 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Member Survey Highlights
Key Findings
College Strategic Plan
Discipline Panel Decision
Education Initiative
Legislation Learning Package on Website
CMRTO Staff Update
Professional Corporations
Suspended Members
Comprehensive Member Survey Highlights
In the Fall 2001 Insights, it was reported that the College was using the research firm, The Strategic Counsel, to investigate a variety of opinions and attitudes among members.
The College commissioned the research in order to compile an up-to-date snapshot of the background, education, and demographic profile of the members of the College, and to explore perceptions and levels of satisfaction with MRTs' work as professionals, as well as satisfaction with the work of the College itself. Of particular interest to the College was finding out more about why there are diminishing numbers of new practitioners and a growing number of current MRTs leaving the profession.
The design of the survey questions was guided by a series of focus groups conducted last summer by The Strategic Counsel.
Nearly 40% of all College members returned completed surveys. In statistical terms, this makes the results accurate within +/- 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
One thing that is certainly clear from the survey results is that members of the College have had difficulty adjusting to the health system restructuring that the profession has faced over the past six years.
Key Findings
Where MRTs Work
The majority of survey respondents work in full-time positions, most often in hospitals (66%) with radiation therapists of course tending to work in cancer clinics (70%).
Members of our profession also work hard, which may explain the high attrition rates. Approximately 80%work overtime at their jobs, with 40% being required to work overtime because it is expected as part of their jobs, and another 40% working overtime if asked in specific circumstances.
Educational Background
The survey confirmed that members of our profession come from a wide variety of backgrounds and educational experience. Most of us were trained in our profession in Ontario (84%) in a two-year post-secondary program. Although there was some variation among the three specialties, the majority of respondents – 77% are satisfied, in general, with current educational entry-to-practice requirements.
Life-Long Learning is Important
MRTs are life-long learners who continue to enhance their academic profession at all stages of their career. A high percentage of respondents (88%) indicated that their professional education has continued past their initial training.
The College's Quality Assurance (QA) Program is, in fact, based on this professional commitment to life-long learning, and evident in the high quality of the QA Self-Assessment Profile and Continuous-Learning Portfolios submitted by MRTs for review by the panel of the QA Committee.
Level of Satisfaction with the Profession of Medical Radiation Technology
As professionals we are on the whole satisfied (88%) with the work we do – in particular as a consequence of our fulfillment in helping patients (67%).
However, respondents identify a number of causes for dissatisfaction with their current working environments. These are important, as they evidently have an impact on recruiting and retaining people in our profession. Not surprisingly, concerns reflect the impact that changes in Ontario's health care system have had on health care professionals. Respondents identified lack of staff, low pay scales, health system bureaucracy, limited career development opportunities, stress and lack of control over work schedules as key areas of discontent.
Satisfaction with the College
As mentioned earlier, the survey also asked respondents to comment on their satisfaction with the work of the College itself. In general, the results are gratifying in that the level of satisfaction of members with the College's work is high (63% feel that the College is doing a good or excellent job of regulating the profession in Ontario). The level of satisfaction increases when people have direct contact with the College (84% satisfied; 51% very satisfied). Areas of satisfaction include promptness in dealing with members' questions, general willingness to answer questions, and helpful and friendly service.
There is, however, room for the general image of the College – both as a regulatory body and as a service provider to its membership – to be enhanced. While the majority of respondents (54%) believe that the College is doing a "good" job at regulating the profession, and 9% feel it does an "excellent" job, there is some room for improvement. Recommendations made by the research company about how to improve this image provide some useful direction for the College's 2002 communication strategy.
Summary
The fact that so many College members responded to the survey suggests that its results provide a fairly accurate picture of the opinions and concerns of MRTs in the province. Of particular significance to the College are the findings that:
- MRTs exhibit diverse educational and professional backgrounds
- Practitioners are life-long learners who conscientiously continue their professional education after graduation
- On the whole, MRTs find the profession satisfying, though several key factors of dissatisfaction emerge, which may affect the recruitment and retention of people to the profession
- Overall the College is relatively positively perceived by its members
This information will be integrated into the College's planning and strategies in the coming months and years.
College Strategic Plan
In May 2001, Council approved a strategic plan for the College which contemplates the impact of self-regulation of sonographers and MR technologists as members of the College. Later in the year, Council also reviewed the effect of the addition of possibly 2,000 new members on the College's financial and organizational infrastructure as it builds its internal capacity to manage this growth.
