The release of the Federal Government’s final report on the Scope of Practice review is missing the mark on rural and remote community need, according to the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM).
ACRRM President Dr Rod Martin notes that while the College supports the intent behind the report, certain recommendations may undermine access to high-quality, continuous, and coordinated care in rural, remote, and First Nations communities.
“From a rural perspective, this report could jeopardise rural Australians’ access to a doctor,” Dr Martin says.
“ACRRM fully supports initiatives that enable all healthcare team members to work to their full scope, addressing service demands while safeguarding against any unintended strain on these already limited workforces.”
He emphasises that while the report’s final recommendation is to prioritise the implementation of reforms in rural, remote, and underserved communities—where innovation and workforce reform are most needed—careful attention to continuity of care is essential.
“Every Australian deserves access to a doctor, and this is especially critical for rural and remote populations,” Dr Martin adds.
“Continuity of care remains a key factor in achieving better health outcomes.
“Opening up unrestricted access to all health professions without coordination risks fragmenting care, which could harm patient outcomes in these communities,” Dr Martin adds.
The College advocates for a framework that allows Rural Generalists (RGs) and rural General Practitioners (GPs) to maintain their essential roles in coordinating patient care.
Dr Martin also raises concerns about funding models that support rural and remote practices. He says it’s crucial that funding reflects RG models of care which integrate primary, secondary, and hospital care while fostering collaboration across healthcare disciplines.
One particular point of concern for ACRRM is Recommendation 12 on referral pathways, which enables nurses and allied health practitioners to refer patients to consultant specialists but not directly to RGs or GPs. This restriction could lead to unnecessary delays, added costs, and more travel for patients seeking specialist care.
ACRRM President Dr Rod Martin notes that while the College supports the intent behind the report, certain recommendations may undermine access to high-quality, continuous, and coordinated care in rural, remote, and First Nations communities.
“From a rural perspective, this report could jeopardise rural Australians’ access to a doctor,” Dr Martin says.
“ACRRM fully supports initiatives that enable all healthcare team members to work to their full scope, addressing service demands while safeguarding against any unintended strain on these already limited workforces.”
He emphasises that while the report’s final recommendation is to prioritise the implementation of reforms in rural, remote, and underserved communities—where innovation and workforce reform are most needed—careful attention to continuity of care is essential.
“Every Australian deserves access to a doctor, and this is especially critical for rural and remote populations,” Dr Martin adds.
“Continuity of care remains a key factor in achieving better health outcomes.
“Opening up unrestricted access to all health professions without coordination risks fragmenting care, which could harm patient outcomes in these communities,” Dr Martin adds.
The College advocates for a framework that allows Rural Generalists (RGs) and rural General Practitioners (GPs) to maintain their essential roles in coordinating patient care.
Dr Martin also raises concerns about funding models that support rural and remote practices. He says it’s crucial that funding reflects RG models of care which integrate primary, secondary, and hospital care while fostering collaboration across healthcare disciplines.
One particular point of concern for ACRRM is Recommendation 12 on referral pathways, which enables nurses and allied health practitioners to refer patients to consultant specialists but not directly to RGs or GPs. This restriction could lead to unnecessary delays, added costs, and more travel for patients seeking specialist care.