CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL RADIATION …



CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGISTS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING

November 20 – 21, 2015

Wellington Room

Marriott Hotel

Ottawa, ON

MINUTES

Members: Deborah Murley, RTR – President (Chair)

Susan Fawcett, RTT – Alberta

Karen Davis, RTT – Saskatchewan

Sandra Luke, RTR, RTMR, ACR – Manitoba

Robin Hesler, RTR – Ontario

Micheline Jetté, t.e.m.n. – Quebec

Julie Cyr, RTR – New Brunswick/Treasurer

Karren Fader, RTNM – Nova Scotia/Vice President

Gailyne MacPherson, RTR, ACR – Prince Edward Island

Breanna Teasdale, RTT – Newfoundland & Labrador

Regrets: Meena Amlani, RTR – British Columbia

Staff: François Couillard – Chief Executive Officer

Elaine Dever – Director of Education

Michelle Charest – Director of Finance & Administration

Mark Given – Director of Professional Practice

Chris Topham – Director of Advocacy & Communications

Karen Morrison – Director of Membership & Events

Myrtle Shields – Coordinator & Recording Secretary

| | |

|1. |Adoption of the agenda |

| | |

| |The following items would be brought up for discussion under the appropriate section of the agenda: |

| | |

| |Report from the Executive Committee |

| |Policy on Election of Officers |

| |Young Professionals Advisory Committee (YPAC) |

| |Life cycle guidelines |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/Cyr |

| | |

| |To adopt the agenda, with additions. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

|1.1 |Adoption of the Consent Agenda |

| | |

| |Items on the consent agenda includes: |

| | |

| |Item 2.1 – Minutes of the May 2015 board meeting. |

| |Item 2.2 – Business conducted electronically. |

| |Item 3.1 – President’s Report |

| |Item 3.2 – Vice President’s Report |

| |Item 3.3 – Treasurer’s Report |

| |Item 4.3 – Key Performance Indicators 2016 |

| |Item 4.4 – Revised Board Project Approval Form |

| |Item 4.5 – Policy Review |

| |Item 5.4 – Risk Management Plan update |

| |Item 8.1 – Advanced Practice: Medical Imaging Project Approval |

| |Item 8.2 – Limited Practice Project Approval |

| |Item 8.3 – Advanced Practice: Advocacy Project Approval |

| |Item 8.4 – Code of Ethics Approval |

| |Item 9.1 – Communities of Practice Project Approval |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To approve items 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3 of the consent agenda and remove all other items for discussion. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|2. |Review and approval of minutes and recording of business conducted electronically |

|2.1 |Minutes of the May 2015 board meeting & Business Arising |

| | |

| |There were no errors or omissions to the minutes of the May 2015 board meeting. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Davis/Hesler |

| | |

| |To approve the minutes of the May 2015 board meeting. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Business Arising: |

| |Page 4, Future of Technology: M. Given advised that he had begun disseminating information to the committees. Discussions had |

| |been held with the BPG workgroup and the National Network. The board had been provided with a copy of the slide deck. He was |

| |now working on a communication strategy for the entire membership. |

| |Page 8, CPQR Request for Funding: F. Couillard advised that the situation remained as initially reported, and that the group was |

| |being encouraged to pursue other sources of funding. |

| |Page 13, Rad-Aid: F. Couillard advised that discussions had been held with the CAMRT Foundation executive regarding Rad-Aid. |

| |They had liked the idea and were in favour of the proposal in principle. They believed it could be of value to the membership. |

| |They planned to bring it up at the Foundation AGM, however, before committing to it. |

|2.2 |Business conducted electronically |

| | |

| |The purpose of this item is to officially minute decisions that took place electronically since the last board meeting. |

| | |

| |Approval of Agreement of Cooperation with Rad-Aid. |

| | |

| |This item was approved under the consent agenda. |

|3. |Reports |

|3.1 |President |

| | |

| |There were no questions on the President’s Report. This item was approved under the consent agenda. |

