AI tools such as ChatGPT can produce employment agreements that look polished and professional. But polished is not the same as compliant. Here is why healthcare practices should be cautious.

Most healthcare practices assume their privacy and consent processes are compliant until something tests them. 

That test may be a patient complaint, a data breach, an Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (‘AHPRA’) advertising concern, a staff mistake, a website review, or a question from a prospective buyer during due diligence. By that stage, the issue is rarely just the wording of a policy. It is often a gap between what the clinic says it does and what actually happens day to day

For many practice owners, opening a second clinic feels like the next logical step. The first location is operating well, patient demand is growing and expansion appears commercially sensible. In many cases, the second site is secured quickly once the right premises become available.

Growth is usually viewed as a positive sign in a medical practice. An expanding practitioner base, additional locations, broader service offerings and increasing revenue may all reflect a practice that is evolving and growing. However, what many practice owners later discover is that growing a practice and strengthening it are not necessarily the same thing.

Most medical practices today operate using some form of independent practitioner model. For many years, these arrangements have been seen as commercially efficient, flexible and relatively low risk.

However, practice owners are increasingly coming to us with the same question: “Are our agreements still compliant?” In many cases, the answer is no; not because the agreement structure was inappropriate, but because the devil lies in the detail of the specific terms and conditions of the agreement.