Health Minister Meegan Fitzharris released the terms of reference for the upcoming independent health review on Friday, calling for an end to calls for a board of inquiry.

But the release of the review's terms of reference has not diffused the concerns of some stakeholders who say only a judicial inquiry will be able to fully hold ACT Health to account.

A board of inquiry is the ACT's version of a royal commission and has the powers to compel witnesses, include public and private hearings and provide clear legal protections for witnesses.

Ms Fitzharris said the three-person panel - to be chaired by former Queensland Health director general Mick Reid -  will manage the protections for people who take part in the review.

The panel will also decide whether the review will include public hearings.

The panel will be assisted by secretariat staff drawn from both the ACT Government and the Federal public service.

Submissions open on October 15 and the panel will provide an interim report on January 31 and a final report by March 30.

Ms Fitzharris announced the independent review into ACT Health's culture last week after months of escalating pressure over mismanagement and bullying allegations.

The Australian Medical Association, Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation and the Visiting Medical Officers Association have all called for a board of inquiry.

The Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Healthcare Consumers' Association and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons are backing the minister's review.

Health Services Union NSW/ACT secretary Gerard Hayes said the review was a "step in the right direction" but would be seeking an urgent meeting with the chief minister to understand exactly what the review will do.

Australian Medical Association ACT president Antonio Di Dio welcomed the release of the terms of reference but maintained a board of inquiry was required.

He said ACT Health staff would have to think carefully about participating if the review remained in its current form.

"Should a review occur [without clear legal underpinnings] it is inevitable that some or most people would be intimidated and feel unsafe in giving evidence," Dr Di Dio said.

"The review as it stands is unlikely to deliver meaningful results."

Dr Di Dio challenged Ms Fitzharris' claims that everyday doctors and nurses would not want to appear before a "legalistic" board of inquiry.

"The vast majority of people who have appeared before royal commissions ... were not lawyers," he said.

"They were innocent people who wanted to be heard.

“Good intentions are one thing – and we have seen some of that from the minister in today’s announcement – but, in the end, we need to have clear, settled protections and procedures.

"That’s the main reason we have proposed a Board of Inquiry – we know what we’re getting.”

Opposition health spokeswoman Vicki Dunne said the minister's review would be limited in powers and protections unless it invoked the powers of the Inquiries Act.

"There are no mechanisms to protect participants, take evidence, and compel witnesses," she said.

"The minister has provided no guarantees that witnesses appearing before the panel will have the same protections as a witness proceeding in the Supreme Court.

"If this review makes an adverse finding about someone there is nothing to protect the panel members from legal action.

"There are also no mechanisms to deal with witnesses who refuse to give evidence, or witnesses who give false evidence, with no liabilities for people who may commit perjury.

"The lack of an adequate legal framework may also discourage health staff and related witnesses from coming forward and the panel may in return not get the full story."

Salaried doctors' federation executive officer Stephen Crook said people he spoke to were most concerned about being protected legally from retribution.

He welcomed the minister's appointments to the panel, but was concerned no one of a legal background who could ensure the protection of witnesses was appointed.

"I have been talking to a number of people and they are all asking 'do we have proper protections'," Mr Crook said.

"People are not going to be game to bring up all their concerns unless they're protected.

"Many people are happy to make their concerns public as long as they're protected from retribution."

Ms Fitzharris claimed the issued had been politicised by the opposition and called for the end of negative commentary on the issue.

"I have been very dismayed publicly about the debate in recent months," she said.

"Now is the time to reconfirm that this is a positive opportunity ... to improve workplace culture.

"I hope it is the end of the debate of whether workplace culture should be the subject of a royal commission."