Remedial Agreement Cpso

Physicians who require clinical oversight are generally subject to significant progress and improvement, but to ensure the protection of the public, these corrective actions contain provisions allowing the College to take further action in cases where no improvement is achieved. The agreement required the psychiatrist to participate in self-monitored information efforts to address these concerns and to submit to the college a self-study report out of his efforts, along with references to all documents audited. The report would include a description of the educational activities he has undertaken, a summary of his knowledge and an indication of how he has modified or plans to modify his practice. Despite these challenges, the investigation process effectively identifies issues that need to be resolved or verified by the Disciplinary Committee, and the college has a robust process for physician involvement in correction programs. In January 2019, the CPSO reached a remediation agreement with the physician, which required them to review guidelines for the genital examination of children and review protocols for treating urinary tract infections in children. We believe that this was a reasonable result in the circumstances, given that the concerns expressed by the applicant were justified. Although there is no publication, the public has been protected, with the skilled person required to take corrective action. It is significant that the psychiatrist avoids other measures such as a warning or a specified training and rehabilitation program („SCERP“) because he was willing to dispel fears through his own corrective measures. Proposals such as this contribute significantly to reducing the risk to the public in the committee`s view and justify less burdensome outcomes for health professionals.

Following its review, Council found that the Committee`s decision was appropriate. The remedy agreement covered the identified areas of activity in which the psychiatrist would benefit from continuing education. The Commission`s concerns largely reflected the applicant`s concerns. The requirement that the psychiatrist himself study in the enumerated areas was a remede`s order that protected the public interest. In addition, there have been provisions for the review of his self-study and for possible referral to the Committee in the event of persistent concerns. The Committee also reserved the right to take further action if it does not comply with the terms of the agreement. Any continuing concern of the College after examining this report would lead to the matter being referred back to the committee for consideration. Where an ICRC decision contains an SCERP, the statutes of the college require that a summary of the decision be included in the public register, together with the elements of the SCERP. Note that this requirement only applies to ICRC decisions resulting from a complaint dated on or after 1 January 2015 or, in the absence of a complaint, the first appointment of academic investigators on or after 1 January 2015.

If the decision has been appealed, it shall also be mentioned; and if the decision is annulled in the event of an appeal or review, the summary shall be removed from the register. . . .