Deena's story

Deena contacted our office regarding a notification she had made about a specialist medical practitioner who operated on her relative. Deena was concerned that the practitioner had not provided adequate treatment to her relative and she was seeking a refund or compensation for the practitioner’s fees.

The relevant Board decided to take no further action in relation to the notification under s 151(1)(a) of the National Law. This section of the National Law enables the Board to take no further action if it reasonably believes the notification is ‘frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance’.

Deena told us that she believes the Board had not considered all the information she provided and that she had been made to feel like she was in the wrong for making the notification. Deena was concerned that the Board’s decision implied the concerns she raised were ‘baseless’ and ‘frivolous.’

What we found

Our office initially sought to resolve Deena’s concerns through our early resolution transfer process. With Deena’s consent, we transferred her complaint to Ahpra. In response, Ahpra provided Deena with more information about the Board’s decision-making process and the types of decisions that the Board can make. Ahpra explained that the Board cannot award compensation or direct a practitioner to apologise. After reviewing Ahpra’s response to Deena, we decided to undertake preliminary inquiries to further assess Deena’s complaint.

We found that Ahpra correctly advised Deena that the Board could not award compensation. Ahpra also appropriately referred some of the concerns she raised about the practitioner to a health complaints organisation that was better placed to achieve the outcomes Deena was seeking.

We found that Ahpra had communicated appropriately with Deena and had not referred to her concerns as being ‘baseless’ or ‘frivolous’. Ahpra had used the terminology of s 151(1)(a) of the National Law in its outcome letter to Deena. She appeared to have interpreted this to imply she was in the wrong for making her notification.

Complaint outcome

Our office provided a more detailed explanation to Deena about how the Board considers risk when deciding whether to take action on a notification. We also explained the meaning of references to s 151(1)(a) of the National Law in the notification outcome letter she received from Ahpra. We gave Deena more information about the Board’s decision, the information it considered, and the next best steps if Deena wanted to know more about how her notification was managed.

We acknowledged that Ahpra and the Board had handled Deena’s notification in a fair and reasonable way. However, we also provided feedback to Ahpra about the importance of tailoring communication to a notifier to ensure the Board’s reasons for making a decision are clearly outlined. We suggested that when the Board relies on s 151(1)(a) of the National Law to make a decision, it should seek to clarify the grounds on which it is choosing to take no further action (i.e. whether the Board believes the notification is ‘frivolous’, ‘vexatious’, ‘misconceived’ or ‘lacking in substance’).