Doctors disciplined for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand, 2000-2009

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 194, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 452-456

  Elkin, Katie J ^a   Spittal, Matthew J ^a   Elkin, David J ^a   Studdert, David M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE; ANESTHESIOLOGY; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND; BREACH OF REGISTRATION CONDITION; CRIME; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; GENDER; GENERAL PRACTICE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; INAPPROPRIATE ISSUING OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE; INAPPROPRIATE PRESCRIBING; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; OBSTETRICS; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PSYCHIATRY; PUNISHMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEXUAL MISCONDUCT; SURGERY;

EID: 79955769011     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: 13265377     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03058.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Dehlendorf CE, Wolfe SM. Physicians disciplined for sex-related offenses. JAMA 1998; 279: 1883-1888.
2. Morrison J, Wickersham P. Physicians disciplined by a state medical board. JAMA 1998; 279: 1889-1893.
3. Morrison J, Morrison T. Psychiatrists disciplined by a state medical board. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 474-478.
4. Clay SW, Conatser R. Characteristics of physicians disciplined by the State Medical Board of Ohio. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2003; 103: 81-88.
5. Kohatsu ND, Gould D, Ross LK, Fox PJ. Characteristics associated with physician discipline: a case-control study. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 653-658.
6. Khaliq AA, Dimassi H, Huang CY, et al. Disciplinary action against physicians: who is likely to get disciplined? Am J Med 2005; 118: 773-777.
7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Medical labour force 2006. Canberra: AIHW, 2008. (AIHW Cat. No. HWL 42; National Health Labour Force Series No. 41.) http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442468174 (accessed Mar 2011).
8. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1967.
9. Constas MA. Qualitative analysis as a public event: the documentation of category development procedures. Am Educ Res J 1992; 29: 253-266.
10. Hall MA, Wright RF. Systematic content analysis of judicial opinions. Calif L Rev 2008; 96: 63-122.
11. Medical Board of Queensland. Annual report 2008-2009. Brisbane: Office of Health Practitioner Registration Boards, Queensland Government, 2009.
12. Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. Annual report 2008. Melbourne: MPBV, 2008.
13. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Medical labour force 2003. Canberra: AIHW, 2005. (AIHW Cat. No. HWL 32; National Health Labour Force Series No. 32.) http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467747 (accessed Mar 2011).
14. Medical Council of New Zealand. The New Zealand medical workforce in 2003. Wellington: MCNZ, 2005. http://www.mcnz.org.nz/portals/0/publications/workforce_2003%20.pdf (accessed Mar 2011).
15. Medical Council of New Zealand. The New Zealand medical workforce in 2006. Wellington: MCNZ. http://www.mcnz.org.nz/portals/0/publications/workforce_2006.pdf (accessed Mar 2011).
16. Firth-Cozens J. Doctors with difficulties: why so few women? Postgrad Med J 2008; 84: 318-320.
17. Foreman SM, Stahl MJ. Chiropractors disciplined by a state chiropractic board and a comparison with disciplined medical physicians. J Manipulative Physiolog Ther 2004; 27: 472-477.
18. Post J. Medical discipline and licensing in the state of New York: a critical review. Bull N Y Acad Med 1991; 67: 66-98.