Nature and outcomes of sanctioned medical misconduct in six international jurisdictions: a case series
Nicole Grant A , Safire Valentine B , James Majer C and David McD. Taylor D E FA Western Health, Footscray, Vic. 3011, Australia. Email: niccagrant@icloud.com
B Eastern Health, Melbourne, Vic. 3128, Australia. Email: safire.valentine@gmail.com
C Barwon Health, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email: jamajer@student.unimelb.edu.au
D Emergency Department, Austin Health, PO Box 5555, Heidelberg, Vic. 3084, Australia.
E Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Email: David.Taylor@austin.org.au
Australian Health Review 45(2) 223-229 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH20083
Submitted: 28 April 2020 Accepted: 25 August 2020 Published: 24 November 2020
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to determine the types of medical misconduct, the practitioner, specialities and jurisdictions at risk, patient outcomes and the sanctions imposed.
Methods This study was a retrospective case series of 822 adverse medical tribunal determinations in Australia, New Zealand, Canada (Ontario, Alberta), Pennsylvania (USA), Singapore and Hong Kong in 2013–17.
Results Inappropriate medical care and illegal or unethical prescribing were the most common types of misconduct. Misconduct varied with practitioner sex, international medical graduate status, speciality and jurisdiction (P < 0.05). Cases of inappropriate medical care were more common in Singapore (46.7% of all Singapore cases; 95% confidence interval (CI) 31.9–62.0) and among surgeons (47.6% of all surgeon cases; 95% CI 36.5–58.8). Illegal or unethical prescribing was more common in Australia (31.1%; 95% CI 24.8–38.2) and among general or family practitioners (26.9%; 95% CI 20.0–35.0). Misconduct not related to patients was more common in Pennsylvania (30.3%; 95% CI 25.2–36.0) and among local graduates (20.5%; 95% CI 17.1–24.5). Sexual misconduct was more common in Australia (29.6%; 95% CI 23.4–36.6) and among males (19.6%, 95% CI 16.7–22.8). Healthcare dishonesty was more common in Hong Kong (21.8%; 95% CI 14.0–32.2) and among surgeons (13.4%; 95% CI 7.2–23.2). The most common patient outcomes were patient risk (40.6%; 95% CI 36.1–45.4) and death and actual physical harm combined (31.2%; 95% CI 26.9–35.7). Sanctions were most commonly suspension or deregistration. Deregistration was most common in cases of sexual misconduct.
Conclusion Medical misconduct varies widely. Risk factors for particular misconduct types are apparent among jurisdictions and practitioner characteristics. The nature of patient harm varied by type of misconduct, with illegal unethical prescribing commonly leading to drug dependency and sexual misconduct leading to psychiatric injury.
What is known about the topic? Medical misconduct is a continuing problem. Tribunals and medical boards sanction misconduct to protect patient safety and public trust.
What does this paper add? Tribunals and boards differ in misconduct reporting and permitting public access to determinations. Types of misconduct vary between international jurisdictions, practitioner sex, international graduate status and speciality. Risk and physical injury (including death) are the most common patient outcomes. The nature of patient harm varied by type of misconduct, with illegal unethical prescribing commonly leading to drug dependency and sexual misconduct leading to psychiatric injury.
What are the implications for practitioners? Medical colleges should tailor trainee programs to address the common types of misconduct within their specialities. Standardisation of misconduct reporting, and report access, across jurisdictions would facilitate ongoing surveillance and intervention evaluation.
Keywords: healthcare fraud, malpractice, medical misconduct.
References
[1] Moberly T. Rising complaints against doctors due to changed patient expectations, researchers say. BMJ 2014; 349 g4754| Rising complaints against doctors due to changed patient expectations, researchers say.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25099728PubMed |
[2] General Medical Council. Fitness to practise statistics 2016. Available at: https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/2016_fitness_to_practise_annual_statistics.pdf_71779372.pdf [verified 12 November 2020].
[3] Elkin K, Spittal MJ, Elkin D, Studdert DM. Removal of doctors from practice for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21 1027–33.
| Removal of doctors from practice for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22822240PubMed |
[4] Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Provincial medical regulatory (licensing) authorities. 2018 Available at: http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/resources/provincial-medical-regulatory-licensing-authorities-e [verified 24 March 2020].
