Thursday, 10 February 2022
Bills
Health Legislation Amendment (Quality and Safety) Bill 2021
Health Legislation Amendment (Quality and Safety) Bill 2021
Introduction and first reading
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (21:59): I have a message from the Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Health Services Act 1988 to provide for the appointment of a Chief Quality and Safety Officer, to provide for quality and safety reviews of health service entities, to create a new statutory duty of candour for health service entities, to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to confer additional functions on the Victorian Perioperative Consultative Council, to make consequential and miscellaneous amendments to the Ambulance Services Act 1986, the Mental Health Act 2014 and the Health Complaints Act 2016 and for other purposes’.
Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Deputy President, I bring to your attention that the 10 o’clock mark has passed in this house, and there has been an absence of an extension by the minister, so I will leave it with you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is just right on 10 o’clock, Mr Ondarchie.
Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.
Ms PULFORD: I did not want to interrupt the Deputy President while she was reading the title of the bill. So, without assistance, pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.
That the bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
Ms SYMES: I move, by leave:
That the second reading be taken forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Statement of compatibility
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (22:01): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Health Legislation Amendment (Quality and Safety) Bill 2021 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview
The Bill:
• amends the Health Services Act 1998 (the Act) to:
• provide for the appointment of a Chief Quality and Safety Officer (CQS Officer);
• provide for quality and safety reviews of health services entities and to introduce protections for serious adverse patient safety event reviews (SAPSE Review) conducted by health services entities;
• create a new statutory duty of candour for health service entities;
• extend protections for apologies offered by health service entities for harm suffered by patients; and
• make other amendments to the Act;
• amends the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to confer additional powers on the Victorian Perioperative Consultative Council (Council); and
• makes consequential amendments to the Ambulance Services Act 1986, the Mental Health Act 2014 and the Health Complaints Act 2016.
Human rights implications
The Bill engages the rights to privacy (s 13(a)), freedom of expression (s 15) and fair hearing (s 24) under the Charter, discussed below. Relevantly, all measures in the Bill are directed at improving the quality and safety of health services. To the extent, if any, that the clauses limit a Charter right, those limits are justified measures to achieve the overarching purpose, being to improve the quality and safety of health services.
Right to privacy (s 13)
Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.
A number of clauses in the Bill engage the right to privacy, as set out below.
Identity cards
The Bill provides for the appointment of authorised quality and safety officers (clause 5, s 121). Authorised quality and safety officers are required to be issued with an identity card containing their photograph and the signature (clause 5, s 122). The authorised quality and safety officer must, unless it is impracticable, produce the identity card before exercising a power under the Act or regulations or when asked to do so by the occupier of any premises during the exercise of a power under the Act or regulations (clause 5, s 123).
These clauses may interfere with the authorised quality and safety officers’ right to privacy, to the extent they are required to disclose their name, photograph and role in specified circumstances. However, the interference with privacy is neither unlawful nor arbitrary, as it is a proportionate and necessary measure to ensure that persons dealing with authorised quality and safety officers are able to identify them, as well as providing some protection against people fraudulently claiming to be authorised quality and safety officers and seeking to exercise their powers. I therefore consider that these clauses are compatible with the right to privacy.
Quality and Safety Reviews—investigations
The Bill enables the appointment of a CQS Officer, who may conduct a standard or a protected review of the quality and safety of service provided in or by one or more health service entities. Reviews may be conducted if the CQS Officer is of the opinion that certain grounds apply, including that the health, safety or wellbeing of a person is or was endangered as a result of the provision of the services (clause 5, s 124(1)(a)).
The primary distinctions between a protected and standard quality and safety review are the confidentiality and disclosure provisions that apply with respect to information relating to a protected review (clause 5, ss 128I, 128J) that do not apply to a standard review, discussed further below. Further, when determining whether the circumstances warrant the conducting of a protected quality and safety review, the CQS Officer must consider the reasonableness and necessity of providing additional protections to ensure honest and open engagement with the review whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of the confidentiality and disclosure provisions, having regard to the reputation, privacy, safety and wellbeing of the persons involved in the services the subject of the review (clause 5, s 124(4)).
