Though the boundary between complaints dealt with by the Society and those dealt with by the Physiotherapy Board was sometimes unclear the Physiotherapy Board has always dealt with serious cases.
Though the boundary between complaints dealt with by the Society and those dealt with by the Physiotherapy Board was sometimes unclear the Physiotherapy Board has always dealt with serious cases. The names of physiotherapists found guilty are published in the Physiotherapy Board Newsletter, and findings of importance for all physiotherapists to note are detailed. From the years 1976 to 1992 the Society and the Physiotherapy Board discussed the issue from time to time.
September 1975 Council asked the Department of Health to circularise its district offices informing them that complaints about Society Members should be referred to the National Secretary. The Society asked to be notified of any complaints against physiotherapists. Branches would investigate petty complaints, and the Society only work on serious ethical complaints[1].
In February 1976 the Director-General of Health was asked that complaints lodged about physiotherapists be referred to the Society In 1976 the-Physiotherapy Board stated that they were now prepared to look at all complaints[2].
The reply stated that they could not do that[3]. The Society expressed its disappointment. The Department of Health said in June 1976 that registration of physiotherapists would need to be in the hands of the Society rather than the Board if the Society was to have power to act on complaints about physiotherapists. The Board would only act in extreme cases providing the patient was willing to give evidence. It was agreed that branches would be written to asking them report any complaints to the National Secretary, whether the person was a member or not[4].
The Minister of Health requested that there be more disciplinary guidelines for the Society. The Society approached the Dept of Health, offering assistance for the discipline of physiotherapists on the same basis as is in operation for the medical profession[5]. There was a possibility in 1978 that when the rules of the Society were amended to include the disciplinary principles the Physiotherapy Board may opt out of this[6].
Mr.Lamont wanted to publish broad details of discipline procedures in the Journal in November 1980. The legal adviser said in March 1981 that disciplinary matters could only be published in the Journal after they had been proven.
The Society felt that those provisions of the Act which are about disciplinary matters should be repealed and replaced with realistic and necessary provisions from the point of view of the Society.[7] The Department of Health advised that they envisaged legislation rather than an informal mechanism for the discipline of physiotherapists.. It was resolved that Mrs. Wood should meet them for clarification[8]. Comments received from branches and Special Interest Groups about discipline were collated and incorporated in the Society’s submission[9]. A subject discussed in 1983 was who should action complaints - the Board or the Health Department. It was agreed the Board should do this.[10]
Again in 1989 it was moved that the disciplinary mechanisms for physiotherapy should be contained within the Act, be specific to the profession, and be determined by the majority of physiotherapists.[11]
At the AGM in 1991 concern was expressed that if names were omitted from accounts of disciplinary action this could put innocent practitioners under suspicion. However it was found that the disciplinary section of the Act did not allow the publication of names. The disciplinary section of the Physiotherapy Act was woefully inadequate in 1991 and the Society continued urging Government to update it. When the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement was designed in 1992 New Zealand needed to amend the disciplinary section of the Physiotherapy Act to comply with Australian regulations.
In June 1992 it was realised that in order to support reciprocity with Australia we need to amend the disciplinary section of the Physiotherapy Act. The Board met on issues of legislation matter, Body Corporate ethics and discipline.
In 1992 the Ethical Committee discussed a proposal prepared by Michael Lamont to establish a new Committee in the disciplinary process. This would be called the Preliminary Investigation Committee, and would assess all complaints concerning physiotherapists whether addressed to the Society or the Board. The Committee would comprise 1 Physiotherapist, 1 Physiotherapist nominated by NSZP and 1 lay person.[12]
In April 1993 this Committee was Mrs. Lois Clarkson, Mrs. Kay Valentine, Mrs. Heather Hutton, & Mr Brent Smallbone (lay person). The Committee’s role was to investigate a complaint in whatever manner it saw fit and to decide if a complaint should be referred to the Physiotherapy Board. It was not required to “try’ the case. Those cases considered by the Society would have the right of appeal to National Executive. From 1993 serious cases have gone straight to the Board.
1993 saw a change in this procedure when all complaints against Healthcare providers were handled by the Health & Disability Commissioner and then being forwarded to the appropriate disciplinary bodies. It was thought the disciplinary section of the Act would need to be changed under the bill for this to occur.[13]. The Board reviewed the PIC panel at its meeting on the 12 December 1995[14].
It was noted that complaints regarding physiotherapists will be directed in the first instance to the Health and Disability Commissioner from July 1996. Professional and ethical issues would continue to be directed to NZSP.
The two options for the structure of the Disciplinary Tribunal were discussed in 1996; one an independent Physiotherapy Disciplinary Tribunal and the other a multi-disciplinary Tribunal. Under both options, the recommendation was for three registered physiotherapists and one lay person. [15].
[1] E/M 20-9-75
[2] E/M 25-9-76
[3] E/M 14-2-76
[4] E/M 26 - 6 - 76
[5] E/M 29 - 11 - 80
[6] E/M 20-5-78
[7] E/M 23-5-81
[8] E/M 14 - 3 - 81 -
[9] E/M 26 - 7 - 85
[10] E/M 26-11-83
[11] E/M 22-4-89
[12] E/m 25-8-92 -
[13] E/M 13-2-93 -
[14] E/M 16-9-95
[15] E/M 10-5-96 -
comments powered by Disqus