Log in with your email address username.


Important notice

doctorportal Learning is on the move as we will be launching a new website very shortly. If you would like to sign up to dp Learning now to register for CPD learning or to use our CPD tracker, please email support@doctorportal.com.au so we can assist you. If you are already signed up to doctorportal Learning, your login will work in the new site so you can continue to enrol for learning, complete an online module, or access your CPD tracker report.

To access and/or sign up for other resources such as Jobs Board, Bookshop or InSight+, please go to www.mja.com.au, or click the relevant menu item and you will be redirected.

All other doctorportal services, such as Find A Doctor, are no longer available.

Risks of complaints and adverse disciplinary findings against international medical graduates in Victoria and Western Australia

To the Editor: In the article by Elkin and colleagues,1 the conclusions drawn from the data analysed do not appear to be adequately supported. It should be noted that only 30% of complaints against doctors had a final hearing, and the risk of adverse findings (ie, where the doctor was found to be guilty) was not analysed by country of origin. Although doctors from certain countries attracted higher rates of complaints, it is inappropriate to label them as “high risk” in the absence of data on adverse findings. It is conceivable that the complaints against the so-called low-risk groups (typically, from English-speaking countries other than Australia, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and similar countries) were less likely to be simply driven by cultural misunderstanding or racism and might therefore have been based on actual deficiencies in practice. This, in reality, could possibly be driving the significantly higher risk associated with international medical graduates (IMGs) as a whole in terms of the rate of adverse findings. In addition, a larger proportion of complaints attracted by the so-called high-risk groups may eventually be proven to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, this study is unable to prove whether the professional practice of the group labelled as high-risk was concerning at all.