When conducting a quality and safety review, the CQS Officer, or an authorised quality and safety officer at the direction of the CQS Officer, may:
• enter the health service entity and, among other things, may inspect, examine or make enquiries (clause 5, s 128(2)(a)); and/or
• direct a member of staff of a health service entity to produce documents or answer questions (clause 5, s 128A).
A person the subject of such a direction must provide reasonable assistance to the CQS Officer or authorised quality and safety officer (clause 5, s 128B).
These clauses may interfere with the right to privacy to the extent that they allow investigative powers to be exercised. Although the powers of entry are limited to workplaces, investigations may require disclosure of sensitive information, including health records. However, the interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The provisions will be authorised under legislation and a review may only occur if the CQS Officer or the Secretary is of the opinion that one or more of the relevant grounds apply (clause 5, s 124).
Various safeguards are available to ensure that information obtained through the use of the investigative powers is not inappropriately disclosed. In particular, where a person is conducting a protected quality and safety review, strict confidentiality obligations apply to the CQS Officer or an authorised quality and safety officer (clause 5, s 128I). Penalties are imposed for making records of, divulging, or communicating information obtained while conducting a protected quality and safety review, other than in the performance of relevant functions under the Act (clause 5, ss 128I(2) and (3)).
While the Bill does not provide specific confidentiality obligations with regard to information obtained during a standard quality and safety review, such information is subject to the protections arising under the Health Records Act 2001 (HR Act), the Privacy Data and Protection Act 2014 (PDP Act) and the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) relating to the unreasonable disclosure of personal information.
Given the existence of these safeguards, and the restrictions on when investigative powers may be exercised, I therefore consider that these clauses are compatible with the right to privacy.
Quality and Safety reviews—reports
The CQS Officer must prepare a written report of the findings of the review (clause 5, s 128D), and provide a copy to any health service entity to which the report relates. The health service entity has an opportunity to respond (clause 5, s 128D(4)) and both the report and any response are to be given to the Secretary (clause 5, s 128E). The Secretary may, if of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, publish a copy of the report and any health service entity’s response to the same. However, information other than role titles or specialist areas of practice must not be published without a person’s consent if it identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of that person (clause 5, s 128F).
A report of a protected quality and safety review is subject to particular confidentiality provisions (discussed further below). However, a summary of the report of a protected review, or the report itself, may be provided to prescribed persons or persons with sufficient personal or professional interest in the subject matter of the report (including the patient, their nominee, or the patient’s family carer or next of kin where the patient is deceased or lacks capacity) (clause 5, s 128G(2).
The CQS Officer may make a referral to the chief psychiatrist or the Chief Health Officer if the CQS Officer reasonably believes that a matter is relevant to the statutory responsibilities of the chief psychiatrist or Chief Health Officer (clause 5, s128L).
These clauses interfere with the right to privacy to the extent that they allow information to be shared, and may, by the inclusion of role titles or specialist areas of practice within the report, allow for persons to be identified in published material. However, any interference will be authorised under legislation, and not arbitrary as:
• the sharing of information in those circumstances is reasonable and necessary to achieve the overarching purpose of the review, being to improve the quality and safety of the provision of health services; and
• the inclusion of role titles or specialist areas of practice may be necessary to ensure that the report can meaningfully explain the relevant issues. Notably, publication can only occur in circumstances where the Secretary is of the opinion that publication of a report containing such details is in the public interest (clause 5, s 128F(1)).
I therefore consider that these clauses are compatible with the right to privacy.
SAPSE Reviews
A serious adverse patient safety event (SAPSE) means an event of a prescribed class or category that results in harm to a person or persons (clause 4). If a SAPSE occurs, a SAPSE review may be conducted by a SAPSE review panel (clause 5, s 128N). Reviews must establish the relevant facts, identify factors that may have contributed to the SAPSE, and identify appropriate remedial measures to prevent similar events occurring in future and improve the quality and safety of the services (clause 5, s 128O).
