Progress of our
Transparency Initiative
since August 2012
Premises Register
Hearing Status of Discipline
Proceedings
Reinstatement Decisions of
the Discipline Committee
Providing More Information to Patients – the
Transparency Initiative
The College is already a clear leader in Canada with respect to
our transparency practices. But we believe that providing access
to additional physician-specific information may help patients
make informed choices and enhance our accountability to the
public.
Early in 2014, Council approved placing criminal findings of
guilt and bail conditions on the public register. We also launched
a consultation that included posting a range of additional information on the public register including:
Location of Records
Reported findings of guilt
under the Criminal Code
Reported findings of offences
made under the Health
Insurance Act
*
Bail conditions that affect a
physician’s right to practice
*
Criminal charges
*
Licences in other jurisdictions
*
Discipline findings in other
jurisdictions
*
ICRC: Undertakings
*
ICRC: Cautions-in-Person
*
ICRC: SCERPs
Discipline hearing outcome
When no finding made
(legislative change required)
Publishing Reprimands in
Dialogue (to begin in Winter of
2016)
*Consultations in 2014, approved
in May 2015.
32
Criminal charges
Cautions-in-person
Specified continuing education or remediation program
(SCERP) orders
Discipline findings and licences in other jurisdictions
The Transparency Initiative was born of a growing recognition
that access to more information may assist the public in choosing a health-care professional, enhance accountability and better
inform any evaluation of the performance of professional regulation.
The College was joined in this initiative by the colleges that
govern dentists, pharmacists, nurses, physiotherapists, and opticians. Together we formed a group – the Advisory Group for
Regulatory Excellence (AGRE) – to develop recommendations
for making categories of information about all our members
available to the public; and improve information provided to the
public about colleges more generally.
AGRE considered the degree of risk posed to patients as the
measure in determining which outcome ordered by the Inquiries,
Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) should be posted
on the public register; the more serious the ICRC outcome, the
more important that the information be made public.
A caution-in-person is issued by the ICRC when there is a significant concern about conduct or practice that can have a direct
impact on patient care, safety or the public interest. It is one of
the most serious outcomes, short of a referral to discipline, that
the Committee can order.
The ICRC will order a SCERP when the identified matter
poses a moderate risk to public safety and when a remedial agreement is insufficient or cannot be reached.
“In order for the public to trust that the system works, we need
to demonstrate that the system works,” said Dr. Rocco Gerace,
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO