Publication of disciplinary proceedings in the Netherlands: Practice and policy

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Hout, F.A.G.^; | Cuperus-Bosma, J.M. | Agema, G.J. | Hubben, J.H.^; | van der Wal, G.

Affiliations: Department of Public and Occupational Health, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU Univeristy Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Section of Health Law, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands | Attorney at Law, Nysingh Advocaten-Notarissen N.V., Arnhem, The Netherlands

Note: [] Address for correspondence: F.A.G. Hout, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 20 4449682; Fax: +31 20 4448387; E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract: Objective. To provide insight into practice and policy regarding the publication of disciplinary verdicts in Dutch health care. Design. Descriptive. Methods. All verdicts of the disciplinary boards and courts of justice, published in the Netherlands Government Gazette during the period 1995–2002, were studied with regard to the 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 verdict. 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 and the three journals which were offered the majority of verdicts for publication. Results. A total of 4% of all verdicts were published in the Netherlands Government Gazette (323/8902). The central disciplinary board decided to publish more often than the regional disciplinary boards (8% and 2%, resp.). There were considerable differences between the various regional disciplinary boards (min–max 0.9–5%). Per professional group the percentage of verdicts in cases that were published varied from 2% to 23%. The decisions were offered to over 20 journals, but mainly to the TvGR (92%) and the MC (88%). The TvGR published almost two thirds of the verdicts that were offered (63%), and the MC published almost three quarters (74%). With regard to decisions concerning publication, 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 collective code of conduct. More verdicts could be published, also in discipline-specific journals.

Journal: International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 27-37, 2006