TRAnsparency
The proposed decision-making
framework for ICRC outcomes
Below is the proposed decision-making model for outcomes as determined by the Inquiries, Complaints and
Reports Committee. Please note that patterns are an important consideration in ICRC outcomes. Repeated
concerns about conduct or care may result in more serious outcomes.
No Action – No risk/minimal risk issues
Caution-in-Person – Moderate risk issues
• The member’s actions appropriate
• Not posted on the public register
• oncern about member conduct or care
C
• ember required to attend before panel
M
• Posted on the public register
Advice / Recommendation – Low risk issues
• pportunity for member to improve conduct or care
O
• College follow-up may be required
• Not posted on the public register
Remedial Agreement – Low risk issues
• Opportunity for member to improve conduct or care
• ember agrees to improve conduct or care
M
• College follow-up or monitoring may be required
• Not posted on the public register
SCERP – Moderate risk issues
• oncern about member conduct or care
C
• Member needs to upgrade skills or change practice
• College follow-up or monitoring is required
• Remedial agreement cannot be reached
• Posted on the public register
Undertaking – Moderate risk issues
• oncerns about conduct or care
C
• ember promises to do or not do certain things
M
• ollege follow-up or monitoring is required
C
• Posted on the public register
Undertaking – Restriction – High risk issues
• erious concerns about conduct or care
S
• Concerns cannot be addressed by remediation
• estriction of practice required to reduce risk of harm
R
to patients
• ay include terms, conditions and limitations on
M
certificate of registration
• Posted on the public register
Undertaking – Resign – High risk issues
• Serious concerns about conduct or care
• oncerns cannot be addressed by remediation or
C
restriction of practice
• Member resigns and undertakes not to reapply
• Posted on the public register
36
Dialogue Issue 4, 2014