Health Quality Ontario

The provincial advisor on the quality of health care in Ontario

Building an Integrated System

for Quality Oversight in Ontario’s
Non-Hospital Medical Clinics
Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
Composition and Scope of the Panel .......................................................................................... 7
The Panel’s Approach…………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Principles Underpinning Quality Oversight in Non-Hospital Medical Clinics………………………………..8
The Review and Recommendation Development Process…………………………………………10
1) Engaging the Public, Patients and Providers……………………………………………………………10
2) Defining Quality in Out-of-Hospital Programs…………………………………………………………...11
3) Understanding the Current State of Quality Oversight at Non-Hospital Medical Clinics in Ontario..13
4) Conducting a Jurisdictional Scan…………………………………………………………………………16
Learnings from Others…………………………………………………………………………………………..21
Important Takeaways of the Panel from their Review Process .................................................. 23
Safety and Appropriateness…………………………………………………………………………………….23
Transparency……………………………………………………………………………………………………..24
Tools to Support Accountability………………………………………………………………………………...24
Panel Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 32
Consolidated Recommendations .............................................................................................. 34
Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix 1. Public, Patient and Provider Engagement…………………………………………………..39
Appendix 2. Key Learnings from Other Jurisdictions……………………………………………………...41
Appendix 3. References………………………………………………………………………………………44

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 2

Executive Summary
In December 2014, in response to a number of reports of patients suffering serious harm from
acquiring infections in a pain clinic and in several endoscopy clinics, the Ontario Minister of Health and
Long-Term Care tasked Health Quality Ontario with providing advice to the government on the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the current quality oversight programs for high-risk medical
services being provided in non-hospital medical clinics.

Quality oversight is an essential component of a safe and effective health care system. There is a long
tradition in Ontario of regulatory oversight of health care providers and that framework has been
updated over the years. However, the existing system of oversight for the premises in which providers
deliver care to patients has not kept up with the movement of services out of hospitals into clinics in
the community.

Two regimes for regulating non-hospital medical clinics have emerged over time to provide oversight
and enhance patient safety. Having two systems introduces unnecessary complexity into an already
complex undertaking. Apart from this complexity being a source of risk itself, many procedures and
settings are not covered within these two regimes, which may present a concerning gap. Although risk
in medicine can never be eliminated, we have a responsibility to mitigate it as much as possible. No
patient should be at a relatively higher risk because of where they undergo a medical procedure. A
robust system of quality oversight will reassure citizens that their care is required to meet a standard
of quality no matter where it is received. A comprehensive set of requirements should be designed to
clearly set expectations, proactively reduce exposure to risk, and contain measures for an appropriate
response should a lapse in quality occur.

There is a pressing need to modernize our regulatory framework across the spectrum of non-hospital
care settings. Lapses in quality in some clinics have raised concerns about the sufficiency of the
current system of oversight and have highlighted the need for greater transparency for this sector. As
technology increasingly enables services to be delivered in the community setting, and innovative
providers are developing models to bring care closer to people’s homes, now is the time to ensure that
patients will be able to rely on a system of quality oversight designed for both today and tomorrow.

The public, patients and providers are all partners in this effort. Taking their needs into account and
making the details of quality goals in non-hospital medical clinics transparent is essential for putting
that quality oversight to best possible effect. Consistent quality oversight in non-hospital medical
clinics would support the goals of Ontario’s Patients First: Action Plan for Health Care in the following
ways:

Access
 Patients have access to high quality services closer to home.
Inform
 Patients and providers know where to find information that matters to them about the
performance of clinics so they can make informed choices.
 Clinic owners and the professionals who work there have information about rules and
standards for their clinics, so they know what the expectations are.
 Patients and providers have opportunities to give feedback on their experiences and
satisfaction with clinics in one centralized place.
 There is a central registry of all clinics performing high risk procedures.
Connect
 Clinics in the community are linked with other providers and do not operate in an isolated way.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 3

  There are clear channels of communication between public health units, professional
regulatory colleges and other authorities responsible for health care quality in these settings.
Protect
 Oversight is complete and covers the clinic, the equipment it uses, and the people who work
there.
 Clinics are inspected on schedules based on the kinds of procedures they perform and the
possible risks associated.
 A strong regulatory system is in place to uphold the public interest and allow authorities to
enforce standards in a way that is flexible and responsive.
 Standards for safety and quality do not change based on who owns or operates a clinic or how
it is funded.
 The system is flexible and responsive to adjust to shifts in technology and practice over time.
Having concluded a period of research and discussion, we recommend the creation of a single
legislative system for quality oversight in non-hospital medical clinics. To ensure this system is nimble
and responsive, we recommend accountability be placed with an independent and appropriately
resourced Executive Officer who, with input from experts, has the authority to establish and enforce
standards in a way that is transparent, collaborative across the system, responsive to the needs of the
public, patients and providers and reflective of ongoing changes in technology and care.

Non-hospital medical clinics should be required to register with the Executive Officer and report
performance and quality data, allowing the officer to monitor and respond to quality issues across the
system. And, to promote the safest possible care environment, decisions about when and how clinics
are inspected should take into account issues of risk, including the kinds of services offered and the
performance record of the clinic. In addition, inspection reports should be reviewed in a timely way
and an expedited process should be made available for those cases where concerns about safety or
risk are greater. Regardless of the status of a review, the Executive Officer should be empowered to
order a clinic to cease activity immediately in the interest of public safety.

Patients, providers and the public should be able to make informed decisions about their care and
provide feedback, and inspection reports and complaints processes should be designed with this
purpose in mind.

We envision this new system of integrated legislative oversight would empower authorities to work
collaboratively and communicate transparently, and would encourage organizations to pursue
continuous quality improvement.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 4

Introduction
Every day in Ontario, thousands of patients receive procedures, tests and assessments in non-
hospital medical clinics. “Non-hospital medical clinics” is a broad term that captures a wide array of
settings independent of hospitals, where patients undergo procedures, testing and clinical
assessments. Non-hospital medical clinics encompass family physician offices, specialists’ clinics that
provide specialized services, some of which may be invasive, and facilities that provide day surgery.
These facilities deliver ambulatory or out-patient care, meaning that an over-night hospital stay is not
required. This is one of the largest volume patient activities in Canadian health care.1 The growing
volume of services delivered outside of hospitals has been driven by a number of factors, including
innovations in technology and care delivery models. The movement of low risk procedures from
hospital to the community was expressed as a goal in the Action Plan for Health Care,2 and providing
coordinated and integrated care in the community closer to home was emphasized as a goal in the
recently released Patients First: Action Plan for Health Care.3

The movement of services away from hospitals and into the community has occurred incrementally
over several decades. Non-hospital medical clinics offering specialized services now exist in many
parts of the province, and some receive public health care funding while others are privately funded or
patients pay out-of-pocket for services. Most offer specialized services such as diagnostic imaging,
sleep studies, colonoscopies, gynecology, ophthalmology or plastic surgery. Clinics that specialize
may be owned by physicians or non-physicians, or may be attached to hospitals. While all physicians
are regulated health professionals, overseen by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,
the physical premises of non-hospital medical clinics may be regulated under two different systems.
Having two regulatory systems for clinics that are all providing medical services creates confusion and
unnecessary complexity. Additionally, some clinics operate outside the purview of either regulatory
system.4 Under the two regulatory frameworks, gaps in oversight persist and are not easily remedied.

In December of 2014, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care tasked Health Quality Ontario
(HQO) with developing recommendations to achieve comprehensive and effective quality oversight for
non-hospital medical clinics. An advisory panel was created to review the current environment of care
delivery and to issue a series of recommendations intended to ensure the comprehensiveness and
effectiveness of quality oversight of these clinics.

As services and procedures move out of hospitals into the community,

how can the public be assured that they meet a high standard of quality?
This report offers a series of recommendations designed to create a consistent and comprehensive
system of quality oversight in specified types of non-hospital medical clinics, irrespective of whether
the services are paid for publicly or privately.

1 Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2011). Data Quality Documentation for External Users: National
Ambulatory Care Reporting System, 2010–2011.
2
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. (2012). Ontario’s Action Plan for Health Care: Better Patient Care
Through Better Value for Our Health Care Dollars. This policy initiative defines Community-Based Specialty
Clinics as “… non-profit health care providers that will offer select OHIP-insured, low-risk procedures that are
currently provided in acute hospital settings. Specialty clinics will focus on providing high volume procedures,
such as low-risk cataract procedures, colonoscopies, and other procedures that do not require overnight stays in
a hospital.”
3 Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. (2015). Patients First: Action Plan for Health Care.
4 This gap in the system refers only to the clinic premises. Most health professionals are regulated under

established statutes, for example physicians in Ontario are governed by standards set out under the Regulated
Health Professions Act and The Medicine Act.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 5

Figure 1: Quality as defined by the Ontario public
Thematic word cloud of qualitative responses to online discussion questions received from 35 members of the
general population.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 6

Composition and Scope of the Panel

Health Quality Ontario formed a panel composed of health care and health system leaders to guide
the process of review and analysis of quality oversight in non-hospital medical clinics.

The panel was composed of:

Co-Chairs
Dr. Joshua Tepper
President and CEO,
Health Quality Ontario

Maureen Taylor
Caregiver Representative

Panel
Tom Closson
Health Care Consultant

Colleen M. Flood
University of Ottawa Research Chair in Health Law and Policy and Director of the Centre for Health
Law, Policy and Ethics, University of Ottawa

Dr. Danielle Martin

Vice President, Medical Affairs and Health System Solutions, Women’s College Hospital

Dr. David Walker

Professor, School of Medicine and School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University

With a focus on the public interest, quality, transparency and accountability, the purpose of the panel
was to propose means of strengthening the quality oversight mechanisms for out-of-hospital medical
clinics.

The panel was asked to identify strengths, gaps and risks in the current quality oversight structure.
The panel was also asked to think about the future and how to build a system that could be
responsive to evolving technologies and new practice patterns. The panel was told to be bold in our
thinking. The goal is to ensure that patients can be confident that their health care is meeting a
consistent high standard of quality in non-hospital medical clinics, regardless of where it is provided
and whether it is paid for publicly or privately.

For the sake of patient safety all procedures of a comparable risk should be required to meet a
consistent standard of quality, regardless of whether they are publicly or privately funded. Although
protecting patients is the most important goal, poor quality in private-pay clinics can also affect the
public health care system (e.g., through increased hospital visits due to lapses in quality care). The
panel agreed that standards for a particular procedure or service should be set according to best
practices and should not change depending on clinic ownership, funding model or location. There was
also an acknowledgment that not all non-hospital medical clinics require the same level of oversight;
calibrating the degree of oversight to the risk involved to the patient is key.

Throughout its review, the panel remained mindful of initiatives currently under development. Three
initiatives of particular note were ongoing policy development related to community-based specialty
clinics, the evolution of the Quality Management Partnership led by Cancer Care Ontario and the

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 7

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,5 and the development of quality-based procedures in
a number of areas such as colonoscopy, dialysis and orthopedics.6 All of these initiatives integrate
quality considerations in their design and execution.

In scope. The scope of the panel’s review included consideration of the quality oversight programs
currently operational in non-hospital medical clinics as set out in the Independent Health Facilities Act,
19907 and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s Out-of-Hospital Premises Inspection
Program, which is enabled by a regulation under the Medicine Act.8 But addressing gaps in the
existing system also required the consideration of procedures and settings not currently captured by
either program. Additionally, the panel considered how other leading jurisdictions assured quality in
similar community-based settings and determined how licensing, inspection, governance and
accreditation could be used to best effect.

Out of scope. Out of scope for the panel’s review were considerations about where (geographically)
services would be performed, service volumes, how funding would be determined, how services
should be funded and who delivers funded volumes. The panel did not review the clinical or facility
standards set for specific procedures or modalities.

The Panel’s Approach

The panel’s approach to the review and recommendation development process is depicted below.

Overall, quality as it applies to non-hospital medical clinics was defined and the key features of non-
hospital medical programs were compiled. The current state of quality oversight in these clinics in
Ontario was also reviewed.

In addition, the panel was informed by interviews with key informants and an environmental scan of
comparable jurisdictions that included articles from journals along with available information about
other oversight models across different sectors in the health system. Finally, public, patient and
provider surveys and engagement sessions were held (see Appendix 1 for an overview of
engagement methodology).

Principles Underpinning Quality Oversight in Non-Hospital Medical Clinics

The panel identified the following principles that should guide quality oversight for non-hospital
medical clinics.