Members of the SAPSE review panel are appointed by the chief executive officer of the health service entity. Panels must include a person who is not employed or engaged by the health service entity, and may include independent experts and consumer representatives (clause 5, s 128Q).
A SAPSE review panel is required to prepare and produce a report for the health service entities which appointed it (clause 5, s 128T). The report must not contain the name or address of a person involved in providing the relevant health service, a person who received the relevant health service or a member of the SAPSE review panel (clause 5, s 128T(3)).
Members of a SAPSE review panel are subject to confidentiality obligations and may only disclose information obtained in the course of their SAPSE review functions for limited purposes related to the SAPSE review (clause 5, s 128X). Confidentiality obligations also apply to documents created for the sole purpose of providing information in the course of a SAPSE review or provided in the course of a SAPSE review (clause 5, s 128U(1)). Such documents must not be required to be produced before any court, tribunal, board, agency or other person, although a SAPSE review report may be produced to a coroner in certain circumstances (clause 5, s 128U).
Reports can be shared with the Secretary or the Secretary’s nominee, prescribed persons, and persons with personal or professional interest in the subject of the report (such as the patient, a person nominated by the patient, or the immediate family, carer or next of kin of the patient, if the patient is deceased or lacks capacity) (clause 5, s 128V).
These provisions may interfere with the right to privacy to the extent that SAPSE review panel members will have access to information likely to include information of a private nature. Further, the provisions allow reports to be shared in the limited circumstances set out above—although we note the prohibition on including names and addresses of certain persons in a report will reduce the privacy impacts of sharing a report.
However, any interference will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The provisions will be authorised under legislation and a SAPSE review may only occur if a SAPSE event occurs (clause 5, s 128N) and for limited purposes associated with reducing future risks (clause 5, s 128O). The measures are reasonable, proportionate and necessary to improve the quality and safety of health services, and appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure information is not inappropriately disclosed. I therefore consider that these clauses are compatible with the right to privacy.
Victorian Perioperative Consultative Council
The Bill amends the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to provide for the Council, whose functions include various matters concerned with reducing the risk of perioperative mortality or morbidity (clause 13, s 48D(1)). The Council may, among other things, collect information from health services in relation to the preparation of its guidelines and the monitoring of compliance with those guidelines (clause 13, s 48E(4)(c)) and request a person who provided care or services to a person before the person’s death to provide information relating to studying, researching and analysing the incidence and causes of perioperative mortality or morbidity (clause 13, s 48F(1)).
In limited circumstances, where the Council considers there is a continuing risk to health, safety or wellbeing, the Council must provide a report to the Secretary with specific details (clause 13, s 48G). The FOI Act does not apply to the report, nor is it required to be produced before a court, tribunal, board, agency or other person (unless the Secretary considers it in the public interest) (clause 13, s 48H).
These provisions interfere with the right to privacy by enabling collection of certain information and sharing of information in limited circumstances. However, the circumstances in which private information may be collected or shared under these provisions are very limited and for important purposes concerning promoting health, safety and welfare and reducing the risk of perioperative mortality or morbidity. I therefore consider that the provisions are compatible with the right to privacy.
Duty of Candour
If a patient suffers a SAPSE in the course of receiving health services, the relevant health service owes a duty of candour to the patient. This means that it must, unless the patient has opted out, provide the patient with certain things, including information about the SAPSE, an apology for harm suffered, a description of the health service entity’s response, and the steps it has taken to prevent a re-occurrence.
The Health Complaints Act 2016 is also amended to permit the Health Complaints Commissioner to disclose to the Secretary information relating to a health service provider’s non-compliance with the duty of candour (clause 29). Similarly, the Mental Health Act 2014 is amended to permit the Mental Health Complaints Commissioner to disclose to the Secretary information relating to any non-compliance with the duty of candour by a mental health service provider or the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (clause 21).
