D.F.P.S.

Another piece of this puzzle is the Medical Board of South Australia. Its function is to regulate the professional competence of all doctors in South Australia.  So far, it has done an appalling job and it has greatly assisted in reducing appropriate pain by frightening doctors away from pain treatment.

A recent Parliamentary Report into the Medical Board of SA has criticised the Board in strong terms.  An excerpt from the report is quoted here.

“On the basis of these faults, the Committee considers the Medical Board of South Australia lacking in both efficiency and effectiveness in operational matters. The Committee recommends that the Board engage an independent consulting firm to review all of its processes to ensure that it is operating in a customer-friendly, effective and efficient manner in line with best practice service standards.”

Evidence was given to the Committee that the structure of the previous Board (constituted under the previous Medical Practitioners Act 1983) had a number of deficiencies. The composition of the Board under the new Act has been expanded to twelve members, including increasing consumer representation to three positions. The Committee believes these appointments should go a long way to improving the efficiency of Board operations in addition to giving confidence to the complaints process.

The Committee heard allegations that the previous Board was ‘an old boys’ club’. The Committee explored this notion with other witnesses and concluded on the basis of evidence that it was indeed a possible perception. The new Act states a Board member cannot hold office for more than nine consecutive years and the Committee hopes this will alleviate concerns about potential and current long term board members becoming a ‘club’.

The Committee believes that there should be separate administrative and disciplinary functions for the Board, and the recommendation made by both this Inquiry and the Productivity Commission emphasise this. As stated previously, the Committee believes there should be one entity providing all registration functions of health professionals in South Australia and for disciplinary purposes, small expert panels comprised of peers nominated from the appropriate college be made available”.

Recommendation 37 from the same report states: -

The Board report back to the Committee in twelve months time as from the date of the tabling of this Report in Parliament. This report shall include the progress of the Board, implementation of recommendations, and the provision of data on improvements to the complaints management process.

Since that report, the function and confidence of the board has further deteriorated and it is clearly no longer operating in a manner aimed at improving patient care.

This then begs the question, to whom is the Medical Board of so called “experts” accountable to?  Answer “no one”.

Not only this, but why is the Medical Board getting other doctors to make “informed” decisions about a patient’s health and well being when they themselves do not understand each case? In nearly all cases, the doctors to whom patients have been referred do not know the case history, and some have even admitted that they themselves do not understand the illnesses being suffered.

While the Medical Board is not formally part of the process of drug regulation, it is clear that there is an informal relationship between the medical board of South Australia on the one hand and the South Australian Health Commission and DASSA on the other.  The Medical Board wields influence because of the power that it has over the medical practitioners, a power that is absolute with no appeal against either the process or the findings of the Board.

A combination of a lack of expertise by DASSA and the misapplied power of the Medical Board means that patients are obtaining far less than adequate medical care to their pain disorders.

Trackback URI |