Organization
[July 12, 2024 2:36 PM]

Please see the attached correspondence from the CMPA regarding consultations on reporting requirements. 
 
Response in PDF format:
Physician (including retired)
[July 11, 2024 11:55 AM]

The information that is lacking from your reporting requirements is the specific coordinates of where to submit reports to.

You are putting physicians in a double bind if you do not post the phone, fax, email of whom to submit the report to . This information should be placed adjacent to each category of report, in addition to a separate document with all the coordinates for agencies to whom reports should be submitted. This would more effectively “guide the profession, and protect the public”.

There is no point in putting a physician in a position of “professional misconduct” by telling them they have an obligation to report, if you don’t inform them of where to submit the report!!!! If the CPSO does not share the reporting coordinates, frankly the CPSO is equally complicit in failing to report.
Physician (including retired)
[July 11, 2024 11:53 AM]

I note, in reviewing the draft of Reporting Requirements, that the section on Impaired Driving ability should be amended:

Line 107 should conclude......functional or visual impairment THAT MAY MAKE IT DANGEROUS TO DRIVE.

It currently does not include any reference to why reporting should occur, as is included in all the other categories listed.

The document was otherwise quite clear to me.
Physician (including retired)
[July 11, 2024 7:56 AM]

The reporting requirements are well laid out

There is one thing that i think should be added to the OHIP fraud portion is physician fraud. It seems to me that a physician who is aware that another physician is defrauding OHIP via billing or other arrangements (such as through alternate funding plans) the physician should be required to report this to the General Manager of OHIP. Such conduct is dishonourable in the extreme and a discredit to the profession as well as theft of public funds which would be used for patient care.
Physician (including retired)
[July 10, 2024 7:05 PM]

I wondered if applicable specific legislation shouldn't be explicitly noted. For example, I wondered why Ontario's Health Protection & Promotion Act wouldn't be specifically noted because of its requirements for physicians (and others) to report instances of diseases designated for mandatory reporting?
Thanks!
Physician (including retired)
[July 10, 2024 6:26 PM]

Thank you for the documents, they are thorough and helpful.

In the advice document, it explains that we have to make a report even if another report has been filed. I am wondering how this pertains to MTO reporting. In our busy ED/hospital setting, multiple physicians may interact with a patient over the course of an admission. Would each be required to make a report? This feels excessive and not the best use of resources/billings, with a single patient being reported potentially several times a day. If another report has been made and documented during that episode of care, could that suffice? Thanks again!
Physician (including retired)
[July 10, 2024 4:14 PM]

It's a good way to triage which areas need closer attention/governance.
Physician (including retired)
[July 10, 2024 3:55 PM]

The part about reporting preferential treatment is incredibly draconian and not our job. I'm surprised nobody is shocked by that.
Physician (including retired)
[July 05, 2024 10:23 PM]

Agree with other comment that the reference to "communicable disease" without associated reference is too broad - we need more specifics on reporting requirements.
agree with comment that "significant" with respect to privacy breeches it too vague wording.
in the Q&A document the section on victims of abuse lines 174 and 175 is unclear to me - my understanding is we remain unable to report to police the suspicion or knowledge of physical abuse (but can help/encourage patient to report) but the way this reads is that we cannot file a report without consent unless “patient is at significant risk of serious bodily harm, and disclosure is necessary to eliminate or reduce risk of harm”. One could imagine a scenario where you treat someone presenting with physical injuries consistent with abuse, their story corroborates this and they tell you the perpetrator lives with them and has a gun and has threatened to kill them. This would appear to meet the threshold of significant risk of serious bodily harm and presumably reporting to the police would reduce the risk of harm as perp should end up in custody. However, my understanding is that we actually cannot report without patient consent, despite what this wording says. This needs clarification
Physician (including retired)
[July 02, 2024 5:56 AM]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this.

Line 97 from "Legal Reporting Requirements" might be reasonable in a solo practice environments e.g. a doctor should not delegate this to a clerk in their office. However, in complex and specialized environments where care is team-based and is provided through structured teams of specialized health care professionals, it is quite reasonable to have reporting structured so that it is done by a certain professional member of the team providing care for the patient.

Examples:

1. In an emergency psychiatric unit, there is no benefit from the duplication of reporting to have the emergency physician, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse and social worker all reporting the same issue to FACS about the same event, There only needs to be one report from one member of the team.