Integrated. Quality oversight of non-hospital medical clinics is a complex undertaking. The most
effective model will have a clear mission and will involve setting out clear accountabilities and
authorities for a number of actors.

Consistent. Non-hospital medical clinics and hospitals should be required to meet consistent
standards for quality. Although the standard should be the same across the health system, how it is
attained and assured may vary depending on facility type or procedure. Quality oversight should apply
whether the services are OHIP-funded, being paid for out-of-pocket or by private insurance.

5 Refer to the Quality Management Partnership website at: [Link]

6 Refer to the Health System Funding Reform: Quality-Based Procedures website at:
[Link]
7 Independent Health Facilities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.3
8 Out-of-Hospital Premises Inspection Program. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Retrieved

June 2015 from: [Link]

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 8

Comprehensive. Quality oversight should concern itself with the providers, the clinical care, the
outcomes and experience of patients, the premises including infection control and the equipment. The
program should be well-functioning, designed to uphold high quality but able to respond thoughtfully
and appropriately should something go wrong. Business practices should also be considered,
particularly the charging of facility fees or upgrades that can act as barriers to access and/or equity.

Transparent. Transparency is necessary to ensure that patients know the quality of services
delivered by a facility and can make informed decisions about where to obtain treatment. It is also
important in ensuring that providers understand the requirements placed on them when they practice
in non-hospital clinics.

Future-oriented. A quality oversight program needs to be nimble and flexible to respond to

innovations in technology and practice.

Practical. The cost of the quality oversight program needs to be reasonable and the scale of the
program implementable. Enforcement provisions need to be clear and actionable. Barriers to
information sharing between organizations are removed in the interest of the patient.

“Make sure a patient is totally comfortable,

feels safe, and is 100% aware of what is
going on. Make sure all information is
EASY to access online.”
―Participant in qualitative online discussion

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 9

The Review and Recommendation Development Process
As part of its review process, the panel undertook the following activities.

Engaging the Public, Defining Quality in Understanding the Reviewing Quality

Patients and Medical Programs Current State in Oversight in Context
Providers Ontario

Conducted quantitative Established definition Reviewed current state Surveyed the quality
and qualitative surveys of quality according to of quality oversight in oversight systems of
of the public, patients six dimensions: Ontario to understand comparable
and providers to safety, effectiveness, the strengths, jurisdictions in Canada
understand patient-centred care, weaknesses and gaps of and internationally.
preferences and timeliness, efficiency the two regulatory Reviewed how quality
expectations and and equity. systems for non-hospital oversight is provided in
perspectives on current medical clinics. other sectors in
practice. Conducted key informant Ontario. Examined peer
interviews. reviewed and grey
literature.

1) Engaging the Public, Patients and Providers

The panel felt it was important to learn what the public, patients, referring physicians, and other
providers thought about how non-hospital medical clinics that may be providing high risk procedures
ought to be overseen and why. In order to avoid making assumptions about the preferences of these
groups and to ensure their feedback was embedded in the process, the panel undertook qualitative
and quantitative engagement. Some of the findings are below, and a summary of the research into the
perspectives, knowledge, priorities and concerns of patients and providers can be found Appendix 1.
The complete report is available from Health Quality Ontario.

Public / Patient Engagement. Engagement took two forms: a quantitative survey of a random
sample of the population and a qualitative engagement process involving a smaller group of patients,
providers and the public. When surveyed, patients made no distinction between the two types of non-
hospital medical clinics – independent health facilities (IHFs) and out-of-hospital premises (OHPs).
Ownership information is similarly unimportant.9 During qualitative discussions, participants admitted
unfamiliarity with the regulation and oversight for these facilities, but were clear that they expected
IHFs and OHPs to be regulated in a similar manner as hospitals. Further, the public has a higher
confidence in the quality and safety of hospitals than of non-hospital medical clinics. It was not clear
what led to that higher degree of confidence.

Survey participants rated transparent information as “very important.” Before their first appointment,
patients wanted to receive information about facility cleanliness, accreditations and certifications,
clinician credentials and experience, quality control measures, and rates of infections and
complications. The majority of respondents felt it was necessary to have information available on the
clinic or facility’s website (69%), on a website administered by the provincial government (64%), in the
clinic reception or waiting area (62%) and on the websites of professional oversight organizations
(61%). Significantly, many patients reported not receiving any information before their appointments,
which was confirmed in a survey of family physicians and general practitioners.

9 Ownership of the facility was least likely to be endorsed as “important” or “very important.”

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 10

Patients were interested too in other aspects of service quality beyond clinical outcomes and safety.
These included convenience of location, accessibility, wait times, access to multilingual staff, and
cultural sensitivity.

Provider Engagement. The provider engagement process demonstrated similar results. In a survey
of Ontario family physicians and general practitioners, more than one third (34%) stated they were
unclear on what an IHF is and more than half (51%) responded similarly regarding OHPs. Providers at
IHFs and OHPs, while more confident in the care provided at these facilities, expressed confusion
regarding existing regulations, with one third (33%) indicating that they were unsure of the frequency
at which inspections currently take place.

As part of the qualitative engagement process, family physicians and general practitioners also
reported a higher confidence in the quality and safety of hospitals than of non-hospital medical clinics.
They indicated that there is not enough information available regarding the cost, safety and overall
quality associated with IHFs and OHPs. In addition, the criteria family physicians and general
practitioners endorsed most frequently as “very important” when referring patients to a non-hospital
medical clinic included physician credentials and experience, cleanliness of the facility, patient
feedback, the number of procedures or tests conducted by the physician per year, quality control
measures in place, emergency plans related to complications, rates of hospitalizations due to
infections and complications and clinic accreditations and certifications. Yet almost half (47%) of
respondents indicated they were not certain where to acquire this information.

OHP and IHF providers surveyed indicated that the information their facilities make available to the
public does not always align with the information most valued by primary care providers and patients.
Only 34% of respondents indicated that their facilities make information available regarding rates of
hospitalization, 34% list the number of procedures or tests conducted by physicians per year, 46%
provide quality control measures and 52% include facility cleanliness ratings, all measures listed as
very important by patients and family physicians and general practitioners alike.

2) Defining Quality in Out-of-Hospital Programs

Although the definition of quality should be nuanced in light of specific treatments or procedures, it is
useful to consider a broad understanding of quality. The panel based its considerations on the
Institute of Medicine’s six domains of health care quality:10

Safe. Avoid harm to patients from the care that is intended to help them. Ensuring the safest possible
experience for patients requires that:
 Clinicians practice within the scope of their certification and experience.
 Facilities employ best practices in infection control and prevention.
 Critical incidents and adverse events are reported and investigated, with protocols in place for
communicating with patients.
 Facilities meet accessibility standards for the disabled
 Consistent oversight is in place, with the facility’s responsibilities and the regulatory
environment clearly defined.
 Program standards and inspection protocols are designed to support enhanced patient safety.

Effective. Provide appropriate services based on scientific knowledge and evidence.

 The right services are provided to the right patients, with full transparency around the merits of
add-on services that may be offered.

10
Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.
Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2001.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 11

  Procedures are performed competently and according to current best practice.
 Referrals are appropriately provided.

Patient Centered. Provide care that is respectful of individual patient preferences, needs, and values.
 Patient values guide all clinical decisions.
 Patients have access to information that helps them make informed choices.
 Patients receive accurate and timely information about their procedure and aftercare.
 Facilities are clean and offer a consistent experience.
 There is a defined and transparent complaint resolution process in place.
 Patients are treated respectfully.
Timely. Reduce wait times and harmful delays for those who receive and those who give care.
 Wait times for procedures are tracked.
 Facilities provide timely turnaround of reports to referring clinicians.

Efficient. Avoid waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and energy.
 Facilities make best use of their public funding.
 Data is collected that enables robust performance management of both quality and finances
and informed policy-making.
 Accountabilities are clearly defined and are based on a common set of standards and
priorities.

Equitable. Provide care that does not vary in quality due to personal characteristics such as gender,
ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status.
 Ontarians who seek insured services are not subject to additional fees.
 Paying for upgrading of services or devices is never a condition of accessing service.

Infection Prevention and Control

The panel also gave careful consideration to infection prevention and control (IPC).

Infection prevention and control is an emerging area of concern to the public, and lapses in this area
have had a significant impact on patients, providers, communities and local public health units. IPC
standards are important in all medical settings, and are an area of significant focus in IHF and OHP
facility standards. Lapses in IPC might be discovered during a premises inspection, or could be
identified reactively as infections or outbreaks are reported through the public health system,
investigated and traced back to a clinic. There are clear statutory and regulatory requirements for
communication related to ‘reportable’ diseases, and the local medical officer of health is able to
investigate and follow-up these cases in all settings.

It is important to note that a lapse does not necessarily mean that any patient has been harmed. All IPC
lapses are concerning and understandably very worrying to patients. However, not all lapses pose a
serious threat to public health. It is important that the risk is properly assessed and the situation
appropriately managed. It is also critical there be clear, formal lines of communication between public
health units and the regulatory authority for community medical clinics. This is simple to state but much
more complex to execute.

Public health is focused on a wide range of activities that protect and promote the health and wellbeing
of whole populations. Legislative and regulatory oversight is provided through the Health Protection
and Promotion Act and the Ontario Public Health Standards, which set out requirements for the
provision of public health services. Local public health services are delivered by 36 boards of health
across the province. Each public health unit is headed by a Medical Officer of Health.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 12

At the provincial level, the Public Health Division in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is
responsible for setting public health policy. Leadership and clinical experience is also provided through
the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Also at the provincial level is Public Health Ontario, an
agency of government that provides expert scientific and technical advice and support relating to
matters like infectious diseases, infection prevention and control, surveillance and epidemiology,
emergency preparedness and incident response. Public Health Ontario operates 14 Regional Infection
Control Networks, voluntary programs that help practitioners implement best practices in IPC, and hosts
the Provincial Infectious Diseases Advisory Committees that produce (among other things) evidence-
based products related to best practices in infection control (for example, Infection Prevention and
Control for Clinical Office Practice or Cleaning, Disinfection, Sterilization of Medical Equipment and
Devices).

When it comes to lapses or potential lapses in infection prevention and control, the communication
channels between public health authorities and the regulator of community medical clinics can be
characterized as informal. Roles and responsibilities in investigating, assessing and managing IPC
lapses have been the subject of active conversations for some time. In 2011, three of the 36 public
health units in Ontario (Ottawa, Peel and Toronto) experienced significant IPC lapses in community-
based medical facilities. Of the three lapses, one was identified through the recently introduced Out-
of-Hospital Premises Inspection Program. The other two were discovered either because a patient or
physician complained to the public health unit about infection control practices or because the public
health unit identified clusters of cases of reportable diseases among patients who had been treated at
the same facility.

These lapses put patients at risk, weakened public confidence in the health care system and created
pressure on the local public health units that had to respond to and manage them.11 Lapses that require
trace backs and intensive public communication are not only stressful to communities but are expensive,
time-consuming and pull public health unit capacity away from delivering the services they are
mandated to provide to their communities.

In 2012, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health at the time, Dr. Arlene King, established the
Community Infection Prevention and Control Lapses Task Group to provide advice on improving IPC
practices and developing a consistent approach to assessing and managing IPC lapses in the
community. The task group returned 12 recommendations designed to help decrease the number of
IPC lapses in community clinics and ensure a strong, consistent, appropriate response when they do
occur. To date, the MOHLTC has created a working group to identify current education and training
practices and is in the process of adding the Health Protection and Promotion Act to the list of statutes
currently identified within the Regulated Health Professionals Act to allow information related to IPC
lapses to flow more readily between public health units, the Ministry, the Chief Medical Officer of Health
and the CPSO. PHO has convened a working group to develop a framework for risk assessment and
processes for communication and has begun compiling educational tools to promote best practices. A
number of preliminary discussions, meetings and investigations have been initiated to address
remaining recommendations. Moving forward on implementation of the task group’s recommendations
should be a priority.

