Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


2 records – page 1 of 1.

Third-party forms (Update 2017)

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13643
Date
2017-05-27
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2017-05-27
Replaces
Third-party Forms: The Physician's Role (Update 2010)
Short-Term Illness Certificate
Topics
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
A physician's assessment and signature on a third-party form have a value that reflects the physician's formal education and training as well as his/her professional experience. Similar to the signatures of other professionals, a physician's signature carries certain responsibilities and a commitment that the information provided is accurate and based on objective data and the patient's medical history. This value needs to be formally recognized and appropriately used. Most third parties have historically relied on the goodwill of physicians to complete their forms free of charge. However, the steady rise of third-party form requests (see Appendix A) and the cumulative time that form completion takes away from direct patient care necessitates a more reasonable approach to form requests and fair remuneration for the physicians' time and expertise. SCOPE OF POLICY This document provides guidance for physicians, patients and organizations that request third-party forms1 subject to federal/provincial/territorial legislation and regulations. Several strategies aimed at reducing the administrative burden of third-party forms are recommended to allow more time for direct patient care.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES The physician's role * The physician has a well-defined and limited role in form completion - to only provide objective information on physical and/or psychological impairments and abilities, limitations and restrictions, time frames and prognosis from the medical record directly required by the third party for the purpose of administering particular programs or benefits. Questions on forms directed to physicians should be restricted to seeking such information. * A physician has a duty to ensure that he/she has properly completed the form (i.e., he/she has filled out the form completely, accurately and objectively in accordance with the requirements of the physician's provincial or territorial regulatory college). * When asked to provide an opinion on functional abilities to employers or insurers, the focus should be on abilities; information on restrictions should be objective and specific, and restrictions should be listed only when absolutely medically indicated.3 * A physician must not state that a patient has been under his/her care unless that is the case. The duration of the care should be indicated. If a physician does not have sufficient knowledge of an illness to provide information or an opinion upon it, the physician should state this on the certificate. The certification of absence should be based only on patient history if the patient was seen after the illness and should be clearly documented as "patient reports." In instances where a physician is being requested to complete a form by a transient patient (i.e., not the physician's patient), the physician should only comment on observations based on their own medical assessment. * A physician must have a patient's consent to disclose information to any third party, such as the patient's employer or insurer. Unless prevented by law, the physician should ensure the patient is aware that the report he/she provides to the third party is outside the physician-patient relationship and that in completing the form, the physician has a professional obligation to accurately and objectively report upon the patient's condition. A physician must not disclose more information than is covered by the patient's consent - this includes only providing information relevant to the nature of the request and that is reasonably necessary. If a patient limits his/her consent, the physician must consider whether such limitation is relevant to his/her report and if it is, report the limitation to the third party. * An accurate and relevant narrative summary of a patient's clinical files by the physician should be sufficient information for third parties. The requesting of complete copies of clinical files is unwarranted in the significant majority of cases unless mandated by legislation. * Physicians should consult with the Canadian Medical Protective Association and their provincial regulatory college for guidance and clarification on third-party form requests (see Appendix B). The patient's role * To the greatest extent possible, patients should review the third-party form and be aware of the information being requested. * Most forms request information on patients' subjective complaints and self-reported function. In such instances, it would be more appropriate to have this information reported directly by the patient to the requesting party. * Patients must be aware of the following: o Receipt of their consent authorizes the attending physician to accurately, completely and objectively explain the patient's medical condition as part of the physician's professional responsibility. o Physicians have a professional and ethical obligation to only document that which is true and medically defensible. The physician does not act as the decision-maker for absences or claims adjudication. o In some instances (e.g., fitness to drive), physicians also have legislated requirements to complete third-party forms regarding their patient. The role of the third party * Third parties should only request medical forms when there is a need for medical information about a patient (i.e., information that could not be provided by a non-physician) to be used for employment/education purposes or the evaluation of a medically related benefit for the patient. o It is the role of the third party to adjudicate on a patient's eligibility for a benefit, not the physician. o A request for a patient's non-medical information (i.e., unrelated to the patient's medical condition/history) or a request to certify identity (e.g., asking a physician to certify the principal parent for the purpose of determining eligibility to receive child benefits) is an inappropriate use of medical resources and it is at the discretion of the physician whether to