TRAnsparency
information
transparency
accountability
public’s
right-to-know
How will the information
be presented?
So now that Council has decided that cautions
and SCERPs will be public, what will these
summaries look like on the public register?
Patient safety literature shows that acknowledgement of
errors is most likely to occur, and in fact sometimes only
occurs, when health professionals have a safe place to
identify, discuss and address problems.
We also have determined that the fact of an investigation – be it a complaint from the public, an inquiry into
a physician’s capacity to practise related to their health,
or an investigation into a mandatory report or a concern
arising from another source – should not be posted on
the public register. At this point a decision has not been
made, and the College believes it would be premature
to provide information about such investigations. Public
safety must be achieved while maintaining procedural
fairness to physicians.
In some instances, an inability to verify the accuracy
of information has led to the decision not to post on the
public register. The College does not have the resources
to verify the accuracy of a physician’s practice focus, and
thus relies on the physician’s specialty designation (if any)
that is verified by the national certifying bodies.
Civil lawsuit settlements are also not reported on the
public register given that the details of such agreements
are not available to the College because they are usually
reached in confidence between patients and doctors.
At present, terms, conditions or limitations that
are no longer in effect are not required by law to be
included on the public register and we are not seeking
legislative change. The RHPA specifies that only the fact
of “the terms, conditions and limitations that are in effect
on each certificate of registration” is public.
We also do not post on the public register most healthrelated information that is contained in or related to
undertakings that arise from an incapacity (healthrelated) investigation. These undertakings will protect
The goal in publishing cases summaries of
these particular Committee decisions is to
make College procedures and outcomes
more transparent to the public, so as such it is
important that members of the public are able
to understand the nature of those decisions.
Case summaries are intended to be factual,
easy to read and go right to the heart of the
issues, including the key findings.
The summaries will reside in the Other Notices
section, which is on every physician’s profile.
Each summary will have: an introduction,
reference any relevant policies, standards or
laws, and an explanation of the ICRC’s analysis
which led to its disposition.
To provide context, there will be accompanying
text to explain to members of the public
the nature of Cautions and SCERPs, the
investigative process, and the ICRC’s role and
composition.
the public by, for example, requiring a physician to
comply with a specific treatment regime. If a physician
complies with the kinds of requirements contained in an
undertaking, then that information will not be posted.
Doctors are entitled, just like anyone else, to have their
health information remain private. Practice restrictions,
however, will be made public even where they arise from
health-related concerns. In those instances in which the
physician disagrees with the results of an investigation, a
referral to the Fitness to Practise Committee will be made
alleging incapacity. The doctor has the right to defend
Issue 2, 2015 Dialogue
35