Introduction
The Regulated Health Professionals Act, 1991, also known as the RHPA, is the product of the Health Professions Legislations Review’s efforts over ten years (HPLR). Since its inception in 1982, the Health Professions Legislation Review (HPLR) has worked to determine which health professions need regulation, revise the Health Disciplines Act, and create a new framework for all health professions legislation. This process has resulted in 21 separate pieces of proposed legislation, including the Regulatory Health Professions Act (RHPA). HPRAC agrees that the RHPA’s new regulatory framework was designed to broaden people’s access to health professionals within a safe range of practice settings. The goal of availability did not extend to specific doctors or nurses. Notwithstanding the potential benefits of the proposed expansion, HPRAC is wary of using any of the currently accessible data as an indication of a health professional’s quality or calibre. Furthermore, consumers will have different opinions on what data is most important to them.
The RHPA was seen as revolutionary when it was initially enacted in 1991. It not only substitutes limited professional boundaries with a system of good management practices but also provides a common foundation for regulating people operating in Ontario’s 23 regulated health professions. A controlled act is a technique that has a significant risk if it is not carried out appropriately and by an appropriately qualified person. The RHPA is well-known for its stringent procedures to prevent and deal with sexual abuse of patients by regulated health professionals and its regulations mandating every regulated health profession to maintain a practitioner quality management system. The distinguishing aspect is that public appointees make up less than half of the membership of professional, governmental agencies.
The RHPA regulates more than 220,000 Ontarians who work in health care. The common framework is supplemented by several Acts relevant to each profession and outlines their respective domains of activity, reserved titles, and allowed controlled acts. The RHPA framework is made up of a number of different pieces of legislation, including the Health Professions Procedural Code, the Ministry of Health Appeal as well as Review Board Act, and the Acts governing 21 different health professions. The Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA) and other health profession Acts manage the practice of regulated health professions in Ontario (i.e., Medicine Act, 1991). Colleges for health professions regulation are set up under this legislation to protect the public.
Research Overview
This Review is based on the question, “Has the RHPA created a regulatory system that is effective, efficient, flexible, and fair?”
The effectiveness of the Act was examined in regard to three of its primary legislative objectives: safeguarding the public from harm, delivering high-quality treatment, and making health professionals and their governing bodies accountable for the activities they take.
Regarding the administrative burden of regulation and the proportionality of the time and resources spent, we assessed the efficiency of the regulatory system.
As the health care system changes, it is crucial that the RHPA remain flexible enough to accommodate changes in the responsibilities and utilization of health professionals, therefore this is how we measured the regulatory system’s responsiveness: by looking at how quickly it has adapted to new problems.
While assessing whether or not a regulatory system is fair, we looked primarily at how it affected the rights and interests of patients/clients and health professionals and how it affected the distribution of power among the system’s actors.
The provisions and gaps in the RHPA, as well as the regulatory framework established by the RHPA and profession-specific Acts, are the primary focus of the Review. The Review did not consider profession-specific concerns, such as a professional’s request to increase their practice area. The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care should send particular concerns identified by certain professional groups to HPRAC for examination (see Attachment C for a list). Such evaluations are labour-intensive and need undivided attention.
Participants proposed various dissemination channels, including toll-free hotlines, print media, and online databases. Problems with terminology, readability, gaining access to college registrars, and the Freedom of Information Act were all cited as obstacles. Colleges, libraries, community information centres, and healthcare professionals were all mentioned as places where participants believed more publicity and distribution of information was needed.
Several respondents felt publishing data on complaints and outcomes would convince the public that regulatory colleges were operating in their best interests. It was also proposed that a neutral party release these numbers. Others have advocated for the dissemination of warnings and cautions. Several respondents also thought that ADR outcomes should be made public and that the practice should be reserved for cases involving relatively small disputes.
Members of the public, consumer advocacy groups, and public appointees to the health profession regulatory colleges all participated in a debate session hosted by HPRAC. Participants answered narrowly focused questions about information needs and sharing. They outlined several categories of data that help make an educated decision about the biologist, including credentials, litigation history, complaints, disciplinary proceedings, and ongoing peer evaluations.
Discussion
The RHPA makes it very clear that HPRAC is responsible for determining its own review procedures. Once the review recommendation is given to the Minister, it becomes confidential, and the Minister is responsible for deciding when it can be made public. A request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to review HPRAC advisory reports was granted. Hence, HPRAC argues the ministry should establish a clear policy to reduce the likelihood of needless strained relations. More openness about the review process and the recommendations could be achieved by better information sharing and the timely publishing of HPRAC findings by the ministry.
Compared to other jurisdictions, Ontario has the highest percentage of public appointees to its governing bodies. Public members makeup nearly a majority of college councils, sit on all mandatory college panels, and are qualified to hold executive office; this country’s legal environment for health professions already has very significant public involvement in the governance of the professions.
There are several stakeholders in the regulatory system who all play important roles. Overall, the Act must be administered in the public interest by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Consequently, the Minister’s duties are carried out through the RHPA’s appointment processes for legislators, policymakers, auditors, and the public.
Both the absence of enforcement against individuals who are not members of regulatory institutions and the failure to place sufficient emphasis on the ability of public appointees to advocate the interests of the public are problems identified by HPRAC.
