Lead Clinician Groups discussion paper an insult to clinicians
AMA President, Dr Andrew Pesce, said today that the Government’s proposed Lead Clinician Groups are doomed to fail if arrangements set out in a recently-circulated discussion paper are to proceed.
Dr Pesce said the fact that the discussion paper - Lead Clinicians Groups: enhancing clinical engagement in Australia’s health system - was circulated to stakeholder groups after business hours on the eve of Australia Day suggests there is some nervousness within the Government and the bureaucracy about the proposed arrangements.
“The discussion paper is an insult to clinicians. It proposes that doctors’ input to decision making would be limited to clinical practice issues, not overall hospital and health service management,” Dr Pesce said.
“This is contrary to the intended clinician role announced by former Prime Minister Rudd in a speech to the AMA National Conference in May last year.
“Mr Rudd said that Lead Clinician Groups would also guide Local Hospital Networks in ‘service planning and the most efficient allocation of clinical services …’ and ‘developing innovative solutions that best address the needs of local communities’.
“The paper sets out ways to suppress and limit clinician engagement in decision making, not enhance it – it is a plan for lead clinicians not to lead.
“It appears that all the advice from the AMA and other medical groups has been completely ignored.
“As recently as just prior to Christmas, we were telling the Government that one of the most serious deficiencies in the management of hospitals is that important decisions are made by bureaucrats far away from where health care is actually delivered.
“We have been conveying this very simple message right throughout the health reform process in private meetings and public forums.
“Doctors need to be involved in decisions made at the local hospital level about resource allocation, service planning and provision, and patient care.
“This way, we can make a significant contribution to better management of health costs while ensuring we retain appropriate quality patient care.
“We need to have transparent and accountable processes for doctors to have a say on how their hospitals are run.
“Specifically, doctors should be involved in decision-making about funding for infrastructure, staffing and training within their hospital to ensure it is allocated efficiently and equitably.
“But the discussion paper falls well short of proposing a mechanism for ensuring that doctors have a meaningful say in how health care is delivered in their local community.
“The Government is not delivering on its promise to ensure that there is a structured, transparent process for local doctors to provide advice to Local Hospital Networks on service delivery - and for that advice to be acted upon.”
Dr Pesce said the AMA raised concerns when there were warning signs in the National Health and Hospitals Network Agreement signed by Governments last year.
“The Agreement made it clear that Governing Councils of Local Hospital Networks would not be required to include local doctors, and we suggested that should be changed,” Dr Pesce said.
“Now we have a discussion paper that is basically a plan for the Lead Clinician Groups to fail.”
28 January 2011
CONTACT: John Flannery 02 6270 5477 / 0419 494 761
Follow the AMA on Twitter: http://twitter.com/amapresident
