Views on mandatory reporting of impaired health practitioners by their treating practitioners: a qualitative study from Australia.

Clicks: 275
ID: 25099
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #273 of 442 articles by views in BMJ open

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 442 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
To explore the views and experiences of health sector professionals in Australia regarding a new national law requiring treating practitioners to report impaired health practitioners whose impairments came to their attention in the course of providing treatment.We conducted a thematic analysis of in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 health practitioners and 4 medicolegal advisors from Australia's 6 states, each of whom had experience with applying the new mandatory reporting law in practice.Interviewees perceived the introduction of a mandatory reporting law as a response to failures of the profession to adequately protect the public from impaired practitioners. Mandatory reporting of impaired practitioners was reported to have several benefits: it provides treating practitioners with a 'lever' to influence behaviour, offers protections to those who make reports and underscores the duty to protect the public from harm. However, many viewed it as a blunt instrument that did not sufficiently take account of the realities of clinical practice. In deciding whether or not to make a report, interviewees reported exercising clinical discretion, and being influenced by three competing considerations: protection of the public, confidentiality of patient information and loyalty to their profession.Competing ethical considerations limit the willingness of Australian health practitioners to report impaired practitioner-patients under a mandatory reporting law. Improved understanding and implementation of the law may bolster the public protection offered by mandatory reports, reduce the need to breach practitioner-patient confidentiality and help align the law with the loyalty that practitioners feel to support, rather than punish, their impaired colleagues.
Reference Key
bismark2016viewsbmj Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Bismark, Marie M;Mathews, Ben;Morris, Jennifer M;Thomas, Laura A;Studdert, David M;
Journal BMJ open
Year 2016
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011988
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.