There is a low risk that these provisions will interfere with privacy, as to the extent that the duty of candour requires disclosure of private information, that information is likely to relate to the patient, who will also be the recipient of the information. To the extent that private information disclosed under the provision may relate to other persons (such as employees of the health services provider), the disclosure will relate to such persons in their professional capacity, rather than in their private capacity, and as such their privacy interests will be lower. Further, the disclosure will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary because there are clear parameters identifying the information that must be disclosed, and the disclosure will be justified in the interests of the welfare of the patient and for the important purpose of ensuring a compassionate and transparent response where a SAPSE has occurred.
Confidentiality provisions
As set out above, various clauses in the Bill insert confidentiality provisions which limit the disclosure of certain information other than as provided for by those sections. These provisions relate to protected safety and quality reviews, SAPSE reviews and reports prepared by the Council. The provisions engage the right to privacy to the extent that:
• They protect the right to privacy by limiting the circumstances in which information may otherwise have been disclosed (clause 5, ss 128I(2), 128J(1), 128X(2) and cl 13, s 48H(2)).
• They allow information to be shared in circumstances where the information may not otherwise have been able to be disclosed under the HR Act or the PDP Act (for example, clause 5, ss 128I(3), 128X(3), cl 13, s 48H(2)), thereby interfering with the right to privacy.
• They interfere with the right to privacy by excluding the application of Part 5 and HPP 6 of the HR Act in relation to documents created in investigations or reviews under the Bill (clause 5, ss 128I(6) & (7), 128J(3) and (4), 128U(4) and (5), cl 13, 48H(4) and (5)). Those provisions of the HR Act concern individual rights to access their own health information. However, the provisions that apply to protected quality and safety reviews and SAPSE reviews preserve an individual’s right to access their own medical file (clause 5, ss 128K, 128I(6) and (7), 128J(3) and (4), 128U(4) and (5)). With respect to reports prepared by the Council, while a patient’s right to access their own medical file is not retained by the confidentiality requirements under clause 5, s 48G, those confidentiality requirements apply specifically to a report prepared by the Council. As a result, an individual will continue to be able to access their own medical file directly from a health service.
To the extent that the provisions interfere with privacy, the interferences will be neither unlawful nor arbitrary, noting that:
• Where the provisions enable disclosure of information in circumstances where it would otherwise not be permissible, those circumstances are tightly constrained, clearly prescribed in the legislation, and relate to important purposes concerning the promotion of quality and safety in health care, including through SAPSE reviews and Council reports.
• Where the provisions preclude the operation of aspects of the HR Act, the interference is necessary to encourage full and frank participation to ensure comprehensive consideration of risks and recommendations, without fear of repercussions in the event that individuals will then access information provided under those provisions. As individuals retain the right to access their own medical files, the provisions go no further than is reasonably necessary.
The measures are reasonable, proportionate and necessary to improve the quality and safety of health services. I therefore consider that these clauses are compatible with the right to privacy.
Freedom of expression (s 15)
Section 15 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference and has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Section 15 also provides that lawful restrictions may be reasonably necessary to respect personal rights and reputations, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.
The confidentiality provisions described above (clause 5, ss 128I, 128J, 128U, clause 13, s 48H), which, in essence, prevent disclosure in relation to quality and safety reviews, SAPSE reviews and reports to the Secretary by the Council, may interfere with the right to freedom of expression to the extent that the right extends to the freedom to impart information.
However, to the extent that the right is engaged, any limitation imposed would fall within the internal limitations of the right in section 15(3), as reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of other persons (in essence, those of the individuals the subject of the quality and safety review) and also for the protection of public health, insofar as the quality and safety reviews work to achieve the overarching purpose of the Bill, being to improve the quality and safety of health services. By limiting the circumstances in which documents may be produced, including to a court or a tribunal, under the FOI Act or HR Act, the Bill intends to encourage candour and engagement to improve the quality and safety of health services. Therefore, these provisions are compatible with the right to freedom of expression.
