Anand's story

A practitioner, Anand, made a complaint to us about information Ahpra published about him on the national register of practitioners (the public register). Anand expressed concerns that Ahpra published a link to a tribunal decision that included the conditions a tribunal had imposed on Anand’s registration.

However, Ahpra had not published the full details of these conditions on the public register, noting that certain conditions were not publicly available due to privacy considerations. These conditions related to Anand’s health.

After considering Anand’s concerns, our office commenced an investigation into how Ahpra publishes links to tribunal and court decisions on the public register, and its decision not to publish conditions that have been made public by a court or tribunal.

What we found

Our investigation found that Ahpra and the Boards’ decision to publish links to adverse tribunal decisions and court outcomes on a practitioner’s record on the public register is reasonable and in line with the National Law. The approach also aligns with the recommendation made by the Independent Review of the use of Chaperones to Protect Patients in Australia. We were satisfied that Ahpra and the Boards have a reasonable basis for their view that publishing links to adverse tribunal and court decisions on the public register helps to protect the public through increased transparency. It also helps provide more complete information for patients to make informed decisions about the care they receive.

In relation to Anand’s record on the public register, our investigation found that Ahpra had published information about conditions on Anand’s registration related to his practice as a health practitioner and also included a note that Anand’s registration is subject to other conditions that are not publicly available due to privacy considerations. However, the relevant tribunal decision outlining the other conditions (relating to Anand’s health) was publicly available and linked to Anand’s record on the public register. We therefore found that it was incorrect for Ahpra to state on Anand’s record that the conditions are not publicly available to due privacy considerations.

Complaint outcome

During the course of our investigation, Ahpra recognised that there may be inconsistencies in the way it publishes information on the
public register about conditions imposed on a practitioner’s registration by a court or tribunal.

Ahpra agreed to reconsider aspects of its process for publishing conditions on a practitioner’s registration that have been imposed by tribunals. This will ensure greater consistency and transparency about the process for publishing decisions.

We provided formal comments to Ahpra, including suggesting that it audits a sample of matters where a tribunal or court decision is linked to a practitioner’s record on the public register to ensure common areas of inconsistency are identified and addressed. We also suggested that Ahpra provides an update to our office on the progress of its audit.