comply with such requests. o Requests for updates should be reasonable and respect the physician's prognosis. o Wherever possible, third-party forms should be standardized (e.g., program eligibility, tombstone data, wording of questions) to save time and reduce administrative errors. o Program eligibility should be made clear to patients and providers to reduce inappropriate form requests (e.g., educating tax advisors on government program eligibility to prevent inappropriate requests for the disability tax credit). * To make the process of completing a medical form effective and efficient, third parties must involve and inform physicians early and on an ongoing basis, beginning by asking physicians to help to determine whether there is a need for a medical form to be completed in the first place. Medical input is also necessary in the design of the form and to determine how often the form needs to be completed. Physicians should be involved in periodic reviews of existing medical forms with third parties (e.g., governments, insurance companies, associations) for several reasons: to determine whether the forms remain relevant and as a simple as possible; to determine appropriate remuneration for completing the forms; and to ensure that physicians are notified of any changes to requests for medical certification in writing rather than having changes communicated to the physician informally through the patient.4 * In some cases, other health professionals (e.g., occupational therapists) are in a better position to objectively assess patients' abilities and could be designated as qualified practitioners for the purpose of completing the forms, with physicians providing information pertaining to medical assessments and prognoses. Short-term illnesses * Confirmation of a short-term absence from work because of minor illness is a matter to be addressed between an employer and an employee directly. Such an absence does not require physician confirmation of illness and represents an inefficient use of scarce health care resources. It is the employer's responsibility -not the physician's - to oversee employee absenteeism. It may be that for many cases, the need for a medical certificate can be replaced by a more effective alternative that does not involve physicians and is agreed to by all parties concerned (e.g., employer and employees). * If an employer, educational institution or other third party requests an illness confirmation certificate for a short-term, minor illness that would otherwise not have required medical attention, said party should recognize that completion of the certificate is an uninsured service for which physicians are entitled to compensation, preferably from the third party requesting the information, rather than burdening the patient. Fair compensation * The third party requesting the information should be responsible for compensating the physician for their medical information and expertise. At a provincial/territorial government level, this could mean making the completion of provincial/territorial forms an insured service under the provincial/territorial health insurance plan. * Physician reimbursement should cover the time and resources devoted to the provision of medical information to third parties (submitted in writing, electronically and/or by phone). This includes compensation for any uninsured medical assessment necessary to complete the form, for the provision of copies of medical information, and for the time and resources needed to respond to any follow-up requests. Wherever possible, the compensation rates should be consistent and should reflect the time and effort necessary to complete the form(s). * Physicians should be compensated for completing forms related to return to work by provincial/territorial worker's compensation plans; they should be compensated for completing return-to-work forms for non-occupational conditions by provincial/territorial insurance plans, given the important health implications of return-to-work management. * In the absence of third-party compensation, physicians may charge the patient for the service they provide. As stated in the CMA's Code of Ethics, physicians should consider the nature of the service provided and the ability of the patient to pay, and they should be prepared to discuss the fee with the patient.5 Patient decisions about payment for uninsured services must not negatively affect the physician-patient relationship or pose a barrier to accessing health care services. The physician may decide to reduce or waive his/her fees if the patient lacks the financial ability to pay. Physicians should consult their provincial/territorial medical association for guidance regarding direct billing of patients. Appendix A The increasing administrative burden Physicians face a multitude of requests on a daily basis to complete medical forms and certificates. Requests come from many sources, including governments, government agencies (e.g., workers' compensation boards) and the private/non-governmental sectors (e.g., employers, insurance companies, schools, sporting organizations). In a 2016 survey of CMA physician members on third-party forms, physicians identified sick notes as the form that they were most frequently asked to complete (67.0% of respondents reported having to fill this form out more than five times per week). Short-term disability claim forms were the second most frequently requested form, with 42.3% of respondents reporting completing this form more than five times per week. Medical certificates for sickness benefit claims under the federal government's employment insurance program - just one example of a third-party form requiring medical input - had to be completed for 336,800 approved applications in 2013-20146 (the vast majority of these certificates would have been completed by physicians). Physicians continue to devote considerable time to completing forms. Government disability forms, just one type of third-party form, require considerable amount of time to complete. Over 62% of the physicians in the 2016 survey indicated they spend 21-30 minutes (31% of respondents) or more than 30 minutes (31% of respondents) to complete the Canada Pension Plan disability form. Similarly, 60% indicated they spend 21-30 minutes (33% of respondents) or more than 30 minutes (27% of respondents) to complete