Like most health practitioners, I support professional regulation and patients deserve safe care.
Complaints processes exist for good reason, and regulators play a critical role in maintaining public trust in healthcare.
Until recently, however, my understanding of those systems was largely theoretical.
That changed when I became the subject of a formal complaint, which arose following public commentary and advocacy regarding issues affecting employee optometrists.
Much of that advocacy focused on workplace pressures, professional autonomy, workforce concerns, and broader discussions about the future direction of the profession.
Ultimately, after reviewing the complaint and my response, the Health Care Complaints Commission and the Optometry Council determined that no further action was required.
The commission specifically noted that it found no evidence suggesting my actions were motivated by an intent to harass or publicly shame others.
Yet the outcome is not what stayed with me most, what stayed with me was the process.
For several months, I found myself doing what many practitioners who receive complaints do: I replayed conversations; I reviewed Phoropter Free Fridays posts repeatedly; I questioned whether comments could be misinterpreted; I worried about possible consequences for my registration, my reputation, and my career, especially with a growing family on the way.
Anyone who has gone through a complaint process will understand this feeling.
Rationally, you may believe you have done nothing wrong. Emotionally, that offers surprisingly little protection.
The experience gave me a much greater appreciation of the growing discussion around practitioner well-being and regulatory harm.
Healthcare professionals often encounter complaints at vulnerable points in their careers. They may already be dealing with workplace conflict, burnout, staffing shortages, financial pressures, or personal stress.
The arrival of a formal notification can add another layer of uncertainty that extends far beyond the complaint itself.
Importantly, this is not an argument against complaints. Genuine concerns about patient safety must always be investigated, and as an employee union advocate I have made complaints on others’ behalf when patient safety is compromised.
Public protection must remain the primary purpose of professional regulation.
However, my experience has left me wondering whether we adequately acknowledge the impact these processes can have on practitioners, even when matters do not proceed.
I also worry about a broader consequence that is more difficult to measure – healthcare improves when professionals can openly discuss difficult issues.
Questions about workplace culture, clinical autonomy, workforce planning, new models of care, and patient safety all benefit from robust debate.
Not every opinion will be popular. Not every argument will be correct. But professions rarely improve through silence or inaction.
When practitioners begin to associate public advocacy or professional commentary with the possibility of complaints, investigations, or reputational consequences, some will inevitably decide that speaking up simply is not worth the risk.
That should concern all of us.
A profession that discourages good-faith debate risks losing valuable perspectives from clinicians working at the front-line of patient care.
The voices most likely to disappear are often not the loudest or most influential but those who are already uncertain, early in their careers, or reluctant to attract attention for fear of retribution.
My complaint was ultimately dismissed. I am grateful for that outcome, but the experience has given me a deeper understanding of why practitioner welfare is becoming an increasingly important conversation across healthcare.
Protecting patients and supporting practitioner well-being are not competing objectives. Strong regulatory systems can and should achieve both.
As healthcare continues to evolve, we should ensure that complaints processes remain focused on patient safety while recognising the very real human impact they can have on the practitioners who pass through them.
We should also ensure that clinicians can continue to participate in respectful, good-faith professional debate without fear that disagreement alone may carry personal consequences.
Open discussion is not a threat to professional standards. In many cases, it is one of the ways those standards improve.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Name: Rory Dowdall
Qualifications: B.Sci B.VisSci M.Optom
Affiliations: Health Services Union NSW/QLD/ACT
Location: Coffs Harbour
Years in industry: 8