| | |

| |A request was made for an update on the Executive Committee meeting. D. Murley reported that the committee had reviewed the |

| |policies under item 4.5 and had talked about the agenda. She also advised that they had participated in the Finance Committee |

| |teleconference in October and the CEO Performance Management Committee the day prior to the board meeting. |

| | |

| |D. Murley recommended sending a letter of support from the CAMRT to the French society on account of the terrorist attack in |

| |Paris. There was agreement by the board. ACTION: F. Couillard |

| | |

| |MOTION: Fader/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To send a letter of support from the CAMRT to the French society, as a result of the recent terrorist attack in Paris. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|3.2 |Vice-President |

| | |

| |K. Fader was asked to expand on how she found the role of Vice President and on her orientation. K. Fader replied that she was |

| |still in transition, as she had taken over the role on July 1st. Prior to this, she had shadowed Wendy Martin-Gutjahr, the |

| |former VP. She stated that there had been no activity in July and August. However, some activity had occurred beginning in |

| |September. She advised that she had participated in the Finance Committee teleconference in October and had also participated in|

| |several CEO-President teleconferences. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To accept the Vice President’s Report. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|3.3 |Treasurer |

| | |

| |There were no questions on the Treasurer’s Report. This item was approved under the consent agenda. |

|3.4 |Directors’ Roundtable |

| | |

| |D. Murley informed the board that instead of providing directors with specific questions to answer, as was the usual practice, |

| |for this meeting a more free flowing open discussion was being invited. She asked if anyone had anything to share. There were |

| |no updates. |

|3.5 |Staff Report |

| | |

| |F. Couillard invited questions on the staff report. |

| | |

| |Page 2, Benchmarking program pass rates: E. Dever informed directors that a problem had been noticed with regard to the reporting|

| |of pass rates to the CMA. She explained that the policy was to report to the CMA if a program fell below the 70% pass rate for |

| |two consecutive years. However, it had been noticed that some programs fell below the benchmark one year, were just above the |

| |benchmark the next year, and fell below the benchmark again the following year. The situation had been brought to the attention |

| |of the Education Advisory Council (EAC) and the policy would be changed, so that a program that fell below the benchmark twice in|

| |a three year time frame would be reported to the CMA. |

| | |

| |E. Dever reported that with regard to the publishing of pass rates on the website, the EAC had directed that a policy be put |

| |together to this effect and that it be brought to the board at the next board meeting. ACTION: E. Dever |

| | |

| |Page 3, Collaboration with OTIMROEPMQ: E. Dever advised that the CAMRT was developing more quick self-study courses and that they|

| |had been sent to OTIMROEPMQ to see whether they should be translated. |

| | |

| |Page 4, BPGs: With regard to new BPG topics, M. Given advised that the workgroup had met a few weeks ago and that they would be |

| |getting into the soft skills. |

| | |

| |Page 7, Leadership Development Institute: M. Given advised that there had been three people from med lab this year. |

| | |

| |Page 5, Promoting contributions of MRTs with other stakeholders: There was an enquiry into whether there had been any movement on|

| |the initiative with CRPA. M. Given stated that he had spoken with them some years ago on the subject of a potential merger. F. |

| |Couillard added that he had also had one exploratory conversation with them, but had not heard anything back from them. |

| | |

| |Page 6, CARO: In response to an enquiry as to whether CAMRT would follow-up on CARO and COMP’s interest in having CAMRT join them|

| |in a joint conference in 2018, F. Couillard responded that he was waiting for them to come back to him. He said that CARO and |

| |COMP were beginning to see CAMRT as an equal partner. |

| | |

| |Page 7, Canada Safe Imaging: In response to an enquiry, F. Couillard affirmed that this organization was the new name of the |

| |Canadian Coalition for Radiation & Medical Imaging Safety. |

| | |

| |Page 7, Medical Imaging Team: F. Couillard advised that CAMRT was still the secretariat. They met about three times a year and |

| |updated each other as to what was happening in each of their organizations. They were trying to move ahead some activity around |

