Models in Professional Regulation: Choices for Atlantic Canada?

Louise R Sweatman
{"title":"Models in Professional Regulation: Choices for Atlantic Canada?","authors":"Louise R Sweatman","doi":"10.30770/2572-1852-109.1.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper will identify existing models of professional regulatory reform that could ensure a single licensing process that results in multi-jurisdictional licensure. The paper will also distinguish models or ad hoc arrangements that fail to achieve such a result. This is a timely topic in Canada because its professional regulatory framework is being examined for modernization.\n The Canadian professional regulatory framework for health care providers is a legacy of the Constitution of 1867. It can be characterized as a Federation of 13 different jurisdictional systems with each province or territory having exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of its health professionals. This results in differing entry to practice requirements, standards of practice, classes or categories of registration and transfer criteria for eligibility from other provinces.\n The United States nursing state board regulators, the Australian Commonwealth, and their state governments have moved from their original regulatory frameworks to modern ones. Their models are more supportive of mobility, cross-border virtual care, education, and health provider professional development and well-being. Aside from recent discussions in the 4 Canadian Atlantic provinces, there has been little will, effort, or advancement to modernize the regulatory framework in Canada to support multi-jurisdictional licensure. This paper aims to briefly describe 6 existing models that support multijurisdictional licensure. In the fall of 2022, the 4 Atlantic Premiers (akin to state Governors in the US) asked each of their medical regulatory authority (akin to State Medical Boards) to develop a licensing system such that physicians could practice in all 4 Atlantic provinces without the need to acquire multiple licenses. Two models will be discussed that meet this recently stated objective of the Atlantic Premiers while the others do not.","PeriodicalId":91752,"journal":{"name":"Journal of medical regulation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of medical regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30770/2572-1852-109.1.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper will identify existing models of professional regulatory reform that could ensure a single licensing process that results in multi-jurisdictional licensure. The paper will also distinguish models or ad hoc arrangements that fail to achieve such a result. This is a timely topic in Canada because its professional regulatory framework is being examined for modernization. The Canadian professional regulatory framework for health care providers is a legacy of the Constitution of 1867. It can be characterized as a Federation of 13 different jurisdictional systems with each province or territory having exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of its health professionals. This results in differing entry to practice requirements, standards of practice, classes or categories of registration and transfer criteria for eligibility from other provinces. The United States nursing state board regulators, the Australian Commonwealth, and their state governments have moved from their original regulatory frameworks to modern ones. Their models are more supportive of mobility, cross-border virtual care, education, and health provider professional development and well-being. Aside from recent discussions in the 4 Canadian Atlantic provinces, there has been little will, effort, or advancement to modernize the regulatory framework in Canada to support multi-jurisdictional licensure. This paper aims to briefly describe 6 existing models that support multijurisdictional licensure. In the fall of 2022, the 4 Atlantic Premiers (akin to state Governors in the US) asked each of their medical regulatory authority (akin to State Medical Boards) to develop a licensing system such that physicians could practice in all 4 Atlantic provinces without the need to acquire multiple licenses. Two models will be discussed that meet this recently stated objective of the Atlantic Premiers while the others do not.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
职业监管模式:大西洋加拿大的选择?
本文将确定现有的专业监管改革模式,这些模式可以确保单一的许可程序,从而产生多司法管辖区的许可。该文件还将区分未能实现这一结果的模式或特设安排。这在加拿大是一个及时的话题,因为其专业监管框架正在进行现代化审查。加拿大医疗保健提供者的专业监管框架是1867年《宪法》的遗产。它可以被描述为一个由13个不同管辖系统组成的联邦,每个省或地区对其卫生专业人员的监管拥有专属管辖权。这导致不同的执业要求、执业标准、注册类别或类别以及从其他省份获得资格的转移标准。美国护理州委员会监管机构、澳大利亚联邦及其州政府已从最初的监管框架转向现代监管框架。他们的模式更支持流动性、跨境虚拟护理、教育以及医疗服务提供者的专业发展和福祉。除了最近在加拿大大西洋4个省进行的讨论外,加拿大几乎没有意愿、努力或进展来实现监管框架的现代化,以支持多司法管辖区的许可。本文旨在简要介绍支持多司法管辖区许可的6种现有模式。2022年秋天,4位大西洋省省长(类似于美国各州州长)要求各自的医疗监管机构(类似于州医疗委员会)制定一个许可证制度,使医生可以在大西洋所有4个省执业,而无需获得多个许可证。将讨论两种模型,以满足大西洋首映式最近宣布的目标,而其他模型则不满足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Regulating Professions: The Emergence of Professional Self-Regulation in Four Canadian Provinces COVID-denial Invites License Revocation in the UK Regulatory Body Perspectives on Complaints and Disciplinary Action Processes for Health Professionals Physician Well-Being and Patient Safety: The Crossroads to the Best in Medicine What Could (Or Should) Be the Regulatory Response to the Wicked Problem of Climate Change?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1