisations are outraged. Dr Rosanna Capolingua, the President of the AMA is claiming that the national registration would not result in better patient protection. Frankly the AMA argument is a little hard to follow. I can't see how a centralised registration system can result in worse patient care. It rather looks like turf protection, and it is turf protection that has caused so many of the troubles in the state health care system in NSW and other states. The interests of patients are more important than the self-interests of officials in the AMA and the 12 medical colleges that are standing in the way of this change.
The real problem for these people is they are concerned that eventually external standards will be imposed upon them, currently medical colleges set their own standards. The system of peer accreditation (also called "the old boy network") has merits, but it also has obvious limitations. There is always the possibility (dare I say probability) of favouritism, nepotism, selective blindness, sinecures and rule bending. Most people who have worked in the public health sector will have seen examples of each of these.
The Australian Doctors Trained Overseas Association has a different view, it says that the current medical college system has stopped many overseas doctors from practising in Australia.
MY VERDICT
I wonder if dental, nursing and pharmacist organisations would be similarly discomfited by the imposition of national registration - I rather doubt it.
Judging by the tenacity and determinism of Nicola Roxon, I predict the AMA will lose this one.
0 comments:
Post a Comment