"THE CASE OF DR. OLIVE WILLIAMS, WHO WAS SUSPENDING FROM PRACTISING AT HOTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL ON JAN. 4, SHOWS JUST HOW LONG IT TAKES TO ANSWER COMPLAINTS, AND JUST HOW INEFFECTIVE THE CPSO CAN BE WHEN IT COMES TO MATTERS OF REPORTING ITS FINDINGS. WILLIAMS RESPONDED ON JAN. 6, 2009 TO A COMPLAINT SENT TO THE COLLEGE. SHE WAS INVESTIGATED FOR FAILING TO DETECT A TUMOUR ON THE APPENDIX OF A WOMAN WHO WOULD LATER DIE. IT TOOK THE COLLEGE 10 MONTHS TO INFORM THE FAMILY THAT THE WINDSOR PATHOLOGIST HAD BEEN REPRIMANDED. BUT THE COLLEGE'S OWN WEBSITE NEVER MENTIONED THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION. AND HOTEL-DIEU GRACE WAS NEVER MADE AWARE OF THE SANCTION. THAT MEANT WILLIAMS CONTINUED TO PRACTICE AS A PATHOLOGIST FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR BEFORE HER PRIVILEGES WERE SUSPENDED BY THE HOSPITAL. KATHRYN CLARKE, SPOKESWOMAN FOR THE CPSO, SEEMED TO BLAME THE REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT FOR TYING THE HANDS OF THE COLLEGE. SHE SAID THE ACT ESTABLISHES WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION CAN BE REVEALED TO THE PUBLIC, AND WE WOULD ARGUE IT ISN'T MUCH. EVEN HOSPITALS ARE KEPT IN THE DARK, UNLESS A DOCTOR AGREES TO SIGN A WAIVER THAT ALLOWS THE CPSO TO INFORM HOSPITALS THAT COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED."THERE IS SOME DISCRETION," CLARKE SAID. THAT MINDSET IS PREPOSTEROUS. CLEARLY THE PUBLIC, AND THE HOSPITALS, CAN'T RELY ON PHYSICIANS TO WILLINGLY DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION. WE'VE ALREADY SEEN EVIDENCE OF THAT. TOM CLOSSON, WHO HEADS THE ONTARIO HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, BELIEVES HOSPITALS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED WHEN PHYSICIANS HAVE BEEN WARNED, DISCIPLINED OR HAD THEIR LICENCE REVOKED. "I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE EXPECTATION," HE SAID. OF COURSE IT IS. THE PROVINCE AND THE CPSO HAVE PUT US IN HARM'S WAY. LEGISLATION IS CHANGED EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK IN ONTARIO.WHAT IS OUR GOVERNMENT WAITING FOR?"
EDITORIAL: THE WINDSOR STAR: MARCH 6, 2010;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: During the past two years, this Blog has reported on a crisis in Canadian pathology indicated by serious breakdowns in hospitals in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and elsewhere in the country. The purpose, beyond seeking review and reform, is to show that the wide-ranging problems with pathology in Canada were not limited to the criminal sector - and that serious errors, sometimes lethal, were being made in reading test results on living patients. In short, that there was a crisis in Canadian pathology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In November, 2002, Dr. Charles Smith was cautioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in relation to three separate complaints of professional conduct that had been brought against him. A panel of three independent examiners reported that they were "extremely disturbed by the deficiencies in his approach," on all three of the cases. The caution never appeared on the College Register or on line on the site which the College maintains to communicate with the public. Even today, that caution is not to be found on the College Web-site, because the College maintains that it does not have the authority to make such sanctions public. Thus in cases where the caution does not become public through the media - as eventually happened with Dr. Smith - the public will have no way of finding out that a doctor has seriously fouled up. The College notes that a doctor can permit the College to publish his or her name with respect to the caution. I, for one, cannot imagine Dr. Charles Smith blithely saying, "go ahead."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario tells us, on its website, that one of its most important jobs is to respond "to concerns and to investigate complaints from members of the public about doctors licensed to practice medicine in Ontario," the March 6, 2010 Windsor Star editorial begins, under the heading " Public's interest: The role of the CPSO."
"It further states that "in all that we do, the college must act first and foremost in the best interest of the public," the editorial continues.
"But does it? The public's faith in this self-regulating body has been severely shattered over the last few weeks. While the college is supposed to protect patients from doctors who might cause them harm, the very structure of the organization seems designed to protect harmful doctors from having their disciplinary records made public.
Two Windsor doctors have recently been reported to the College of Physicians Surgeons; one for performing two unnecessary mastectomies, the other for misdiagnosed pathology reports.
The case of Dr. Olive Williams, who was suspending from practising at Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital on Jan. 4, shows just how long it takes to answer complaints, and just how ineffective the CPSO can be when it comes to matters of reporting its findings.
Williams responded on Jan. 6, 2009 to a complaint sent to the college. She was investigated for failing to detect a tumour on the appendix of a woman who would later die.
It took the college 10 months to inform the family that the Windsor pathologist had been reprimanded. But the college's own website never mentioned the disciplinary action. And Hotel-Dieu Grace was never made aware of the sanction. That meant Williams continued to practice as a pathologist for an entire year before her privileges were suspended by the hospital.
This is not the first time such serious errors and omissions -- ones that result in death or injury -- have occurred because of inaction by the CPSO. The Toronto Star and the Fifth Estate have both investigated incidents where the college failed to follow its mission statement to "act first and foremost in the best interest of the public."
The reason? The college basically operates without oversight, and the Province of Ontario has allowed that to happen. The CPSO alone registers doctors to practise, monitors them, investigates complaints, conducts hearings and renders decisions. If a doctor's licence is revoked, the college is done with them. There is no mechanism for preventing them from setting up a shingle elsewhere.
While police have an arms' length civilian special investigations unit to examine complaints against officers, there is no such thing when it comes to the college. Its council consists of 16 physicians elected by their peers and 13 to 15 public members appointed by the government.
Kathryn Clarke, spokeswoman for the CPSO, seemed to blame the Regulated Health Professions Act for tying the hands of the college. She said the act establishes what kind of information can be revealed to the public, and we would argue it isn't much. Even hospitals are kept in the dark, unless a doctor agrees to sign a waiver that allows the CPSO to inform hospitals that complaints have been filed.
"There is some discretion," Clarke said.
That mindset is preposterous. Clearly the public, and the hospitals, can't rely on physicians to willingly disclose such information. We've already seen evidence of that.
Tom Closson, who heads the Ontario Hospital Association, believes hospitals should be notified when physicians have been warned, disciplined or had their licence revoked. "I think that's a reasonable expectation," he said.
Of course it is. The province and the CPSO have put us in harm's way. Legislation is changed every day of the week in Ontario. What is our government waiting for?"
The editorial can be found at:
http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Public+interest/2649632/story.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