| |advocacy. They were also exploring the potential of having the Conference Board of Canada collaborate in a project. F. |

| |Couillard said that the greatest value of this group was the exchange of information and relationship building. |

| | |

| |Page 7, CPSI: F. Couillard updated that he had attended the CPSI AGM, which was typically very structured. They always had a |

| |guest speaker and there was some networking. The CAMRT had no active role with the CPSI except for attending their AGM. M. |

| |Given advised that a large number of the CPSI guidelines had been used in the CAMRT BPGs. |

| | |

| |Page 9, Health Human Resources Survey: Enquiry was made into how the results would be used once the survey was completed. M. |

| |Given replied that the information was now being collected. A comprehensive report would be prepared in January and the |

| |information disseminated. There would also be some Newsletter articles. M. Given stated that some of the information should |

| |also be able to be used for lobbying government. R. Hesler suggested also sending the information to the provincial and federal |

| |governments. |

| | |

| |Page 11, Relations with Provincial Organizations and the Alliance: Enquiry was made into the separate meetings with the BCAMRT |

| |and the NLAMRT. D. Murley affirmed that these had taken place and would be reported on later. |

| | |

| |Page 13, Elections to the board: In response to an enquiry, F. Couillard advised that an election report had been produced and |

| |sent to the board and to the Nominating Committee. Nominating Committee member, M. Jetté, shared that one difficulty the |

| |committee had was that they did not have any criteria in the event they had to reject a nomination. F. Couillard stated that it |

| |had been a learning experience and that the process improved each time the elections were run. A full analysis would be done. |

| | |

| |The following were responses to enquiries not contained in the staff report: |

| | |

| |Council of the Federation: F. Couillard stated that this was a group they could try to influence but that HEAL had reported that |

| |they were quite ineffective. He said he did not have a status report on how active they were. |

| | |

| |YPAC: F. Couillard read from a communication from K. Morrison, Director of Membership & Events in which she advised that a |

| |meeting of the group was being planned by either teleconference or video conferencing sometime in the spring. The main purpose of|

| |the meeting was to have ACART present some of their creative approaches and communication strategies to the membership segment |

| |represented by the YPAC and to use this group as a focus group. |

| | |

| |Awards Committee: A status report was requested on this committee. E. Dever advised that she was having a hard time recruiting |

| |members for this committee. She said that she was considering making it a committee of non-board volunteers rather than a |

| |committee of the board. F. Couillard suggested that the terms of reference for the committee be changed to reflect this. D. |

| |Murley suggested sending the revised ToR to the board electronically. ACTION: E. Dever |

| | |

| |Life Cycle Guidelines: Enquiry was made into the value of the life cycle guidelines to CAMRT. M. Given responded that he had |

| |referred many members to these guidelines. In addition, different government organizations were looking to these guidelines for |

| |replacement of equipment. |

| | |

| |MOTION: MacPherson/Hesler |

| | |

| |To accept the Staff Report. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|4. |Governance |

|4.1 |Election of Officers |

| | |

| |F. Couillard, as interim chair, presided over the election process. Coordinator M. Shields acted as scrutineer. The elections |

| |were conducted through a secret ballot process. Karren Fader was elected President for a two-year term beginning July 1, 2016 to |

| |June 30, 2018. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/Cyr |

| | |

| |That the election process for the positions of Vice President and Treasurer be deferred until the May 2016 board meeting. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/Cyr |

| | |

| |To destroy the ballots. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|4.2 |Board Composition |

| | |

| |D. Murley stated that Incoming President, K. Fader, sat on her provincial board as Nova Scotia director, and that this would not |

| |be an ideal situation for the CAMRT President. She brought up the question of appointing a Nova Scotia member to replace K. |

| |Fader when she became president. She also enquired whether there were any competency gaps that needed to be filled. |

| | |

| |It was decided to task the Nominating Committee with putting out a call for a volunteer for Nova Scotia director and the board |

| |could appoint that member until the next AGM. It was also suggested sending a message to employers when advertising the position|

