Australia's unethical deportation practice discriminates against New Zealanders with mental illness: 'Everybody needs good neighbours!'

In this article, we explore Australia's deportation of people with mental illness from an ethical and human rights perspective. We outline the legislative framework regulating migration policy in Australia, focussing on Section 501 (s.501) of the Migration Act 1958 (which makes provision for deportation of non-residents on character grounds) and on the recently issued Direction 99 (which provides guidance on visa refusal and cancellation under s.501). We find the definition of a failed character test embedded within the legislative framework to be discriminatory, in that it conflates mental illness with character attributes. We present recent data on s.501 deportees sourced from the New Zealand Police and Manatu Hauora (the New Zealand Ministry of Health). Drawing on our clinical experiences working in forensic psychiatry and rehabilitation services, we describe some of our patients' experiences and the detrimental effects of deportation on their health and well-being. We argue that deportation of people with mental illness contravenes principles of psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery, is discriminatory and constitutes a moral wrong. Furthermore, while we recognise that recent policy changes reflect a tempering of the previous hard-line policy stance, it remains to be seen what effects they will have in practice. We question whether the new guidance will be enough to improve the treatment of and outcomes for those with mental illness, or whether the changes represent a case of too little, too late.

The publication of impaired doctors' identity by Australian and New Zealand tribunals: law, practice, and reform.

For doctors with mental health or substance use disorders, publication of their name and sensitive medical history in disciplinary decisions may adversely impact their health and may reinforce barriers to accessing early support and treatment. This article challenges the view that naming impaired doctors or disclosing the intimate details of their medical condition in disciplinary decisions always serves the public interest in open justice. We analysed and compared the approach of Australian and New Zealand health tribunals to granting orders that suppress the name and/or medical history of impaired doctors. This revealed that Australian tribunals are less likely to grant non-publication orders compared to New Zealand, despite shared common law history and similar medical regulatory frameworks. We argue that Australian tribunals could be more circumspect when dealing with sensitive information in published decisions, especially where such information does not directly form a basis for the decision reached. This could occur without compromising public protection or the underlying goals of open justice. Finally, we argue that a greater distinction should be made between those aspects of decisions that deal with conduct allegations, where full details should be published, and those that deal with impairment allegations, where only limited information should be disclosed.

Evidence to guide ethical decision-making in the management of older people living in squalor: a narrative review.

Older people living in squalor present healthcare providers with a set of complex issues because squalor occurs alongside a variety of medical and psychiatric conditions, and older people living in squalor frequently decline intervention. To synthesise empirical evidence on squalor to inform ethical decision-making in the management of squalor using the bioethical framework of principlism. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases for empirical research on squalor in older people. Given the limited evidence base to date, an interpretive approach to synthesis was used. Sixty-seven articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Our synthesis of the research evidence indicates that: (i) older people living in squalor have a high prevalence of frontal executive dysfunction, medical comorbidities and premature deaths; (ii) interventions are complex and require interagency involvement, with further evaluations needed to determine the effectiveness and potential harm of interventions; and (iii) older people living in squalor utilise more medical and social resources, and may negatively impact others around them. These results suggest that autonomous decision-making capacity should be determined rather than assumed. The harm associated with squalid living for the older person, and for others around them, means a non-interventional approach is likely to contravene the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. Adequate assessment of decision-making capacity is of particular importance. To be ethical, any intervention undertaken must balance benefits, harms, resource utilisation and impact on others.