Fair Hearing (s 24)
Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The term ‘civil proceeding’ in section 24(1) has been interpreted as encompassing proceedings that are determinative of private rights and interests in a broad sense, including some administrative proceedings.
Immunity from civil liability
The Bill provides immunity from civil liability for:
• members of a SAPSE review panel for any act done in good faith in the performance of their functions (clause 5, s 128R); and
• persons who provide information in good faith to a SAPSE review panel (Clause 5, s 128S) or a quality and safety review (clause 5, s 128M).
Liability that would otherwise attach to a person who provides information to a quality and safety review will be transferred to the State. Liability that would otherwise attach to members of the SAPSE review panels or those providing information to those panels will transfer to the health service entities tasked with appointing the SAPSE review panel.
These clauses may engage the right to a fair hearing, by limiting access to courts from persons seeking redress against those who enjoy such immunity. These clauses are designed to preserve the ability of those exercising their functions or otherwise complying with requirements under the Bill, which are directed to improving the quality and safety of health services. These individuals must also be able to exercise their statutory functions or comply with their obligations under the Bill without fear of litigation.
Further, these clauses only extend to acts done in good faith, and liability will still arise for any bad faith or improper exercise of power. The individuals will remain accountable for any improper or unauthorised acts, and a cause of action will remain for any person who has suffered injury or damage in such circumstances. In other circumstances, liability will attach to the State or the relevant health service entity. As a result, these clauses do not limit the right to a fair hearing.
Accordingly, these provisions do not limit the right to a fair hearing under the Charter.
Confidentiality Provisions
The confidentiality provisions at clause 5, ss 128I, 128J, 128U and clause 13, s 48H preclude documents from production with respect to proceedings before a court or tribunal. These clauses may interfere with the right to a fair hearing, insofar as they may limit the requirements of discovery and production of documents for inspection and this may limit the ability of a litigant to obtain or rely on information or documents material to issues in dispute.
The restrictions on disclosure of information and documents relate to:
• information and documents created or provided during a protected quality and safety review;
• documents and reports created or provided in the course of a SAPSE review; and
• reports prepared by the Council.
The purpose of the limitation is to enable persons to engage with relevant reviews and investigations with full candour, with the ultimate aim of ensuring that issues with the quality and safety of health services can be appropriately identified and rectified. The restrictions on the use of the information enables people to assist with this process without fear of legal or professional repercussions. Further, the restrictions will only relate to documents created or provided during the course of a quality and safety or SAPSE review or a report prepared by the Council and thus other information relevant to the litigation may be accessible in other ways, such as by a patient accessing their medical file. In some cases the Secretary may also authorise disclosure of documents in legal or other proceedings where it is in the public interest. Accordingly, I consider that these restrictions do not limit the right to a fair hearing.
Jaclyn Symes MLC
Attorney-General
Minister for Emergency Services
Second reading
That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SYMES: I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
Introduction
Victorians should have confidence in the safety and quality of our health system. In the unfortunate event that harm does occur, Victorians should have a right to an apology, an explanation of what happened and why, and to be informed of lessons learnt and efforts made to ensure it does not happen again.
That is why the Victorian government has proposed Australia-first duty of candour law and related proposals aimed at further strengthening the culture of our health services. The reforms are seeking to achieve the important balance between transparency and accountability and protections to prevent harm through robust review. Extensive consultation with the health sector and the public has confirmed broad support and helped us to get the balance right.
The Bill supports the last tranche of key legislative reforms recommended by Targeting Zero, the report of the Review of Hospital Safety and Quality Assurance in Victoria led by Dr Stephen Duckett. The Bill will establish:
• a Chief Quality and Safety Officer
• statutory duty of candour
• protections for apologies and serious adverse patient safety event reviews
• powers for the Victorian Perioperative Consultative Council.
