FROM THE REGISTRAR’S DESK
A thoughtful, deliberate approach
T
he trust of the public is our most valuable asset. As an organization
mandated with protecting the public interest, we must continue
to demonstrate our value to the public, and indeed to all of our
stakeholders.
With technology, both creating the expectation and producing the tools for
greater transparency, we are provided now with the opportunity to demonstrate that we are working effectively at carrying out our public interest
mandate and that health-care practitioners are competent and that the public is safe. After all, transparency permits evaluation, and as such, it allows
stakeholders to determine an organization’s value.
Rocco Gerace, MD
Registrar
We have already decided
that there is a strong
rationale, at this time, to
keep some categories of
information confidential.
Scrutiny is never easy, but this organization has only fared well in those
instances in which we have opened our processes to the public. For more
than 100 years, for example, we held closed disciplinary hearings. When
the decision was made in 1991 to hold the disciplinary hearings in a public
forum, there was much trepidation. Air our dirty laundry? Too revealing,
too unseemly, said some worried members of the profession. Looking back
now, it seems inconceivable that such a process was ever held away from the
public’s eyes.
We have always provided more information than what has been strictly
required under legislation. We were among the first colleges to develop a
website. We post where physicians have hospital privileges and the languages
they speak fluently. We have open Council meetings and more recently post
our Council materials – ahead of the meetings – on our website. And, of
course, we have opened up the consultation process so that all comments
can be viewed. These are all changes that both the public and the profession
have come to appreciate.
Now, we have begun a conversation to explore further how we can make
our decisions and processes more transparent. We are joined in this conversation with five other health-care regulators in Ontario who also see the
need to make more information available to the public – both about their
members, and about the effectiveness of self-regulation.
We are taking a principled, deliberate, thoughtful approach, recognizing
that while transparency has its advantages, it also comes with risks.
We deal with highly sensitive information, such as complaints and medical
information. And we have al ɕ