PHARMACISTS in NSW who form the reasonable belief that a fellow health practitioner's behaviour represents a risk to patients are obliged to inform the Australian Health Practition Regulation Agency (AHPRA) under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).
In its latest newsletter, the Pharmacy Council of NSW noted that "health practitioners are traditionally reluctant to make mandatory notifications for various reasons".
"These include a fear of becoming a part of a drawn out legal process or a perception that they are 'dobbing in' their peers or fellow health practitioners," the Council said.
"It can be a challenging dilemma.
"However, health practitioners are often well placed to identify other colleagues who pose a risk to patients."
The Council noted that notifiable conduct included practising while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs, sexual misconduct in the practice of the profession, placing the public at substantial harm because of an impairment, or placing the public at risk because of a significant departure from accepted professional standards.
The Council highlighted a case where a pharmacist reported a medical practitioner who had attempted to self-prescribe diazepam.
"The medical practitioner had used a family member's name on the prescription, and as the pharmacist asked questions about the prescription and the patient's history, the medical practitioner's behaviour alerted suspicion, prompting the pharmacist to check the AHPRA register," the Council said.
"They subsequently discovered there were conditions on this medical practitioner's registration which did not allow them to prescribe this medication.
"Following this, a mandatory notification was made.
"The pharmacist was initially reluctant to make the notification due to a perception that they would become further involved in the matter.
"However, discussion with another colleague helped to dispel that concern.
"Most of the time a mandatory notification does not require the practitioner making the notification to provide any further correspondence to the regulatory authority, but for more serious matters, further information may be sought.
"In this case, the medical practitioner had breached conditions on their registration.
"They had a history of drug-seeking behaviour and had obtained previous supplies of diazepam in this manner.
"Had this pharmacist chosen not to make the notification, it is likely that the medical practitioner's behaviour would have continued unabated."
The above article was sent to subscribers in Pharmacy Daily's issue from 06 Apr 21
To see the full newsletter, see the embedded issue below or CLICK HERE to download Pharmacy Daily from 06 Apr 21
