Duty to Report Self
Tell us what you think
Consultation now open
During pre-consultation, suggestions were made about the inclusion of the reporting requirements under An Act to Protect Patients to clarify which blood borne viral infections need to be reported and which impairments could cause patient harm.
Respondents also made it clear there is a level of uncertainty of what may happen once a report is made. While this is not something we can address in a standard, since every situation is different, we can certainly explore it in the upcoming Advice to the Profession document.
Read the draft standard
Review the marked comparison with the current standard
Read the current standard:
Self-Reporting to the College
CPSA members, partner organizations, other health care professionals and Albertans are invited to provide feedback from Dec. 2, 2019-Jan. 16, 2020. Council will consider non-nominal feedback when approving final amendments to the standard at its Feb, 2020 meeting.
Feedback may be shared in the following ways:
- Complete a short survey
- Email firstname.lastname@example.org
- Mail to:
2700-10020 100 Street NW
Edmonton, AB T5J 0N3
Attn: Standards of Practice
- Leave a comment via the form below (please note: you will have the option to have your comment published or to submit it without being published)
All feedback is subject to the CPSA’s Privacy Statement. CPSA reviews all comments before publication to ensure there is no offensive language, personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations.
Consultation has been extended to January 31. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact Chantelle.Dick@cpsa.ab.ca.
Share your feedback
Under the draft on Self reporting in section 1b the word future is used and it needs to be modified as it means forever.
I think the word "near should be added.
There is no risk to adding this word as this legislative change mandates a continuous observation of my behaviour/condition. Therefore if I have doubts about an issue today I have to examine the issue tomorrow.
By leaving the word "future" unmodified in I must report many conditions that may self resolve.
The sanctity of physician patient confidentiality seems to being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.Who will be willing to confide anything to a colleague?
I am concerned that the new standard is overly intrusive on the rights of physicians to seek confidential medical care. I am concerned that instead of protecting our patients, it will cause physicians to delay or avoid seeking medical treatment for fear of repercussions, which could have more significant implications on patient care. The standard needs to provide for physicians to address their own health needs without fear of repercussions and intrusion from the College and the College should only have the right to the confidential medical information of physicians when there is reasonable grounds to believe that the ability to provide high quality patient care is at risk.
Would it not be more advantageous, to address the causes of physician ill-health, rather than exacerbating an already stressful condition, as that being suffered by the physician? This is nothing more than further attempts at political correctness, unlikely to remedy or improve society's quality of life. Complacency appears to have superseded reason and self-interest is usually behind every action taken by 'The College'. Where was the said 'College' in challenging the reckless research and recommendations concerning opioids and their prescribing? For those of us from backward lands, such actions smacked of barbarity. But when living in a bubble, cushioned by the excesses and extravagance of life, it often obscures the necessity of context, when addressing issues. 'College' political correctness has only succeeded in assisting a general race to the bottom, a decline in standards, as esoteric murmurings inhibit the practicalities of everyday medical practice. Primum non nocere, remains as relevant today as it did all those thousands of years ago, not only to medical practice but to life in general.
Just a few comments about the "Duty To Report Self" draft Standard:
- the grammar/meaning in paragraph 1(b) is incorrect. Suggest change to "...that negatively impacts the regulated member’s work, or is reasonably likely to negatively impact the regulated member’s work in the future". Minor point, but also suggest adding the word "the", for readability, in the first sentence: "... to [the] CPSA at the time of registration".
- I wonder if using "diagnostic or treatment privileges" in paragraph 1(c) makes the most sense? Perhaps instead using "clinical privileges" or simply "privileges"?
- the lawyers may know the difference between "professional negligence". "malpractice", and "unprofessional conduct", but it's unclear why the first two are required to be self-reported (presumably they were findings by the CPSA itself?), and only the latter is required if from another jurisdiction/college?
Lastly, I'm curious why there is a duty to self-report breaches of "practice restrictions, limitations or conditions imposed by CPSA or any other authority", but not a duty to report a colleague who breaches these? Just missed, or is there a rationale for that?