Thoughts of suicide or self-harm among Australian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence and predictors of (a) thoughts of suicide or self-harm among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and (b) help-seeking among those healthcare workers with thoughts of suicide or self-harm. METHOD: Analysis of data from the Australian COVID-19 Frontline Healthcare Workers Study, an online survey of healthcare workers conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Outcomes of interest were thoughts of suicide or self-harm as measured through the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and help-seeking behaviours. RESULTS: Overall, 819 (10.5%) of 7795 healthcare workers reported thoughts of suicide or self-harm over a 2-week period. Healthcare workers with these thoughts experienced higher rates of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout than their peers. In multivariable models, the odds of suicide or self-harm thoughts were higher among workers who had friends or family infected with COVID-19 (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval = [1.06, 1.47]), were living alone (odds ratio = 1.32, 95% confidence interval = [1.06, 1.64]), younger (⩽30 years cf. >50 years; odds ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval = 1.36-2.13), male (odds ratio = 1.81, 95% confidence interval = [1.49, 2.20]), had increased alcohol use (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% confidence interval = [1.35, 1.86]), poor physical health (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval = [1.36, 1.92]), increased income worries (odds ratio = 1.81, 95% confidence interval = [1.54, 2.12]) or prior mental illness (odds ratio = 3.27, 95% confidence interval = [2.80, 3.82]). Having dependent children was protective (odds ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval = [0.61, 0.92]). Fewer than half (388/819) of the healthcare workers who reported thoughts of suicide or self-harm sought professional support. Healthcare workers with thoughts of suicide or self-harm were more likely to seek support if they were younger (⩽30 years cf. >50 years; odds ratio = 1.78, 95% confidence interval = [1.13, 2.82]) or had prior mental health concerns (odds ratio = 4.47, 95% confidence interval = [3.25, 6.14]). CONCLUSION: One in 10 Australian healthcare workers reported thoughts of suicide or self-harm during the pandemic, with certain groups being more vulnerable. Most healthcare workers with thoughts of suicide or self-harm did not seek professional help. Strong and sustained action to protect the safety of healthcare workers, and provide meaningful support, is urgently needed.

Personality characteristics associated with satisfaction with healthcare and the wish to complain.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that satisfaction with healthcare and complaint rates vary with patients' socio-demographic characteristics. Likewise, patient personality might influence the perception of health care; however, empirical research has been scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between health care user personality and satisfaction with care and urge to complain. METHODS: This study is a randomized survey among Danish men aged 45 to 70 years (N = 6,756; 30% response rate) with hypothetical vignettes illustrating different courses of healthcare. Assuming they received the care described in vignettes, participants rated their satisfaction and wish to complain on a five-point Likert scale. Information on personality characteristics was obtained through self-reports using the standardized Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10). RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, we found respondents with higher scores on the agreeableness dimension expressing greater satisfaction with care (Likert difference 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.07; p < 0.001) and decreased wish to complain (-0.07, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.05; p < 0.001) while high neuroticism scores were associated with less satisfaction (-0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00, p = 0.012) and an increased wish to complain about healthcare (0.04, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.06, p < 0.001). Interaction analyses could demonstrate no statistically significant interaction between the level of patient involvement in decision making in the scenarios and the effect of personality on respondents' satisfaction and wish to complain. Generally, however, when adjusting for personality, respondents' satisfaction increased (P < 0.001) with greater patient involvement illustrated in case scenarios while the wish to complain decreased (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest low agreeableness and high neuroticism scores are associated with lower patient satisfaction with healthcare and increased wish to complain. Irrespective of personality, however, the wish to complain seems responsive to changes in patient involvement, underscoring the importance of inclusive healthcare communication.

Protection, Prevention or Punishment? A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Regulatory Immediate Action against Medical Practitioners.

Medical regulators protect the public from unsafe, unwell, or unscrupulous medical practitioners. To facilitate a swift response to serious allegations, many regulators are equipped with far-reaching emergency powers to immediately suspend, or impose conditions on, medical practitioners' registration before facts are proven. Failing to take urgent action may expose the public to ongoing avoidable harm and may erode public trust in the profession. Equally, imposing immediate action in response to allegations that are not subsequently proven can precipitously and irreparably injure a practitioner's career and emotional wellbeing. This is the second of two articles published in the Journal of Law and Medicine that explores the emerging jurisprudence in relation to these emergency regulatory powers. This article compares the approaches to immediate action in seven countries, providing insights for policy-makers and decision-makers into how modern regulatory frameworks attempt to balance the inherent tensions between the profession, the public and the State.

