Professor Marie Bismark published her research article on 850 mandatory notification over one year period, one August of 2014 in the Medical Journal of Australia. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja14.00210
Finds Bismark, “Critics charge that mandatory reporting fosters a culture of fear,9 deters help-seeking,10 and fuels professional rivalries and vexatious reporting.11,12 Concerns have also been raised about the subjectivity of reporting criteria.13 The Australian Medical Association opposed the introduction of the mandatory reporting regime for medical practitioners, citing several of these objections.14 Little evidence is available to evaluate the veracity of these different views.”
Three years later, AHPRA hires Bismark to research https://www.ahpra.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD18%2F25181&dbid=AP&chksum=nbyL%2BkF2whuaVHcNSgdHrA%3D%3D
and she finds:
“There is a paucity of robust research about the actual incidence or impact of vexatious complaints in the health sector, but the best available estimates suggest no more than 1% of complaints are vexatious. The limited literature on vexatious complaints focuses almost exclusively on complaints made by members of the public who display obsessive and unreasonable complaining behaviour. There is essentially no empirical evidence on the incidence of professionals lodging vexatious complaints about each other for personal or professional gain, or as a bullying tactic.
By contrast, some people believe, that professional complainants who become vexatious, are more often driven by personal conflict with a fellow practitioner and/or a desire for personal or professional gain.
It is suggested that their behaviour is more likely to be targeted and calculated, and thus more subtle and difficult to detect.
However, we could not find evidence to support or refute these claims, due to the lack of evidence regarding the behaviour of professional complainants.”
Less than 6 out of 850 amounts to less than 1%.
Members of the public makes “complaints.” It is the role of AHPRA registrant to notify concerns. That is a notification.
But Martin claimed before Senate on 22 No 2016 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/MedicalComplaints45/Public_Hearings
“We have a research partnership with the University of Melbourne. They looked at 850 mandatory notifications over a 12-month period. They found fewer than six that they believed potentially met the criteria for a vexatious notification.”
Even a child would figure out. This is a misleading evidence.
Six days before committing suicide Yap texts me in whatsapp group chat:
“Less than 1%, is no excuse for the regulators to ignore this serious harm.”
On 4 February 2021, Minister Natasha Fyles, Chair of Health Council replies to me.
“Upon receipt of your letter, I sought advice from the AHPRA Agency Management Committee (AmanC) the body that has responsibility for appointing, and managing the performance of the CEO.”
“The AHPRA AManC has concluded that Mr Fletcher did not mislead the Senate Committee, and I support this view.”
My question to Minister Fyles, on behalf of the people of Australia is? What more would it take for Minister Fyles, to follow the very public findings of Prof Bismark, and conclude that Bismark never found any vexatious mandatory notifications, let alone its quantity.
What more would it take for Minister Fyles, because we already lost a brilliant surgeon, protesting against that misleading evidence?
Regards,
Dr. Chandrika Barman