3) Understanding the Current State of Quality Oversight at Non-Hospital Medical

Clinics in Ontario
Ontario has a model of self-regulation for health professionals. Each health profession has a
regulatory college that is responsible among other things for ensuring that professionals deliver
services in a safe, effective, and ethical manner. Regardless of the setting in which they practice,

11 Community Infection Prevention and Control Lapses Task Group. (2013). Report to the Chief Medical Officer
of Health.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 13

these health professionals are subject to the oversight of their college. The premises in which they
practice though, may or may not be subject to oversight. Depending on the services provided or the
models under which they are funded, non-hospital medical clinics may not fall under any system of
quality oversight. However, there are two different legislative systems which presently regulate those
that do:

1) Independent health facilities (are licensed under the Independent Health Facilities Act
(IHFA). IHFs deliver services at no charge to patients who are covered by the Ontario Health
Insurance Plan (OHIP). The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care pays the physicians
working in IHFs a standard fee for each service (a professional fee), plus the Ministry (or a
designated entity) pays facility owners a specified amount for each service that contributes to
overhead costs like rent, supplies and equipment (a facility fee). There are approximately 935
IHFs licensed in Ontario, with a large majority being diagnostic imaging facilities.12 They are
independently owned and operated, and most are for-profit corporations.13 Approximately half
are owned or controlled by physicians, though physician owners may not necessarily operate
under the relevant specialty under which an IHF is licensed.
2) Out-of-hospital premises are established under regulation 114/94 of the Medicine Act,
1991.14 Oversight under this act applies to facilities that provide services to patients where the
accepted standard of practice is to use certain types of anaesthesia or sedation.15 At the time
of this report, there were 273 OHPs providing services such as plastic surgery, endoscopy and
interventional pain management. OHPs do not receive facility fees, but physicians working in
these facilities receive professional fees from OHIP for insured services.
Facilities may fall outside of these two regulatory frameworks, most commonly because they offer
services that are not covered by OHIP and do not require anaesthesia or sedation. Although the clinic
premises would not be regulated, physicians performing the procedures are subject to the licensing
requirements of the College of Physicians and Surgeons on Ontario (CPSO), and the CPSO has the
authority to impose restrictions on a member’s certificate of registration through the Registration
Committee, the Quality Assurance Committee, the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee
and/or the Discipline Committee. However, facilities need not be licensed or inspected.

Regulatory Framework for Quality Oversight in Non-Hospital Medical Clinics

Independent Health Facilities
The Independent Health Facilities Act, 1990 sets out a quality oversight regime for IHFs. The program
is developed and administered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario under an
agreement with the Ministry. Under this program, the CPSO has developed facility standards as well
as standards for clinical practices for each IHF procedure offered. Licenses to operate IHFs are
granted for five years and, during this period, the facility is inspected by the CPSO at least once.

Inspections may occur more frequently if requested by the Ministry. IHFs are required to have a
quality advisor, a physician who is held accountable for ensuring the facility meets its quality
responsibilities under the Act. Similar legislative requirements govern other regulatory colleges as
well, including the College of Midwives which appoints assessors for birth centres. A complete list of
IHFs, the date of their latest quality assessment and the results are posted on the Ministry website.

12 The majority of the facilities provide specific classes of diagnostic tests (e.g. diagnostic imaging, nuclear
medicine tests, pulmonary function tests and sleep study tests). Twenty-seven are ambulatory facilities providing
dialysis, abortion and gynecologic surgery, laser dermatology, ophthalmic/cataract surgery, vascular and plastic
surgery. IHFs can also provide surgical, therapeutic and diagnostic procedures that are not included in the OHIP
fee paid to physicians.
13 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2012). Independent Health Facilities. Chapter 3, Section 3.06.
14 O. Reg. 114/94.
15 General, regional and local anaesthesia, as well as parenteral sedation.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 14

The IHFA applies to all facilities licensed under the Act. Recent regulatory changes have empowered
the CPSO to also use the Out-of-Hospital Premises Inspection Program assessment approach
(discussed in the next section) in cases where the IHF is performing procedures where the standard of
care includes the use of anaesthesia or sedation.

Under the Act governing this relationship, the Minister appoints a director of IHFs, who is a Ministry
employee, to administer the IHF program. The director may revoke or suspend a license, remove
specific services from a license, provide notice of proposal to suspend or provide a warning to address
deficiencies.16 The director is also authorized to issue an immediate suspension where there are
reasonable grounds to believe an IHF is or will be operated in a manner that poses an immediate
threat to health and safety.

IHF owners (licensees) can appeal decisions to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board and
can continue to offer services while the appeal is underway. In some cases, an appeal could last for
years. Facilities could theoretically remove themselves from IHFA oversight by forfeiting their license,
and hence facility fees, while continuing to operate and collect professional fees for each service.

There is no requirement under the IHFA to report adverse events to the Ministry or the CPSO.

Out-of-Hospital Premises
Regulation 114/94 under the Medicine Act grants oversight of some premises to the CPSO, which in
response has developed the Out-of-Hospital Premises Inspection Program (OHPIP). The OHPIP
includes a process for establishing standards for both the facility and the facility staff, the development
of tools for assessments and the appointment of teams of assessors who inspect facilities for
compliance with the standards. The CPSO performs an initial inspection prior to the opening of an
OHP facility, with a follow-up inspection every cycle of their license—either every three or five years.
Inspections may occur more frequently at the discretion of the CPSO. A physician must perform the
defined procedures in order for the CPSO to have the authority to conduct inspections. There is no
centralized system for monitoring the establishment of new facility locations; instead facility operators
must initially identify themselves to the CPSO. Assessment reports are reviewed by a committee and
the outcome is posted on the CPSO’s public register.17 OHPs are required to designate a medical
director, a physician who is accountable for ensuring the facility meets its responsibilities under the
regulation.

The CPSO’s oversight is limited to facilities providing procedures that, under the standard of care,
require certain types of anaesthesia or sedation. Other procedures performed in the same clinic may
fall under the IHFA or outside the jurisdiction of assessors altogether.18

CPSO assessments may result in a “pass,” ”pass with conditions” or “fail.” CPSO jurisdiction is limited
to its members (physicians). If a clinic does not pass its assessment, the CPSO can prohibit any
physician from performing the service in question at that clinic, but it does not have the authority to
order the premises closed. Once committee review of an assessment report is complete, its
determination is final. Any opposition to its determinations would be resolved through application for
judicial review.

16 Considerations include quality and standards of service, contravention of legislation or license condition,
dishonesty or discontinued operation.
17 The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Out-of-Hospital Premises. Retrieved June 2015 from:

[Link]
18 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2012). Independent Health Facilities. Chapter 3, Section 3.06.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 15

The OHPIP recognizes two types of adverse events. Tier 1 events include death on premises or within
10 days of the procedure, transfer to hospital, and surgery on the wrong site or wrong patient. These
events must be reported to the CPSO within 24 hours of the physician becoming aware of them. Tier 2
events (including infections) are reported on an annual basis.19

4) Conducting a Jurisdictional Scan

Quality Oversight Approaches of Other Jurisdictions
In shaping recommendations to strengthen the oversight of non-hospital medical clinics in Ontario, the
panel surveyed the quality oversight systems of a number of jurisdictions. Combined, Ontario has over
1,200 IHFs and OHPs, the largest number under quality oversight in any province in Canada. To help
ensure that the lessons of other jurisdictions are scalable to Ontario, the panel included the health
systems of several other countries.

The following jurisdictions were reviewed: the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British
Columbia, as well as New South Wales, Australia, England, the United States, and the Netherlands.

In all jurisdictions that provide oversight, successful accreditation/inspection is required for facilities to
continue providing the services subject to a regulatory program. Because the terms “inspection” and
“accreditation” are sometimes used interchangeably, the difference between the two can be difficult to
discern. Typically, inspection models are broader in scope, involving assessments of professional
clinical performance and observations of particular procedures. However, it is noteworthy that the
effectiveness of external review or inspection in enhancing facility compliance with standards has not
been thoroughly investigated in the literature.20

Key Features of Canadian Non-Hospital Medical Quality Oversight Programs

Health regulatory colleges are the primary regulators of medical facilities in Canadian provinces. The
exceptions appear in provinces where there is no facility regulation. Quebec has replaced its
provincial licensing regime with a third-party accreditation requirement. In cases where the regulatory
college inspects or accredits facilities, its authority comes through legislation and regulation. The
college subsequently establishes by-laws and program standards. This is the case in British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Some facilities in provinces that do not have
a formal regime for quality oversight voluntarily pursue accreditation through third parties such as
Accreditation Canada, the Canadian Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities,
the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities or the International Organization for
Standardization.

Alberta. Alberta has just over 660 facilities under its oversight programs, including 76 surgical
facilities. A list of types of procedures covered is provided in regulation. Any facility planning to provide
a service from the list is required to obtain accreditation from the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Alberta. In addition, an extensive list of surgical and endoscopic procedures is also set out in the
College bylaw. Accredited medical facilities must also safely allow the discharge of patients from
medical care within 12 hours of completion of surgical procedures unless those facilities are approved
for extended stays. Major surgical services are prohibited from being delivered outside of hospitals.

19 Tier 1 events include death on the premises, death within 10 days of a procedure, procedures performed on
the wrong patient or wrong site and events requiring transfer of the patient to a hospital for care. Tier 2 events,
such as infection data or a patient’s unplanned stay for medical reasons longer than 12 hours post-procedure,
are tracked for quality improvement purposes.
20 Flodgren, G. Pomey, M.P., Taber, S.A., Eccles, M.P. (2011). Effectiveness of external inspection of

compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour or
patient outcomes. The Cochrane Library. Issue 11.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 16

The oversight regime in Alberta addresses the people, the premises and the procedures, including
business practices such as extra-billing and the selling of “upgrades.” Evidence-based standards and
guidelines for the listed procedures are provided. Clinics must meet the same standards as hospitals
for quality assurance, patient satisfaction, reporting on services provided, reporting of incidents and
patient concerns, physician qualifications and compliance with medical staff bylaws. Furthermore, all
non-hospital surgical facilities must follow the rules set forth in Alberta’s Health Care Protection Act
(HCPA) and HCPA regulation regarding the sale of enhanced medical goods and services.

British Columbia. British Columbia has 64 medical clinics and 207 diagnostic facilities and labs.
Regulatory authority is provided under the Health Professions Act and the College of Physicians and
Surgeons of British Columbia bylaw enabled under that Act. The regulator has jurisdiction over both its
members (physicians) and the facility. The College administers two programs: the Non-Hospital
Medical and Surgical Facilities Program and the Diagnostic Accreditation Program. The regulatory
framework applies to surgical facilities that provide anaesthesia. The College’s bylaw also prohibits
specific procedures—including major surgery to the head or neck and surgeries that would require the
replacement of blood—from being performed in a facility without special permission.

Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has 12 medical and 34 diagnostic facilities that are governed by the
Health Facilities Licensing Act and its regulation, the Health Professions Act. The College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan bylaws are enabled under that Act. An organization
operating under the Health Facilities Licensing Act requires a licence issued by the provincial
government. In general, a facility will require a license if the facility delivers publicly funded health
services that were previously provided in a Saskatchewan hospital. The provincial government
oversees the licensure process. Non-hospital treatment facilities, which provide both insured and non-
insured services, often require both college approval and a license under the Health Facilities
Licensing Act. Saskatchewan has largely modeled the parameters of their program after Alberta’s.

Key Features of Foreign Non-Hospital Medical Quality Oversight Programs

All four of the international jurisdictions surveyed employ an independent agency in quality oversight.

England. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is a national program that inspects all healthcare
services against national standards,21 rates the facilities and reports publicly. As the independent
regulator of health and adult social services in England, the CQC’s objective is to promote and protect
the health, safety and welfare of people who use those services22. The CQC’s authority is provided
under the Health and Social Care Act, 2008 and regulations under that Act. Almost 15,700 settings fall
under the CQC’s jurisdiction, including all hospitals, nursing homes, out-of-hospital clinics, family
physicians and general practitioners, office-based practices, dental clinics, social service programs,
home care services and other health services (such as ambulances). The CQC has only recently
begun inspecting within the independent healthcare sector—those organizations and providers who
work exclusively in the private sphere, outside the National Health Service.

The Care Quality Commission recently shifted its monitoring approach from annual inspections for all
to a risk-based inspection schedule. Facilities are rated as “inadequate,” ”requires improvement,”
”good” or “outstanding.” The criteria against which services are evaluated include facility safety, caring
staff, responsiveness to patient needs, effectiveness of service and quality of leadership. Re-
inspections are conducted regularly to ensure implementation of any required changes. Facilities

21 Care Quality Commission. National Standards. Retrieved June 2015 from

[Link]
22 Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Care Quality Commission: Regulating the quality and

safety of health and audit social care (2011) National Audit Office. Retrieved June 2015 from
[Link]

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 17

receiving high ratings may not be re-inspected for up to two years. Enforcement powers include
warnings, conditions on registration, suspension and cancellation of registration as well as criminal
action. Recent data shows that 5% of inspections have required enforcement, 32% have required
improvements and 63% of inspected facilities have met all standards.23

New South Wales, Australia. The Private Health Facilities Act, 2007 and the Private Health Facilities
Regulation, 2010 provide for the maintenance of appropriate and consistent standards of health care
and professional practice in private health facilities in New South Wales, which are defined as
premises where any person is admitted, provided with medical, surgical or other prescribed treatment
and then discharged; or premises where a person is provided with prescribed services or treatments
(public hospitals and nursing homes are excluded from these categorizations). Facilities covered
include anaesthesiology, gastrointestinal endoscopy, maternal, interventional radiology, radiotherapy,
medical and surgical facilities (there are 18 types of facilities in total).

