inTroducing concerns , we can deal with upwards of 3,000 matters per year . For most of us with medical practices , this is an after-hours job , one involving hundreds of hours per year on nights and weekends of reading cases to prepare for panel meetings .
Q & A to the profession . And perhaps most significantly , ICRC has become more sensitive to complaints around potential sexual abuse , reflecting public expectations and the profession ’ s repugnance of such behaviour .
What might a practising physician want to know about the ICRC ’ s approach to cases ? A . Complaints are viewed as objectively as possible and if the care is good , we are very happy to say so . We recognize that good doctors are mortified when their care is seen as deficient in any way . In a majority of cases , no action is required as the care delivered has been found to be good . Otherwise , the ICRC has a range of tools available , many of them educational . Referral to discipline is used only when appropriate , for example with serious conduct issues , or when education has not sufficed , or when doctors are not willing to engage in education .
What is a common motivating factor in a patient ’ s wish to make a complaint about a physician ? A . Communication issues are at the root of the majority of complaints . Physicians may not realize how their words are being interpreted . Add an unexpected outcome or an unmet expectation and a complaint may result .
Has there been a change in how the Committee has responded to complaints over the years ? A . We have become more consistent in our decision-making and have developed a riskbased approach to the assessment of cases . We have decreased the number of types of dispositions to increase the clarity of direction
Over the last two years , the ICRC ’ s decisions have become much more transparent . Why was this so important ? A . Bringing transparency into the process was a transformative initiative for the ICRC and the College . Historically , the ICRC has kept its decisions confidential in order to maintain physicians ’ privacy . But times are changing , and there are new expectations . Working in an organization with a public interest mandate , we had to be at the forefront of increasing the information available to the public .
As chair of the ICRC , you were key to the operationalization of the transparency initiative . How would you describe that experience ? A . This was a team effort . From the beginning of this initiative , I was deeply impressed by the ability of staff and committee members to understand the need for transparency in carrying out the work we do . One of the principles of the transparency initiative is that the greater the potential risk to the public , the more important transparency becomes . So our decision to post the summary of a particular case , with our determinations , is based on an assessment of the risk posed . The test in such situations is always – is this information that a patient should know ? Is this information that I would want to know if I were a patient ? By the same token , we were mindful from the outset that not all information needed to be
22
Dialogue Issue 4 , 2016