OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of and outcome for impaired medical practitioners notified to the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. DESIGN: Retrospective review of records for all impaired practitioners notified to the Board for the first time from January 1983 to December 1997. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of notifications per year; characteristics of impaired practitioners; source of notification; diagnosis and diagnostic categories; actions by the Board; and outcomes for impaired practitioners. RESULTS: In 15 years, 170 impaired practitioners were notified to the Board for the first time, 86 in the last four years. Significantly more men than women were notified to the Board (ratio, 4.2:1; P < 0.001). Reporting by patients was uncommon, but 46 impaired practitioners reported themselves. One hundred and five impaired practitioners had a psychiatric disorder, 73 had a drug use disorder, 35 had an alcohol use disorder, and 13 had a physical disorder (not exclusive categories). The Board suspended 73 practitioners and imposed conditional registration on 76. Subsequently, 88 practitioners were able to improve their registration status. Fifty-nine practitioners were renotified to the Board or tested positive to a urinary drug screen. Eleven practitioners died, four before the age of 55 years. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing numbers of notifications in recent years coincided with changes in the legislative framework, making notification compulsory but also giving the Board more flexibility in dealing with impaired practitioners. Nonetheless, comparison with population data suggests that impaired practitioners (particularly those with substance use disorders) may be under-reported.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of and outcome for impaired medical practitioners notified to the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. DESIGN: Retrospective review of records for all impaired practitioners notified to the Board for the first time from January 1983 to December 1997. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of notifications per year; characteristics of impaired practitioners; source of notification; diagnosis and diagnostic categories; actions by the Board; and outcomes for impaired practitioners. RESULTS: In 15 years, 170 impaired practitioners were notified to the Board for the first time, 86 in the last four years. Significantly more men than women were notified to the Board (ratio, 4.2:1; P < 0.001). Reporting by patients was uncommon, but 46 impaired practitioners reported themselves. One hundred and five impaired practitioners had a psychiatric disorder, 73 had a drug use disorder, 35 had an alcohol use disorder, and 13 had a physical disorder (not exclusive categories). The Board suspended 73 practitioners and imposed conditional registration on 76. Subsequently, 88 practitioners were able to improve their registration status. Fifty-nine practitioners were renotified to the Board or tested positive to a urinary drug screen. Eleven practitioners died, four before the age of 55 years. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing numbers of notifications in recent years coincided with changes in the legislative framework, making notification compulsory but also giving the Board more flexibility in dealing with impaired practitioners. Nonetheless, comparison with population data suggests that impaired practitioners (particularly those with substance use disorders) may be under-reported.