[5] Collins D. New Zealand’s health practitioners disciplinary tribunal. Med Law 2006; 25 249–56.
| 16929803PubMed |
[6] Law MT, Hansen ZK. Medical licensing board characteristics and physician discipline: an empirical analysis. J Health Polit Policy Law 2010; 35 63–93.
| Medical licensing board characteristics and physician discipline: an empirical analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20159847PubMed |
[7] Singapore Medical Council. Published grounds of decision. Available at: https://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/smc/published-grounds-of-decision [verified 24 March 2020].
[8] Medical Council of Kong Kong. Disciplinary inquiries – judgments of the Medical Council of Hong Kong. 2016. Available at: https://www.mchk.org.hk/english/complaint/disciplinary.php?type=j [verified 24 March 2020]
[9] Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Who we are. 2017. Available at: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/About-AHPRA/Who-We-Are.aspx [verified 24 March 2020].
[10] Australasian Legal Information Institute. A joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law. Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au [verified 24 March 2020].
[11] Elkin KJ, Spittal MJ, Elkin DJ, Studdert DM. Doctors disciplined for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2009. Med J Aust 2011; 194 452–6.
| Doctors disciplined for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand, 2000–2009.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21534900PubMed |
[12] Kohatsu ND, Gould D, Ross LK, Fox PJ. Characteristics associated with physician discipline: a case-control study. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164 653–8.
| Characteristics associated with physician discipline: a case-control study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15037494PubMed |
[13] Elkin K, Spittal MJ, Studdert DM. Risks of complaints and adverse disciplinary findings against international medical graduates in Victoria and Western Australia. Med J Aust 2012; 197 448–52.
| Risks of complaints and adverse disciplinary findings against international medical graduates in Victoria and Western Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23072241PubMed |
[14] Alam A, Kurdyak P, Klemensberg J, Griesman J, Bell CM. The characteristics of psychiatrists disciplined by professional colleges in Canada. PLoS One 2012; 7 e50558
| The characteristics of psychiatrists disciplined by professional colleges in Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23209779PubMed |
[15] Alam A, Khan J, Liu J, Klemensberg J, Griesman J, Bell CM. Characteristics and rates of disciplinary findings amongst anesthesiologists by professional colleges in Canada. Can J Anaesth 2013; 60 1013–19.
| Characteristics and rates of disciplinary findings amongst anesthesiologists by professional colleges in Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23897490PubMed |
[16] Alam A, Klemensberg J, Griesman J, Bell CM. The characteristics of physicians disciplined by professional colleges in Canada. Open Med 2011; 5 e166–72.
| 22567070PubMed |
[17] Robbins D. License to betray. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 2016. Available at: http://doctors.ajc.com/part_1_license_to_betray/ [verified 24 March 2020].
[18] Firth-Cozens J. Doctors with difficulties: why so few women? Postgrad Med J 2008; 84 318–20.
| Doctors with difficulties: why so few women?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18644923PubMed |
[19] Medical Board of Australia. Medical practice in 2018–2019. 2019Available at: https://www.medicalboard.gov.au/News/Annual-report/2018-19-annual-summary.aspx [verified 24 March 2020].
[20] Department of Health. Medical workforce 2016 fact sheet. 2017. Available at: https://hwd.health.gov.au/webapi/customer/documents/factsheets/2016/Medical%20workforce%20factsheet%202016.pdf [verified 24 March 2020].
[21] Singapore Medical Council. Annual report 2018. Available at: https://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider2/publications-newsroom/smc-annual-reports/2018-smc-annual-report.pdf [verified 24 March 2020].
[22] Norris DM, Gutheil TG, Strasburger LH. This couldn’t happen to me: boundary problems and sexual misconduct in the psychotherapy relationship. Psychiatr Serv 2003; 54 517–22.
| This couldn’t happen to me: boundary problems and sexual misconduct in the psychotherapy relationship.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12663839PubMed |
[23] Garfinkel PE, Bagby RM, Waring EM, Dorian B. Boundary violations and personality traits among psychiatrists. Can J Psychiatry 1997; 42 758–63.
| Boundary violations and personality traits among psychiatrists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 9307837PubMed |
[24] College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Funding for therapy and counselling. Available at: https://www.cpso.on.ca/Public/Services/Funding-for-Therapy-and-Counselling [verified 24 March 2020].
[25] College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Governance process manual. 2016. Available at: https://www.cpso.on.ca/admin/CPSO/media/Documents/about-us/council/governance-process-manual.pdf#page=79 [verified 24 March 2020].
