What the New Psychology Code of Ethics Means for Documentation and Consent

Over the past few weeks, I have been watching the reaction to the updated Psychology Code of Ethics and Core Competencies coming into effect. Much of the conversation I have seen online has been marked by anxiety and uncertainty. There has been a lot of “what does this mean for us now?” energy, particularly around documentation, consent, confidentiality, and record keeping.

That reaction is understandable. When expectations are restated more clearly, it can feel confronting. But it has also made me reflect on something important: how much of this concern is actually about new requirements, and how much is about seeing long-standing responsibilities articulated more directly.

Much of This Was Already Required Under the Psychology Code of Ethics

Consent, confidentiality, privacy, professional boundaries, record keeping, and risk management are not new ethical obligations. They have always sat at the core of psychological practice.

What the updated Code has done, in my view, is clarify expectations and make them more explicit. Responsibilities that were previously embedded within broader principles, or assumed to be understood through professional judgment, are now stated in clearer and more direct language.

That shift matters. Clearer language leaves less room for ambiguity. For some clinicians, that clarity feels reassuring. For others, it can feel unsettling, particularly if it highlights aspects of practice that have not always been consciously reflected on or documented in detail.

An uncomfortable but important question follows from this: are we reacting to genuinely new ethical requirements, or to a clearer articulation of responsibilities that have always been part of our role as psychologists?

I also think it is worth acknowledging the role of social media in amplifying fear. Information shared quickly, without careful reading of the source material or clinical context, can easily lead to alarmist interpretations. Ethical codes are not designed to be consumed in fragments. They require slow, thoughtful engagement.

Where the Real Shift Actually Is

Where I do see a meaningful shift in the updated Code is in the explicit emphasis on culturally responsive, trauma-informed, and neurodiversity-affirming practice.

This is not a minor update. The Code is now far more direct in its expectation that psychologists actively reflect on their competence in these areas and adjust their practice accordingly. It moves beyond general statements of respect and places clearer responsibility on clinicians to ensure their work is safe, inclusive, and responsive to the people they are working with.

What has surprised me is how little attention this aspect of the update has received. Much of the public discussion has focused on compliance and fear, rather than on what this emphasis means for day-to-day clinical work.

Questions such as:

Do I have the skills to work effectively with this population?

Where are my gaps?

What training or supervision do I need to seek out?

How might my usual approaches land for clients with different cultural, trauma, or neurodivergent experiences?

For some clinicians, this emphasis will feel like a natural extension of how they already practise. For others, it may require genuine reflection and further learning. Neither position is inherently problematic. What matters is honesty about where you are at and an understanding that professional competence is not static.

From Knowing the Code to Practising It

This is where I think the conversation actually needs to land.

Ethical practice is about how ethical principles show up in real clinical work. In our assessments, our documentation, our reports, and in how we communicate with clients and justify our clinical decisions.

It is relatively easy to describe our work as trauma-informed, culturally responsive, or neurodiversity-affirming. It is much harder to demonstrate that consistently in practice. Not because clinicians do not care, but because many were never given clear, practical frameworks for how to translate those values into observable clinical behaviour and defensible documentation.

The updated Code has not suddenly raised the bar. It has made the bar more visible. That visibility invites reflection rather than panic. Some important questions I think we should reflect on are:

How are we evidencing informed consent, particularly when work becomes complex or evolves over time?

How are we documenting ethical reasoning when decisions are not straightforward?

How are we ensuring our language, formulations, and recommendations are accessible, respectful, and genuinely responsive to the person in front of us?

What the Psychology Code of Ethics Means Practically for Documentation

For many psychologists, the most immediate impact of the updated Code will be felt in documentation.

Good documentation is about clarity. Records should show how decisions were made, not just what decision was reached. They should reflect clinical reasoning, consideration of risk, and awareness of the client’s context, rather than functioning as a checklist or administrative task.

Consent processes, in particular, benefit from being revisited and documented over time, especially in assessment work or when the scope of intervention changes. Similarly, confidentiality and privacy considerations often require explicit thought and recording when working with families, multidisciplinary teams, or systems such as schools, NDIS, or workplaces.

Documenting ethical reasoning is less about writing more and more about knowing what matters to record, so that another clinician can clearly follow how conclusions were reached.

A Note on Panic, Compliance, and Professional Judgment

Ethical codes are designed to guide clinical judgment and decision making. When fear dominates the conversation, there is a risk that practice becomes reactive or overly defensive, with clinicians focusing on avoiding mistakes rather than engaging thoughtfully with the complexities of their work. That kind of practice rarely serves clients well, and it can quietly erode confidence in one’s own clinical reasoning.

When the Code is understood in terms of its purpose, rather than as a set of rules to comply with, ethical practice tends to feel more intuitive. The Psychology Code of Ethics exists first and foremost to protect the public and safeguard the welfare of our clients. It also exists to honour the position of trust psychologists hold, and to ensure that this power is never misused, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

Seen through this lens, the Code is less about restriction and more about responsibility. It asks us to be aware of our positionality, to recognise the inherent power imbalance present in therapeutic and assessment relationships, and to take active responsibility for how our decisions, language, and actions affect those we work with.

Proactive ethical practice is not about anticipating punishment or avoiding complaints. It is about consistently centring safety, dignity, and accountability in our work. When those principles guide practice, documentation, consent processes, and professional boundaries tend to follow naturally, rather than feeling forced or externally imposed.

Final Thoughts

The updated Psychology Code of Ethics has not fundamentally changed what it means to practise ethically. It has clarified expectations and made responsibilities more visible.

That visibility can feel confronting, but it also provides an opportunity to reflect on how our values show up in practice, how our documentation supports our clinical work, and how we continue to grow as professionals.

Ethical practice has always been less about reacting to change and more about being proactive. It lives in our capacity to self-reflect, remain objective, and recognise the trust placed in us by our clients and the wider community. That trust deserves careful handling.

For clinicians who prefer practical tools, I also offer clinical resources for note-taking and assessment report writing. These have recently been updated to align with current ethical and documentation standards, including culturally responsive, trauma-informed, and neurodiversity-affirming practice.