| |and also encouraging younger and newer technologists. ACTION: F. Couillard |

| | |

| |MOTION: MacPherson/Davis |

| | |

| |To task the Nominating Committee with finding a member-at-large from Nova Scotia to sit on the board. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|4.3 |Key Performance Indicators 2016 |

| | |

| |C. Topham drew attention to the Advocacy & Communications indicator and stated that a change had been made in the way the two |

| |advocacy goals would be managed for 2016. They would now be monitoring sessions instead of unique page views. |

| | |

| |It was suggested that a new measure be added under Financials for fluctuations in the investment portfolio. F. Couillard stated |

| |that there was probably a need for the board to have a discussion about whether they wanted to make changes to the ladder of |

| |investments. Right now there were no huge risk factors. |

| | |

| |A question was asked as to whether foreign pass rates should not also be a measure under Certification. After a brief discussion|

| |it was agreed that it should not be included to avoid making the key performance indicator tool too cumbersome and detailed. |

|4.4 |Revised Board Project Approval Form |

| | |

| |At the last board meeting there was discussion as to what amount of information needed to be shared with the board when seeking |

| |approval for new projects – a full project charter or a summary sheet. It was being proposed that a full project charter be |

| |submitted, while trying to limit the amount of details contained in these charters and keep it simple. F. Couillard confirmed |

| |that a close out portion would also be added to the form. ACTION: M. Charest |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/Fader |

| | |

| |To approve the revised Board Project Charter with the inclusion of a close out portion at the end. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|4.5 |Policy Review |

| | |

| |Policy on Confidentiality of Board Meetings: F. Couillard advised that this appeared as a paragraph in the board manual, so it |

| |was being brought forward as a policy. G. MacPherson brought up the question of transparency to the membership. After some |

| |deliberation, D. Murley stated that the policy needed to be reworked to include either transparency or confidentiality. ACTION: |

| |F. Couillard |

| | |

| |Policy on Health and Safety in the Workplace: S. Fawcett suggested that the policy also include a statement saying where the fire|

| |pull station was located. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Health and Safety in the Workplace, with the addition of a fire pull station. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Extra Budgetary Spending: It was suggested to insert the words “in consultation with the Treasurer” in the sentence |

| |“the board also authorizes the CEO to spend up to a maximum of $30,000 annually.” F. Couillard pointed out that it would not be |

| |practicable. There was agreement by directors. |

| | |

| |MOTION: MacPherson/Fader |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Extra Budgetary Spending. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Financial Reserves: It was suggested to change the words “will be established” to “is established” in the eighth |

| |paragraph. All agreed. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Davis |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Financial Reserves, with correction. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Investments |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/MacPherson |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Investments. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Signing Authority |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Signing Authority. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Travel and Representation |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Fader |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Travel and Representation. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Board Representation on Committees: It was suggested that the first paragraph be changed to read “Directors of the |

| |board may be appointed to CAMRT committees when it is deemed necessary to have a board representative for the following reasons.”|

| |All agreed. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Luke |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Board Representation on Committees, as amended. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Temporary Practice Membership |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Jetté |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Temporary Practice Membership. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Member Registries |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Davis |

| | |

| |To approve the Policy on Member Registries. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Directors’ Orientation |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To delete the Policy on Directors’ Orientation. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Member Benefits |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/MacPherson |

| | |

| |To delete the Policy on Member Benefits. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |Policy on Election of Officers: A change was made to item (m) of the policy to read “Election results are to be announced to |

| |members after the outcome is known.” |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Hesler |

| | |

| |To revise the Policy on Election of Officers, with amendment. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|5. |Finance and Administration |

|5.1 |Review of financial statements for the third quarter of 2015 & year-end forecast |

| | |

| |M. Charest advised that the landlord, Metcalfe Realty, wanted CAMRT to restore the office hallway by December 31st. The cost of |

| |this restoration would be sent to the office. M. Charest pointed out that this would not be capitalized, due to the fact that |

