REGISTRATION
outes for physicians with
R
residency training in the United
States (who either received
supervision in Ontario (Pathways
3 and 4) or were eligible for
examinations by the RCPSC or
CFPC (USA Exam Eligible).
outes for physicians with
R
residency training in Canada but
who did not immediately pass
Canadian licensing examinations
(requiring supervised practice).
xam eligibility routes for
E
physicians with practice experience
and/or training in another Canadian
jurisdiction.
xam eligibility routes for
E
physicians who have completed
training in one of 29 Royal College-
approved training systems that
have been deemed by the RCPSC
to be comparable to Canadian
residency programs.
outes for internationally trained
R
specialists who completed
practice assessments in Ontario
(i.e., programs formerly run by the
Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care and known by a variety of
names/acronyms such as APIMG).
understanding the effectiveness of alternative registration pathways
and policies, implemented as part of the system-wide strategy to
increase physician supply in Ontario from the early 2000s onward.
Specifically, the evaluation sought to determine if performance
differences exist between practising physicians who were registered
through those alternative routes to registration and those who were
registered through the traditional route (i.e., physicians fully trained
in Canadian residency and qualified in Canadian examinations).
The performance of both Alternative Route Physicians (ARPs) and
Traditional Route Physicians (TRPs) was measured using multiple
data sources:
• The outcomes of the College’s Peer Assessment program
(chart audit and physician interview)
• The results of a 360-evaluation tool called Multi-Source
Feedback (MSF)
• Primary care quality indicators developed and analyzed at the
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES)
Peer Assessment
There were peer assessments performed on 481 ARPs and 1,152 TRPs.
The evaluation found that very few of the College's Quality
Assurance Committee decisions resulted in significant outcomes (<1%
of decisions for ARPs and TRPs combined). Examples of outcomes
deemed as significant include interviews with the Committee, an
order for a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Plan, a
comprehensive Peer and Practice Reassessment, or terms, conditions
We welcome your
feedback on any issue
raised in Dialogue.
We reserve the right to edit letters
for length and clarity.
Please send letters to:
Elaine McNinch,
Managing Editor
Mailing address:
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
80 College St, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E2
Fax: (416) 961-8035 Email: [email protected]
30
DIALOGUE ISSUE 1, 2018