the Veterans' Affairs disability benefit form. The most frequently identified concern that physicians have with completing third-party forms (75% of those who participated in the 2016 survey) was the time it took from direct patient care. The second most frequently identified concern (63.4%) was the number of inappropriate requests from third parties.7 Increasing administrative workload/paperwork has been identified by physicians as one of the biggest contributors increasing the demand for their time at work. 8 In many cases, these requests can be an inappropriate use of a physician's time, such as requests for patient information for administrative purposes. Responding to such requests reduces both timely access to care and the time available for direct patient care. Appendix B Policies in the office to better manage third-party form requests Office policies and strategies can be instituted by physicians to better manage third-party requests. These strategies include: * having an office policy or standardized method to manage third-party form requests; * having clear communication and posted signage on patient and physician responsibilities regarding forms and fees; * using a standard form template (e.g., for sick notes)9; and * organizing time to complete forms. Physicians are also encouraged to consult with their provincial/territorial medical association and their regulatory college for guidance related to form requests. These strategies can be part of an overall effort by organizations to raise the awareness of employers, governments and other third parties of the need for a more appropriate approach to form requests to eliminate time wasted for all parties and reduce the inappropriate use of health care resources. 1 The term third-party form refers to any form, letter, medical certificate, mandatory reporting form, photocopy or other document containing medical information about the patient that a physician has been requested to complete or provide by a third party on behalf of their patient. [0]The term third party refers to an employer, government department or agency, private insurer or other organization that is requesting medical information about the patient with the intention of using it. 2 This policy should be considered in conjunction with CMA's policy statement entitled The Treating Physician's Role in Helping Patients Return to Work after an Illness or Injury. 3 Choosing Wisely Canada. Occupational Medicine Specialists of Canada. Five things physicians and patients should question; 2014 Oct 29. Available: www.choosingwiselycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Occupational-Medicine.pdf 4 Saskatchewan Medical Association. SMA relative value guide. Saskatoon: The Association; 2004. 5 Canadian Medical Association. Code of Ethics. Ottawa: The Association; 2004. 6 This figure does not include the number of forms completed for individuals who applied but did not qualify for the program. Canada Employment Insurance Commission. Employment insurance monitoring and assessment report 2013/14. Ottawa: Employment and Social Development Canada. Available: www.esdc.gc.ca/en/reports/ei/monitoring2014/chapter2_4.page 7 Canadian Medical Association. e-Panel survey summary: third-party forms. Ottawa: The Association; 2017. 8 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. National physician survey 2013. Results by FP/GP or other specialist, sex, age and all physicians [table]. Ottawa: The College; 2013. Available: http://nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-National-EN-Q13r.pdf 9 Steven Harrison. OMA sickness certificate template: a practical office resource. Ontario Medical Review 2004 Dec.
Documents
Less detail

The physician appointment and reappointment process 2016

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13564
Date
2016-12-03
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Policy document
Date
2016-12-03
Topics
Health human resources
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
Beginning in the 1990s most jurisdictions established regional health authorities (RHAs) with consolidated medical staff structures and there has been a trend toward requiring all physicians practising in a region to hold an appointment with the RHA in order to access health resources such as diagnostic imaging and laboratory services, irrespective of whether they hold hospital privileges or not. Subsequent to the consolidation of medical staff governance there have been several developments over the past decade that have implications for where and how physicians can practise, and for their ability to advocate freely on behalf of their patients. These include: * the establishment of formal physician resource plans that link the appointment process to the ability to participate in the provincial/territorial medical insurance plan; * a greater focus on clinical governance that includes detailed attention on scope of practice and privileges; * a growing concern about the ability of physicians to advocate on behalf of their patients and the communities they serve; and * an increase in the number of physicians entering into employment or contractual arrangements. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) puts forward the following recommendations for governments, regulatory authorities, RHAs and medical staff structures within RHAs and hospitals. Recommendations Where physician appointments are to be approved in relation to Physician Resource Plans, the CMA recommends that such plans must: * take into consideration both population need and projected physician supply; * include transparency in the provision of information about available practice opportunities and on the criteria and processes through which applications for appointments are approved; * be based on a documented methodology with results in the public domain; and * be based on a medium-term projection range, using the most current and reliable data available, and be regularly reviewed and updated. The CMA recommends that the application of standardized credential templates must take into consideration the quality of care being provided by the physician and local circumstances such as the complement of medical and hospital resources available locally and the timeliness of proximity to secondary and tertiary care. The CMA strongly supports the implementation of policy to safeguard physicians from fear of reprisal and retaliation when speaking out as advocates for their patients and communities, and the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve. The CMA supports provincial/territorial amendments to public health legislation to protect the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve without political interference or risk of adverse employment consequences. The CMA believes that medical staff bylaws should expressly extend to physicians under contract entitlement to the procedural protections set out in the hospital or health authority bylaws. The CMA recommends that the processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources respect the following principles: 1. All processes should be fair, equitable, documented and transparent and should protect confidentiality. 