‘Activism needed to stamp out bullying’

Bullying and sexism in the medical profession will require activism to resolve, the Medical Board has been told.

Professor Ian Kerridge wants a code that “requires that doctors advocate”. Picture: Simon Chillingworth

Bullying and sexism in the medical profession is facilitated by a power imbalance that will require activism to resolve, the Medical Board has been told.

In response to concerns over inappropriate workplace behaviour, the board has proposed an expansion of the doctors’ code of conduct to emphasise “there is no place for discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment in the medical profession or in healthcare”.

However, some lobby groups say the draft does not go far enough. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners says it “fails to acknow­ledge abuse of power differentials as the main cause of harassment and bullying”.

The Rural Doctors Association of Australia agrees.

The government-funded Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has urged the board to instigate a push for cultural change, and include in the code “a statement around individuals actively promoting a workplace free from such behaviours”.

Ian Kerridge, a practising specialist with academic interests in bioethics and medicine at the University of Sydney, wants a code that “requires that doctors advocate”.

Professor Kerridge has suggested another clause: “Advocating for workplace reform to ensure that colleagues, students and patients are not discrimin­ated against, either as a function of the actions of an individual or … of the policies, processes or structures of an organisation, institution, facility or service.”

The board’s draft includes advice on “doing or saying something” about discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment, but stops short of encouraging ­advocacy. Some doctors already campaign on such issues — and even engage in policy debates around immigration and climate change, for example — but that is not written into the code.

To improve relationships in the sector, the draft suggests doctors provide “constructive and respectful feedback to colleagues, trainees, international medical graduates and students”, who in turn should be “open to receiving constructive feedback”.

The Queensland branch of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists, however, has urged the board to get involved only if ­patient safety is at risk. It has used its submission to also call for more protection against vexatious complaints.

The branch said workplace disputes often arose “where students and specialist trainees are awarded poor performance grades”. It said such complaints were best handled by colleges, employers and universities, and not the board. “Often the personality of such complainers is such that they will lodge complaints to multiple regulatory bodies in the hope of gaining traction for the complaint and focusing attention away from their poor performance,” it said in its submission, warning that complaints were “weaponised” when the board had a role.

The main RANZCO submission did not raise those issues, and acknowledged the board had taken additional steps to deal with vexatious complaints.

The board wants to make a ­series of changes to the code, which came into effect in 2014, and has yet to reach a final ­position.

Its proposals were detailed in a consultation paper released six months ago but the 700 submissions in response to the review have only now been released.

One of the most contentious proposals is to require doctors to consider their public comments, “acknowledge the profession’s generally accepted views and ­indicate when your personal opinion differs”.