Although we are still waiting for the provincial government's decision on the recommendation by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council to regulate MR technologists and sonographers, the College must plan ahead. Two important "integration" issues, in particular, have been addressed in the strategic plan – the harmonization of professional standards for the five specialties and the impact on the College's infrastructure of a significant increase to the size of its membership.
Harmonizing the professional standards of all five specialties will likely entail moving away from the College defining required competencies, which formed the basis for the standards of practice when they were first created six years ago. Competencies can be defined as what someone needs to be able to do properly to meet professional requirements. They are really best determined by educators, front-line MRTs, and employers who better understand what professionals need to know to perform their tasks in current work situations.
Instead, the College will devote attention over the next two years to defining a common standard of practice and a common code of ethics for the five specialties which would be part of a new College (radiography, nuclear medicine, radiation therapy, magnetic resonance and sonography).
It will also be important for the College to address its fiscal responsibilities to current and future members over the next two to three years. Based on a recommendation from the consulting firm, KPMG LLP, the College has changed the 'Investment Committee' into a 'Finance and Property Committee', with a new focus and function. This new integrated committee will be responsible for making recommendations to council on the curent year's budget, a 3-year budget projection, ways to expand the College's revenue base, the College's financial obligations and assets and a process for review of the annual fee.
Members will continue to be kept up-to-date on these exciting new directions as they progress.
Discipline Panel Decision
On November 23, 2001, a Discipline Committee hearing was held to review allegations of professional misconduct brought against Mr. William J. Roberts. Mr. Roberts was charged with professional misconduct for:
- Failure to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee in the following manner:
- Non-compliance with the requirement to submit a Self-Assessment Profile and Continuous-Learning Portfolio for the calendar year 2000 as requested by the Registrar in a letter dated September 29, 2000
- Failure to respond to a subsequent letter (February 5, 2001) informing Mr. Roberts of his non-compliance and giving him another opportunity to respond.
- Failure to carry out a requirement or order of the Quality Assurance Committee, which was to comply with the requirements of the Quality Assurance Program by completing Quality Assurance records within 30 days of receipt of a further letter from the Chair of the Quality Assurance Committee (April 4, 2001).
At the hearing, witnesses for the College testified that they had met with Mr. Roberts on several occasions to assist him to comply with the QA requirements, but "he appeared to be unable or unwilling to do so". Mr. Roberts did not respond to the Notice of Hearing, and did not return phone calls with respect to the Notice of Hearing. The day before the hearing, Mr. Roberts submitted a letter of resignation to the College. Since Mr. Roberts did not attend the hearing, none of the facts were disputed.
Based on the evidence presented, the panel of the Discipline Committee found Mr. Roberts guilty of professional misconduct. The penalty imposed by the panel was the suspension of his registration until he completes the Quality Assurance Program requirements for the year 2000. Mr. Roberts was also ordered to pay $2,000 as part of the College's total costs and expenses.
The reasons for the panel's decision were as follows:
The College is obliged by statute to establish and maintain a Quality Assurance Program for its members. The process for selecting the members who must be assessed each year has been established by the Quality Assurance Committee as a random selection of members. The process has been widely communicated to the members and workbooks have been developed in order to make the keeping of the necessary records as simple as possible.
Mr. Roberts was made aware of these facts, and met with both the Registrar and the Quality Assurance Committee over a period of 18 months. The purpose of the meetings was to assist him in completing the documents required.
He eventually neither complied with the requirement nor acknowledged further efforts to communicate with him. He did not at any time offer any reasons or extenuating circumstances as to why he did not comply.
Members of the College spent a great deal of time and effort over a 2-year period to explain the process, and persuade Mr. Roberts that it was in his own interests to comply with the Regulations. He did not respond even though served with a Notice of Hearing charging him with professional misconduct. The day before the Hearing was scheduled, and while panel members were in transit to the Hearing, Mr. Roberts resigned from the College. Thus he was ordered to pay partial costs and expenses even though this was his first offence.
Education Initiative
A joint letter has been sent by the College of Medical Radiation Technologists of Ontario (CMRTO) and the Ontario Assocation of Medical Radiation Technologists (OAMRT) to all educators in Ontario offering to meet with them and students in their medical radiation technology programs to discuss the impact of the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists' (CAMRT's) degree initiative on Ontario colleges and students who will graduate in 2005.
At the end of 1995, the CAMRT made a decision that graduates of medical radiation technology programs entering practice in the year 2005 would require a baccalaureate degree in order to be allowed to write the CAMRT's certification examination.