2. Criteria for reappointment should be clearly specified in medical staff bylaws and should be no more onerous than necessary to verify the ongoing provision of quality care by the medical staff. 3. A regular evaluation of appointed physicians should be conducted by the appropriate clinical chief. 4. The quality of a physician's care is the most important criterion to be considered at the time of appointment, reappointment and the granting of privileges. 5. The information required for the granting of appointments, reappointments or privileges or for the allocation of medical resources must be accurate, valid and appropriate. 6. The processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources should recognize and accommodate the changes in practice patterns that may occur over the medical career cycle. 7. Physicians with established community practices have a significant investment in their practice and the community; this investment should be considered at the time of reappointment or change in privileges. 8. A recommendation, without just cause, to withdraw an appointment, to restrict privileges or to significantly reduce resources available to a physician must include appropriate compensation based on individual circumstances. 9. The reporting of legal actions or disciplinary actions as part of the reappointment or reappointment process should be restricted to those matters in which a final determination has been rendered and in which there has been an adverse finding to the physician. Objective This policy outlines the principles that should be considered for the granting of physician appointments, reappointments, privileges and access to resources at the health care facility, district or RHA level. Key definitions Appointment: The process by which a physician joins the medical staff of a health region or health facility in order to access resources to care for patients. Credentialing: An approach to obtaining, verifying and assessing the qualifications of a health professional against consistent criteria for the purposes of licensing and/or granting privileges.1 Privileges: Permission from an authorized body to a health care provider to conduct a specific scope and content of patient care. Privileges are granted based upon an evaluation of the provider's training, experience and competence related to the service, and are specific to a defined practice setting.1 Clinical peer review: The process by which physician peers assess each other's performance. A peer is a physician with relevant clinical experience in similar health care environments who also has the competence to contribute to the review of other physicians' performance.2 Background Historically the formal appointment process applied to physicians wishing to practise in hospitals. Beginning in the 1990s most jurisdictions established RHAs with consolidated medical staff structures and there has been a trend toward requiring all physicians practising in a region to hold an appointment with the RHA in order to access health resources such as diagnostic imaging and laboratory services, irrespective of whether they hold hospital privileges or not. Since the CMA first adopted principles for the physician appointment and reappointment process in 1997 there have been several developments that are reviewed below: * the establishment of formal physician resource plans that link the appointment process to the ability to participate in the provincial/territorial medical insurance plan; * a greater focus on clinical governance that includes detailed attention on scope of practice and privileges; * a growing concern about the ability of physicians to advocate on behalf of their patients and the communities they serve; and * an increase in the number of physicians entering into employment or contractual arrangements. Physician Resource Plans (PRPs): New Brunswick was the first province to require physicians to have privileges with an RHA in order to obtain a billing number.3 More recently jurisdictions such as Nova Scotia (N.S.) have introduced medium to longer range PRPs that are to be used when approving new appointments. In 2012 N.S. released a PRP for 2012-2021, which has since been updated to 2013-2022.4 Under the terms of the Nova Scotia Health Authority Medical Staff Bylaws, the RHA CEO or their designate will assess applications for new appointments in relation to need and availability of resources. The assessment is to be completed within 60 days and there is no right of review or appeal of the CEO's decision.5 Manitoba's medical staff bylaws make a similar provision.6 While Ontario has not regionalized to the same extent as other jurisdictions, legislation has been introduced that proposes to make the 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) responsible for primary care planning and performance management.7 Moreover the Bill will amend the Health Insurance Act to authorize the health minister to delegate non-fee-for-service physician compensation to the LHIN. Recommendation Where physician appointments are to be approved in relation to PRPs, the CMA recommends that such plans must: * take into consideration both population need and projected physician supply; * include transparency in the provision of information about available practice opportunities and on the criteria and processes through which applications for appointments are approved; * be based on a documented methodology with results in the public domain; and * be based on a medium-term projection range, using