Regulation in Need of Therapy? Analysis of Regulatory Decisions Relating to Impaired Doctors from 2010 to 2020.

Doctors' mental wellbeing is a critical public health issue. Rates of depression, anxiety, and substance use are higher than in the general population. Regulating unwell doctors who pose a public risk is challenging, yet there is little research into how medical regulators balance the need to protect the public from harm against the benefits of supporting and rehabilitating the unwell doctor. We analysed judgments from Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, United Kingdom, Ontario, and Singapore between 2010 and 2020 relating to impaired doctors. We found similarities in how decision-makers conceptualise impairment, how they disentangle impairment from associated conduct or performance complaints, and how regulatory principles and sanctions are applied. However, compared to other jurisdictions, Australian courts and tribunals tended to prioritise deterrence above the rehabilitation of the impaired doctor. Supporting impaired doctors' recovery, when appropriate, is critical to public protection and patient safety.

The impact of public performance reporting on cancer elective surgery waiting times: a data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Excessive waiting times for cancer elective surgery are a concern in publicly funded healthcare systems. Several countries including Australia have introduced healthcare reforms involving time-based targets and public performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data. However, there is mixed evidence of their benefits. We sought to examine the impact of targets and PPR of cancer elective surgery waiting times on access to breast, bowel and lung cancer elective surgery. METHODS: We analysed routinely-collected linked data on admissions and waiting times for patients aged 15 years or over (n = 199,885) who underwent cancer surgery in a public hospital in Victoria, Australia over a 10-year period. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses to compare waiting times before (2006-07 to 2011-12) and after (2012-13 to 2015-16) the introduction of PPR in meeting these targets. RESULTS: Across all cancer types, urgent patients were all treated within 30 days before and after PPR. Following PPR, there was a slight increase in the mean waiting times across all cancer types and urgency categories. Patients with lung cancer waited on average two and half days longer for treatment and patients with breast cancer waited on average half-a-day less. There was no effect of PPR on waiting times for patients with bowel cancer across urgency categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that time-based targets and PPR had minimal impact on surgical waiting times. This may be due to reasonable waiting times prior to PPR, improved efficiency being masked by 20% growth in the population, lack of public knowledge that waiting times are publicly reported, or lack of real-time reporting to drive behavioural change. The use of generic elective surgery recommended waiting time measures for cancer is discussed.

Sexual misconduct by health professionals in Australia, 2011-2016: a retrospective analysis of notifications to health regulators.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the numbers of notifications to health regulators alleging sexual misconduct by registered health practitioners in Australia, by health care profession. DESIGN, SETTING: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and NSW Health Professional Councils Authority data on notifications of sexual misconduct during 2011-2016. PARTICIPANTS: All registered practitioners in 15 health professions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Notification rates (per 10 000 practitioner-years) and adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) by age, sex, profession, medical specialty, and practice location. RESULTS: Regulators received 1507 sexual misconduct notifications for 1167 of 724 649 registered health practitioners (0.2%), including 208 practitioners (18%) who were the subjects of more than one report during 2011-2016; 381 notifications (25%) alleged sexual relationships, 1126 (75%) sexual harassment or assault. Notifications regarding sexual relationships were more frequent for psychiatrists (15.2 notifications per 10 000 practitioner-years), psychologists (5.0 per 10 000 practitioner-years), and general practitioners (6.4 per 10 000 practitioner-years); the rate was higher for regional/rural than metropolitan practitioners (aRR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.31-2.30). Notifications of sexual harassment or assault more frequently named male than female practitioners (aRR, 37.1; 95% CI, 26.7-51.5). A larger proportion of notifications of sexual misconduct than of other forms of misconduct led to regulatory sanctions (242 of 709 closed cases [34%] v 5727 of 23 855 [24%]). CONCLUSIONS: While notifications alleging sexual misconduct by health practitioners are rare, such misconduct has serious consequences for patients, practitioners, and the community. Further efforts are needed to prevent sexual misconduct in health care and to ensure thorough investigation of alleged misconduct.

In Whose Interest? Recent Developments in Regulatory Immediate Action against Medical Practitioners in Australia.

"Immediate action" is a powerful regulatory tool available to Medical Boards. It protects the public from harm by restricting a medical practitioner's registration after allegations have been made, but before wrongdoing is proven. This article charts the development of these coercive powers in Australia and examines the legal, socio-political and ethical justification for supplementing a well-defined "public risk" test with a broad and controversial "public interest" test that leaves medical practitioners vulnerable to inconsistent decision-making. Compared to overseas jurisdictions, immediate action powers in Australia offer fewer procedural protections. The regulatory response to perceived threats to public trust and confidence in the medical profession needs to be proportionate, transparent, effective, and consistent, to protect the public while also being fair to practitioners.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims.

BACKGROUND: The distribution of malpractice claims among physicians is not well understood. If claim-prone physicians account for a substantial share of all claims, the ability to reliably identify them at an early stage could guide efforts to improve care. METHODS: Using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, we analyzed 66,426 claims paid against 54,099 physicians from 2005 through 2014. We calculated concentrations of claims among physicians. We used multivariable recurrent-event survival analysis to identify characteristics of physicians at high risk for recurrent claims and to quantify risk levels over time. RESULTS: Approximately 1% of all physicians accounted for 32% of paid claims. Among physicians with paid claims, 84% incurred only one during the study period (accounting for 68% of all paid claims), 16% had at least two paid claims (accounting for 32% of the claims), and 4% had at least three paid claims (accounting for 12% of the claims). In adjusted analyses, the risk of recurrence increased with the number of previous paid claims. For example, as compared with physicians who had one previous paid claim, the 2160 physicians who had three paid claims had three times the risk of incurring another (hazard ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.84 to 3.41); this corresponded in absolute terms to a 24% chance (95% CI, 22 to 26) of another paid claim within 2 years. Risks of recurrence also varied widely according to specialty--for example, the risk among neurosurgeons was four times as great as the risk among psychiatrists. CONCLUSIONS: Over a recent 10-year period, a small number of physicians with distinctive characteristics accounted for a disproportionately large number of paid malpractice claims.

'Poking the skunk': Ethical and medico-legal concerns in research about patients' experiences of medical injury.

Improving how health care providers respond to medical injury requires an understanding of patients' experiences. Although many injured patients strongly desire to be heard, research rarely involves them. Institutional review boards worry about harming participants by asking them to revisit traumatic events, and hospital staff worry about provoking lawsuits. Institutions' reluctance to approve this type of research has slowed progress toward responses to injuries that are better able to meet patients' needs. In 2015-2016, we were able to surmount these challenges and interview 92 injured patients and families in the USA and New Zealand. This article explores whether the ethical and medico-legal concerns are, in fact, well-founded. Consistent with research about trauma-research-related distress, our participants' accounts indicate that the pervasive fears about retraumatization are unfounded. Our experience also suggests that because being heard is an important (but often unmet) need for injured patients, talking provides psychological benefits and may decrease rather than increase the impetus to sue. Our article makes recommendations to institutional review boards and researchers. The benefits to responsibly conducted research with injured patients outweigh the risks to participants and institutions.

Identification of practitioners at high risk of complaints to health profession regulators.

