Commentary: Regulatory dividends of scandal – the Chelmsford legacy?

Carney, Terry

doi:10.1177/1039856213486704

Australas Psychiatry

2013

DOI: 10.1177/1039856213486704

|View full text |Cite

Commentary: Regulatory dividends of scandal – the Chelmsford legacy?

Terry Carney

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2016

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Approaches to management of complaints and notifications about health practitioners in Australia

Satchell

Walton

Kelly

et al. 2016

Aust. Health Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2005, the Australian Productivity Commission made a recommendation that a national health registration regimen and a consolidated national accreditation regimen be established. On 1 July 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health practitioners came into effect and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) became the single national oversight agency for health professional regulation. It is governed by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law). While all states and territories joined NRAS for registration and accreditation, NSW did not join the scheme for the handling of complaints, but retained its existing co-regulatory complaint-handling system. All other states and territories joined the national notification (complaints) scheme prescribed in the National Law. Because the introduction of NRAS brings with it new processes and governance around the management of complaints that apply to all regulated health professionals in all states and territories except NSW, where complaints management remains largely unchanged, there is a need for comparative analysis of these differing national and NSW approaches to the management of complaints/notifications about health professionals, not only to allow transparency for consumers, but also to assess consistency of decision making around complaints/notifications across jurisdictions. This paper describes the similarities and differences for complaints/notifications handling between the NRAS and NSW schemes and briefly discusses subsequent and potential changes in other jurisdictions.

show abstract

Approaches to management of complaints and notifications about health practitioners in Australia

Satchell

Walton

Kelly

et al. 2016

Aust. Health Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Commentary: Regulatory dividends of scandal – the Chelmsford legacy?

Cited by 1 publication

References 17 publications

Approaches to management of complaints and notifications about health practitioners in Australia

Approaches to management of complaints and notifications about health practitioners in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About