To ensure transparency and encourage open dialogue, the feedback we receive is posted on our website in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Current month ye@r day *
Leave this field empty *
Why is it that over 1500 physicians suddenly need supervision in this province? What has changed? The balance of power in such matters in heavily weighed in the patient’s favour and they know it. Patients have figured out this is the Achille’s heal of the profession.
Make it simple: New policy, profession wide, all physicians are to be accompanied by another allied health professional for ALL professional encounters (male:male, female:female, female:male, male:female). This would universally protect the patients, the practitioners, the College, the CMPA, the public and the government and put an end to all these frivolous complaints and reintroduce efficiency and accountability to the profession. It would also make it fiscally fair for all practitioners to practice and allow professional associations to mandate appropriate remuneration from OHIP for the manpower needed to protect all. CPSO would save millions in unnecessary investigations. CMPA would save millions in defence costs. CMPA premiums would plummet and hence the government would neutralize the cost in paying more for supervision provisions in the decrease in subsidizing CMAP premiums. It won’t happen because the lawyers would loose out big time and they are the ones that allow the present inefficiencies in the systems to flourish.
Make it simple. ALL PHYSICIANS ARE TO BE SUPERVISED AT ALL TIMES AND THE OHIP SCHEDULE SHOULD COMPENSATE FOR SUCH.
IT IS SO EASY AND CLEAR IT WON’T HAPPEN.
Rubbish. Abolish the concept of supervision-we are not children and do not need supervision. Other forms of “punishment” are available.
Dear members of the college and all.
You are asking feedback on the proposed new definitions for supervision.
I would like to point out one criteria I’m in disagreement: the supervisor would need 5 years of experience in his field.
By definition a professional can and should self regulate himself. We are train (post doctorate level) to be able to identify our limits, train other professionals, self determine how to learn and apply new knowledges and techniques. After the supervision part of our studies we are NOT supposed to need more experience to be better (from a quality and safety point of view). Experience is generally and usually speed and ease more then anything. Therefore, saying that a supervisor needs 5 years experience was based on what type of evidence? The cpso policies needs to be based on the same quality of evidence that the professionals themself are using to determine the standards to treat and act. Otherwise it becomes ideological, politics and everything thin$g that comes with it. Such as: the biggest private clinics consortiums do no want their juniors to open their own clinic, train new doctors and become competitors…
That being said, an illustration of my idea is the following: should and would a neurosurgeon, just after his residency, have a higher rate of surgical failure and post operative deaths? We know the answer is no. It is as safe to get a surgery from a newly accepted in independant practice md then by an old one… Meaning, just after his residency/training, he is fully competent and ready to train other professionnals(and his knowledge is superior because he has been focussing on updated data and training). Moreover, the residents are already in charge of teaching and supervising. The proposition is equivalent to asking the newly independant md’s (just finishing residency) to stop supervising for 5 years when they become independant! Should they ask for a change in scope of practice for teaching after that 5 years?
For whom will say that it apply only to a change in scope of practice and that this analogy is wrong, I would ask what are the differences? The change of scope is about a limited number of knowledge and procedures with somebody who already has his post doctorate, not about the whole formation of a competent md in his fully large field of speciality. Therefore, it does not require more control. The 5 years is discriminatory and would unlikely protect the general public. It could even be deleterious.
I am curious as to why this phrase was taken out of the requirements for being a clinical supervisor:
• Able to provide constructive/honest feedback to physician and College;
Is the College saying it doesn’t mind if the criticism is dishonest or destructive? Or does it assume there are no narcissists, malignant narcissists, or sociopaths among its ranks? It would be foolish in this day and age to assume that only the traditional conflicts of interest could lead to dishonesty and destructiveness, just when neuroscience is finally explaining how some personalities enjoy destroying people for no other reason than that it feels good to them.
I think this requirement should be strengthened, not removed. A supervisor shouldn’t just be capable of being honest and constructive, as most people with these personalities are. They must actually be honest and constructive in their feedback to the physician and the College. Why would the College want to be lied to?
Supervisory process could be simpleflied by having a standardized form or checklist for the supervising physician. I found the process poorly spelt out. It was also a big commitment
Professional Association of Resident of Ontario (PARO)Response in PDF format.
Supervision is time consuming and a big commitment with out compensation for the supervisor.
The Canadian Medical Protective AssociationResponse in PDF format.
The Ontario Medical AssociationResponse in PDF format