Part 5: Summary of questions for engagement What do you think? 1. Do you think that a ‘firearm injury’ should be defined as an injury expected to have been caused by the discharge of a firearm or airgun, or more broadly as any injury expected to have been caused by a firearm or airgun, for example including blunt force injury? Please explain. 2. Are there any adverse impacts or unintended consequences that could result from your preferred approach to the definition? 3. Are you familiar with the information disclosure provisions set out in section 2.2 above, and do you think they are sufficient to enable sharing relevant firearms injury information with Police? Please explain. 4. Are you aware of any additional information sources or data on firearm injuries in New Zealand? If so, what are these sources? 5. Does your workplace/organisation treat firearm injuries? If so, what data are recorded or collated on these injuries? 6. In your opinion, what are the potential benefits of knowing how often firearms injuries occur? 7. As a health practitioner, have you reported any firearm injuries to Police? If so, how did you report the injury/ies? (for example through your manager, or telephone or email to Police?) 8. In your experience as a health practitioner, when care is provided by multiple practitioners, how is a decision to report made, and who makes it? 9. If you are not a health practitioner, have you reported any firearms injuries to Police? If so, what was your experience? 10. As a health practitioner, what is your experience of reporting health information in other contexts, such as family violence or driver licensing? a. b. c. d. e.
What kind of health information do you report? Who do you report this information to? Do you find this process easy or difficult? Do you know what happens with the data you report? Are you aware of any unintended consequences arising from reporting this information? 23