These reforms will mark another milestone in strengthening the quality and safety of healthcare for all Victorians. Their purpose is:
• to increase our ability to identify quality and safety risks and support improvement where risks are found
• to strengthen an open and honest culture in health services
• to extend additional powers so that the Victorian Perioperative Consultative Council can continue to operate effectively.
A significant finding of the Targeting Zero was that the events that prompted the review occurred in the context of catastrophic failures in clinical governance at all organisational levels. Importantly, the review found that the conditions that led to these failings were not unique to any hospital, and that there was a need to elevate safety and quality across the hospital system as a whole.
Improving quality and safety requires a more active approach to serious adverse patient safety event review including the authorisation of a Chief Quality and Safety Officer to inspect and audit hospitals. The Chief Quality and Safety Officer, similar to the Chief Psychiatrist, will be appointed by the Secretary to conduct quality and safety reviews. Authorised officers will have powers to enable this function.
The Bill would also directly implement the recommendation from Targeting Zero that the Minister establishes a statutory duty of candour and associated apology protections.
In 2018, an Expert Working Group appointed to advise on Targeting Zero consulted on an Australian-first statutory duty of candour. The Expert Working Group recommended that candour be legislated. The Expert Working Group’s consultation process and further consultation in 2020 has yielded valuable insights. The reforms it proposes represent an important step in improving the quality and safety of services across Victoria’s hospital system and reducing avoidable harm to consumers.
The proposed duty of candour will apply to incidents of a high severity rating and will complement existing obligations under the Australian Open Disclosure Framework. The legislation will be high level. Consultation will inform the development of a subordinate legislative instrument. The Victorian Statutory Duty of Candour guidelines will offer detailed instructions to health services on apologies, explanations, and details of preventative action.
The fundamental purpose of a statutory duty of candour—and open disclosure in general—is to engender a culture of honesty and openness in our hospitals and to improve the quality of health care, with a focus on safety and person-centeredness. Open and honest communication with consumers and their families following healthcare incidents is designed to contribute to a more patient-centred approach to healthcare provision and thereby improve patient experience, patient outcomes and quality of service provision.
The duty will apply to the following specified entities:
• public health services
• public hospitals
• multi-purpose services,
• denominational hospitals
• private hospitals
• day procedure services
• ambulance services
• non-emergency patient transport services
• the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health; and
• other entities set out in regulations that provide health services.
Under the duty of candour law, health service entities will have an obligation to
• apologise to any person seriously harmed while receiving care
• explain what went wrong
• describe what action will be taken and what improvements will be put in place.
Saying sorry will not be an admission of fault for the purposes of civil court proceedings concerning the death or injury of the person seriously harmed.
The Expert Working Group report also recommended statutory protections for serious adverse patient safety event reviews as are in place in New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland. The protections for serious adverse patient safety event reviews will mean that working documents are exempt from Freedom of Information requests and are not admissible in court proceedings. However, a report from a serious adverse patient safety event review will be made available to the Coroner’s Court for the purposes of an investigation or inquest. Review reports will be offered to patients, family members and carers. These protections will increase the benefits that flow from the reviews. In an open and transparent culture, staff will be more likely to spend time learning from incidents rather than trying to hide or defend themselves.
In 2020, we released the report of the Expert Working Group and a government response indicating an intention to legislate. We also commenced further public consultation to develop the Victorian candour and open disclosure guidelines and protections for serious adverse patient safety event reviews. Consultation closed in April 2021 and has informed the development of the Bill and guidelines.
Finally, the newly formed Victorian Perioperative Consultative Council started on 1 July 2019. The Bill ensure that the new Council will now have the same powers and protections as the Consultative Council on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity (CCOPMM) so it can more effectively recommend systems improvements to reduce perioperative mortality and morbidity.
Openness, honesty and transparency builds trust between patients and health practitioners and improves quality and safety outcomes. It also leads to more learning, and improvements that build a stronger and more accountable health system to benefit all Victorians.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (22:02): I move, on behalf of my colleague Ms Crozier:
That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.