the most current and reliable data available, and be regularly reviewed and updated. Other physician resource planning considerations are set out in the CMA's comprehensive policy on PRPs.8 Clinical governance: Since the late 1990s there has been a great deal of attention paid to the concept of clinical governance, which may be defined as the structures, processes and culture needed to ensure that health care organizations and all individuals within them can assure the quality of the care they provide and are continuously seeking to improve it. During the past decade several provinces have carried out inquiries related to problems with pathology and radiology. In British Columbia (B.C.) the Chair of the BC Patient Safety & Quality Council conducted a review of the medical imaging credentialing and quality assurance that reported in 2011. In his final report, Dr. Douglas Cochrane set out 35 recommendations that called for much more rigorous and uniform oversight of medical practice in B.C.9 The recommendations included a call for: * the creation of a single medical staff administration to serve all health authorities and affiliated organizations; * the development of standardized processes for medical staff appointment, and credentialing and privileging, including common definitions; and * the development of performance assessment and review process for all physicians.9 The Cochrane report has resulted in the British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative (BC MQI). BC MQI is implementing an online Provincial Practitioner Credentialing and Privileging System (CACTUS Software) that will be used by all of B.C.'s RHAs to manage these processes for physicians, midwives, dentists and nurse practitioners.10 BC MQI has developed 62 privileging dictionaries for medical directors and department heads to use with their colleagues during initial and renewal privileging processes. The dictionaries recommend the required current experience to perform a certain activity in the form of numbers where applicable and also recommend the requirements for renewal of privileges and the requirements for return to practice. These recommendations are meant to take into account the individual's own experience and the context of the local site in which they work. They are meant to begin a conversation as needed with the department head, colleagues and others. The Society of Rural Physicians of Canada (SRPC) has raised concerns about the potential impact of volume-based credentialing on rural medical practice. For example, the dictionary for Family Practice with Enhanced Surgical Skills recommends that for operative delivery, a volume of at least five caesarean section deliveries be performed per year averaged over 24 months.11The SRPC has put forward recommendations that emphasize the need for appropriate peer review and consideration of geographic diversity and the range of medical practice, and that credential revalidation should be based on the actual quality of care provided by the physician, the continuing medical education completed by the physician and should also consider the impact of changes in delivery on the health outcomes in the community.12 It seems likely that other jurisdictions will be watching the CACTUS program with interest. Recommendation The CMA recommends that the application of standardized credential templates must take into consideration the quality of care being provided by the physician and local circumstances such as the complement of medical and hospital resources available locally and the timeliness of proximity to secondary and tertiary care. Advocacy: Advocacy has been identified as one of seven core roles of every physician by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada13 and the College of Family Physicians of Canada.14 This role entails physicians using their expertise and influence in the interests of their individual patients and the communities and populations they serve. Over the past decade there have been several instances where physicians have either expressed concern about their ability to advocate or have had disciplinary action taken against them, likely as a result of their advocacy activities. As a result of an inquiry carried out by the Health Quality Council of Alberta, the Alberta Medical Association, Alberta Health Services and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta have adopted a joint policy statement that sets out guidelines for physician advocacy.15 Eastern Health in Newfoundland and Labrador has a privacy/confidentiality oath or affirmation for physicians that acknowledges that they may have professional standards for disclosure and advocacy regarding patient safety, but stipulates the expectation that such concerns be first addressed through Eastern Health as an initial step.16 The CMA's policy on the evolving professional relationship between physicians and the health care system sets out nine factors for physicians to consider before undertaking advocacy.17 As predominantly employees of some level of government, and with a responsibility to sound an alert on population health risks, public health physicians are at greater risk of being disciplined for advocacy. There have been two high profile cases of public health physicians who have been dismissed for advocacy-related activities since 2000. Thus far only B.C. has enacted public health legislation to protect medical officers of health from political interference and adverse employment consequences. B.C.'s Public Health Act stipulates that the provincial health officer (PHO) has a duty to advise on provincial public health issues, which includes public reporting where the PHO believes it will best serve the public interest. Similarly sub-provincial medical health officers must advise on local public health issues and publicly report on them after consultation with the PHO. B.C.'s legislation also provides health officers with immunity from legal proceedings for actions done in good faith in the performance of their duties and for reports they are required to make. In addition the legislation protects health officers from "adverse actions", defined as an action that would either affect or threaten "the personal, financial or other interests of a person, or a relative, dependent, friend or business or other close association of that person" as a result