Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Correction to: Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study

  • Matthew J. Spittal1Email author,
  • David M. Studdert2,
  • Ron Paterson3, 4 and
  • Marie M. Bismark1
BMC Medicine201816:38

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1030-x

Received: 5 February 2018

Accepted: 21 February 2018

Published: 7 March 2018

The original article was published in BMC Medicine 2016 14:198

Erratum

The original article [1] contains a major error whereby all rates in Table 2 are mistakenly presented as 50% of their true values; this error was caused by a miscalculation in annualising the original values that represented the rates.

The correct version of Table 2 can be seen below whereby each rate is presented without having been divided by two, and each rate’s units are expressed as being ‘per 1000 practitioner years’ rather than ‘per 1000 practitioners per year’. This Table should be taken into account over the version of Table 2 seen in the original article [1].
Table 2

Number of notifications and adjusted notification rate per 1,000 practitioner years

Characteristic

Number of notifications

n = 8,307

(a)

Adjusted notification rate per 1,000 practitioner years

(b)

95% confidence interval

p-value (c)

Profession

   

< 0.0001

 Doctor

4,504

29.0

27.8 to 3.2

 

 Nurse and/or midwife

1,537

4.1

3.8 to 4.3

 

 Psychologist

473

14.1

12.7 to 15.5

 

 Pharmacist

409

13.6

12.1 to 15.0

 

 Dentist

910

41.4

37.9 to 45.0

 

 Other health practitioner

474

9.1

8.2 to 9.9

 

Age in 2010

   

< 0.0001

 ≤25

255

5.2

4.6 to 5.9

 

 26-35

1,334

8.0

7.5 to 8.5

 

 36-45

2,104

12.9

12.2 to 13.5

 

 46-55

2,594

16.4

15.7 to 17.2

 

 56-65

1,582

17.0

16.0 to 18.1

 

 ≥66

438

16.4

14.4 to 18.3

 

Sex

   

< 0.0001

 Female

2,938

7.9

7.6 to 8.2

 

 Male

5,367

17.9

17.2 to 18.5

 

Practice location

   

0.48

 Major cities

6,343

12.5

12.1 to 12.9

 

 Inner/outer regional

1,840

12.0

11.3 to 12.7

 

 Remote/very remote

117

11.8

9.3 to 14.4

 

(a) Some cells do not sum to 8,307 notifications because of missing data

(b) Adjusted for all other variables in the table and state/territory

(c) p-value refers to evidence that the adjusted notification rates differs between categories. This test is based on the coefficients (and their standard errors) from the negative binomial model

The error had no effect on the statistical significance of any values presented, nor did it affect other results reported in the paper.

Further to the above, a list of corrections to the main body relating to the errors in the original Figure 2 is located below:
  • Abstract

    Results: There were 8307 notifications. The notification rate was highest among doctors (IR = 29.0 per 1000 practitioner years) and dentists (IR = 41.4) and lowest among nurses and midwives (IR = 4.1).

  • Results

    Notification rates

    In 2011–2012, 8307 notifications pertaining to 6920 practitioners were lodged with AHPRA. The overall rate was 12.7 notifications per 1000 practitioner years (95% CI, 12.4 to 12.9).

    Notification rates differed by profession, age, sex, and jurisdiction (Table 2). After adjusting for all of the variables shown in Table 2 plus jurisdiction, dentists had the highest rate of notifications (41.4 per 1000 practitioner years), followed by doctors (29.0 per 1000 practitioner years). Nurses and midwives had the lowest rate of notifications (4.1 per 1000 practitioner years). Risk of notification generally increased with age – practitioners aged ≤ 25 years were at lowest risk (5.2 per 1000 practitioner years) and practitioners aged 56–65 years were at highest risk (16.4 per 1000 practitioner years). Men were at much higher risk of notification than women (17.9 vs. 7.9 per 1000 practitioner years). Notification rates did not differ by remoteness of practice location (P = 0.48), but did by jurisdiction (P < 0.0001).

  • Discussion

    Main findings

    This study of notifications lodged over a 2-year period against practitioners from 10 health professions found an overall rate of 13 notifications per 1000 practitioner years.

Finally, the authors would like to note that in Reference 31 (see reference [2] here), the author ‘Patterson’ should instead be displayed as ‘Paterson’.

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
(2)
Stanford University School of Medicine and Stanford Law School, Stanford, USA
(3)
Auckland Law School, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
(4)
Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Reference

  1. Spittal MJ, et al. Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2016;14:198.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Paterson R. The good doctor: what patients want. Auckland: Auckland University Press; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement