Rose's story

Rose complained to our office about a National Board’s decision to caution her after receiving notifications about her. In particular, she felt the Board had not considered a key definitional issue she had raised in the submissions she made before the Board decided to caution her. 

Rose complained directly to Ahpra about her concerns and gave us a copy of Ahpra’s response. She felt Ahpra’s response did not adequately address her concerns. 

Our office decided to investigate Rose’s complaint after making preliminary inquiries. Following our review of the information the Board considered when deciding to caution Rose, and Ahpra’s responses to specific questions we asked, we identified administrative deficiencies in Ahpra and in the Board’s handling of the notification. 

We confirmed Rose’s concerns that the Board had not adequately considered a key definitional issue when deciding to caution her. The Board’s decision was phrased around its assessment of a particular issue that had been raised about Rose’s conduct. However, the issue had not been clearly defined, leaving room for uncertainty as to the grounds for the Board’s decision. We considered that the Board had not provided clear enough reasons for its decision. 

To address the administrative issues we identified, we suggested that the Board reconsider its decision to caution Rose and provide clearer reasons for its decision. The Board reconsidered Rose’s matter and decided to affirm its earlier decision. However, the Board provided updated reasons for its decision and Rose was given an opportunity to make a submission before the Board finalised its decision.