Professional Registration of the Audiology Profession
Statement on Professional Registration of the Audiology Profession
Version: v1.0
Date Created: 04/10/2024
Next Review Due: 04/10/2025
Approval Status: Approved
Introduction
Recent tragic events in north Queensland and South Australia have seen the discussion on whether national regulation is required for audiology move from an industry discussion to a state government level priority.
State and Territory Health Ministers have agreed to consider options for regulating the audiology profession in the future, including regulation under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.
BHA, as a Queensland Disability Peak, will work in partnership with national Peak, Deafness Forum, on a comprehensive submission to the Deloitte-led Queensland Government funded stakeholder consultation process[1].
Current Industry Positions
The audiology industry has proffered both pros and cons for moving to national regulation. A brief summarise is set out below, but we urge readers to seek out full position statements from the organisations listed below.
Membership organisations Audiology Australia, Hearing Aid Audiology Society of Australia Ltd, and Australian College of Audiology, argue that mandatory national regulation is not required as their self-regulation framework is adequate and, by default, membership of their organisations is recognised as clinical certification required for providing services under federal programs including the Hearing Services Program as a Qualified Practitioner[2].
Independent Audiologists of Australia (IAA) argue that the self-regulation model has inherent limitations[3], including but not limited to:
- Sanctions or expulsion from these professional bodies is not a limitation to continue to practice and provide audiology services to private fee-paying clients
- Self-regulation without oversight is fraught with danger eg no centralised register of practitioners offering sub-optimal care or treatment
- Lack of consequences with teeth for practitioners provides an opportunity for predatory businesses practises to sprout and persist
- No professional protection for the title of audiologist or audiometrist
- No mandating of referral pathways to practitioners with higher qualifications (eg from audiometrist to audiologist) for complex cases
IAA have long called for national regulation of the industry and an IAA survey found 97% of responding audiologists support mandatory registration.
Our Current Position
It is our belief that many consumers would be under the, currently erroneous, assumption that the audiology industry is a nationally regulated industry.
In principle, we believe consumers need the utmost protection when it comes to any medical service or practice. This includes audiology.
While some professional organisations argue that self-regulation is adequate, we believe consumers of audiology services in Australia have the right to expect equivalent level of assurances, protections, and consequences relevant to the industries and practitioners of medical radiation, optometry, nursing and midwifery, dentistry, physiotherapy and more[4].
These professional services and 10 others are regulated on a federal level by Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.
In our current view, it appears the most appropriate method for providing requisite, standard assurances and protections to consumers, and relevant consequences to practitioners, is a national registration model such as National Board registration under AHPRA.
[1] https://www.deafnessforum.org.au/will-audiology-be-a-registered-profession-national-review-underway/
[2] https://audiology.asn.au/Tenant/C0000013/5ii.%20ATT2%20ERC%20text%20regulation%20of%20audiologists%20and%20audiometrists%2020190716.pdf
[3] https://independentaudiologists.net.au/regulation-of-audiology
[4] https://www.ahpra.gov.au/National-Boards.aspx
