News
AHPRA releases draft mandatory reporting guidelines
The proposed changes are a result of legislation that was passed by the Queensland Parliament earlier this year amid protests from medical groups.
Critics fear mandatory reporting will stop medical practitioners from seeking help, particularly for mental health issues.
The controversial legislation forces doctors to report registered health practitioners, including those under their care as patients, to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), should they believe the condition puts public safety at risk.
While only being debated in Queensland, Council of Australian Governments (COAG) processes for this type of legislation will see it applied in all other states and territories, outside of Western Australia, which has adopted vastly different laws.
The RACGP has consistently advocated for the adoption of the ‘WA solution’, which makes practitioners exempt from reporting doctors under their own care.
Critics of mandatory reporting, including the RACGP, have stated it could prevent healthcare practitioners, particularly those experiencing mental health issues, from seeking medical care due to the potential consequences of being reported by their treating doctor.
AHPRA has moved to quell these fears by releasing the guidelines for public submission, and is currently developing an information campaign to explain ‘What mandatory notifications mean for you’.
‘The revised guidelines and campaign aim to clarify the mandatory notifications requirements,’ AHPRA CEO Mr Martin Fletcher said.
‘The mandatory notification obligations are different for different groups, and for that reason it is important that we hear what you have to say about the revised guidelines.
‘The campaign will encourage practitioners to seek help for their health and wellbeing when they need it and improve understanding of the purpose and relevant circumstances for mandatory notifications.’
RACGP Queensland Chair Dr Bruce Willett told newsGP that while the wording in the draft guidelines is an improvement on the legislation passed earlier this year, he would still have preferred to see a WA-style exemption for treating practitioners.
‘The Queensland legislation talks about “significant risk of harm”, whereas the AHPRA guidelines refer to a “risk of significant harm”,’ he said.
‘That might sound like a small difference, but the point I made to the Queensland Health Minister is that [it’s just like] when I drive home every day – I am at significant risk of causing harm to people, just by the nature of the action.
‘It needs to be a risk of significant harm, and the threshold needs to be reasonably high.’
Dr Willett also said that while the draft document appears to create some additional clarity and security for doctors who regularly treat other health practitioners, he remains unconvinced it will be as helpful for those with less experience in the area.
‘It can be a difficult judgement call for treating practitioners with some of these issues. The way the legislation’s constructed, the onus of proof is on the treating practitioner to justify why they have not made a mandatory report, rather than why they need to,’ he said.
‘There’s a reverse onus of proof and the fear, of course, is that it may prevent practitioners from seeking help.’
Interested parties have until 6 November to make a submission as part of the public consultation process.
AHPRA health regulation mandatory reporting mental health
newsGP weekly poll
What is your chief concern with role substitution?