Dialogue Volume 14 Issue 1 2018 - Page 30

REGISTRATION  outes for physicians with R residency training in the United States (who either received supervision in Ontario (Pathways 3 and 4) or were eligible for examinations by the RCPSC or CFPC (USA Exam Eligible).  outes for physicians with R residency training in Canada but who did not immediately pass Canadian licensing examinations (requiring supervised practice).  xam eligibility routes for E physicians with practice experience and/or training in another Canadian jurisdiction.  xam eligibility routes for E physicians who have completed training in one of 29 Royal College- approved training systems that have been deemed by the RCPSC to be comparable to Canadian residency programs.  outes for internationally trained R specialists who completed practice assessments in Ontario (i.e., programs formerly run by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and known by a variety of names/acronyms such as APIMG). understanding the effectiveness of alternative registration pathways and policies, implemented as part of the system-wide strategy to increase physician supply in Ontario from the early 2000s onward. Specifically, the evaluation sought to determine if performance differences exist between practising physicians who were registered through those alternative routes to registration and those who were registered through the traditional route (i.e., physicians fully trained in Canadian residency and qualified in Canadian examinations). The performance of both Alternative Route Physicians (ARPs) and Traditional Route Physicians (TRPs) was measured using multiple data sources: • The outcomes of the College’s Peer Assessment program (chart audit and physician interview) • The results of a 360-evaluation tool called Multi-Source Feedback (MSF) • Primary care quality indicators developed and analyzed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) Peer Assessment There were peer assessments performed on 481 ARPs and 1,152 TRPs. The evaluation found that very few of the College's Quality Assurance Committee decisions resulted in significant outcomes (<1% of decisions for ARPs and TRPs combined). Examples of outcomes deemed as significant include interviews with the Committee, an order for a Specified Continuing Education and Remediation Plan, a comprehensive Peer and Practice Reassessment, or terms, conditions We welcome your feedback on any issue raised in Dialogue. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity. Please send letters to: Elaine McNinch, Managing Editor Mailing address: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario 80 College St, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E2 Fax: (416) 961-8035 Email: editor@cpso.on.ca 30 DIALOGUE ISSUE 1, 2018