RHPA agrees that having public appointees on college councils and committees is essential for proper oversight. Nonetheless, the responses to the survey showed that council appointees’ effectiveness could be improved by their lack of familiarity with the job of public appointees and the commitment entailed when they’re appointed. Another issue is that they need to get the appropriate awareness, training, and assistance they need.
The following summarizes the most important findings that surfaced throughout the RHPA Review. The conclusions are arranged following the following Review themes:
- Efficiency
- Effectiveness
- Adaptability
- Equity
At the onset, HPRAC reaffirms the regulated acts and professional self-governance system, two pillars of the RHPA’s health professions regulatory framework. With this reassurance in place, HRPAC’s evaluation of the RHPA focused on ways to improve the program’s effectiveness for the people of Ontario.
Effectiveness
The RHPA’s many provisions are designed to help the law’s three primary goals—safety, quality of care, and responsibility for outcomes—be realized. The Health Professions Appeals and Review Board, public members on college councils, quality assurance programmes, patient interactions initiatives, and the scope of practice regime are all examples of such procedures.
According to HPRAC’s analysis, an efficient health professions regulation system can be attained through the legislative procedures included in the RHPA. Unfortunately, some modifications to these processes are required to optimize the system’s efficacy, and significant concerns regarding the execution of these mechanisms must be addressed.
Before discussing these modifications and implementation concerns, HPRAC recognizes three features of the RHPA that interested parties widely back as effective ways to safeguard the public, advance service quality, and hold professionals accountable: The system of controlled acts is endorsed since it is a novel and efficient way to safeguard the populace without restricting freedom of action or individual freedom in selecting a health care provider. There was no single comment arguing that Ontario should revert to its old system of exclusive scopes of practice or advocate for the elimination of the restricted actions system. After five years, HPRAC finds that Ontario’s system of regulated acts for regulating the healthcare industry continues to be beneficial.
This Study, on the other hand, comes to the conclusion that the legislation and the way it was implemented contain four flaws that pose a significant barrier to the accomplishment of maximum efficiency in the regulatory structure outlined in the RHPA.
These barriers are the following:
- the public’s lack of familiarity with health care regulation;
- the need for improved complaint and disciplinary procedures.
- less than ideal openness regarding academic procedures and results;
- a widespread failure to implement the system of controlled activities, as seen by the absence of prompt and continuous orientation and assistance for public appointees to college councils.
Public Awareness
The first key idea from reading the Review is the scarcity of public knowledge. According to the submissions received in response to the Weighing the Balance survey and the information obtained from HPRAC’s evaluation of the effectiveness of the college’s complaints and discipline procedures for professional misconduct of a sexual nature, there is a lack of public awareness about how health professionals are regulated and what professions are regulated. A poll of persons in Ontario five years after the RHPA went into effect found that only one in three people were certain or somewhat certain about where to make a complaint about sexual misconduct by a regulated health practitioner. Even though the RHPA has been in place for five years, this is still true. Despite intense outreach efforts, the Health Professionals Regulatory Advisory Committee (HPRAC) received only 59 contributions from members of the public, indicating a low level of awareness about the health professions regulatory system.
Raising public awareness is critical if the RHPA system is to be effective in meeting its objectives. The complaints and discipline system can only protect the general public if they know how to inquire about what constitutes appropriate behaviour for members of a profession or where they can file a complaint about a health professional. Similarly, colleges’ accountability to fulfill their mandate to serve the public interest is gravely jeopardized if the general public is not informed about how colleges operate and are not made aware of universities’ role in society.
Recommendations/Conclusion
HPRAC has decided that other methods exist to improve transparency and accountability. Maintain the exception for ADLs; in the RHPA, and it should be made clear that an exception will only be made with the knowledge and consent of the person receiving care.
Guidelines for the use and limitations of alternative dispute resolution; prerequisites for referring a member to discipline; a requirement to keep coercive records; and giving petitioners and members a chance to review and give feedback on the documentation of their proclamations in the investigative process of their allegation are all areas that could use improvement.
Ontario’s healthcare regulatory systems are frequent examples for other countries to follow. Quality assurance research indicates that health professions accrediting agencies are much ahead of the curve when creating and enforcing quality assurance policies. The Review of colleges’ complaints and discipline procedures for professional misconduct of a sexual nature reveals a pressing need to be more attuned to the needs of complainants. Their faith in how institutions handle complaints and disciplinary actions is crucial to the success of those processes. Thus, sharing evaluation findings strengthens Ontario’s leadership in health professions regulation.
References
Optometry, D. (1992). Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 The new benchmark for future health care legislation.
Picherack, F. G., & Marshall, M. A. (1998). Broad Social and Public Policy Forces behind Proposed Health Professions Act (HPA). LawNow, 23, 63.
Sukhera, J., Watling, C. J., & Gonzalez, C. M. (2020). Implicit bias in health professions: from recognition to transformation. Academic Medicine, 95(5), 717-723.
Kyaw, B. M., Saxena, N., Posadzki, P., Vseteckova, J., Nikolaou, C. K., George, P. P., … & Car, L. T. (2019). Virtual reality for health professions education: systematic Review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(1), e12959.
write