plxvandyk says:

Do you have strong feelings on this subject? Why not post a comment here…

Solly Lison says:

The HPCSA is DEVIOUS AND DISHONEST. In AUG 2012 the HPCSA without advising 800 Family Physicians closed the Family Physician register.
They were entitled to register with their relevant post grad degrees during a 5 year Grandfather Clause window period which ended on 17th Aug 2012.
On the 17th Aug only, the HPCSA had typed the single media statement that the Grandfather Clause existed and was due to close. The note was BACKDATED to 7th or 8th August, and placed on the HPCSA website OUT of Date Order with other releases and comments.
Please read this again, there is no error in the dates above!!
The veracity of the date the note was typed is registered by the PDF program on which it originated……
These doctors had paid R1000 each for their registration annually- at least R4million into the coffers of HPCSA, but not even R5 per letter was spent to advise them!! No attempt at any time was made to inform the general GP public of the existence of the Specialist Register as Family Physician!
The facts above were admitted to at the HPCSA round robin conference in Cape Town later in 2012 by the manager in the public meeting attended by at least 600 colleagues and paramedical personnel. He promised a meeting to discuss the issue on November 4 that year. NO meeting was held……

Clive Pettipher says:

They have complete disregard for doctors. They give a poor service, are usually not contactable, and they cannot even add up CPD points correctly. They are intent on encouraging the public to complain about any small infringement that occurs between patient and doctor to the point that it makes health practice untenable. Discussions on increasing litigation needs to be addressed, but the HPCSA remains arrogant on this matter and then they wonder why doctors are leaving the profession and the country. They never ever listen to us..

plxvandyk says:

Johan Walters wrote in, saying:

Most will agree that the HPCSA is functioning in a substandard way. Some functions are somewhat fulfilled whilst others are not. Whilst I have no tolerance for ineffective and inept management, it must be said that the tasks facing the HPCSA are enormously diverse and are overwhelming this relatively
understaffed organization. “Privatizing” the regulatory functions of HPCSA or running it as it is, will only be effective with three proviso’s.

Firstly, leadership must be seen to be driving this ship in the right direction.

Secondly, the structure must be “right-sized” to be able to meet all its
obligations timeously. The delays in getting things done do not only lie with
HPCSA staff inefficiencies. The legal processes and all the role players
involved contribute significantly to the overall outcome.

Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, the HPCSA has not being given the ‘teeth” do enforce its recommendations or findings. This function frequently falls to other statutory bodies, like law enforcement. For example, it is well known that on occasion, doctors who have been removed from the register and are barred from practice continue to do so illegally. In some instances
Provincial authorities are required to implement recommendations regarding
training or housing of their staff. There is very little the HPCSA can do,
especially with their limited staff, to enforce or follow-up these recommendations when they impact significantly on other key areas such as budgeting. Clearly closure of a facility is not the next best option.

I would like to declare that I serve as an independent practitioner on a committee for Preliminary inquiry for the HPCSA. This exposure has given me some insight into the personnel, whom I have found to be generally competent, and the considerable problems with which they are faced.

One must be careful who gets lambasted in this attack on the HPCSA. It would be prudent to be specific about the accusations rather than to make blanket
statements.

DR JG du Preez says:

Their communication is very poor. I received a letter by registered post middle Jan’14, dated 22 Nov 2013 which informed me that my practitioner’s status have been changed from “independent practitioner” to “supervised practice” as I did not comply with CPD points. This was totally untrue, as I was only once asked to submit a portfolio a few years ago and was informed the were sattisfied. The e-mails I sent them to the e-mail adress in the letterhead concerning the matter only received a automatic response and the 9 telephone numbers on the notice had 8 with answering machines on them and one remained engaged. After a period of 6 weeks I managed to get hold of the lady who sent out the notice and asked her how she could send out such a notice without checking whether her facts were correct and even then she could not immediately supply me with a decent answer as their “systems were down!!” Only after another week could they confirm and apologize that it was their mistake and send me confirmation that I did comply. I challenged the lady concerned that the letter she sent out under her name, had none of her contact details which is a gross error. So you will understand that I have no faith in the competency of this body which is supposed to be of help and benefit to us. Dr JG du Preez (GP Riviersonderend, Western Cape)