of performing their duties in good faith.18 Recommendations The CMA strongly supports the implementation of policy to safeguard physicians from fear of reprisal and retaliation when speaking out as advocates for their patients and communities, and the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve. The CMA supports provincial/territorial amendments to public health legislation to protect the right and duty of medical officers of health to speak publicly to the citizens they serve without political interference or risk of adverse employment consequences. Growing employment/contractual relationships: The move to RHAs, consolidation in the hospital sector and changing delivery models have had significant implications for the relationships between physicians and hospitals. The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) has identified several areas of concern, including patient advocacy, reporting of physicians, responding to adverse events, collection and use of physician information, practice arrangements and liability provision.19 One issue that the CMPA has highlighted in particular is the increasing trend in some jurisdictions for physicians to be engaged on a contracted employee basis rather than as independent contractors appointed with privileges.20 This is seen among facility-based physicians such as hospitalists, clinical and surgical assistants and laboratory physicians. The CMPA has cautioned that physicians engaged on a contractual basis may not have the same procedural rights on termination of contracts as those engaged under the privileging model and it has issued guidance on issues to consider with individual contracts, including CMPA assistance, indemnification clauses, liability provisions, confidentiality, termination of contract, dispute resolution and governing law.21 Recommendation The CMA believes that medical staff bylaws should expressly extend to physicians under contract entitlement to the procedural protections set out in the hospital or health authority bylaws. Principles Physicians must take a leadership role and be active participants in the development of appointment, reappointment and related processes; medical communities must therefore be aware of the basic principles that should be reflected in these processes. Once a physician has obtained a licence to practice, the process of appointment approval is the next step in obtaining permission to practise medicine in a health care facility, district or region. The next step is the granting of privileges. This bestows the right to perform specific medical acts within the health care facility, district or region. The final step is the provision of the necessary resources so that the physician is able to provide appropriate medical services for patient care. A medical committee with a clear structure and mandate to deal with appointments, reappointments and privileges must be maintained in all health care facilities, districts and regions so that physician input may be given during the appointment, reappointment and related processes. Clinical peer review must be foundational to these processes. Time, training and resources must be sufficient to support consistent peer review processes. The principles proposed below apply to all of the following processes: the appointment and reappointment processes, the granting of privileges and the allocation of health care facility, district or regional resources. Principles for the processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources 1. All processes should be fair, equitable, documented and transparent and should protect confidentiality. They should be completed in a timely manner and follow the rules of natural justice. At a minimum, the rules of natural justice give the physician the right to notice and the right to be heard before, and provided with reasons by, an impartial adjudicator. Given the nature of the physician's interests in the appointment, reappointment and other related processes, the following principles should also be included: * the right to be heard, either in person and (or) by representation; * the right to full disclosure of the information being considered by the committee that makes recommendations on appointments, reappointments and privileges; * the right to present evidence; * the right to a hearing free from bias, either real or perceived; * the right to a record of the proceedings; * a decision within a reasonable period; * the right to receive written reasons for the decision; and * the right to an appeal process by an independent and impartial body other than the board of the health care facility, district or region. It is important that all processes, including any review processes, follow the principles of natural justice. These processes should be part of the medical staff bylaws that guide the operation of the health care facility, district or region and should be known to all appointed physicians. 2. Criteria for reappointment should be clearly specified in medical staff bylaws and should be no more onerous than necessary to verify the ongoing provision of quality care by the medical staff. Medical staff appointments are typically for a one-year term. Criteria for reappointment vary across Canada, ranging from the provision of evidence of renewed licensure and liability coverage with a discretionary in-depth performance evaluation to the foregoing plus a mandated in-depth performance evaluation and reporting on continuing professional development activity. 