The significance of Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia

To the Editor: The medical profession in Australia has 91 648 registrants and represents 16.7% of the total of 548 528 health practitioners. However, complaints (known as notifications) about doctors are disproportionate. In the 2011–12 financial year, there were 4001 notifications regarding medical practitioners, representing 52.7% of the 7594 total notifications to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.1 Looked at another way, there was an annual rate of notifications concerning individual medical practitioners of about 4.4%.

The most significant changes made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 were the requirement for mandatory reporting and the publication of Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia (the Code).2 The Code was originally developed by the Australian Medical Council and was adopted and reissued by the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) on 1 July 2010. Recently, I worked for the MBA and believe, from discussions with colleagues at meetings and conferences, that many doctors do not appreciate the significance of the Code. The Code’s guidelines are comprehensive and were developed to be consistent with the Act under section 39. They are used to educate and guide individual doctors. Additionally, they are used by medical boards as a benchmark for the conduct expected of medical practitioners. This means that when a notification is being determined, the relevant sections of the Code are referred to in considering whether a practitioner’s performance or conduct is at or below the standard expected by peers and the community.

Most notifications concern clinical care, but many are concerned with communication and behaviour. An important aspect of communication is record keeping. The Code states that maintaining clear and accurate medical records is essential for the continuing good care of patients and gives seven points to guide good practice. Poor record keeping, which is usually recognised during assessment of a notification, may result in a practitioner being cautioned by the relevant jurisdictional medical board or possibly having a condition placed on their registration that they undertake further education in communication and record keeping.

There are many other important components of the Code — it has 11 major sections. In the section on working with other health professionals, for example, practitioners are advised to communicate clearly, effectively, respectfully and promptly with other doctors and health care professionals caring for the patient.

The Code is available online.2 I encourage doctors to read it and incorporate its principles into practice. Compliance with the Code serves as both protection and defence regarding notifications made to the medical board.