2. In an academic learning environment, the act of reporting is also an opportunity for a learner to practice their reporting duties (supervised to the degree of their training). It would make no sense for a medical student, junior resident, senior resident and staff physicians to report the same incident to FACS.
Physician (including retired)
[June 29, 2024 10:52 AM]

I question the recurrent use of "must" and "mandatory" requirements. It sounds quite like a medieval dictate. Could you not "remind" or "urge" a responsible physician to seriously consider the option to report as a matter of "responsibility" rather than submissive obedience to an authoritarian regulator? Would this not be more like collegial collaboration than deadly threats?
Physician (including retired)
[June 27, 2024 10:29 AM]

Both documents articulate clear and reasonable policies. Some items to consider for further clarity:

1. In the Legal Reporting Requirements document, line 167 states that reporting is required by health information custodians when a “privacy breach is significant”. What is the threshold for significance? If it is defined in the referenced legislation, then at a minimum, the policy should state so i.e. “ …privacy breach is significant as defined in <PHIPA or other source>” (with hyperlink to the specific text). If possible, it would be even better to list explicit criteria to reduce subjectivity in judging “significance” and mitigate the risk of under-reporting.

2. Re line 200. Surely not all communicable diseases (respiratory viruses etc.) warrant reporting. I would recommend listing or referencing the specific reportable conditions. Also, since most of the applicable conditions are diagnosed through laboratory testing, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which one would report a patient who “may” have a communicable illness (who tests negative). If such situations exist, it would be helpful to elaborate on these.

3. Re health card fraud. This seems to pertain to fraud by patients. What about fraud by physicians?
Physician (including retired)
[June 26, 2024 6:47 AM]

Highly likely to be misused in strained healthcare system.
Physician (including retired)
[June 25, 2024 12:21 PM]

I find the updated document adequate and appropriate.
Physician (including retired)
[June 25, 2024 11:34 AM]

I have read your report in question and I believe “Line 200” is too broad a definition for reporting. “Communicable disease” could be any form of airway, respiratory or even skin infection and so I believe that line needs to be tightened in it’s potential scope
Physician (including retired)
[June 25, 2024 11:32 AM]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Firearm Violence is a Public Health Problem, not just a criminal one. Indeed, 75-80% of all firearm deaths in Ontario and Canada are due to suicide and many people contemplating suicide access the services of a physician in the weeks before their death.

Physicians should be provided an opportunity to intervene prior to the trigger being pulled. While clearly in favour of mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds, I think we as a profession need to look upstream and prevent the firearm from ever being used in the setting of suicidality, dementia, intimate partner violence and certain untreated medical/psychiatric conditions.

The Province of Quebec allows discretionary medical reporting through the auspices of Anastasia's Law. Ontario should do the same. The CMA has somewhat supported medical reporting in their most recent policy.

Canada has introduced a new Red Flag Law, which does not allow physicians to breach confidentiality unless there is clearly expressed intent to harm. I have it on good authority that they view medical reporting as a Provincial concern which is why it wasn't included in the legislation. Time for Ontario to be bold and save lives.
Physician (including retired)
[June 25, 2024 11:29 AM]

I have today reviewed the CPSO draft Mandatory and Permissive Policy. It is comprehensive, detailed and thorough, as written.
I have no suggestions to offer.

 
Physician (including retired)
[June 24, 2024 3:04 PM]

The language in the paragraph about documentation implies that a physician should only report if the person is a patient of the doctor.
Not sure if that is the intention?
If a physician reports a health professional who is not a patient what is the recommendation in regards of documentation?
Physician (including retired)
[June 24, 2024 1:16 PM]

A few comments:
1. Mandating physicians to report other MDs as potential perpetrators of sexual abuse creates a “snitch line” model which bothers me. Sexual is a breech of privilege for sure. However, accusing a physician of the same is a very serious allegation which carries very serious consequences. I worry that having a snitch line system has the potential for abuse and huge repercussions for the accused. On my view, the process of a complaint should be initiated by the patient who believes that sexual abuse has taken place.
Another point made to be by some lawyers in the field is that the CPSO definition of the doctor-patient relationship is way too rigid (prescribe a spouse antibiotics once and renew = sexual abuse), which in turn is coupled with mandatory revocation.
2. OHIP fraud is a serious problem, but many present wanting care and have limited resources, leading them to engage in such fraudulent behaviour. We aren’t cops. Maybe OHIP should reimburse physicians for providing care to anyone…
3. Asking physicians to report on findings of civil actions makes it very difficult for the CMPA to settle cases. Perhaps the threshold for such reports should be reconsidered. Yea it can be an indicator of physician incompetence, it in some case settlements are a calculated risk where the outcome was bad and only possibly averted by a practice issue. The policy as it stands has the unintended consequence of actually depriving plaintiffs access to justice, and it prolongs the legal process for plaintiffs.
Physician (including retired)
[June 24, 2024 12:55 PM]

looks OK
Physician (including retired)
[June 24, 2024 12:27 PM]

I have reviewed the reporting policy document. It is comprehensive and useful. It would be helpful to have the reporting authority in each section and the time period of required reporting be highlighted in different colour/font for ease of access to information.

Also consider giving examples of specific scenarios like impaired physician or abuse by HCP etc...

Keep up the good work.

Best wishes

 
Physician (including retired)
[July 12, 2024 7:52 AM]
I have read all the material and am support other members comments. Have nothing to add.