3. A regular evaluation of appointed physicians should be conducted by the appropriate clinical chief. It should consist of a fair, documented process with explicit, agreed-upon criteria for the review of the physician's qualifications and credentials and the quality of care provided. If there is demonstrated inappropriate behaviour or a quality-of-care issue, a program for remediation should be established with regular follow-up over a period deemed appropriate by the physician's peers. As in other jobs, the objective of regular performance evaluations for a physician is to improve the physician's performance and the focus should be on opportunities for learning and improvement. The appraisal should entail a standardized peer evaluation process, in addition to self-assessment. The self-assessment process should include the recognition of satisfactory existing skills and the identification of new skills to be learned. In some situations remediation may be justified, for example when there is a need to upgrade skills, when interpersonal and communication skills are unacceptable, and when there is alcohol or drug abuse. Physician evaluations conducted by RHAs should take into account requirements already asked of the physician by their certifying and/or licensing body or other speciality organization in order to avoid duplication of effort. Looking ahead, with the increasing focus on team-based collaborative care, performance of team function and its impact on overall performance to meet health service requirements and quality of care is expected to become increasingly relevant. Conflict resolution mechanisms, scopes of practice and shared roles and responsibilities will need to be considered in order to assess individual and team performance. 4. The quality of a physician's care is the most important criterion to be considered at the time of appointment, reappointment and the granting of privileges. Quality care may be defined as the provision of service that satisfies the needs of the patient and meets the standards set out by recognized bodies of the profession, such as licensing bodies, national clinical societies and others. The essential components of quality include competence, accessibility, acceptability, effectiveness, appropriateness, efficiency, affordability and safety. The cost of a physician's care should not be the primary criterion considered during appointment, reappointment and related processes. Practice patterns, resulting in differences in cost of care, will differ for numerous reasons, including severity of illness, patient mix and patient choices. If there is a local, regional or district physician resource plan, then the need for a particular physician skill base as identified in the plan is an important criterion for appointment or reappointment to institutions within the plan. Physicians must be involved in the development of such a plan, and the plan must be supported by physicians at the local, district or regional level. If a practice and remuneration plan is introduced for a facility, hospital or academic health sciences centre, then participation in such a plan should not be a criterion for reappointment. 5. The information required for the granting of appointments, reappointments or privileges or for the allocation of medical resources must be accurate, valid and appropriate. The information required for these purposes should generally be limited to that which is reasonably necessary to determine the physician's ability to provide safe care. Physician's privacy should only be violated if it is determined that a medical condition or other disability poses an unacceptable risk to patients. The physician's credentials, skills, expertise and quality of care, as judged by peer assessment, should be considered during the appointment or reappointment process. Utilization data and associated indicators are being used more frequently as criteria for appointment and reappointment. Therefore, physicians must be involved in the development of such indicators, and there must be agreement by all parties on the type and quality of data or indicators to be used. In addition, before appointment or reappointment, physicians must be made aware of the data or indicators that will be used to evaluate them and the criteria by which these indicators will be applied. 6. The processes of granting appointments, reappointments and privileges and allocating resources should recognize and accommodate the changes in practice patterns that may occur over the medical career cycle. These processes should be flexible and reasonable concerning other issues such as on-call responsibilities or time needed to fulfil research and teaching commitments. It is important to recognize that a physician's practice pattern may change during his or her medical career. These changes may reflect the desire to no longer take call, the narrowing of the physician's practice to achieve a higher level of expertise in a specific area or the desire to pursue academic interests or responsibilities. Pregnancy, parental leave and the wish to practice part-time must also be considered. The quality of a physician's personal life and other special needs should be viewed as important and should be considered by those making decisions in these areas. 7. Physicians with established community practices have a significant investment in their practice and the community; this investment should be considered at the time of reappointment or change in privileges. An established physician may face financial loss if he or she is not reappointed or if there is a recommendation to substantially change his or her privileges. This possibility should be considered at the time of reappointment or change in privileges. 8. A recommendation, without just cause, to withdraw an appointment, to restrict privileges or to significantly reduce resources available to a physician must include appropriate compensation based on individual circumstances. Appropriate compensation includes financial restitution, retraining, relocation assistance and counselling assistance as required. Sufficient notice and other elements of due process should also be components of this recommendation. Generally, physicians are not employees of a health care facility, district or regional authority. Nonetheless, there are often extensive restrictions on physician mobility and limited opportunities to practice both inside and outside a province or territory. Age may also be a factor in the ability to find placement elsewhere, particularly if the physician is nearing retirement age. For these reasons, an interruption or cessation of a physician's career caused by withdrawal of an appointment, restriction of privileges or reduction in the resources available to the physician justifies appropriate compensation and due notice; this is in keeping with good human resource practices. Appropriate notice should be provided to physicians so that there is minimal impact on patient care. What constitutes timely and appropriate notice may in some cases be several months and will differ depending on the impact of the decision. Examples of decisions that could have a significant impact on physicians include: * temporary or permanent closure of operating rooms or other facilities; * strategic redirection of the hospital that may adversely affect a particular medical service or department, such as regionalization of laboratory testing or provincial centralization of a specialized service; and * implementation of a retirement policy. 