The implications of this decision are that Ontario MRT educational programs must change their programs from diploma to degree programs, so that graduates will be able to write the CAMRT exam, or that the CMRTO may be forced to find and approve another certification examination, or create its own, that Ontario graduates can write based on their graduation from approved MRT diploma programs.
After considerable discussion between the CMRTO and the OAMRT, a negotiated agreement was reached with the CAMRT that students attending medical radiation technology education programs in Ontario approved by the CMRTO will continue to have access tothe CAMRT certification examinations for up to five years beyond 2005. This extended timeline will provide a window for the programs to meet the five CAMRT extended access criteria. Nevertheless, it is still intended by the CAMRT that access to its exam in the future will be only for those who have a baccalaureate.
Needless to say, this decision continues to cause concern among educators and students in Ontario. Through no fault of their own, some Ontario colleges may not be able to meet this deadline.
It is important to note that the CMRTO does not control either an educational institution's decision to introduce a degree program or the process related to a program being granted degree status. This decision can only come from the educational institution itself, through negotiation with a university and the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities or, as in the case of The Michener Institute and The Eastern Ontario School of X-Ray Technology, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
By meeting with educators, and students in the medical radiation technology programs the CMRTO hopes to assist in finding a resolution to this complex and difficult issue.
Legislation Learning Package on Website
The Legislation Learning Package is now available to members on the College's website. It can be found at http://www.cmrto.org, under Professional Registration and then Legislation Learning Package.
The Legislation Learning Package has been developed to assist individuals who trained outside Ontario and are reviewing the legislation that governs the practice of medical radiation technology in this province in order to complete the requirements to be registered with the College.
If you are currently practising as an MRT in Ontario, you can also complete this package as a refresher or continuous-learning activity, because it is important for all members of the College to be familiar with the legislation and legal requirements which affect day-to-day practice in medical radiation technology.
The Legislation Learning Package is designed as a guide to key components of the appropriate pieces of legislation that govern our practice in Ontario. It is not intended as an in-depth analysis of the legislation. For more information, you should refer to the particular Act, regulation, guidelines or College publication.
The package is also available in hardcopy from the College office for applicants who trained outside Canada and who are completing the requirements for registration with the College.
CMRTO Staff Update
New Director of Professional Relations
The CMRTO is pleased to announce the appointment of Roseanne Pegler, M.R.T. (T.), A.C.T., B.Sc. (Hons), to the position of Director of Professional Relations.
Roseanne is well known in the medical radiation technology community, and no stranger to the CMRTO. She assisted the College with the establishment of the standards of practice for MRTs and is a CMRTO/CMA Accreditation Surveyor.
Roseanne began her career at Princess Margaret Hospital and later moved to Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre where she held various positions. Most recently Roseanne worked for the Capital Project Office of Cancer Care Ontario as a "Project Specialist, Radiation Therapy" helping to establish radiation therapy programs in two new regional cancer centres.
Ms. Pegler joined the College staff in December 2001. With her vast and diverse experience in the profession of medical radiation technology we know that she will be a valuable asset to the College.
Professional Corporations
The government has recently published a regulation made under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 relating to professional corporations (Ontario Regulation 39/02). This regulation provides the framework for a health regulatory college to issue a certificate of authorization to a professional corporation that intends to practise a health profession. The CMRTO is now in a position to take the next steps toward medical radiation technologists being able to practise the profession through a professional corporation. These steps include setting fees for the application, issuance and renewal of certificates of authorization, development of the related forms and changes to CMRTO's register. Until these steps have been completed by CMRTO, members of the CMRTO are not authorized to practise the profession through a professional corporation. Please contact the CMRTO if you wish to have more information on professional corporations.
Suspended Members
The following are the people whose certificates of registration have been suspended effective February 2002, for failure to pay their fees in accordance with section 24 of the Health Professions Procedural Code. A person whose certificate of registration has been suspended is not a member of the College unless and until the suspension is removed.
| 7351 |
Lorena Cabral |
| 11075 |
Raxa Gorania |
| 7808 |
Terrence Hsia |
| 4841 |
Judith Katz |
| 6451 |
Dorin V.S. Milencovici |
| 9420 |
Fataneh (Elly) Nemati |
| 10157 |
Gilberto A. Prudencio |
| 9468 |
David J.H. Wilson |
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some documents require the free Adobe Acrobat Reader™