Publicatiepraktijk en -beleid van de tuchtrechtspraak voor de gezondheidszorg

To provide insight into practice and policy regarding the publication of disciplinary verdicts in Dutch health care.

Design

Descriptive.

Method

The study covered all of the verdicts issued by disciplinary boards and courts of justice that were published in the Dutch the Staatscourant (Government Gazette) during the period 1995-2002. The following attributes were recorded for each verdict: year of publication and verdict, the disciplinary board concerned, the accused professional, the type of complainant, the nature of the complaint and verdict, and the journals that were offered the decision. The published verdicts were related to the total number of verdicts and cases during the study period. Questionnaires were used to investigate the publication policy of the disciplinary boards.

Results

A total of 4 of all verdicts were published in the Dutch Government Gazette (323/8902). The central disciplinary board decided to publish more often than the regional disciplinary boards (8 and 2, respectively). There were considerable differences between the various regional disciplinary boards (range: 1-5). Per professional group the percentage of verdicts in cases that were published ranged from 2 to 23. The decisions were offered to over 20 journals, but mainly to the Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht Dutch Journal of Health Law (TvGR; 92) and Medisch Contact Medical Contact (MC; 88). The TvGR published almost two-thirds of the verdicts offered (63), and the MC published almost three-quarters (74). In the decision to publish, the disciplinary boards differed in their interpretation of the concept of ‘general importance’.

Conclusion

If disciplinary proceedings are to achieve the desired quality-promoting effect on professional practice, then more attention will need to be paid to the publication policy, and the disciplinary boards will have to develop a joint code of practice. More verdicts could be published, also in professional journals.

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005;149:425-9