| |CAMRT did not own the asset. This could affect the deficit, however. |

| | |

| |Referring to item 5.1(d) – Projected Statement of Changes in Net Assets for 2015/2016, M. Charest stated that it was being |

| |recommended that the annual transfer of $50,000 from the General Fund to the Competency Profiles Fund be suspended in 2015 to |

| |prevent the General Fund balance from becoming dangerously low, and because the Competency Profiles Fund was sufficiently |

| |resourced to allow the one-time suspension. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Luke |

| | |

| |To suspend the $50,000 transfer into the Competency Profiles Fund for 2015. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|5.2 |Operational Plan |

| | |

| |F. Couillard gave a PowerPoint presentation of the plan to operationalize the strategic plan. He advised that the staff |

| |directors had developed SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound) objectives for each goal of the |

| |operational plan. Measures and target dates were also developed for the managers’ internal use. He drew attention to the |

| |cross-cutting operationalization priorities for each goal. Under operational effectiveness, F. Couillard stated that it had been|

| |felt that the current way the Foundation worked was not optimum and that they needed to change their thinking around the |

| |Foundation and boosting the amount of money they could generate. He advised that for 2016 four new measurements would be added |

| |to the key performance indicators and goals of the dashboard: CPD satisfaction score; number of certified APMRTs; number of MRTs |

| |participating in communities of practice; and number of submissions to the JMIRS. |

| | |

| |There were no questions. |

|5.3 |Consider and approve draft budget for fiscal year 2016 |

| | |

| |M. Charest led directors through the highlights of the 2016 proposed budget. A surplus of $50,161 was forecasted for 2016. |

| | |

| |There were no questions on the 2016 proposed budget. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/MacPherson |

| | |

| |To approve the 2016 Proposed Budget, as presented. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|5.4 |Increase in 2017 Certification Exam Fees |

| | |

| |E. Dever directed the board to her briefing note explaining the reason for the proposal to raise the certification exam fees in |

| |2017. Reasons included risk of revenue loss in membership as increasing numbers of members retired and as provinces increasingly|

| |became regulated allowing members the choice of whether or not to join the CAMRT. The last increase in certification fees was in|

| |2010. M. Charest pointed out that it was also being proposed that the practice exams be offered for free with the increase of |

| |the certification exam fee. Eventually they will have to be maintained, so they will generate extra costs. |

| | |

| |Board members then discussed the perception CAMRT members would have of such an increase. In the end it was agreed that the fees|

| |should go up. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To increase the certification exam fees by $40. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|5.5 |Risk Management Plan update |

| | |

| |It was suggested creating a summary page that would give a better sense of the status of the actual risk. ACTION: M. Charest |

| | |

| |A suggestion was made to verify the copyright infringement risks of individuals accessing courses online and selling them to the |

| |CAMRT. ACTION: M. Charest |

|6. |Strategic Direction – Member Value: Increase Engagement & the Value of Membership |

|6.1 |AGC new model discussion |

| | |

| |The directors of the Board were surveyed in September 2015 and invited to provide their feedback to the memo of recommended |

| |changes for future CAMRT conferences and events. The summary results of this survey were circulated to the board. Director of |

| |Membership & Events, K. Morrison provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed pilot and facilitated a discussion to answer |

| |questions about the proposed model. |

| | |

| |K. Morrison will be doing a detailed budget for each of the events in due time. |

| | |

| |A few suggestions were made by board members: |

| |Have a system in place to ensure the right level of quality is maintained in each province. K. Morrison responded that it would |

| |be the role of the National Advisory Committee on Conferences and Events to vet the presentation by each association. |

| |Be alert of the risk of creating silos. E. Dever explained that the provincial conferences could be multi-disciplinary, as well.|

| |CAMRT should partner with organizations with whom they have not previously partnered with, like RTi3, as quite a large number of |

| |people attended them. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Davis |

| | |

| |To approve the proposed AGC model. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|6.2 |Impact of regulation of provincial associations on the role of the CAMRT provincially and membership |

