How are complementary health professions regulated in Australia? An examination of complementary health professions in the national registration and accreditation scheme

Sibbritt, D; Kaye, M; Millbank, J; Stuhmcke, A; Wardle, J; Karpin, I

How are complementary health professions regulated in Australia? An examination of complementary health professions in the national registration and accreditation scheme

Sibbritt, D

Kaye, M

Millbank, J

Stuhmcke, A

Wardle, J

Karpin, I

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2018, 37 pp. 6 - 12
Issue Date:: 2018-04-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	final article in Complementary therapies in medicine.pdf	Published Version	698.06 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Sibbritt, D https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3561-9447	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kaye, M https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4484-1904	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Millbank, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8934-7945	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Stuhmcke, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3679-7301	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wardle, J https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8813-3542	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Karpin, I https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9326-3421	en_US
dc.date.available	2017-12-22	en_US
dc.date.issued	2018-04-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2018, 37 pp. 6 - 12	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0965-2299	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/121964
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 Elsevier Ltd Objectives: This study aims to provide an empirical examination of how complementary medicine practice in Australia is actually regulated under the current national registration model. Methods: Data was obtained from Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) Annual Reports for the years 2011/12–2014/15 and supplemented by the Chinese Medical Registration Board of Victoria (CMRBV) Annual Reports in 2011/12 for Chinese Medicine complaints. The data analysed includes complaint statistics, stage of closure of complaints and the outcome of complaints concerning Chinese medicine, chiropractic and osteopathy under the National Law. Results: During 2014–2015 the number of complaints per 100 registrants for was highest for the medical board (4.4), while much lower for the chiropractic (1.5), osteopath (0.7) and Chinese medicine (0.5) boards. For conventional boards, 58% of complaints were closed at the assessment stage, while 57%, 29% and 16% of complaints to the osteopath, Chinese medicine and chiropractic boards respectively were closed at the assessment stage. The decision to suspend or cancel registration of health professionals was 17% from the Chinese medicine board, 14% from the Osteopathy Board, 1.5% from the chiropractor board and 0.6% from the medical board. Conclusion: It appears that complementary medicine practitioner regulation works at least as well as conventional regulation, and at most complementary medicine boards take a stricter interpretation of misconduct though more research would need to be undertaken to state this definitively. Our findings indicate that the public are using the statutory complaint mechanisms available to them with respect to the three CM groups.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Complementary Therapies in Medicine	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.ctim.2017.12.012	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Complementary & Alternative Medicine	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Complementary Therapies	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Health Personnel	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Accreditation	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.title	How are complementary health professions regulated in Australia? An examination of complementary health professions in the national registration and accreditation scheme	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	37	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	1104 Complementary and Alternative Medicine	en_US
utslib.for	1701 Psychology	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Public Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HJ - Health Justice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	37	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd Objectives: This study aims to provide an empirical examination of how complementary medicine practice in Australia is actually regulated under the current national registration model. Methods: Data was obtained from Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) Annual Reports for the years 2011/12–2014/15 and supplemented by the Chinese Medical Registration Board of Victoria (CMRBV) Annual Reports in 2011/12 for Chinese Medicine complaints. The data analysed includes complaint statistics, stage of closure of complaints and the outcome of complaints concerning Chinese medicine, chiropractic and osteopathy under the National Law. Results: During 2014–2015 the number of complaints per 100 registrants for was highest for the medical board (4.4), while much lower for the chiropractic (1.5), osteopath (0.7) and Chinese medicine (0.5) boards. For conventional boards, 58% of complaints were closed at the assessment stage, while 57%, 29% and 16% of complaints to the osteopath, Chinese medicine and chiropractic boards respectively were closed at the assessment stage. The decision to suspend or cancel registration of health professionals was 17% from the Chinese medicine board, 14% from the Osteopathy Board, 1.5% from the chiropractor board and 0.6% from the medical board. Conclusion: It appears that complementary medicine practitioner regulation works at least as well as conventional regulation, and at most complementary medicine boards take a stricter interpretation of misconduct though more research would need to be undertaken to state this definitively. Our findings indicate that the public are using the statutory complaint mechanisms available to them with respect to the three CM groups.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/121964