Peer Assisted Review

The Peer Assisted Review (PAR) process has been in place since the fall of 1999. Each year, a number of members are randomly selected to have their practices reviewed as part of the College’s Quality Assurance Program. The PAR is described below in a series of FAQ’s, in an effort to provide members with an understanding of the process.

Any member with a Certificate of Registration for Autonomous Practice is a potential participant in the PAR process.

Any member who has not completed the mandatory Self-Assessment requirement of the College is required to participate in a PAR. Additionally, members are identified for participation using a computerized random, or stratified random, selection process.

Two members of the College; an assessor appointed by the Committee and a reviewer nominated by the member being reviewed.

Generally, both the assessor and the reviewer will have knowledge of the member’s area(s) of practice, population(s) served and practice setting(s).

The member undergoing a review will have an opportunity to indicate whether they believe that there is any reason a potential assessor should not conduct the review.

Efforts are also made to select an assessor who has either undergone a review themselves or who has previously acted as an assessor or reviewer.

The reviewer is nominated by the member being reviewed and can be a colleague or associate. They may act as a support to the member. While this individual is nominated by the member being reviewed, in accepting this role the reviewer understands and agrees to act as an agent of the College and therefore to act in the public interest.

The assessor and reviewer must undertake and agree to:

1. Participate in the College’s Peer Assisted Review Assessor and Reviewer training before conducting the review, if I have not already done so within one year prior to the date of the review
2. Maintain confidentiality, as required by s.36 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18
3. Familiarize themselves with the Legislation, Regulations and the Standards of Professional Conduct relevant to the practice they will be reviewing

   and attest that:

4. They have held a certificate of Registration for Autonomous Practice with the College of Psychologists of Ontario for at least five years
5. They are currently in active practice as a psychologist or psychological associate
6. They are free of any conflict of interest or bias, or any appearance of either, with respect to the review
7. Neither themselves, nor the individual they will be reviewing is in a position of power with respect to the other

The review is conducted at the member’s practice setting. In cases where a member works in more than one setting, the appropriate location for the review will be determined in discussion with the member.

Members normally set aside a morning or afternoon for the review as it can take from three to four hours.

The scheduling is determined by the assessor and reviewer, in consultation with the member being reviewed. It is expected that every effort will be made to schedule the review at a mutually agreeable, and convenient time for all participants and which takes into account the least disruption to the member’s work schedule.

The assessor and reviewer will together observe the member’s place of practice, interview the member using a structured interview form and review some of the member’s clinical records.

The Reviewers will provide a report to the Quality Assurance Committee. The Committee appointed assessor must provide a copy of the report as well as notice of the right to make submissions to the Quality Assurance Committee within 14 days of receipt of the report, directly to the individual who has been reviewed.

The Quality Assurance Committee will review the Report and any submissions the member has made and determine whether any action is required, in the public interest.

One of three outcomes is possible from the review:

1. Meets Standards without any qualification: This is a relatively frequent outcome in which no areas for improvement are identified. Some suggestions may be offered by the reviewers that the member may find helpful to incorporate into his/her practice.
2. Would meet Standards with minor modifications: This is a relatively frequent occurrence in which minor areas for improvement are identified which the member has agreed, with the reviewers, to address within a specified time frame. The Quality Assurance Committee will confirm with the member and the reviewers that the recommended and agreed upon changes have been completed.
3. Is Significantly Below Acceptable Standards: While this is not a frequent occurrence, when major areas for improvement are identified, the Quality Assurance Committee will address these directly with the member.

If you have any questions regarding the PAR  please contact the Quality Assurance Coordinator at qualityassurance@cpbao.ca