ObjectiveTo elicit medical leaders’ views on reasons and remedies for the under-representation of women in medical leadership roles.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews with medical practitioners who work in medical leadership roles. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.SettingPublic hospitals, private healthcare providers, professional colleges and associations and government organisations in Australia.Participants30 medical practitioners who hold formal medical leadership roles.ResultsDespite dramatic increases in the entry of women into medicine in Australia, there remains a gross under-representation of women in formal, high-level medical leadership positions. The male-dominated nature of medical leadership in Australia was widely recognised by interviewees. A small number of interviewees viewed gender disparities in leadership roles as a ‘natural’ result of women's childrearing responsibilities. However, most interviewees believed that preventable gender-related barriers were impeding women's ability to achieve and thrive in medical leadership roles. Interviewees identified a range of potential barriers across three broad domains—perceptions of capability, capacity and credibility. As a counter to these, interviewees pointed to a range of benefits of women adopting these roles, and proposed a range of interventions that would support more women entering formal medical leadership roles.ConclusionsWhile women make up more than half of medical graduates in Australia today, significant barriers restrict their entry into formal medical leadership roles. These constraints have internalised, interpersonal and structural elements that can be addressed through a range of strategies for advancing the role of women in medical leadership. These findings have implications for individual medical practitioners and health services, as well as professional colleges and associations.

Australian Health Ministers have endorsed the hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) as a key indicator of quality and safety, and efforts are currently underway towards its national implementation. In the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and the United States, the HSMR has been used for several years within organisations to monitor performance and response to various quality and safety programs. In the UK and Canada, the HSMR is also publicly reported and used to compare performance between hospitals. The validity and reliability of the HSMR as a screening tool for distinguishing low‐quality from high‐quality hospitals remain in doubt, and it has not yet been proven that HSMR reporting necessarily leads to worthwhile improvement in quality of care and patient outcomes. Institutions may respond to an unfavourable HSMR by “gaming” administrative data and risk‐adjustment models or implementing inappropriate changes to care. Despite its apparent low cost and ease of measurement, the HSMR is currently not “fit for purpose” as a screening tool for detecting low‐quality hospitals and should not be used in making interhospital comparisons. It may be better suited to monitoring changes in outcomes over time within individual institutions.

Annual admissions resulting from paracetamol OD almost doubled during the 4 years studied. The risk of a repeat paracetamol OD was highest within 4 weeks of the initial OD. Alcohol, benzodiazepines and antidepressants were commonly coingested. The strongest predictor of severe hepatotoxicity was delayed or no N-acetyl cysteine treatment in patients consuming greater than 10 g of paracetamol or with toxic serum paracetamol levels. A history of alcohol consumption did not appear to worsen outcomes.