BACKGROUND: Some health practitioners pose substantial threats to patient safety, yet early identification of them is notoriously difficult. We aimed to develop an algorithm for use by regulators in prospectively identifying practitioners at high risk of attracting formal complaints about health, conduct or performance issues. METHODS: Using 2011-2016 data from the national regulator of health practitioners in Australia, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 14 registered health professions. We used recurrent-event survival analysis to estimate the risk of a complaint and used the results of this analysis to develop an algorithm for identifying practitioners at high risk of complaints. We evaluated the algorithm's discrimination, calibration and predictive properties. RESULTS: Participants were 715,415 registered health practitioners (55% nurses, 15% doctors, 6% midwives, 5% psychologists, 4% pharmacists, 15% other). The algorithm, PRONE-HP (Predicted Risk of New Event for Health Practitioners), incorporated predictors for sex, age, profession and specialty, number of prior complaints and complaint issue. Discrimination was good (C-index = 0·77, 95% CI 0·76-0·77). PRONE-HP's score values were closely calibrated with risk of a future complaint: practitioners with a score ≤ 4 had a 1% chance of a complaint within 24 months and those with a score ≥ 35 had a higher than 85% chance. Using the 90th percentile of scores within each profession to define "high risk", the predictive accuracy of PRONE-HP was good for doctors and dentists (PPV = 93·1% and 91·6%, respectively); moderate for chiropractors (PPV = 71·1%), psychologists (PPV = 54·9%), pharmacists (PPV = 39·9%) and podiatrists (PPV = 34·0%); and poor for other professions. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of PRONE-HP in predicting complaint risks varied substantially across professions. It showed particular promise for flagging doctors and dentists at high risk of accruing further complaints. Close review of available information on flagged practitioners may help to identify troubling patterns and imminent risks to patients.

Conscientious objection to abortion, the law and its implementation in Victoria, Australia: perspectives of abortion service providers.

BACKGROUND: In Victoria, Australia, the law regulating abortion was reformed in 2008, and a clause ('Section 8') was introduced requiring doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion to refer women to another provider. This study reports the views of abortion experts on the operation of Section 8 of the Abortion Law Reform Act in Victoria. METHODS: Nineteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with purposively selected Victorian abortion experts in 2015. Interviews explored the impact of abortion law reform on service provision, including the understanding and implementation of Section 8. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The majority of participants described Section 8 as a mechanism to protect women's right to abortion, rather than a mechanism to protect doctors' rights. All agreed that most doctors would not let moral or religious beliefs impact on their patients, and yet all could detail negative experiences related to Section 8. The negative experiences arose because doctors had: directly contravened the law by not referring; attempted to make women feel guilty; attempted to delay women's access; or claimed an objection for reasons other than conscience. Use or misuse of conscientious objection by Government telephone staff, pharmacists, institutions, and political groups was also reported. CONCLUSION: Some doctors are not complying with Section 8, with adverse effects on access to care for some women. Further research is needed to inform strategies for improving compliance with the law in order to facilitate timely access to abortion services.

Correction to: Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study.

The original article [1] contains a major error whereby all rates in Table 2 are mistakenly presented as 50% of their true values; this error was caused by a miscalculation in annualising the original values that represented the rates.

The use of public performance reporting by general practitioners: a study of perceptions and referral behaviours.

BACKGROUND: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data aims to improve quality of care in hospitals and to inform consumer choice. In Australia, general practitioners (GPs) are gatekeepers to secondary care with patients requiring their referral for non-emergency access. Despite their intermediary role, GPs have been generally overlooked as potential users of PPR of hospital data, with the majority of the PPR research focussing on consumers, surgeons and hospitals. METHODS: We examined the use of PPR of hospital data by GPs when referring patients to hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 GPs, recruited via the Victorian Primary Care Practice-Based Research Network and GP teaching practices in Victoria, Australia. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: We found that the majority of GPs did not use PPR when referring patients to hospitals. Instead, they relied mostly on informal sources of information such as their own or patients' previous experiences. Barriers that prevented GPs' use of PPR in their decision making included: lack of awareness and accessibility; perceived lack of data credibility; restrictive geographical catchments for certain hospitals; limited choices of public hospitals in regional and rural areas; and no mandatory PPR for private hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that lack of PPR awareness prevented GPs from using it in their referral practice. As gatekeepers to secondary care, GPs are in a position to guide patients in their treatment decisions and referrals using available PPR data. We suggest that there needs to be greater involvement by GPs in the development of hospital performance and quality indicators in Australia if GPs are to make greater use of them. The indicators require further development before GPs perceive them as valid, credible, and of use for informing their referral practices.

