John's story

John contacted our office to make a complaint about Ahpra and the relevant Board’s handling of a notification that was made about him. John raised several concerns, including that the Board did not consider all available documentation relevant to the allegations raised in the notification.

Further, John was concerned that the notification had not been appropriately assessed to determine whether it was vexatious.

John also raised concerns with us about how a separate notification he had made about the notifier (who was also a practitioner) was handled by Ahpra and the relevant Board. He was concerned that the Board had not appropriately considered all the issues he had raised about the practitioner’s conduct.

What we found

We conducted preliminary inquiries to inform our decision about whether to investigate John’s complaints. After receiving a response from Ahpra, we decided to investigate the handling of John’s matters.

Our office found that there were some aspects of Ahpra and the Board’s handling of the notification about John that could have been better. We found that Ahpra could have progressed the notification faster – it had taken 6 months for Ahpra to contact John about the notification and to request a submission from him.

We found that it was reasonable for Ahpra to manage the notification made about John in line with its usual notifications process, rather than progressing the matter as a vexatious notification (using its associated framework).

However, we found that Ahpra could have explored John’s claim that the notification was made vexatiously more thoroughly.

We also found that there was certain technical information related to the notification about John that should have been provided to the Board when it decided on the notification. This was particularly important because that information was directly referenced in the Board’s decision when it proposed to take action against John.

In relation to John’s concerns about the notification he had made, we found that the Board had not specifically addressed the concerns raised by John about the performance of the practitioner.

Complaint outcome

Our office provided feedback to Ahpra about the importance of contacting practitioners as soon as possible after a notification is received about them. This helps to ensure notifications are managed in a timely manner.

We also reiterated that in instances where a practitioner claims that a notification about them is vexatious, Ahpra should ensure its consideration of these concerns is thorough and well documented.

We provided feedback that Ahpra should ensure the Board has all relevant information available for its consideration at the time it makes a decision about a notification. We suggested that the Board should not propose to take action against a practitioner unless the decision to do so is well evidenced and reasoned.

In addition, we provided feedback to Ahpra about how John’s notification was managed. We suggested that the Board’s silence on whether John’s concerns about the practitioner’s performance had been fully considered reasonably led to John’s view that they had not been. In response, Ahpra advised that it would consider the concerns John raised in his notification again, to decide whether the matter should be returned to the Board for reconsideration.