Register      Login
Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AH > AH23157
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 48(1)

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

Jill Walsh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7915-4835 A B * , Sharon Downie A B , Eric Windholz C , Andrea Kirk-Brown D and Terry P. Haines B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Medical Workforce Unit, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Vic., Australia.

B School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 47–49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia.

C Faculty of Law, Monash University, 15 Ancora Imparo Way, Clayton Campus, Vic. 3800, Australia.

D Monash Business School, Monash University, Level 4, Building D room 22, Peninsula Campus, 47-49 Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia.

* Correspondence to: jill.walsh@monash.edu

Australian Health Review 48(1) 91-94 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23157
Submitted: 19 August 2023  Accepted: 5 December 2023  Published: 22 December 2023

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of AHHA.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: ethics, health law, health policy, practice innovation, quality and safety, scope of practice, workforce.

References

1  New South Wales Medical Professional Standards Committee. Teo, Charles [2023] NSWMPSC 2 (12 July 2023). 2023. Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWMPSC//2023/2.html

2  Australian Government – Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Award extract - Australian honours search facility. Commonwealth Government of Australia; 2023. Available at https://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/awards/1143516 [cited 24 July 2024].

3  National Portrait Gallery. Charles Teo, National Portrait Gallery. National Portrait Gallery; 2023. Available at https://www.portrait.gov.au/portraits/2013.23/charles-teo [cited 24 July 2023].

4  Leslie K, Moore J, Robertson C, et al. Regulating health professional scopes of practice: comparing institutional arrangements and approaches in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. Hum Resour Health 2021; 19(5): 15.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

5  Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra). Workforce - can doctors work in areas outside their usual scope of practice during the COVID-19 pandemic? Ahpra; 2021. Available at https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/COVID-19/COVID-19-queries.aspx [cited 24 July 2023].

6  Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC). Scope of Practice. HCPC; 2021. Available at https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/meeting-our-standards/scope-of-practice/ [cited 24 Jully 2023].

7  Downie S, Walsh J, Kirk-Brown A, Haines TP. How can scope of practice be described and conceptualised in medical and health professions? A systematic review for scoping and content analysis. Int J Health Plann Manage 2023; 38: 1184-1211.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

8  Bourgeault IL, Grignon M. A comparison of the regulation of health professional boundaries across OECD countries. Eur J Comp Econ 2013; 10(2): 199-223.
| Google Scholar |

9  Medical Board of Australia (MBA). Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia. MBA; 2020.

10  Cruess SR, Johnston S, Cruess RL. Profession’: a working definition for medical educators. Teach Learn Med 2004; 16(1): 74-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

11  Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) & National Boards. Code of conduct. Ahpra; 2022. Available at https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/Code-of-conduct/Shared-Code-of-conduct.aspx [cited 24 July 2023].

12  Fox-Young S, Ashley C. Developing an Australian framework for scope of practice decisions by nurses and midwives: lessons for cross-border standards development. J Clin Nurs 2010; 19: 2235-2241.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

13  Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW). Available at https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2009-86a

14  Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009. Available at https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2009-045

15  Richards B. Medical innovation laws: an unnecessary innovation. Aust Health Rev 2016; 40(3): 282-285.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

16  Qidwai v Brown [1984] 1 NSWLR 100.

17  Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 F.C. 92/045. Available at https://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/court/12_Rogers_v_Whitaker.pdf

18  Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS). Code of conduct. RACS; 2016. Available at https://www.surgeons.org/-/media/Project/RACS/surgeons-org/files/policies/3000-3999/REG-3040_Code_of_Conduct.pdf? [cited 25 July 2025].

19  deHaan M, van Eijk-Hustings Y, Bessems-Beks M, Dirksen C, Vrijhoef HJM. Facilitators and barriers to implementisng task shifting: Expanding the scope of practice of clinical technologists in the Netherlands. Health Policy 2019; 123(11): 1076-1082.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |