Consultation – Feedback Summaries

The following is feedback relating to all CASLPO consultations as of November 1, 2015.  This includes input from the public, members and other stakeholders.

Transparency By-Laws Feedback

The following is the feedback received regarding CASLPO’s proposed by-law changes that would allow the College to post the following information on the Public Register:

Registration-related information regarding:

  1. Criminal charges, convictions and bail conditions; and
  2. Information from other regulators.

ICRC-related information regarding the following types of orders:

  1. Oral (in-person) cautions; and
  2. Specified continuing education or remediation programs (“SCERPS”).

Discipline-related information:

  1. Notice of Hearing; and
  2. Status of hearing.

The College solicited feedback by way of survey, email, fax and mail. An e-blast was sent to all members (July 14 and September 8, 2015) and we posted an announcement with links to the survey, email and fax on our website landing page. In addition, we contacted several patient-specific organizations, two of whom agreed to post our solicitation for feedback (Ontario Brain Injury Association and Ontario Association for Families with Children with Communication Disorders).

We received 326 survey responses through our e-blast (presumably all members) and 8 direct emails. Below are the trends identified.  Attached are the detailed results, which are organized such that you will see each survey question followed by the aggregate responses for the first 12 questions, followed by the verbatim comments for each of the last 3 questions regarding the 3 broad areas of proposed by-law changes. The email responses follow the survey responses.

Trends

  • The aggregate data for all the proposed by-law changes indicated that the majority of respondents think the information should be made public and posting the additional information is in keeping with the College’s mandate of protecting the public. The total percentage of respondents who either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” in response to all questions was  between 52% and 79% across all proposed by-law changes. 
  • The strongest agreement was seen regarding posting criminal convictions (74% agreed that the information should be made public; 79% agreed this was in keeping with the College mandate of protecting the public).
  • Weakest agreement was seen regarding posting oral cautions (52% agreed that this information should be made public).

Criminal Charges, convictions and bail conditions

  • Criminal findings/convictions:
    • 74% agreed it should be made public
    • 79% agreed the change is in keeping with the College mandate of protecting the public
  • Criminal Charges and bail conditions:
    • 63% agreed it should be made public
    • 66% agreed the change is in keeping with the College mandate of protecting the public
  • Information from other regulators:
    • 71% agreed it should be made public
    • 70% agreed the change is in keeping with the College mandate of protecting the public
  • Of the 326 respondents, 62 made comments about posting additional information concerning criminal charges, convictions and bail conditions; and information from other regulators (19%). Some of the emerging themes include:
    • Concern about how the College would exercise its discretion when posting the information
    • Misunderstanding of what would be posted (e.g. date of birth, results of mentorships)
    • Would like more information about which charges, convictions and bail conditions would be relevant
    • Concerns about “innocent until proven guilty” principle being lost

    • Many comments of agreement

ICRC Orders

  • Oral cautions:
    • 52% agreed it should be made public
    • 56% agreed the change is in keeping with the College mandate of protecting the public
  • SCERPs
    • 53% agreed it should be made public
    • 58% agreed the change is in keeping with the College mandate of protecting the public
    • Of the 326 respondents, 57 made comments about posting information related to ICRC outcomes (oral cautions and specified continuing education or remediation programs (17%). Some of the emerging themes include:
      • Too punitive for something that is meant to be a learning experience
      • Misunderstanding of what these outcomes mean
      • Confusion between allegations and outcomes (Note: We would be posting outcomes, not allegations)
      • Many comments of agreement

Discipline Hearings

  • Discipline hearing information:
    • 53% agreed it should be made public
    • 56% agreed the change is in keeping with the College mandate of protecting the public
  • Of the 326 respondents, 50 made comments about posting additional information regarding the Discipline hearings and decisions (15%). The overwhelming trend here was that it was unclear to respondents that the posting of allegations already occurs,  as does a summary of the decisions and reasons.

Conclusions

Overall, there seemed to be agreement that the additional information should be made public and that it is in keeping with the College mandate. However, many individuals commented on their concern about:

  • how the College would exercise discretion with regard to determining “relevancy to one’s practice”
  • the permanency of web-based information
  • other parties, such as insurance companies, banks, etc. making use of the information
  • the length of time charges take to be resolved, which extends the time this information would be posted
  • The College is presently reviewing these concerns.

Click Here To Review:  Summary and Verbatim Feedback

This website is intended to provide information to the public and members.  Should there be differences in documentation previously distributed to CASLPO members, it is up to the member to source the latest version posted on the CASLPO website.