In September of 2011, the Australian Health Ministers endorsed the National Safety and Quality
Health Service Standards, a national accreditation scheme established by the Australian Commission
on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). The ACSQHC is an independent agency that is
funded by all governments on a cost sharing basis. Their mandate is to lead and coordinate health
care safety and quality improvements in Australia. The standards are intended to protect the public
from harm and improve the quality of health service provision.24,25 In order to receive a license to
operate a private health facility, the facility must engage with the National Standards and Accreditation
Scheme of the ACSQHC. The state remains the regulator and receives data on the outcome of the
accreditation, but the assessments are carried out by approved third-party accreditation agencies.

The Netherlands. The Health Care Inspectorate, an independent agency of the Ministry of Health, is
responsible for the inspection and regulation of all health care settings in the country. Approximately
100 hospitals, 8,500 GP offices, 8,000 dentists, 1,400 homes for the elderly and 40 community public
health organizations.

The Health Care Inspectorate analyzes quality information and any additional available data about a
care provider (e.g. performance indicators, reported incidents, patient experience data), to develop a
risk assessment for that facility, usually based on a comparison with other providers in the same
sector. The agency determines which locations and facilities are to receive an inspection visit as well
as the timing of those visits.

United States. In 2012, there were 5,260 Ambulatory Surgical Centres (ASCs) in the United States
performing approximately 6 million surgical procedures per year. Regulation of ASCs is primarily a
state responsibility. Each state has unique licensing regulations with different clauses around eligible
procedures and facility requirements (e.g., Pennsylvania limits procedures to those patients requiring
fewer than four hours of anaesthesia). Most states require ASCs applying for licensing to be inspected
by a state surveyor, after which the ASC is given a (generally time-limited) license. Each state has its
own timeline for license renewal and re-inspection (if required). Most ASCs have physician owners

23 Care Quality Commission. (2014). Annual Report and Accounts 2013/14.

24
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality of Healthcare. (2012). National Safety and Quality Health
Service Standards.
25 Standards address 10 areas of health quality: governance for safety and quality in health service, partnering

with consumer, preventing and controlling healthcare associated infections, medication safety, patient
identification and procedure matching, clinical handover, blood and blood products, preventing and managing
pressure injuries, recognising and responding to clinical deterioration in acute health care, preventing falls and
harm from falls.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 18

and are often jointly owned with for-profit health care delivery companies. There are several major
U.S. ASC chains.

Medicare maintains national standards and requires that ASCs billing Medicare—a designation that
includes nearly all ASCs—be Medicare-certified against these standards. ASCs can choose to
become Medicare-certified through either state certification agencies or through a national ASC
accreditation body recognized by Medicare. A large majority of ASCs (90%) choose to be certified
through state agencies because national accreditation bodies conduct facility inspections every one to
three years, whereas state agencies generally inspect less often. Medicare can require ASCs to be re-
inspected/re-certified if program standards change.

Quality Oversight Approaches of Other Ontario Non-Hospital Medical Sectors

The Ontario regulatory environment provides for oversight of a number of health care sectors. The
panel reviewed four regulated sectors to compare key features. There are a number of lessons to be
taken. First, when organizations fail inspections, the premises may not be the primary problem and
closing the premises entirely may not best serve the public interest. Second, inspections alone cannot
draw a complete picture of the performance of a clinician or facility because representatives of any
inspection program can only be present at a moment in time. Third, regardless of ownership models,
clear accountability is the key to an effective oversight program.

The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario is the governing body for dentists in Ontario. Its
role is to set standards for the practice of dentistry in Ontario and provide a complaint and
investigation process to resolve issues raised by members of the public who feel the standards have
not been met. The College examines provider training and facility safety. As of January 2015, there
were 1,153 premises involving 1,000 dentists and 275 physicians covered by this program. The
College has inspected all dental premises that use anaesthesia since the mid-1990s and regulated
oral conscious sedation at a moderate level since 2009. At this level of sedation or deeper, dentists
need authorization and a facility permit issued by the College. Though there is a standard for all clinics
and an expectation that the standard will always be adhered to, there is no adverse event reporting
requirement. Facilities that use anaesthesia and sedation are inspected at least every three years and
are provided a pass or fail designation.

The College’s approach is mindful of the line between scope of practice and regulated activities.
Training, equipment and other items are covered under the professional standards for dentistry, and
dentists do not need a facility permit to conduct activities that are within their basic scope of practice
(such as administering a local anaesthetic, which is a routine procedure). Dentists have an obligation
to maintain the standards of practice of the profession and, accordingly, must ensure that
recommended infection prevention and control procedures are carried out in their offices. IPC is
therefore not part of the facility inspection program.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists regulates both the practice of members and the practice site.
Members are regulated through the Regulated Health Professions Act26 and the Pharmacy Act.27
Practice sites are regulated through the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act.28 Pharmacies are
generally inspected every three to four years, and the activity risk level is taken into account; for
instance, whether a premise is methadone-dispensing or compounding. The College inspects about
1,500 premises per year.

26 Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18

27 Pharmacy Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 36
28 O. Reg. 58/11

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 19

The College has recently introduced a new practice assessment process to evaluate individual
practitioner performance against practice standards.29 By bringing together premises inspections and
practice assessments, the College ensures that health care professionals have an environment that is
conducive to doing their best work.

Under the Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014, the College is now empowered to inspect
and license private and public hospital pharmacies in the same manner it licenses and inspects
community pharmacies. This is a new development and the supporting regulations are being drafted.

Long-term care (LTC) homes. LTC homes in Ontario are legislated and regulated under the Long-
Term Care Homes Act, 2007.30 These facilities are partially publicly funded and provide round-the-
clock nursing care to admitted residents. There are 629 LTC homes in Ontario in a mix of for-profit,
non-profit and municipal ownership. The Long-Term Care Home Quality Inspection Program
safeguards residents’ well-being by continuously investigating complaints, concerns and critical
incidents, and by ensuring that all homes are inspected at least once per year. Inspections are
unannounced. The results of the inspections (redacted to protect resident privacy) are posted on the
Ministry website and on the premises of the home. The Ministry administers the inspection program,
the inspectors may be either Ministry employees or subcontracted agents. Inspections are detailed
and all aspects of non-compliance are documented.

In addition to inspections, Health Quality Ontario reports on 11 long-term care quality indicators for the
province of Ontario. Of these 11 indicators, four31 are risk-adjusted,32 reported at the level of the home
and compared against the provincial average.

LTC homes also collect significant amounts of data, administering comprehensive assessments with
the Resident Assessment Instrument – Minimum Data Set 2.0 (RAI-MDS 2.0). Each resident is
evaluated with the RAI-MDS 2.0 assessment tool at admission, at the time of discharge, on a quarterly
basis and after any significant health changes. The data is reported to the Canadian Institute for
Health Information, where it is cleaned and audited for data quality. The assessments provide homes,
the Ministry, researchers and analysts with a rich database of information including resident
characteristics, health conditions, functional abilities and limitations, current medications, use of
restraints and cognitive abilities.

Retirement homes. Retirement homes in Ontario are not publicly funded and do not offer round-the-
clock nursing services. By definition, retirement homes are occupied primarily by residents aged 65
years and up, and either directly or indirectly offer at least two care services from among a group of
commonly provided forms of assistance, including wound and skin care, continence care, assistance
with drugs, assistance with eating, assistance with bathing, dementia and others.

The Retirement Homes Act, 201033 sets out a framework for quality management in the sector,
including the establishment of an independent, not-for-profit regulatory body, the Retirement Homes
Regulatory Authority (RHRA) and a set of requirements that retirement homes are required to comply
with under the Act. The RHRA has the power to license homes and conduct inspections,
investigations and enforcement, including the issuing of financial penalties and revoking licenses. The

29 Ontario College of Pharmacists. (2015). Practice Assessments. Pharmacy Connection, Winter, 22(1), 18.
30 Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 8
31 Incontinence, falls, pressure ulcers and restraints.
32 Risk-adjustment is a statistical practice used to equalize data among homes that may have populations at

disparate risk for these conditions. For instance, a home with a greater than average proportion of frail residents
is likely have a greater number of falls even if all proper quality assurance measures are in place.
33 Retirement Homes Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 11

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 20

RHRA is funded through fees collected from retirement homes, primarily licensing and annual fees.

All retirement homes are required to undergo a routine inspection at least once every three years.
Complaints can be submitted to the registrar of the RHRA. Retirement homes must report immediately
to the registrar if they suspect harm to their residents, including: 1) improper or incompetent treatment
or care, 2) abuse by anyone or neglect by a staff member of the home, 3) unlawful conduct or 4)
misuse/misappropriation of a resident’s money. A report may trigger an inspection.

Quality Oversight in the Hospital Setting in Ontario

Hospitals have historic and well-established governance systems with defined roles and
responsibilities for accountability in the quality of care being delivered. Many pieces of provincial
legislation guide a hospital’s day-to-day operations. The Public Hospitals Act34 (PHA) is a key piece of
legislation that governs multiple areas, including physician appointments and privileges, reporting
requirements, patient admissions, discharge and records and communicable disease protocols.
Hospital management regulation under the PHA gives the framework for hospital governance and
provides for the establishment of corporate bylaws, professional staff bylaws and the Medical Advisory
Committee to make policy and procedure recommendations.

When hospitals operate ambulatory care centres or outpatient clinics, this quality oversight
infrastructure extends to those settings as well.

The PHA also empowers the government to appoint an investigator or a supervisor to manage public
hospitals in certain circumstances. Among other provisions, the Excellent Care for All Act35,36requires
hospitals to establish quality committees that report to the board, and to complete annual Quality
Improvement Plans. A combination of accountability at the board level, articulation of roles and
responsibilities for senior leadership, reporting of data and voluntary accreditation forms the
framework for quality oversight in hospitals. Hospitals typically have an established process for
receiving and following up on patient concerns and complaints, which can serve as an important tool
in ongoing quality oversight.37 Ontario’s health care system does not have centralized oversight of
quality in hospitals and has not historically held a consolidated view of operations that encompasses
the provider, the premises and the clinical quality of the procedure (including patient outcomes) in this
sector as a whole.

Learnings from Others

Several observations emerged from the jurisdictional review engaged in by the panel.

Assessment rating scale. In Alberta, facilities can receive full accreditation, provisional accreditation
or no accreditation. The CQC in England issues ratings of “outstanding,” “good,” “requires
improvement” and “inadequate.” These scales are simple and easy to understand. In contrast, the
current CPSO assessments result in “pass,” “pass with conditions” or “fail,” designations that were not
initially developed for the purpose of transparent public reporting (they were designed to support
administering the program, where for instance a premise may pass with conditions because some

34 Public Hospitals Act, RSO 1990, c P.40

35 Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 14
36 There are many other statutes the govern hospital operations, including the Local Health System Integration

Act, the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. See the OHA’s Physician Leadership Resource Manual
for a summary of the legislation pertaining to the operation of hospitals.
37 Reader, T.W., Gillespie, A., and Roberts, J. (2014). Patient Complaints in Healthcare Systems: a systematic

review and coding taxonomy. BMJ Qual Saf doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002437.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 21

paperwork requires completion or signage posted.) “Pass with conditions” gives the public very little
guidance when assessing a clinic.

Clinicians practice within the scope of their certification and experience. Some programs
credential clinicians to perform certain services in non-hospital medical clinics. Although most
programs do not credential, in all cases there is an expectation that clinicians work within the scope of
their experience and training. As part of the inspection process, all programs seek to ensure that
clinicians have the proper training and licensing.

Detailed standards and processes for keeping them current. This is common to all models. In
Ontario, standards and processes for OHPs are developed by expert panels established by the
CPSO, and address only those activities that fall under the regulator’s oversight. There is no flexibility
allowing these committees to address procedures or premises that fall outside of what is currently
specified in legislation and/or regulation. The IHFA permits standards to be designated. England and
Australia have established national standards and
oversight programs are made to align with those national
standards.
“The regulations
Inspection cycle. Most programs in Canada and the should…‘have teeth’ so
United States work on a regular cycle (with provision for
shorter intervals in the case of inadequate inspection that if the clinic is seriously
ratings). In Ontario, inspections occur every license cycle
(once per three or five years) unless new activities are
off standards it can be shut
undertaken or there are special concerns. England is down immediately and,
moving back to a risk-based system after a period of
inspecting on an annual cycle. similarly, if the operations
are raised to or above the
Program scope and requirement for oversight. There
was no consistent or prevalent approach to defining standards, a different
which types of clinics or services should require
oversight, or how to enforce compliance. Some
random health inspector
jurisdictions set out parameters for requirements for should be able to authorize
oversight in regulation, others through by-laws, and still
others determined theirs through authorities outside any the re-opening of the clinic
explicit grant of regulatory authority.
as soon as he completes
his inspection.”
―Patient respondent in qualitative
online discussion

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 22

Important Takeaways of the Panel from their Review Process

Reviewing the practices of other jurisdictions, and the approaches taken by various regulated sectors
within Ontario, a considerable amount of diversity in purpose and approach is observed. In the
absence of a replicable model that would conform to Ontario’s health care context and uphold the
principles the panel originally set out, the panel’s recommendations were informed by learnings from a
variety of sectors and jurisdictions and focus on several broad categories.

Safety and Appropriateness

All measures must be taken to ensure that patients are safe when they are undergoing medical
procedures in non-hospital medical clinics. This means that patients are assessed to ensure they can
safely undergo a procedure outside a hospital, that the procedure is performed correctly, that the risks
of infection and adverse events are minimized and precautions are taken before, during and after the
procedure, and that patients, families and caregivers are accorded timely communication of results
and coordination of follow-up care.

Should emergencies arise, clinics need to have established protocols to ensure they are able to
recognize the need to transfer the patient to a hospital and have the means to quickly do so.
Simulation of these protocols is highly desirable to ensure staff are aware and prepared in the event
they are required. The program for oversight of clinics should include comprehensive requirements to
support all aspects of patient safety.

Figure 2: Quality as defined by the Ontario public

Thematic word cloud of qualitative responses to online discussion questions received from 35 members of the general
population.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 23

Transparency
The complexity of the existing system impedes transparency. All stakeholders—patients, providers
and the general public—value access to comprehensive and timely information. Despite this, when
seeking transparent information about non-hospital medical clinics and the physicians who operate
within them, stakeholders have limited options.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) maintains an online public register with
information related to all clinicians overseen by the College, including physician registration status and
class, degrees and recognized specialty designations, certification by national examining bodies and
any current allegations or previous findings of professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity.
Similarly, information related to assessments of OHPs is also available, including clinics’ most recent
inspection outcomes. In comparison with other regulatory or oversight bodies for non-hospital medical
clinics in other jurisdictions and with bodies regulating professionals in other sectors such as
pharmacy or dentistry, the information available from the CPSO is extensive. Of the jurisdictions
reviewed, only the Care Quality Commission in England provides more comprehensive data to the
public.

Nevertheless, challenges remain with public posting in

“Be transparent about Ontario. For instance, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care recently directed all public health units to publicly
the process. Allow disclose more detailed information on non-routine infection
patients to feel in control prevention and control lapse investigations, but the
information is fragmented as it is posted on the website of
at all times by ensuring the local public health unit and is not linked to additional
that they are aware of reporting that may be available from the Ministry or the
CPSO. The Ministry is developing standard criteria for public
every step, the reasons health unit reporting and there is an opportunity to
consolidate the information so that it is easy to find and
for each step...” contains all relevant information desired by patients.
― Patient respondent in qualitative
online discussion It is important to note that some quality information is not
apparent in real time—for instance, infection prevention and
control lapses may become apparent only after the passage
of time. Clear communication about findings and their implications to patients—past, present and
future—is essential if patients are to understand the meaning behind public reporting and the
implications to their health.

Clear, formal lines of communication between the public, practitioners and facilities is critical to
maintaining a clear, safe and effective health system.

Tools to Support Accountability

There are several tools to support accountability and the following is an assessment of each:

Accreditation: Generally, the term accreditation means different things in different contexts, as
observed through jurisdictional review. Regulation and accreditation also have different meanings.
Regulation involves rules that must be followed, while accreditation is a seal of approval from an
independent accrediting body indicating that an organization has met certain standards.38

38Warburton,R. N. (2009). Accreditation and Regulation: Can They Help Improve Patient Safety? Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved June 2015 from
[Link]

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 24

Accreditation is a common voluntary pursuit for Ontario hospitals, and can serve as a seal of approval
from an independent accrediting body indicating that an organization has met certain standards.
However, accreditation is more commonly used in Ontario to guide continuous quality improvement
efforts, rather than as a quality assurance mechanism or a tool for transparency for patients or clients.
When accreditation is an option rather than a requirement, posting the results of the outcome of the
accreditation process is also voluntary. Though a worthwhile pursuit, accreditation alone is insufficient
in replacing regulatory oversight.

Contracts: Contracts to fund the provision of volumes of services are powerful tools that can be used
for both funding accountability and performance purposes. As a quality assurance tool they can only
work for publicly funded services, as no public funder would be contracting for privately paid services.
Contracts to provide insured health services can reinforce quality measures but alone would be
insufficient for oversight.

Inspections: Inspections may be powerful tools

for holding non-hospital medical clinics “Patient safety is the utmost
accountable as licensing is contingent on
successful inspections. Inspections that occur
top priority in any health care
under the IHF program and OHPIP are, in the clinics and facilities. In order
main, proactive: premises are inspected before
they are able to open, when they add new services to protect the health and
to their offerings or when a previous inspection safety of clients, greater
has noted the need for a follow-up visit.
transparency and openness
Information Sharing: Essential to effective
regulation is information sharing, knowing where will strengthen the trust in
services are happening and who is performing
them. The regulator of non-hospital clinics must be
any health care clinics and
able to convey information to the professional facilities. This includes
colleges of regulated health professionals. If there
are concerns about a regulated health complete access and
professional’s performance or competency in a disclosure to information
specific setting, their college needs to be able to
assess that professional’s performance in other requested by regulatory
settings where they practice. For instance, if a
physician’s competence is found to be
bodies, clients and auditors.”
―IHF/OHP provider in qualitative online
substandard in the hospital where they practice
discussion
and they also practice in an IHF or OHP, the
complaint about their hospital performance should
trigger an inspection of the community-based clinic
where they also provide services. This principle should apply to all regulated health professionals
including nurses and medical radiation technologists for example, not just physicians.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 25

Panel Recommendations

The panel considered a number of regulatory approaches to quality oversight across jurisdictions and
sectors. No single model would entirely support the principles the panel agreed should underpin a
renewed program for quality oversight in non-hospital medical clinics. For this reason, the panel has
proposed a novel approach that sets out a structure of roles, responsibilities and authorities. This
approach offers a number of implementation options that could be informed by policy-makers and be
considered by government.

RECOMMENDATION 1. The Independent Health Facilities and Out-of-Hospital Premises quality

programs should be consolidated into a single regulatory model that can easily encompass
procedures not currently regulated in existing programs.

There is an insufficient difference between IHFs and OHPs to warrant separate oversight regimes.
There are also many procedures with potential risk not covered by either program. To eliminate
unnecessary complexity, the panel recommends that the programs be consolidated through legislation
that places quality oversight for non-hospital medical clinics under one regulatory authority.

RECOMMENDATION 2. The regulatory model for all non-hospital medical clinics needs to be
integrated, consistent, comprehensive, transparent, future-oriented and practical.

Health care service delivery requires a clear regulatory framework set out in law to serve the public’s
best interest and build a culture of quality. There was strong consensus that the oversight program
should minimize lapses in quality proactively through assessing the clinic premises and equipment as
well as the professionals working there, and reactively through inspections and enforcement to
remediate lapses after they occur.

An appropriate regulatory balance should be struck in non-hospital medical clinics by focusing on the
essential—that the regulatory mechanism be a key lever for embedding essential standards, enabling
performance monitoring and reporting through data, tracking patient complaints and adverse events
and assigning the authority to assess and enforce. The goal of regulation would be to embed a culture
of quality and protect patients from substandard care and to ensure the provision of accurate
information that the public and others can use to make decisions.

Important contributions to quality oversight can also come from non-regulatory measures. Effective
tools need to be employed alongside regulation in embedding a culture of quality in non-hospital
medical clinics. These include clinician and employer leadership, contract management in the case of
procured services, and in all cases patients engaged in conversations about their treatment options
and about considerations around the management of their health care. The Report of the Mid-
Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry, examining serious failings in the protection of
patients, observed:

“The reality is that it is not the setting of national standards in itself which will
’catch’ a Mid Staffordshire but having effective methods of policing those
standards. It is important that such policing is not confined to one method applied
to a single organization, but is undertaken in as many different ways as possible,
through provider internal leadership, external but local public scrutiny,
commissioning, and the regulator all working to a common set of values,
standards, and priorities. The Department of Health has struggled to get the

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 26

 balance right between ‘light touch’ regulation and the need to protect service users
from harm.” 39

Ontario is fortunate to have a number of opportunities to provide essential, multi-layered oversight of

non-hospital medical clinics. Clinicians, facility owners, regulatory colleges, the Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care, the Local Health Integration Networks, agencies like Health Quality Ontario and
Cancer Care Ontario, accreditors and, importantly, patients themselves are all contributors to assuring
high quality care.

RECOMMENDATION 3. New quality oversight legislation should consolidate the models, rather
than amending the current patchwork of legislation and regulation. Legislation and regulation
should set out only what is essential so that it is nimble, responsive and attuned to patient
needs.

A new model that encompasses both IHF and OHP settings can build on the strengths of the current
system while also remedying the shortcomings. The new legislative vehicle should enable the Ministry
to keep separate the funding provisions captured in the IHFA, which apply only to some premises,
from the quality oversight provisions, which would apply to all. The development of a new legislative
framework would provide the opportunity to revisit key aspects of the regulatory system for improved
effectiveness.

Inspection intervals. The inspection schedule should be aligned to patient risk and clinic
performance rather than at set calendar-based trigger points.

Standards and accountability. Standards and tools for assessment currently in place are consistent
and key aspects of the programs are similar. For example, IHFs and OHPs both must have a
physician who is held accountable for the facility meeting the quality standards. This physician need
not be an owner, but their accountability under regulation is very clear. Under the recommended
standards, quality professional practice must take precedence over the business practices and
priorities of the facility owners and oversight legislation should require processes that ensure the
health care professional accountable for quality is not in conflict should they also be the owner-
operator.

Enforcement. Enforcement tools under the existing programs should be harmonized and key gaps
eliminated. For instance, under the current quality oversight programs, IHFs not receiving a pass
rating can continue to operate outside the program, which would mean they forfeit their facility fees. It
may be unlikely given the financial impact, but it is possible. Facilities can also delay enforcement for
extended periods of time through a lengthy appeal, during which they may continue to offer unsafe
procedures. OHP oversight enforcement is limited to particular procedures. Facilities failing to receive
a pass rating could continue to perform procedures that do not require anaesthesia or sedation even if
the cause of the failed inspection may affect the facility as a whole (e.g., substandard infection control
practices).

Program reach. Neither the Independent Health Facilities Act nor regulation 114/94 of the Medicine
Act, 1991 are sufficiently nimble instruments for quality oversight. The IHF program applies only to
facilities licensed under the IHFA. The OHPIP applies to procedures rather than to the entire facility.
Procedures such as in vitro fertilization, cystoscopy, Lasik eye surgery, sclerotherapy and non-
permanent fillers fall beyond existing oversight measures under the current regime, despite posing

39 Francis, R. (2013). Executive Summary. Report of The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry,
p. 63

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 27

relatively higher risks that may include infection, disfigurement and blindness.40 The ability to add
services or procedures to the regulatory regime only after a need is identified may leave a lag in
quality oversight that prevents quick response to evolving practices patterns and new risks.
As a reform example under the current regime, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Cancer
Care Ontario (CCO) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario recently collaborated to
offer colonoscopy clinics the opportunity to apply for IHF licenses. This move was undertaken to align
the provision of colonoscopy services with a recent colonoscopy funding reform measure. To ensure
that this shift from OHP to IHF did not result in less oversight and compliance levers some additional
measures needed to be put in place. It is an example of positive collaboration around a shared goal of
patient safety, but also illustrated the advantage of having a common quality oversight framework.

Accountability and Authority. Inspectors and regulators should have the authority to act on the
outcomes and hold professionals and facilities accountable. The public expects that regulators have
the authority to act on concerns both within and without the regulated areas of a clinic and would have
the power to close a clinic where there were concerns around patient safety. The reality is that it is
difficult for authorities to act on activities that are beyond the scope of the oversight programs.
Ensuring that all parties have the necessary authority to exercise their accountability is essential in an
improved system.

A new program offers the opportunity to focus on enhancing critical elements of an oversight program,
including:
 Authority for the regulator to take action when standards are not met.
 Formalized relationships that improve communication between other authorities and the
regulator.
 Improved performance monitoring and transparency through reporting outcome measures
and adverse events/critical events.
 Public reporting to ensure patients and providers are able to make informed choices.
 Enshrinement of the precautionary principle so that the regulator is empowered to act to
protect public safety when there is a reasonable apprehension of harm.

Adverse event reporting. Under the current quality oversight programs, IHFs are not required to
report adverse events, except for procedures involving certain types of anaesthesia and sedation.
OHPs are required to report adverse events to the CPSO. There is no obligation to report them
publicly. Because adverse event reporting is a new requirement, the CPSO has just begun to acquire
data. Under a consolidated system, clinics should be required to report adverse events to the
regulator in a standardized manner, and should be held accountable for investigating incidents and
communicating with patients according to best practices. Information about trends in adverse events
should be used to inform program requirements and as an opportunity for learning and improvement
across the system.

RECOMMENDATION 4. The new legislation should establish a senior role who will be the
regulatory authority (“the Executive Officer”). The Executive Officer would have the authority
to establish rules and criteria for the program, act on inspection findings (e.g. order a premises
to cease providing a service), and communicate information and coordinate between services
(e.g. to regulatory colleges, Chief Medical Officer of Health). The Executive Officer must be
independent and appropriately resourced.

40 Community Infection Prevention and Control Lapses Task Group. (2013). Report to the Chief Medical Officer
of Health.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 28

The panel recommends that, in the interests of building a responsive and independent oversight
program, the authority to establish program rules and criteria be assigned through legislation to a
senior position (referred to in the document as an “Executive Officer”) that is the single point of
accountability for ensuring the effective execution of the program. This individual would be
empowered to make the kinds of responsive program decisions that are currently only possible
through a regulatory process, and would have the authority to enforce those decisions. The Executive
Officer would be able to register facilities that pass inspection. In addition to establishing program
rules, the Executive Officer would be empowered to order premises to cease activities, communicate
information, order inspections, require the submission of specified data from clinics and take other
necessary actions as a condition of facility registration. The Executive Officer would not make funding
decisions. His or her authority would focus on regulating the quality of the clinics.

A key feature of a strong oversight program for non-hospital medical clinics is the ability to share
information. Clear communication channels should be open among all individuals in a position to
observe the administration of care in the facility. Communication policies should account for the fact
that any inspection team is in a clinic for a short period time. Other actors who are visiting the clinics in
a professional capacity (e.g., x-ray licensing inspectors or infection prevention and control educators)
should also have a responsibility to report problematic observations or findings to the regulator in a
timely fashion. The critical importance of information sharing becomes apparent when concerns arise
mid-inspection cycle and an appropriate response needs to be organized.

To achieve a full picture of the care provided, the Executive Officer needs to be able to share
information with other bodies such as public health authorities and regulatory colleges overseeing the
professionals working in the facilities. Sharing information in a timely manner is in the best interest of
patients and should take precedence over institutional barriers or concerns around the business
interest of the facility.

Best practice in regulation from other jurisdictions shows that independence of the regulator is
required. They need to be autonomous from government and other regulators and associations but
work together to achieve effective oversight.

RECOMMENDATION 5. A permanent expert committee should be established in legislation, to

provide the Executive Officer with independent specialized advice. Membership should include
patients.
 The Committee would have the authority to commission specialized subcommittees,
including subcommittees that would review inspection reports and make
recommendations to the Executive Officer about registering premises or revoking
registrations
 Recommendations should be transparent and prepared with the intent to publicly post
An appropriately constituted expert panel or committee would be empowered through legislation to
advise the executive officer on necessary adjustments to the program. These might include
recommendations on the addition of procedures not currently under oversight or determining
appropriate inspection intervals for facilities based on the risks associated with a procedure or
provider. To ensure a range of perspectives are represented, review committees could include
representatives from the clinical community, provincial organizations such as Public Health Ontario,
Health Quality Ontario, Cancer Care Ontario, health regulatory colleges such as the CPSO and the
College of Nurses of Ontario, the LHINs, patients, the public and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 29

Essential to the success of this model is widespread transparency, review mechanisms that are based
on expertise and that promote fairness, and a robust appeals mechanism that puts patient safety first
while supporting due process.

RECOMMENDATION 6. This program should be the foundation for quality oversight for non-
hospital medical clinics. Other system levers such as contracts and accountability agreements
should be used to reinforce quality requirements.

Accreditation and contracts are useful and appropriate tools for documenting performance
requirements and other accountabilities. They can be used to reinforce quality priorities but cannot
replace a robust regulatory system.

As noted, accreditation is often pursued voluntarily by Ontario hospitals, many of whom engage
Accreditation Canada. Other organizations—for example, the laboratory quality oversight program
(IQMH)—accredit to an industry standard (in the case of laboratories, ISO 15189) and this accreditation
is a requirement of operation.

However, when accreditation is an option rather than a requirement, as in the case of many hospitals,
posting the results of the outcome of the accreditation process is also voluntary. Generally,
accreditation is more commonly used in Ontario to guide continuous quality improvement efforts,
rather than as a quality assurance mechanism or a tool for transparency to patients or clients.
Overall, the panel acknowledged that accreditation in the content of medical clinics is a worthwhile
pursuit, but that it alone is insufficient to replace the need for regulatory oversight.

Similarly, contracts cannot serve as the sole mechanism for oversight, but they are powerful tools that
can be used for both funding accountability and performance purposes. Because one of the principles
articulated by the panel was that oversight should apply equally to publicly funded and non-publicly
funded services, contracts could not be the primary mechanism for oversight as not all clinics would
have a funding relationship with the Ministry or LHIN.

RECOMMENDATION 7. Owners of non-hospital medical clinics should be required to apply for

registration with the Executive Officer and registration should be made contingent on passing
inspection. Clinics must have a single point of accountability for quality oversight and in all
cases that person should be a regulated health professional as specified by the Executive
Officer.

With a clear definition of which medical services delivered in non-hospital clinics are subject to
oversight, facility owners will need to identify themselves to the regulator. Knowing where services are
happening and who is performing them will be key. Standardized facility registration will aid in
maintaining a complete picture of the facility and the practices of the clinicians within it.
Currently, premises are inspected before they are able to open, when they add new services to their
offerings and when a previous inspection has noted the need for a follow-up visit. This approach
should be maintained.

The quality advisor or medical director in an IHF or OHP is typically a physician (in the two birth
centres licensed as IHFs it is a midwife). Under the new model, this may continue to be the right
requirement or it may be appropriate to designate a different type of regulated health professional as
the quality advisor, such as a nurse, depending on the activity.

RECOMMENDATION 8. Regulated non-hospital medical clinics should be required to report

utilization, performance and quality data as specified by the Executive Officer.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 30

Planning, policy-making, public reporting and risk analysis all depend on the collection and availability
of reliable data. IHF and OHP data currently collected is insufficient to these tasks. With the advice of
experts, the Executive Officer should establish data submission requirements as a condition of facility
registration. Data related to adverse events, critical incidents and near misses should be collected
consistently, reported to the necessary authorities promptly, openly disclosed to the public when
appropriate in a convenient logical location and monitored over time to allow for system-wide
improvements. Consistent with other sectors, some data may become integrated into public reporting.

RECOMMENDATION 9. Turnaround times for inspection reports should be established to

ensure timely and transparent response. Reports should be centrally reviewed by a committee
for consistency and in the interests of fairness. The regulations should set out conditions
under which the Executive Officer can act before the process is finalized or require an
expedited review.

In order for the inspection regime to fulfill its purpose, substandard conditions must be addressed
without undue delay. The time lag from discovery of the problem to the determination of appropriate
enforcement and the correction of the condition must be minimized. In addition, enforcement should
be standardized such that similar infractions across facilities are dealt with similarly. The process
should be clear and consistent so that determinations can be made by the proper authority in a fair
and timely manner.

RECOMMENDATION 10. Standardized plain-language summaries of inspection reports should

be posted in clinic waiting rooms and online.

Inspection reports are designed to document findings that support the determination of the outcome of
the inspection. They can be quite technical documents and not necessarily useful tools for patients
and the public. In the current system, the date and outcome of each facility’s most recent quality
assessment are posted on the website.

With the collaboration of patients and providers, the province should lead the development of a
standardized plain-language report template designed for patients. A simple, one-page summary of
results should be posted in clinics, and a more detailed version should be made available online. The
Care Quality Commission in England provides the most comprehensive and patient-friendly reports
across all jurisdictions examined and would be a useful model to consider.

RECOMMENDATION 11. A clear and transparent process for patient and provider complaints is
needed. Non-hospital medical clinics should prominently post the complaints process and this
communication should be consistent across clinics. In developing a standardized complaints
process communication, the Executive Officer should ensure alignment and coordination with
existing complaints mechanisms set out by the health professions regulatory colleges.

In interviews conducted as part of this report, patients indicated a strong desire for a clear and
understandable complaint process. They also expressed a lack of certainty regarding the current
process for registering complaints related to experiences at non-hospital medical clinics. Patients and
referring providers should have opportunities to give feedback on their experiences. Because
complaints, investigations and discipline of regulated health professionals is the responsibility of their
college, patients should be informed about the need to make a complaint with a provider’s regulatory
college when their concern is about a professional. The Executive Officer will therefore need to
collaborate closely with the regulatory colleges when developing a complaint process and the
materials for communicating this process. Nothing about the development of a standard process and
communication for that process changes the role of the regulatory colleges in managing complaints
about providers.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 31

Consideration should be given though to ensuring the appropriate flow of information between the two
regulators so patients have a seamless experience and potential issues are not missed because the
patient has gone to the wrong oversight body. Patients should be able to find out who the clinic owner
is and where to reach them should they have a concern about the clinic itself. They should know that if
they are unsatisfied by the follow up to their complaint about the premise, they can escalate their
matter to the Executive Officer.

This is a complex system, so it should clearly describe the process for patients, family members and
caregivers and help direct them to the right place when necessary. Important information about areas
for improvement could also be gathered through consolidated public input.

RECOMMENDATION 12. Facilities should be required to complete and post Quality

Improvement Plans.

With growing volumes and types of procedures happening in non-hospital medical clinics, it is
important that these clinics deliver care in an integrated fashion with the rest of the health care
system. There is an opportunity to ensure that they are well integrated with health system priorities
and the quality agenda. Under the Excellent Care for All Act, hospitals, long term care homes,
Community Care Access Centres and primary care organizations such as Family Health Teams and
Community Health Centres are required to complete an annual Quality Improvement Plan. As one
mechanism for ensuring alignment with the broader health care system, this requirement should be
extended to non-hospital medical clinics. Each facility’s plan should be posted publicly.

“A properly, well set-up non-hospital clinic that

has a short waiting list, procedures done
efficiently and effectively and good follow up and
communication with the referring doctor and
patient.”
―A general practitioner’s answer to what good quality in a
non-hospital medical clinic looks like

Conclusion
The safe and effective provision of services outside of hospitals, in settings close to home, has been
articulated by government as a priority for the health care system. Procedures delivered outside of
hospitals have come to represent a significant segment of all health care in the province. Further, the
Patients First action plan names transparency as a focus, with the goal of allowing patients to make
informed decisions about their care.

Improving the oversight of non-hospital medical clinics is a goal of many jurisdictions throughout
Canada and the developed world. Many health agencies are grappling with the same issues Ontario is
focused on: who and what to regulate, how often to inspect and how to communicate information to
the public in a user-friendly fashion. Decisions around oversight are being made in an environment
where innovation and technology are rapid but regulatory change can be slow, while the public has an
expectation that safety will be just as high a priority in the non-hospital medical setting as in the
hospital. Nothing in medicine can ever be risk free, but we have a responsibility to minimize risk to the
greatest extent possible.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 32

In this report, we have proposed a series of recommendations that will contribute to a quality oversight
system that is both simplified and strengthened, integrated and transparent, with clear accountability
and responsibility. A system where patients and the public, as well as practitioners and regulators will
have access to the information they need to make the best decisions – where regulations can
accommodate the changing landscape of service migration out of hospitals and into communities.

The proposed regulations are carefully calibrated to take the ‘right touch’ while integrating non-hospital
medical clinics into the overall quality agenda, with its focus on culture, leadership and building
capacity to deliver high quality care. We continuously look for opportunities to improve.

Figure 3: Comparison between current state and proposed future state

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 33

Consolidated Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION 1. The Independent Health Facilities and Out-of-Hospital Premises quality
programs should be consolidated into a single regulatory model that can easily encompass
procedures not currently regulated in existing programs.

RECOMMENDATION 2. The regulatory model for all non-hospital medical clinics needs to be
integrated, consistent, comprehensive, transparent, future-oriented and practical.

RECOMMENDATION 3. New quality oversight legislation should consolidate the models, rather than
amending the current patchwork of legislation and regulation. Legislation and regulation should set out
only what is essential so that it is nimble, responsive and attuned to patient needs.

RECOMMENDATION 4. The new legislation should establish a senior role who will be the regulatory
authority (“the Executive Officer”). The Executive Officer would have the authority to establish rules
and criteria for the program, act on inspection findings (e.g. order a premises to cease providing a
service), and communicate information and coordinate between services (e.g. to regulatory colleges,
Chief Medical Officer of Health). The Executive Officer must be independent and appropriately
resourced.

RECOMMENDATION 5. A permanent expert committee should be established in legislation, to

provide the Executive Officer with independent specialized advice. Membership should include
patients.
 The Committee would have the authority to commission specialized subcommittees, including
subcommittees that would review inspection reports and make recommendations to the
Executive Officer about registering premises or revoking registrations
 Recommendations should be transparent and prepared with the intent to publicly post

RECOMMENDATION 6. This program should be the foundation for quality oversight for non-hospital
medical clinics. Other system levers such as contracts and accountability agreements should be used
to reinforce quality requirements.

RECOMMENDATION 7. Owners of non-hospital medical clinics should be required to apply for

registration with the Executive Officer and registration should be made contingent on passing
inspection. Clinics must have a single point of accountability for quality oversight and in all cases that
person should be a regulated health professional as specified by the Executive Officer.

RECOMMENDATION 8. Regulated non-hospital medical clinics should be required to report

utilization, performance and quality data as specified by the Executive Officer.

RECOMMENDATION 9. Turnaround times for inspection reports should be established to ensure

timely and transparent response. Reports should be centrally reviewed by a committee for consistency
and in the interests of fairness. The regulations should set out conditions under which the Executive
Officer can act before the process is finalized or require an expedited review.

RECOMMENDATION 10. Standardized plain-language summaries of inspection reports should be

posted in clinic waiting rooms and online.

RECOMMENDATION 11. A clear and transparent process for patient and provider complaints is
needed. Non-hospital medical clinics should prominently post the complaints process and this
communication should be consistent across clinics. In developing a standardized complaints process

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 34

communication, the Executive Officer should ensure alignment and coordination with existing
complaints mechanisms set out by the health professions regulatory colleges.

RECOMMENDATION 12. Facilities should be required to complete and post Quality Improvement
Plans.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 35

Figure 4: Proposed quality oversight structure

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 36

Glossary

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO)

Doctors in Ontario have been granted a degree of authority for self-regulation under provincial law.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is the body that regulates the practice of medicine
to protect and serve the public interest. This system of self-regulation is based on the premise that the
College must act first and foremost in the interest of the public. All doctors in Ontario must be
members of the College in order to practise medicine.

Health Quality Ontario (HQO)

HQO is a partner and leader in transforming Ontario’s health care system so that it can deliver a better
experience of care and better outcomes for Ontarians and better value for money. HQO’s legislated
mandate under the Excellent Care for All Act, 2010 is to evaluate the effectiveness of new health care
technologies and services, report to the public on the quality of the health care system, support quality
improvement activities and make evidence-based recommendations on health care funding. HQO is
the provincial advisor on health care quality.

Independent Health Facilities (IHFs):

IHFs are licensed and funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and are governed by the
Independent Health Facilities Act (IHFA). Facilities may be established in a variety of settings, for
example, they may be completely free-standing, located within a public hospital, located in a multi-
office complex or operated on a mobile basis at specifically approved sites.

IHFs may be:

 Diagnostic facilities that are funded by the Ministry to provide specific classes of diagnostic
imaging, pulmonary function or sleep study tests, or
 Ambulatory care facilities providing surgical, therapeutic and diagnostic procedures for which
the costs of carrying out the procedure are not included in the OHIP fee paid to physicians.
Currently licensed facilities include dialysis, abortion, laser dermatologic surgery and
ophthalmic, vascular, plastic and gynaecologic surgery, MRI/CT and PET/CT scans.
An IHF may be for profit or not-for-profit. The licensee of an IHF may be either an individual or a
corporation, but may not be a corporation that operates a public hospital.

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC)

The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is working to establish a patient-focused, results-driven,
integrated and sustainable publicly funded health system. Its plan for building a sustainable public
health care system in Ontario is based on helping people stay healthy, delivering good care when
people need it, and protecting the health system for future generations. The Ministry is involved in:
 Establishing overall strategic direction and provincial priorities for the health system.
 Developing legislation, regulations, standards, policies, and directives to support those
strategic directions.
 Monitoring and reporting on the performance of the health system and the health of Ontarians.
 Planning for and establishing funding models and levels of funding for the health care system.
 Ensuring that Ministry and system strategic directions and expectations are fulfilled.
Out of Hospital Premises (OHPs)
OHPs are defined by use of anesthesia and sedation.
 General anesthesia for parenteral sedation or regional anesthesia.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 37

  Local anesthesia for tumescent procedures, injection or insertion of permanent fillers,
autologous tissue, synthetic devices for cosmetic purposes or nerve blocks for management of
chronic pain.
Out of Hospital Premises Inspection Program (OHPIP)
The Out-of-Hospital Premises Inspection Program (OHPIP) supports continuous quality improvement
through developing and maintaining standards for the provision of medical care/procedures in Ontario
out-of-hospital premises and by inspecting and assessing for safety and quality of care.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is responsible for considering all issues related to
the provision of anesthesia/sedation and procedural services within OHPs. The Out‐of‐Hospital
Premises Inspection Program is overseen by the CPSO Premises Inspection Committee.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 38

Appendices

Appendix 1. Public, Patient and Provider Engagement

Health Quality Ontario engaged Pollara Strategic Insights to conduct a public, patient and provider
engagement process to ensure that the perspectives, knowledge, priorities and concerns of key
stakeholders regarding health services delivered outside hospitals were taken into account and
represented in final recommendations to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Public and Patient Engagement

From March 4 to 8, 2015, a random sample of 794 Ontarians aged 18 years and older completed an
online survey of their knowledge and opinions of independent health facilities and out-of-hospital
premises. Responses were weighted by region, gender and age based on the most recent census
figures for Ontario to ensure that the sample was representative of the actual population. Survey
participants were invited to continue discussing the topic in an online qualitative setting. This
qualitative dialogue took place between March 15 and April 9, 2015. There were 35 active participants
who shared their sentiments around confidence in care; quality, safety and risk; information sharing
and access; issues and complaints and regulation.

Summary of public engagement findings:

 Quality, safety and risk:
o Ontarians are generally confident in the province’s health care system and its quality.
o Confidence in hospitals was higher as compared with non-hospital specialty health care
clinics/facilities in terms of both quality and safety—primarily due to unfamiliarity with non-
hospital settings; qualitative research revealed that many are uncertain or apprehensive about
IHFs/OHPs.
o Experiences with these clinics are primarily driven by doctor recommendations, which represent
the biggest reason individuals visit these facilities and are important to the public’s overall level
of confidence.
o The qualitative discussion characterized quality care as professional, respectful, skilled, clean,
safe and up-to-date.
 Information sharing and access:
o Patients report not receiving information about IHFs/OHPs, but there is a strong desire for more.
o Respondents indicated a desire to have information posted on clinic/facility websites, on
government websites, in waiting rooms and reception areas and on websites hosted by
professional organizations.
o Though the internet, word-of-mouth and professional organizations were identified as possible
information sources, referring physicians were found to be the preferred source. Qualitative
discussions indicated that patients would like to have detailed discussions with their family
physicians and general practitioners well in advance of clinic appointments and want to walk
away with papers or be directed to information online.
 Issues, complaints and regulation:
o Unsurprisingly, there was much confusion among the public about IHF/OHP regulation and
inspection.
o There was consensus, however, that IHFs/OHPs should be inspected at least annually.
o In the qualitative discussion, patients expressed a desire for the government to be involved in
regulation. Patients had no complaints to report related to IHFs/OHPs, but they did indicate a
desire for a formal complaint process.
o Suggestions regarding how to improve or enhance the quality of care delivered centered on
setting high standards and increasing transparency.

Provider Engagement
From March 16 to 25, 2015, a sample of 85 family physicians (FPs) and general practitioners (GPs)
and 106 IHF/OHP providers were surveyed. Regional representation from across Ontario was sought.
FP and GP survey participants were invited to continue discussing the topic in an online qualitative
setting. This qualitative dialogue took place between March 23 and April 16, 2015. There were eight
Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 39
active FP and GP participants who shared their sentiments around confidence, referrals, patient
feedback, continuity of care and regulation. In a separate discussion, 16 active IHF/OHP providers
offered opinions related to confidence, infection control, complaints and regulation.

Summary of FP and GP engagement findings:

 Confidence:
o Confidence in hospitals was higher as compared with non-hospital specialty health care
clinics/facilities in terms of both quality and safety—primarily due to unfamiliarity with non-
hospital settings. Many expressed uncertainty regarding the definitions of IHF and OHP.
 Information sharing and access:
o The majority of FPs and GPs indicated that there is not enough information available regarding
IHFs and OHPs.
o Respondents suggested that a wide range of information was valuable when choosing where to
refer patients including physician credentials and experience, facility cleanliness, patient
feedback, quality control, emergency measures in place and rates of hospitalization. Facility
ownership was the criteria endorsed least frequently.
o Despite desiring this information, the majority of FPs and GPs indicated that they did not know
where to acquire it. Increased communication was a dominant suggestion in the qualitative
research.
 Regulation and inspection:
o FPs and GPs indicated uncertainty regarding how frequently IHFs/OHPs are inspected, but the
majority expressed a preference for this to be done on a yearly basis.
o The majority also felt that all non-hospital facilities should be regulated and licensed. During the
qualitative discussion, respondents felt this should be done by the OMA and/or the CPSO.

Summary of IHF/OHP provider engagement findings:

 Information sharing and access:
o The majority of providers indicate that their facilities share information related to physician
credentials, clinic accreditations and certifications and emergency contacts and plans for
complications. Relatively few share information regarding rates of patient hospitalization, how
many procedures are completed by physicians per year and chart review/quality control
measures.
 Regulation and inspection:
o Providers expressed confusion regarding when inspections currently take place, though the
majority indicated that they should occur annually or at least every two to four years. Equal
numbers of survey respondents indicated that this should be done by the CPSO, the MOHLTC
or qualified colleagues or peers.
o The majority agreed that IHFs/OHPs should be regulated—in the qualitative discussion
respondents most frequently mentioned the Ministry/government as an appropriate regulator.
o Qualitative dialogue participants suggested several approaches to improving transparency
regarding regulations including posting on front doors of clinics, providing an up-to-date registry
of clinics on a government website and conducting random inspections or accreditation checks.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 40

Appendix 2. Key Learnings from Other Jurisdictions

Dimension of Oversight Key Learnings

 Ontario: Two sources currently; there are gaps in oversight of
procedures and facilities and lack of clarity for patients and providers in
Legislative, regulatory terms of responsibility.
and/or policy authority  International: Single authorities act as independent agents of
government.
 Single authority is preferred to ensure clarity in accountability.
 Ontario: Differs depending on regulatory authority (MOHLTC or CPSO).
 International: Single authorities act as independent agents of
government.
 Nationally: The trend (in many but not all cases) is for authority to be
Governance structure
assigned to physician regulators.
 Preference for decision-making authority to rest with a named individual
who is informed by appropriate decision-making processes and
supports.
 Ontario: In some cases, scope is set out in regulation, in others it is
established through by-laws (e.g. details of adverse event reporting or
posting to public registers) or determined by authorities besides the
Definition of scope of regulatory authority.
quality standards and  England, Australia and the Netherlands: Independent quality agencies
activities of the program define national standards; in some cases, sets out in regulations what
facilities are covered and in others covers all care settings.
 Program scope should be responsive to changes; should ultimately be
defined by regulatory authority, with input from experts.
 Ontario: Developed currently by expert panels established by CPSO for
activities falling within oversight; no flexibility to address procedures
beyond what is specified in legislation and/or regulation. Services can
also be designated under the IHFA, which is not a legislative or
Development of detailed regulatory process.
standards  England and Australia: National standards are established and
oversight programs align with those national standards.
 Standards should continue to be set by experts in the field, with
flexibility built into method for changing or updating.

 Ontario: No credentialing of professionals, but there is an expectation

that clinicians will work within the scope of their experience and
training; all programs ensure as part of inspection process that
Assurance that clinicians clinicians hold proper training and licenses.
practice within scope of  Alberta: Clinicians credentialed to work in non-hospital premises,
certification/experience granted specific certification to perform services.
 Inspections should continue to assure that staff are appropriately
trained and licensed; regulation of the profession is the responsibility of
the CPSO
 Ontario: IHFs require a license from the Ministry to operate and receive
facility fees. CPSO requires members to self-report certain types of
Identification of facilities
activities, meaning that all non-IHFs subject to the OHPIP must also
and/or practitioners
self-identify to CPSO.
 Physician oversight is the responsibility of the CPSO.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 41

 Dimension of Oversight Key Learnings
 Canada and the United States: Inspections operate on a cycle,
occurring at regular intervals unless new activities/concerns arise (e.g.
every three or five years in Ontario).
Inspection cycle  England and the Netherlands: England moving from annual cycle to a
risk-based model. The Netherlands also uses risk-based assessment.
 Ontario model should tailor inspection cycle to the risk involved in the
activity.
 Inspection process (e.g. records review, observation of practice) and
Design of assessment
development of tools similar across jurisdictions; should continue as
process
such.
Trained assessors to  Process aligned across jurisdictions.
inspect against  Scaling up program to include more facilities will require more trained
established standards assessors.
 Alberta: Facilities receive full accreditation, provisional accreditation or
no accreditation.
 England: Outcomes range from “outstanding” to “inadequate”.
Framework for  Ontario: OHPs receive categorizations (e.g. “pass”); IHFs receive
determining assessment warning letters, proposals to suspend license/amend services,
outcome suspension of license.
 Outcomes designed for administering program and not descriptive for
public reporting; new system should focus on transparent
communication and clarity of meaning.
 Ontario: CPSO committee reviews outcomes of inspection reports
before they are finalized. Facilities can comment on outcomes of
Process for reviewing
inspections during this process. Helps resolve issues without the need
assessment/inspection
to proceed to a hearing. Balance between due process for clinic
reports and allowing
operators and public interest is required.
facilities to comment
 Maintain ability to review reports, but ensure that public interest
prevails over facility right to continue to operate during appeal process.
 Ontario: Authority to take action mixed—CPSO has jurisdiction over
only its members and activities under regulation 114/94; facilities
Authority to take action for
regulated under the IHFA may continue offering procedures during the
non-compliance or failure
appeal of a revocation or suspension of license.
to meet standards
 Authority must be empowered to take immediate action on non-
compliance that puts patients at immediate risk.
 Ontario: Physicians expected to disclose harm and provide follow-up
care in case of incidents;41 however, clinicians or facilities are not
always equipped to manage required response and patients may be
Pathway to respond to
uncomfortable with further interaction. Process by which these cases
incidents affecting patient
should be governed is currently unclear.
safety
 Non-compliance issues will arise (e.g., IPC lapses) and patients may
need to be informed and followed up with. Responsibility and
accountability for this must be considered as part of oversight regime

41 The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Disclosure of Harm. Retrieved June 2014 from
[Link]

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 42

 Dimension of Oversight Key Learnings
 Ontario: Communication channels between regulator and other
authorities (e.g., between public health units, regulatory colleges) are
Barrier-free
largely informal.
communication channels
 Formalizing roles, communication channels and processes is essential
to ensuring patient safety.
 Ontario: Leads most jurisdictions (except England) in posting
information to public register or website, but there is room for
improvement. More information could be provided and the reports
Approach to public
made easier to find.
reporting
 Future reporting should include posting of plain-language summary
reports to a central website (e.g., up-to-date comprehensive public
registry of clinics), and visibly in clinics.
 Ontario: OHPIP requires adverse events to be reported to CPSO
(added by CPSO through bylaw); no requirement under IHFA to report
System for reporting,
adverse events to Ministry or CPSO, except those providing anesthesia
tracking and investigating
(practice standards specify they should be reported to local Quality
critical incidents and
Advisors).
adverse events
 Clear system and accountabilities for managing, reporting and
monitoring adverse events required.
 Ontario: Currently limited data collected from OHPs and IHFs.
Requirements for data  Additional data needed to support improved planning, policy-making,
submission public reporting (e.g., key adverse event indicators such as infection
rates and transfers to hospital) and risk analysis.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 43

Appendix 3. References

1) A fresh start for the regulation of independent healthcare. Working together to change how we
regulate independent healthcare. (2014). Care Quality Commission. Retrieved from
[Link]
.pdf
2) Alharbi, O., Rabeneck, L., Paszat, L. F., Wijeysundera, D. N., Sutradhar, R., Yun, L.,
Tinmouth, J. (2010). Factors associated with colonoscopy performed in nonhospital settings.
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, 24(7), 419–424.
3) Amalberti, R., Auroy, Y., Berwick, D., Barach, P. (2005). Five System Barriers to Achieving
Ultra safe Health Care. Annals of Internal Medicine. Volume 142.
4) Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Big Business Little Data (June 2013). California Health Care
Almanac.
5) Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality Reporting Program. (2014). Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Services: Quality Measures Specifications Manual. Washington, D. C. Retrieved:
[Link]
6) Baker, G. R., Denis, J. L., Pomey, M. P., Macintosh-Murray, A. (2010). Effective Governance
for Quality & Patient Safety in Canadian Healthcare Organizations. Canadian Health Services
Research Foundation: Retrieved from [Link]
7) Bishop, T. F., Ryan, A. M., Casalino, L. P. (2011). Paid Malpractice Claims for Adverse Events
in Inpatient and Outpatient Settings. The Journal of American Medical Association.
8) Bridging the Gap: A patient Safety Imperative. The Out-of-Hospital Premises Inspection
Program Report. (2012). The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
9) Casalino, L. P., Devers, K. J., Brewster, L. R. Focused factories? Physician-owned specialty
facilities. (2003). Health Affairs (Millwood), 22: 56–67.
10) Chung, F., Shnaider, I. (2006). Outcomes in day Surgery. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology.
19 (6), 622-9.
11) Coglianese, C. (2012). Measuring Regulatory Performance: Evaluating the Impact of
Regulation and Regulatory Policy. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Retrieved from [Link]
12) Cook, D., Thompson, J. E., Habermann, E. B., Visscher, S. L., Dearani, J. A., Roger, V. L.,
Borah, B. J. (2014). From 'Solution Shop' Model To 'Focused Factory' In Hospital Surgery:
Increasing Care Value and Predictability. Health Affairs, 33 (5).
13) Creating Community-Based Specialty Clinics in Ontario, Evidence Brief (May 2013). McMaster
Health Forum.
14) Establishing comprehensive Quality Management Programs for Mammography, Colonoscopy
and Pathology in Ontario (2014). Quality Management Partnership 2013/14 Report.
15) Findings of the Community Infection Prevention and Control Lapses Task Group. (2013).
Report to the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
Retrieved from
[Link]
ction%20Prevention%20and%20Control%20Lapses%20Task%20Group%20%282%[Link]
16) Flodgren, G., Pompey, M. P., Taber, S. A., Eccles, M. P. (2011). Effectiveness of external
inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour,
healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes. The Cochrane Library. Issue 11.
17) Flood, C., Thomas, B., Wilson, L. H. (2010). Cosmetic Surgery Regulation and Enforcement in
Ontario. The Queens Law Journal.
18) For Health or Wealth? The evidence regarding private clinics and user fees in Ontario.
(2014).Ontario Health Coalition. Retrieved from

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 44

 [Link]
to-over-bill-patients-ontario-health-coalition-report/
19) Francis, R. (2013). QC The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry.
20) Gilmour, J. M. (2003). Regulation of Free-Standing Health Facilities: An Entrée for Privatization
and For-Profit Delivery in Healthcare. Health Law Journal Special edition.
21) Gregory, R., Roski, J. (2001) Performance measurement for ambulatory care: moving towards
a new agenda. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Volume 13 (6), 447-453.
22) High Quality Care for All, NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. (2008). Department of Health,
National Health Service.
23) Howlett, K., Mickleburgh, R., Moore, O., Pickard, A. (2010). How provinces have experimented
in the private sphere. The Globe and Mail.
24) IHF Report by Location. (2015). Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Retrieved from
[Link]
25) Incident Reporting. (2014). New South Wales Government. Retrieved from
[Link]
26) Independent Health Facilities. (2014). Annual Report if the Office of the Auditor General of
Ontario.
27) Independent Health Facilities and Out of Hospital Premises. (2014) Presentation made by
Negotiations and Accountability Management Division Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care,
Ontario.
28) Infection Prevention and Control for Clinical Office Practice (June 2013). Provincial Infectious
Disease Advisory Committee (PIDAC). Public Health Ontario.
29) Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st
Century. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2001.
30) Ivers, N. Schwandt, M. Hum, S. Martin, D., Tinmouth, J., Pimlott, N. (2011). A comparison of
hospital and nonhospital colonoscopy: Wait times, fees and guideline adherence to follow-up
interval. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, 25(2), 78–82.
31) Jurisdictional Review of Out-of Hospital Facilities: Oversight and Transparency (2014). College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
32) Kinney, D. E. (1994). Private Accreditation as a Substitute for Direct Government Regulation in
Public Health Insurance Programs: When Is It Appropriate? Law and Contemporary Problems
47-74. Retrieved from: [Link]
33) Los Angeles Independent Diagnostic Testing Facilities Compliance with Medicare Standards
(2011). Department of Health and Human Services.
34) Mitchel, J. M. (2012). The influence of Physician ownership on practice in U.S ambulatory
surgical centers. Canadian Doctors for Medicare.
35) Naylor, C., Gregory, S. (2009). Independent sector treatment centres. (2009). The King’s
Fund.
36) Non-Hospital Surgical Facility Standards and Guidelines (June 2014). College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Alberta.
37) Out-of-Hospital Premises Inspection Program (OHPIP). (2013). Program Standards. College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
38) Pomey, M. P., Lemieux-Charles, L., Champagne, F., Angus, D., Shabah, A.,
Contandriopoulos, A. P. (2010). Does accreditation stimulate change? A study of the impact of
the accreditation process on Canadian healthcare organizations. Implementation Science,
5:31. Retrieved from [Link]
39) Private Health Facilities Act 2007 No 9. (2014). New South Wales Government. Retrieved from
[Link]

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 45

 40) Private Hospital licensing and data collection (2012). Private Hospital Data collection Review
Final Report. The Department of Health, Australian Government. Retrieved from
[Link]
curr~phdcreview_curr_3
41) Quality and accreditation in health services: A Global Review. (2003). World Health
Organization Geneva.
42) Reader, T. W., Gillespie, A., Roberts, J. (2013). Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a
systematic review and coding taxonomy. BMJ Quality & Safety.
43) Reader, T., Gillespie, A., Roberts, J. (2014). Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a
systemic review and coding taxonomy. BMJ Quality and Safety
44) Report and Recommendation on Day Surgery. (2004). Australian Day Surgery Council.
45) Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Care Quality Commission: Regulating the
quality and safety of health and audit social care (2011) National Audit Office. Retrieved June
2015 from [Link]
46) Report of the Working Group on Defining High-risk Medical Procedures/Practices performed in
Ambulatory Setting. (2014). Department of Health Hong-Kong. Retrieved from
[Link]
47) Right-touch regulation. (2010). Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence.
48) Rules and regulations for licensure of freestanding diagnostic testing centers: Chapter 8.
(2007). Retrieved from [Link]
49) Section 1.2- Key Legislative and Regulatory Agreements Governing the Ontario Health
System. Module 1: Health Care in Ontario. Physician Leadership Resource Manual. Ontario
Hospital Association.
50) Standards and Checklist. (2014) American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory
Surgical Facilities. Retrieved from
[Link]
pdf
51) The Regulation of Facilities Looking Forward (February 2015). College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Ontario.
52) Transforming the safety and quality of health care (2014). NSQHS Standards. Australian
Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.
53) Warburton, R. (2009). Accreditation and Regulation: Can they help improve patient safety.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S Department of Health and Human Services.

Building an Integrated System for Quality Oversight | Health Quality Ontario 46