9. The reporting of legal actions or disciplinary actions as part of the reappointment or reappointment process should be restricted to those matters in which a final determination has been rendered and in which there has been an adverse finding to the physician. References 1 Accreditation Canada. Qmentum Standards. Governance. Ottawa: Accreditation Canada; 2016. 2 Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. Review by peers: a guide for professional, clinical and administrative processes. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; July 2010. Available: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/37358-Review-by-Peers.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 3 New Brunswick Department of Health. Registration requirements. Fredericton: New Brunswick Department of Health; 2016. Available: http://www.gnb.ca/0394/prw/RegistrationRequirements-e.asp (accessed 2016 May 02). 4 Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness. Shaping our Physician Workforce. Updates. Halifax: Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness; 2016. Available: http://novascotia.ca/dhw/shapingPhysicianWorkforce/updates.asp (accessed 2016 May 02). 5 Province of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Health Authority Medical Staff Bylaws. Halifax: Province of Nova Scotia; April 2015. Available: https://www.novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/hamedstaff.htm (accessed 2016 May 02). 6 Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. WRHA Board By-Law No.3 Medical Staff. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Regional Health Authority; March 2014. Available: http://www.wrha.mb.ca/extranet/medicalstaff/files/MedByLaw.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 7 Bill 41. An Act to amend various Acts in the interests of patient-centred care. 2nd Sess, 41st Leg, Ontario; 2016. Available: http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/41_Parliament/Session2/b041.pdf (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 8 Canadian Medical Association. Physician resource planning. Updated 2015. Ottawa: The Association; 2015. Available: http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/Policypdf/PD15-07.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 9 Cochrane DD. Investigation into medical imaging, credentialing and quality assurance. Phase 2 report. Vancouver: BC Patient Safety & Quality Council; Aug 2011. Available: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2011/cochrane-phase2-report.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 10 British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative. Briefing note: BC MQI - Provincial Practitioner Credentialing and Privileging System (CACTUS Software) Implementation. Vancouver: British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative; January 2016. Available: http://bcmqi.ca/wp-content/uploads/Briefing-Note_ProvincialPractitionerCPSystemImplementation.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 11 British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative. Family Practice with Enhanced Surgical Skills Clinical Privileges. Vancouver: British Columbia Medical Quality Initiative; March 2015. Available: http://www.srpc.ca/ess2016/summit/FamilyPracticeEnhancedSurgicalSkills.pdf (accessed 2016 Nov 06). 12 Soles H, Larsen Soles T. SRPC position statement on minimum-volume credentialing. Can J Rural Med. 2016;21(4):107-11. 13 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS 2015. Physician competency framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2015. Available: http://canmeds.royalcollege.ca/uploads/en/framework/CanMEDS%202015%20Framework_EN_Reduced.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 14 College of Family Physicians of Canada. CanMEDS-Family Medicine. Working Group on Curriculum Review. Mississauga: College of Family Physicians of Canada; October 2009. Available: http://www.cfpc.ca/uploadedFiles/Education/CanMeds%20FM%20Eng.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 15 Alberta Medical Association, Alberta Health Services, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Advocacy Policy Statement. Edmonton: Alberta Medical Association; 2015. Available: https://www.albertadoctors.org/Advocacy/Policy_Statement.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 16 Eastern Health. Privacy and confidentiality. ADM-030. St. John's, NL: Eastern Health; 2015. Available: http://www.easternhealth.ca/OurServices.aspx?d=2&id=743&p=740 (accessed 2016 Jun 23). 17 Canadian Medical Association. The evolving professional relationship between Canadian physicians and our evolving health care system: where do we stand? Ottawa: The Association; 2012. Available: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/policy-research/CMA_Policy_The_evolving_professional_relationship_between_Canadian_physicians_and_our_health_care_system_PD12-04-e.pdf (accessed 2016 May 02). 18 Public Health Act. SBC 2008, Chapter 28. Available: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/08028_01 (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 19 Canadian Medical Protective Association. Changing physician-hospital relationships: Managing the medico-legal implications of change. Ottawa: The Association; 2011. Available: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/changing-physician-hospital-relationships (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 20 Canadian Medical Protective Association. The changing practice of medicine: employment contracts and medical liability. Ottawa: The Association; 2012. Available: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/the-changing-practice-of-medicine-employment-contracts-and-medical-liability (accessed 2016 Nov 07). 21 Canadian Medical Protective Association. Medical-legal issues to consider with individual contracts. Ottawa: The Association; 2016. Available: https://www.cmpa-acpm.ca/-/medico-legal-issues-to-consider-with-individual-contracts (accessed 2016 Nov 07).
Documents
Less detail