Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Securing a healthy system

By Stephen Leeder - posted Monday, 30 January 2006


The commission's approach would mean that the Federal Government would negotiate an agreed number of university positions, state by state, for all health professional training. The distribution of these places, university by university within each state or territory, would remain a responsibility of DEST. Each agreement would be for three years (which seems bizarrely short, in the circumstances).

This would not preclude closer relations between DEST and the Department of Health and Ageing (although the commission is pessimistic about this happening).

The other, lesser, impediment is the resistance of professions to change. This gums up debate about the relation of specialist to generalist education, the mix of roles and tasks among healthcare professionals and the duration of courses.

Advertisement

To address this, the commission proposes the formation, by the Australian Health Ministers' Conference, of an Advisory Health Workforce Education and Training Council. This would advise on opportunities to improve workforce education and training opportunities, including changes to curriculum and accreditation requirements.

AHWETC would represent a significant shift in the control of university health sciences courses in two respects. First, it would offer a more negotiated, responsive solution to the numbers problem (a plus for health service providers, such as the states). Second, it implies greater control over course content and outcomes (for some universities this would not be a plus, but it could open up a new dialogue between educators and service providers and funders).

Both the proposed federal-state/territory university place negotiations and the AHWETC engage the many interests vested in the education and training of our health workforce. They each seek a more discursive and inclusive approach to health service workforce development. This is urgently needed.

If we accept these two proposals, do we see an agenda for action? Yes and no.

We are left with an urgent need for more doctors, nurses and several other categories of health professionals. This should be the first topic for debate at the AHWETC. Strategies are needed so that services can be delivered in unconventional ways, for example by working across the divisions of the health service professions.

AHWTEC should consider the responses of the British Government to the recommendations of the Wanless Report (2002). That report called for radical change in the health workforce, including a rethinking of the roles and responsibilities of different health professionals. This notion that the patient and their needs should be at the centre of workforce discussion contrasts sharply with recent responses to the Productivity Commission Report. Professional bodies such as the Australian Medical Association show no acceptance of expanded healthcare roles for other professions, such as pharmacists, nurses and physiotherapists.

Advertisement

Australia should embark on an examination of what the future healthcare needs of the nation will be and what skills, structural arrangements and health service financing would best serve our needs. The health workforce and their educators cannot be expected to solve all these challenges. Health and health care are everyone's concern and health is an intensely political matter. Sudden decision-making is usually inappropriate. Wide discussion, frustrating to those obsessed with efficiency, is essential. Real political leadership would be timely and welcome.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian on January 25, 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Leeder is professor of public health and community medicine at the University of Sydney, and co-director of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Leeder

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Stephen Leeder
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy