Academic literature on the topic 'Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003'

This article provides an introduction to The Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act (HPCAA) which took effect on 18 September 2004. The Act was introduced to provide consistent accountability across health professions and make it easier for the New Zealand public to understand what health service each registered professional provides. To make this transparent, each of the health profession’s Authorities registered under the Act, has consulted widely with members to establish a scope or scopes of practice which the profession operates in. By making these scopes of practice transparent, health professionals will be limitedto specific professional activities defined by their Registration Boards 1 and there will be penalties for operating outside these specified scopes of practice. Thirteen district meetingswere held in 2004 to provide information to field staff about what the HPCAA means for their practice and what they can do about shaping practice to match the requirements of the Act. These meetings raised issues from the field about provision of equipment, professional development, portfolios, competencies, complaints and reflective practice.

This article examines the discretionary notification of competence concerns by health practitioners, through the lens of patient safety. The discretion, provided for in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, is discussed alongside ethical obligations, factors that may inhibit raising concerns about substandard practice, and the arguments for and against mandatory reporting of incompetent practice. It concludes that the absence of a statutory obligation to notify such concerns creates a risk that problems will go unreported and that patients may be exposed to harm. Comprehensive research into the source of notifications, and practitioners understanding of the threshold for raising concerns, is recommended. It is also suggested that legislative change to require mandatory reporting in certain circumstances may need to be reconsidered.

The requirement of professional supervision within the health, justice and social service sector in New Zealand has increased greatly since the advent of the Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act (HCPA 2003). As supervision is seen as a key vehicle for continuing development of professional skills, the demand for trained and competent supervisors has increased, with the resultant gap between demand and provision. One solution to this is for practitioners to seek supervision from a suitably matched professional outside the discipline. The limited literature on the practice of interprofessional supervision (IPS), suggests both advantages and limitations. This article presents the results of a survey (N=243) of social workers and psychologists practising IPS in Aotearoa New Zealand. The survey examined the rationale for seeking IPS, attention to function, and the perceived advantages and limitations for the supervisor and supervisee alike. Respondents receiving IPS reported a variety of reasons for seeking it including, but not most importantly, the lack of availability of same-profession supervisor. Respondents believed the advantages included the usefulness of different approaches/perspectives and an increase in knowledge and creative thinking. Disadvantages included that aspects of the supervisee role were not able to be adequately addressed and a lack of shared theories orlanguage.The practice more adequately provided for the formative and restorative functions than normative despite some having IPS as their only form of supervision. Recommendations therefore include ensuring the purpose of IPS is well clarified at the outset; that it is not a standalone practice forless experienced practitioners; that professional guidelines are appropriately flexible to provide for the varied and justifiable rationales and that programmes for appropriate preparation for IPS be developed. Further research is needed, however, to further clarify the specific agenda forseeking IPS including those for whom it is not a preferred or satisfactory approach.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect, both personally and politically, on our Association's move towards the statutory registration of psychotherapists. This reflection is timely since the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill will come into effect in September of this year, allowing 15 health professions to be included under its provisions. The Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health are in the process of deciding whether psychotherapy is also to be included as a new profession under the Act.

This article offers a critical analysis of the role of public health regulation on tertiary education in Aotearoa New Zealand and, specifically, the requirements and processes of Responsible Authorities under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act for the accreditation and monitoring of educational institutions and their curricula (degrees, courses of studies, or programmes). It identifies and discusses a number of issues concerned with the requirements of such accreditation and monitoring, including, administrative requirements and costs, structural requirements, and the implications for educational design. Concerns with the processes of these procedures, namely the lack of educational expertise on the part of the Responsible Authorities, and certain manifested power dynamics are also highlighted. Finally, the article draws conclusions for changing policy and practice.

It is imperative oral health therapists (OHTs) collaborate with peers from other disciplines. Interprofessional collaboration contributes to improved health outcomes, improvements in health systems, and increased patient and practitioner satisfaction (World Health Organisation, 2010). The legislation provides a clear mandate for interprofessional collaboration. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (2019) clause 118 states professional regulatory authorities have a responsibility to promote collaboration across, and between health professionals in the delivery of health services. The World Health Organization (2010) explains that embedding interprofessional education (IPE) enables health graduates to develop the capability necessary to practice confidently as interprofessional collaborative practitioners. Despite these factors, IPE is not immersed within the AUT OHT curriculum. To inform and guide sustainable change in line with the evidence and legislative requirements, this study uses a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology to draw on AUT OHT educators lived experiences of interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP), and applies an interpretative lens to understanding these experiences, informed by van Manen (1990). The findings from the research will provide insights that aim to inform future IPECP curriculum development. Taking an informed approach to developing IPE for AUT OHT students, it aims to prepare collaborative and practice-ready graduates, and ultimately improve the health outcomes of those they serve. In this presentation, I will highlight the importance of IPECP for OHT at AUT, share some of the stories told during the semi-structured interviews with AUT OHT educators on their lived experiences of IPECP and summarise my research to date.

Biologic therapy is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis in New Zealand. In order to qualify for subsidy for infliximab or adalimumab, treatment must be initiated by a relevant specialist. However, there is a clear role for family practitioners in ensuring that appropriate patients are offered these treatments regardless of ethnicity or levels of social deprivation. This issue was highlighted by the work of Mc Creanor and Nairn [1], who identified a tendency amongst non-Maori family physicians to attribute differences in health disparities as being due to the community itself. Such attitudes towards minority communities are widespread throughout the world and were most recently reported in the UK in the Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities [2]. The potential for a significant role in the delivery of equitable care to Maoris and Pacific Islanders, following the passage of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, was outlined by Bacal et al [3]. General practitioners role in appropriate communication about new treatments was emphasised together with the fact that they were seen as trustworthy. Such relationships are often not established with specialist hospital-based practitioners, who may be seen as distant and disinterested. However, a study of arthritis in New Zealand has shown that despite the disease having a higher prevalence in indigenous peoples, fewer referrals were made by family doctors to specialists [4]. Consequently, their access to expensive treatments, such as biologic therapies was limited. In this small study, access to biologic therapy across various communities was considered.