Alex's story

Alex complained to our office about RACS’s process for assessing SIMGs for specialist registration in Australia. 

Alex was concerned that RACS was assessing SIMGs against comparability definitions that differed from those set by the Medical Board of Australia. While the Medical Board requires SIMGs to be assessed against the standard of a newly qualified Fellow, Alex believed RACS was instead comparing SIMGs to surgeons with 5 or more years of independent practice. 

We decided to investigate Alex’s complaint. Our investigation found that the comparability definitions applied by RACS between January 2021 and July 2024 did not align with the Medical Board’s requirements. This may have resulted in some SIMGs being incorrectly assessed. 

Complaint outcome

In response to our investigation, RACS acknowledged the inconsistency with the Medical Board’s requirements. RACS changed its assessment process to align with the Medical Board’s requirements. These changes included publishing a revised policy with updated comparability definitions and training relevant staff and assessors.

RACS paused all active SIMG assessments until the revised policy was finalised. It contacted SIMGs who had recently been assessed as partially comparable and offered a new assessment under the updated policy at no cost. This offer was also extended to SIMGs who had been found not comparable since January 2021.

RACS confirmed that SIMGs could lodge a formal complaint if they had concerns about their assessment or comparability outcome under the previous regulation. It also provided our office with documentation on the revised policy, the consultation process and correspondence sent to affected SIMGs.

We were satisfied that RACS took appropriate steps to address the issues identified during our investigation. This included acknowledging the inconsistency, pausing assessments, updating its policies and offering new assessments to affected SIMGs.

We were also satisfied that RACS’s revised policy and updated comparability definitions now align with the Medical Board’s requirements. Based on these actions, we did not consider further investigation was warranted.

Our office continues to monitor issues associated with the Medical Board’s requirements for assessing SIMGs.