Medical management and leadership: a time of transition?

Perspectives on medical management and leadership are in a time of transition, but there is much we still need to understand better. This paper explores some of the tensions and dilemmas inherent in understandings of medical management and leadership.

Perceived barriers to effective implementation of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting of government funded (public) hospital performance data was mandated in Australia in 2011. Studies suggest some benefit associated with such public reporting, but also considerable scope to improve reporting systems. METHODS: In 2015, a purposive sample of 41 expert informants were interviewed, representing consumer, provider and purchasers perspectives across Australia's public and private health sectors, to ascertain expert opinion on the utility and impact of public reporting of health service performance. Qualitative data was thematically analysed with a focus on reporting perceived strengths and barriers to public reporting of hospital performance data (PR). RESULTS: Many more weaknesses and barriers to PR were identified than strengths. Barriers were: conceptual (unclear objective, audience and reporting framework); systems-level (including lack of consumer choice, lack of consumer and clinician involvement, jurisdictional barriers, lack of mandate for private sector reporting); technical and resource related (including data complexity, lack of data relevance consistency, rigour); and socio-cultural (including provider resistance to public reporting, poor consumer health literacy, lack of consumer empowerment). CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the Australian experience of PR highlight important issues in its implementation that can provide lessons for Australia and elsewhere. A considerable weakness of PR in Australia is that the public are often not considered its major audience, resulting in information ineffectually framed to meet the objective of PR informing consumer decision-making about treatment options. Greater alignment is needed between the primary objective of PR, its audience and audience needs; more than one system of PR might be necessary to meet different audience needs and objectives. Further research is required to assess objectively the potency of the barriers to PR suggested by our panel of informants.

The relationship between working conditions and self-rated health among medical doctors: evidence from seven waves of the Medicine In Australia Balancing Employment and Life (Mabel) survey.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial job stressors, such as low control and high demands, have been found to influence the health and wellbeing of doctors. However, past research in this area has relied on cross-sectional data, which limits causal inferences about the influence of psychosocial job stressors on health. In this study, we examine this relationship longitudinally while also assessing whether the relationship between psychosocial job stressors and health is modified by gender. METHODS: The data source was seven annual waves of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) survey. The outcome was self-rated health (measured using the SF-12), and key exposures reflected job control, job demands, work-life balance variables, employment arrangements, and aggression experienced at work. We used longitudinal fixed and random effects regression models to assess within and between-person changes in health. RESULTS: Excessive job demands, low job control, feelings of not being rewarded at work, and work-life imbalance were associated with higher within-person odds of poorer self-rated health. Gender differences were apparent. For female doctors, work arrangements and work-life imbalance were associated with poorer self-rated health whilst task-based job stressors were associated with poorer self-rated health in male doctors. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the importance of addressing adverse working environments among doctors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Vexatious, Misconceived and Avoidable Reports by Peers to Medical Regulators: A Qualitative Study of Health Practitioners in Australia.

The introduction of a mandatory duty to report health practitioners who engage in notifiable conduct has heightened concerns about the potential for notifications to be motivated by rivalry or spite, rather than genuine concern for patient safety. The research discussed in this article explores the views and experiences of health sector professionals in Australia regarding vexatious and misconceived notifications by doctors against other doctors. Interviewees believed most mandatory reports are made on strong grounds with sound motives. Under-reporting was seen as a more significant problem than over-reporting. Three types of inappropriate reports are identified: misconceived reports resulting from a misunderstanding of the reporting thresholds; vexatious reports made with the intention of causing trouble for another practitioner; and avoidable reports where the threshold for reporting need not have been reached if colleagues or employers provided early appropriate support. In light of recent mandatory reporting laws, this article offers recommendations that may assist in supporting appropriate reports and reducing the number of inappropriate reports.