The 2012 draft social media policy by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) caused a lot of upheaval. Health professionals expressed concerns it was too prescriptive. Now there’s a new version and the organisation is requesting feedback.
A 76-page consultation paper has been posted on the AHPRA website and it includes drafts of the social media policy, revised Code of conduct, revised Guidelines for advertising and revised Guidelines for mandatory notifications.
It looks like AHPRA has taken the feedback on the earlier version on board. The new draft Social media policy is less prescriptive. Health professionals have to follow strict professional values, no matter if they’re in the elevator at work, the pub, or on Twitter or Facebook.
What does it say?
Most of it is common sense, but I thought these two changes were worth mentioning:
- Health practitioners are expected to behave professionally and courteously to colleagues and other practitioners, including when using social media (Code of conduct 4.2c).
- Testimonials on Facebook and other social media networks have to be removed by health practitioners (Guidelines for advertising 7.2.3).
I’ve read all 76 pages but it’s not entirely clear to me what exactly a testimonial is and whether I’m now required to remove my LinkedIn testimonials and endorsements by colleagues from around the world.
Also, it will require some explaining when removing or refusing friendly, unintended testimonials from our patients on e.g. Facebook, and worse, it may even put health practitioners off social media. I won’t mention Google testimonials – they are impossible to remove. It would be great if AHPRA can provide some clarification and reassurance here.
Interestingly, an issue that causes heated debates has not been mentioned, namely anonymous posting on social media networks by health practitioners who are identifying themselves as such, but are using a pseudonym instead of their real name. Some say it’s important for e.g. whistleblowers to be anonymous, others say health professionals always have to be identifiable. But perhaps it’s a wise decision by AHPRA not to open this can of worms.
Good or bad?
The problem with regulations like this is that it increases liability for health professionals and practices already operating in a highly regulated industry – especially against a backdrop of the recent national eHealth developments and the legal issues that health providers are facing when signing up for the PCEHR. Some of the risks are: less innovation and progress, a defensive attitude by practitioners, higher legal and insurance costs, increased AHPRA fees and eventually more costs for patients.
That brings me to the risk management paragraph in AHPRA’s draft Code of conduct, which states that it’s good practice “to be aware of the principles of open disclosure and a non-punitive approach to incident management”. I wonder if AHPRA is going to follow this advice when a practitioner breaches a social media clause. Something tells me that the regulator will follow a punitive approach if we forget to delete Mrs Jones’ friendly Facebook recommendation.
AHPRA is requesting feedback via email@example.com by close of business on 30 May 2013.