Connect
MJA
MJA

Doctors disciplined for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2009

Katie J Elkin, Matthew J Spittal, David J Elkin and David M Studdert
Med J Aust 2011; 194 (9): 452-456.

Summary

Objectives: To describe professional discipline cases in Australia and New Zealand in which doctors were found guilty of professional misconduct, and to develop a typology for describing the misconduct.

Design and setting: A retrospective analysis of disciplinary cases adjudicated in five jurisdictions (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and New Zealand) in 2000–2009.

Main outcome measures: Characteristics of the cases (setting, misconduct type, patient outcomes, disciplinary measure imposed), characteristics of the doctors involved (sex, specialty, years since qualification) and population-level case rates (by doctor characteristics).

Results: The tribunals studied disciplined 485 doctors. Male doctors were disciplined for misconduct at four times the rate of their female colleagues (91 versus 22 cases per 100 000 doctor-years). Obstetrics and gynaecology and psychiatry were the specialties with the highest rates (224 and 178 cases per 100 000 doctor-years). The mean age of disciplined doctors did not differ from that of the general doctor population. The most common types of offences considered as the primary issue were sexual misconduct (24% of cases), illegal or unethical prescribing (21%) and inappropriate medical care (20%). In 78% of cases, the tribunal made no mention of any patient having experienced physical or mental harm as a result of the misconduct. Penalties were severe, with 43% of cases resulting in removal from practice and 37% in restrictions on practice.

Conclusions: Disciplinary cases in Australia and New Zealand have features distinct from those studied internationally. The recent nationalisation of Australia’s medical boards offers new possibilities for tracking and analysing disciplinary cases to improve the safety and quality of health care.

  • Katie J Elkin1,2
  • Matthew J Spittal1
  • David J Elkin1
  • David M Studdert1,2

  • 1 School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 2 Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: katieelkin@gmail.com

Acknowledgements: 

David Studdert and Katie Elkin were supported by an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship awarded to David Studdert.

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Dehlendorf CE, Wolfe SM. Physicians disciplined for sex-related offenses. JAMA 1998; 279: 1883-1888.
  • 2. Morrison J, Wickersham P. Physicians disciplined by a state medical board. JAMA 1998; 279: 1889-1893.
  • 3. Morrison J, Morrison T. Psychiatrists disciplined by a state medical board. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 474-478.
  • 4. Clay SW, Conatser R. Characteristics of physicians disciplined by the State Medical Board of Ohio. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2003; 103: 81-88.
  • 5. Kohatsu ND, Gould D, Ross LK, Fox PJ. Characteristics associated with physician discipline: a case–control study. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 653-658.
  • 6. Khaliq AA, Dimassi H, Huang CY, et al. Disciplinary action against physicians: who is likely to get disciplined? Am J Med 2005; 118: 773-777.
  • 7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Medical labour force 2006. Canberra: AIHW, 2008. (AIHW Cat. No. HWL 42; National Health Labour Force Series No. 41.) http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442468174 (accessed Mar 2011).
  • 8. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1967.
  • 9. Constas MA. Qualitative analysis as a public event: the documentation of category development procedures. Am Educ Res J 1992; 29: 253-266.
  • 10. Hall MA, Wright RF. Systematic content analysis of judicial opinions. Calif L Rev 2008; 96: 63-122.
  • 11. Medical Board of Queensland. Annual report 2008–2009. Brisbane: Office of Health Practitioner Registration Boards, Queensland Government, 2009.
  • 12. Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. Annual report 2008. Melbourne: MPBV, 2008.
  • 13. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Medical labour force 2003. Canberra: AIHW, 2005. (AIHW Cat. No. HWL 32; National Health Labour Force Series No. 32.) http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467747 (accessed Mar 2011).
  • 14. Medical Council of New Zealand. The New Zealand medical workforce in 2003. Wellington: MCNZ, 2005. http://www.mcnz.org.nz/portals/0/publications/workforce_2003%20.pdf (accessed Mar 2011).
  • 15. Medical Council of New Zealand. The New Zealand medical workforce in 2006. Wellington: MCNZ. http://www.mcnz.org.nz/portals/0/publications/workforce_2006.pdf (accessed Mar 2011).
  • 16. Firth-Cozens J. Doctors with difficulties: why so few women? Postgrad Med J 2008; 84: 318-320.
  • 17. Foreman SM, Stahl MJ. Chiropractors disciplined by a state chiropractic board and a comparison with disciplined medical physicians. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2004; 27: 472-477.
  • 18. Post J. Medical discipline and licensing in the state of New York: a critical review. Bull N Y Acad Med 1991; 67: 66-98.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.