Page 1748 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 6 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are also a number of smaller and perhaps technical issues. For example, if a health professional becomes aware of malpractice or serious error, they have an obligation to report it to the relevant health board. But if that professional is on a quality assurance committee where that matter is being discussed, the professional is simultaneously obliged to keep it privileged. Similarly, while it is made explicit that providing information to such a committee does not breach professional codes of conduct, it ought also specifically mention the employees code of conduct. In essence, the higher order workers are protected better than those at a lower level.
The Health Care Consumers Association of the ACT, the ACT’s peak health consumer body, shares these concerns and argues for some community or consumer involvement in these committees. In correspondence with my office, the point was made that the privileging function of these committees is at risk of being hijacked by the clinicians to suit themselves and without adequate scrutiny.
Their key concern is that the privilege committee can potentially allow its decision making to be entirely influenced by the clinician culture rather than the application of scrutiny of community standards. This is something that the Health Care Consumers Association of the ACT does not see as desirable, and nor do I. That is why it is being suggested that the involvement by consumer and community representatives in the privilege committees could maintain the connection with community standards and expectations.
It is interesting to note that in Britain there is a 40 per cent consumer representation on boards and committees overseeing health professional standards. This is in stark contrast to our own system. Any restructure of the health system should include a really close look at these committees.
There are other instances where the powers and the role of these committees would seem to run across more open and transparent procedures and governance arrangements, but unfortunately we have got to this point too late. Some of these matters have no doubt been considered but, when they are fundamental to the direction in which we wish to take our health system, they should be picked over here in the Assembly when we debate the bill.
I wonder whether the ACT government has a position on circulating the black-letter legislation to interested stakeholder bodies when it is introduced in the Assembly. In this case, I would have thought that an automatic part of the tabling process of government legislation could include a brief email message with links to the legislation and a copy of the tabling speech being sent to the relevant health boards—the ACT Health Care Consumers Association, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, the Australian College of Midwives and so on. I have no doubt that these interested parties have been aware of this project at different stages. Mr Smyth has alluded to that. It is a good thing that they are involved.
Just as we want to avoid adverse events in our health system and want to be rigorous in learning from error and the breakdown of systems, we need to take the same approach in developing legislation. It is really only when the law is drafted that people can see what has or has not been taken into account. While government will not agree with everything,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .