Reporting of Results

Approximately six weeks following the Peer Review, the individual results are presented to the Quality Assurance Committee. The Quality Assurance Committee considers individual results by candidate number only, and as such, is unaware of the identities of individual candidates. In this way, all candidates are considered in the same fashion and treated equally.Once the direction of the Quality Assurance Committee has been received, College staff will send results letters to all candidates who have met or exceeded the standards in all four areas of assessment, and to those candidates who may have fallen below one or more of the standards but where follow-up is not indicated. These letters are sent approximately six to eight weeks after each Peer Review administration. Where it is the view of the Quality Assurance Committee that remediation and/or reassessment is required of a candidate, the candidate will be contacted by written communication stating the view of the Quality Assurance Committee and offering the candidate the opportunity to meet with a Peer Support Group.


Candidate Performance Report

Attached to the results letter, each candidate receives a performance report. This report includes a detailed explanation about how to interpret and understand the information enclosed. It includes:

  • A performance summary table that outlines their score in each result area along with the Minimum Performance Level (MPL) and their status (Met Standard or Fell Below Standard).
  • A table of results from the Clinical Knowledge Assessment broken down by case and a guide outlining the clinical focus of each case along with a comparison against other candidates from the same administration.
  • A table outlining their performance in the Gathering Information Domain in the Standardized Patient Interviews with a comparison against other candidates from the same administration.
  • A table outlining their performance in the Patient Management and Follow up Domain in the Standardized Patient Interviews with a comparison against other candidates from the same administration.
  • A table outlining their performance in the four Communication domains scored with a comparison against other candidates from the same administration.

Decisions Regarding Peer Review Results

Each candidate is considered on an individual basis with respect to his or her Peer Review results. Members have the right to make a written or oral submission to the Quality Assurance Committee following the receipt of their report and Committee decision. Historically, the Quality Assurance Committee has given staff the following direction upon its decisions.

Candidates meeting or exceeding standards in all four components
Successful candidates receive a letter which congratulates them on successful completion of the Peer Review process and invites them to contact a designated staff person should they have any questions or concerns. These individuals are also invited to participate in the Peer Review development process or be trained as an assessor.

Candidates falling below the standard in one component
Candidates failing to meet the standard in one component of the Peer Review (either Gathering Information or Patient Management and Follow up) will be informed that the Quality Assurance Committee encourages them to review the list of educational resources included with their results letters and participate in any programs that may assist them in enhancing their professional knowledge and skills, especially in the noted areas. In some cases, the Quality Assurance Committee may recommend or require a member to prepare a written education action plan and ask for subsequent evidence or confirmation that the action plan has been successfully completed. In addition to self-directed remediation, reassessment may be required for some of these candidates. The decision for reassessment is at the discretion of the Quality Assurance Committee. 

Candidates who fall below the standard in the assessment area of Clinical Knowledge or Communication Skills are generally asked to submit a written education action plan, undertake their planned remediation and be reassessed in the clinical knowledge component or the standardized patient interview component of the Peer Review.

Candidates falling below the standard in two or more components
These candidates will be required by the Quality Assurance Committee to submit an education action plan to the College within four to six weeks upon the receipt of their results. The action plan should outline the remedial education activities that they intend to pursue for the purpose of enhancing their professional knowledge and skills in the areas that have been identified in their Peer Review. These candidates are also offered the opportunity to meet either in person or by teleconference with a Peer Support Group to discuss their plans for remediation and subsequent reassessment. Generally, candidates schedule their reassessments within a year, but this time frame is flexible depending on the candidate's comfort level and degree of readiness.


Role of Quality Assurance Committee Members in the Peer Review Process

It has been determined that it is a conflict of interest for a Committee Member to be an Assessor. This will avoid situations of bias when candidate results are considered and decisions are subsequently made. The Committee agreed that members of the Quality Assurance Committee should be encouraged to participate in other non-assessment components of the Peer Reviews such as the educational session on the learning portfolios, and act as invigilators for the written test of clinical knowledge. It was further agreed that members of the Quality Assurance Committee could continue to take part in the Quality Assurance process as question and case writers or as standard setters.