Clinical innovation and scope of practice regulation: a case study of the Charlie Teo decision.

Autor:	Walsh J; Medical Workforce Unit, The Royal Children's Hospital, Vic., Australia; and School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 47-49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia., Downie S; Medical Workforce Unit, The Royal Children's Hospital, Vic., Australia; and School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 47-49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia., Windholz E; Faculty of Law, Monash University, 15 Ancora Imparo Way, Clayton Campus, Vic. 3800, Australia., Kirk-Brown A; Monash Business School, Monash University, Level 4, Building D room 22, Peninsula Campus, 47-49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia., Haines TP; School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 47-49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association [Aust Health Rev] 2024 Feb; Vol. 48 (1), pp. 91-94.
DOI:	10.1071/AH23157
Abstrakt:	The issue of regulation of scope of practice (SOP) has recently been highlighted through the high-profile case of New South Wales-based neurosurgeon, Mr Charles Teo and specifically the finding of 'unsatisfactory professional conduct' by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) in Teo, Charles (2023) NSWMPSC 2 (12 July 2023). The HCCC decision went to two issues in Teo's practice: (1) his decision to perform a surgery not within the SOP of his profession [at 238]; and (2) his failure to gain patient informed consent for that surgery [at 245]. This paper explores the findings against Teo with respect to SOP and recommends a nuanced approach to the regulation of clinical innovation and SOP evolution.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu