Volume 186 - Issue 6

In the wake of hospital inquiries: impact on staff and safety

Authors:  James A Dunbar, Prasuna Reddy, Bill Beresford, Wayne P Ramsey and Reginald S A Lord

Med J Aust 2007; 186 (6): 324-325. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb00920.x
Published online: 19 March 2007

In reply: We are grateful to Mooney for drawing our attention to the “missing chapter” of the Douglas Inquiry report, which came to light after we had submitted our article for publication. Open and fully public inquiries are necessary for all parties involved.1 To the best of our knowledge, the Douglas Inquiry is the most thorough review ever undertaken of clinical standards in an Australian hospital.2 It is difficult to know how other hospitals would have compared over the same period.3

Our article concentrated on how these hospitals recovered, as organisations, to improve patient safety. We called for “open, honest, and timely investigation undertaken within the organisation”, which avoids prolonging the recovery that, paradoxically, can make hospitals less safe.4 In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council enforces a national system that puts patient safety first and makes covering up for a poorly performing colleague an offence.5,6 It also requires Directors of Medical Services to act in patients’ best interests. Concerns about a colleague’s performance are handled locally, because experience has demonstrated that this works best for patients and doctors.

We would like to see the proposed national registration body for health professionals in Australia make reporting such concerns obligatory.


Authors


References