Regulating digital mental health services in Australia: Strengthening oversight and clarifying complaints mechanisms

Digital mental health services in Australia have grown rapidly since the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to attract public and private investment. Yet, ambiguity remains about which regulatory bodies are responsible for addressing the ‘significant risks’ noted in Australia's National Safety and Quality Digital Mental Health Standards. These risks include threats to privacy, safety, and data security. This Practice and Policy note makes recommendations based on a mapping of Australian regulators potentially involved when a digital mental health service is found to pose such a risk. In practice, an average of three regulators may be relevant for each area of risk, and more than double in some instances. Such complexity can confound clarity about where to lodge complaints or concerns, and how any identified ‘significant risk’ is to be managed. This paper proposes ways to clarify referrals between the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, accrediting agencies, and other key regulators and recommends (1) further regulatory mapping and planning, (2) clearer complaints and feedback pathways, and (3) an evaluation of current regulatory infrastructure to ensure fitness for purpose.

Points for practitioners

• Uncertainty currently exists about which bodies oversee different aspects of digital mental health service regulation in Australia.
• The National Safety and Quality Digital Mental Health Standards are world-leading, but there is a need to confirm referral pathways for risks that arise during service accreditation.
• Clearer public complaint and feedback procedures would benefit service users, care providers, and regulators alike.
• Robust oversight and accessible complaints channels will help Australia maximise the benefits of digital innovations in mental health care while minimising harm.