Manda­tory re­port­ing in­put

Pharmacy Daily - - NEWS -

ALL health pro­fes­sion­als in­clud­ing phar­ma­cists should be ex­empted from manda­tory re­port­ing re­quire­ments, ac­cord­ing to the Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal So­ci­ety of Aus­tralia.

In a sub­mis­sion to a Coun­cil of Aus­tralian Gov­ern­ments (COAG) re­view of re­port­ing rules, the PSA has urged the adop­tion of Western Aus­tralia’s model for phar­ma­cists seek­ing treat­ment for men­tal health and stress-re­lated con­di­tions.

To achieve a na­tion­ally con­sis­tent ap­proach, COAG’s con­sul­ta­tion pa­per has pro­posed four op­tions, in­clud­ing the adop­tion of the WA model (Op­tion 2), which ex­empts treat­ing prac­ti­tion­ers from manda­tory re­port­ing re­quire­ments.

PSA na­tional pres­i­dent Dr Shane Jack­son said, “PSA strongly sup­ports ac­cess to health­care for health pro­fes­sion­als bal­anced with pub­lic safety.

“Phar­ma­cists should be able to seek treat­ment for health is­sues con­fi­den­tially with­out fear that their pro­fes­sional ca­reers will be at risk,” Jack­son said.

With rates of sui­cide among health pro­fes­sion­als the high­est among Aus­tralia’s white-col­lar work­force, Jack­son added, “We are con­cerned that fear of manda­tory re­port­ing may re­duce ac­cess to nec­es­sary health­care for vul­ner­a­ble health prac­ti­tion­ers”.

He said Aus­tralia’s phar­macy pro­fes­sion has a va­ri­ety of ro­bust codes, stan­dards and guide­lines for eth­i­cal and pro­fes­sional prac­tice.

“PSA be­lieves that phar­ma­cists are well equipped to ex­er­cise pro­fes­sional judge­ment and meet their pro­fes­sional and eth­i­cal obli­ga­tions to report a se­ri­ous risk of harm,” Jack­son added.

The full PSA sub­mis­sion is avail­able on­line at

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.