| | |

| |This was a strategic discussion to try to anticipate and mitigate the impact of the transition of provincial associations to |

| |regulator roles. M. Given gave a presentation using PowerPoint slides. He provided a brief summary of the regulatory landscape, |

| |which, he pointed out, was changing relatively rapidly, and CAMRT’s current initiatives. |

| | |

| |E. Dever announced that Alberta had agreed to use the CAMRT competency profiles for their certification examination. |

| | |

| |A mini workshop ensued where directors gave their views on the following questions: |

| | |

| |What is at stake and what could be the impact on the CAMRT (positive or negative) of the continuing regulation of the profession?|

| |What can we learn from previous transitions? |

| |What can the CAMRT do proactively to anticipate and mitigate any future negative outcomes? |

| | |

| |(See Appendix A for compilation of responses.) |

|6.3 |Impact of regulation of sonographers |

| | |

| |The trend towards regulation of sonographers across the country was acknowledged. It was noted that this had an impact at the |

| |provincial level with regulators and associations. At this point the CAMRT did not have a proactive agenda to support |

| |sonographers at a national level; there was another national organization already doing this - Sonography Canada. Directors were |

| |informed that the OAMRS had reached out to the CAMRT to invite partnership in offering services to sonographers in Ontario. The |

| |OAMRS had sent a written proposal just before the current board meeting. This suggested offering CAMRT membership to |

| |sonographers in Ontario and come in direct competition with Sonography Canada. F. Couillard stated that the board needed to have|

| |a fulsome strategic conversation on the pros and cons of the OAMRS’ proposal and discuss what could be our longer-term national |

| |approach. |

| | |

| |F. Couillard led the board in a scenario building session. The following question was posed: |

| | |

| |In five years, how will our relationship with provincial organizations change as a result of the regulation of sonography? What |

| |likely scenario will emerge with respect to the roles of the CAMRT, Sonography Canada and POs? |

| | |

| |F. Couillard advised that there was currently no discussion going on between CAMRT and Sonography Canada. He stated that the |

| |suggested possibilities were: |

| |Fusion – a merger with Sonography Canada |

| |Status quo |

| |Limited partnership – joint conferences (share education, PLI) |

| |Competitive model – open doors to sonographers |

| |Sonographers become stronger as an association |

| | |

| |(See Appendix B for compilation of responses) |

| | |

| |F. Couillard stated that together with the executive, the staff directors would discuss how they brought this back to the board. |

| |It was currently not in the strategic plan, but may need to be added. |

|7. |Strategic Direction – Transforming Education: Facilitate and develop education for an evolving practice |

|7.1 |Future of MRT Education Symposium |

| | |

| |E. Dever gave a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the purpose and outcomes of the 2013 Stakeholders’ Symposium, and the outcomes |

| |and recommendations of the National Steering Committee meeting of November 2014. She then gave an update of the Educators’ |

| |Symposium, which took place in October. She stated that the CAMRT could not change the model of entry to practice education. |

| |However, what they could do was reconceptualize the competency profiles. She invited questions. |

| | |

| |F. Couillard commented on the presence of Quebec representatives at the symposium. He advised that there had been simultaneous |

| |translation at the symposium and that this helped in making the Quebec representatives feel that they were playing a part in the |

| |meeting. He recommended keeping this in mind in the future. This was a good demonstration that they could have a voice. |

| | |

| |E. Dever stated that in the final analysis, any new model had to meet the needs of the employer and the health care environment. |

| | |

| |E. Dever facilitated a visioning exercise about the strategic directions to be taken as they moved forward with this initiative. |

| | |

| |The following questions were posed and responses received: |

| | |

| |Multi-disciplinary education for entry level – how much and why? |

| |Team function. |

| |Knowledge about other professional practices – communication and case studies. |

| |Exposure to other disciplines and assessed on it. |

| | |

| |If you were to give advice to programs on changes in curriculum didactic and clinical, what would you emphasize? |

| |Physics regarding details of instrumentation. |

| |Patient care. |

| |Ergonomics. |

| |Professionalism. |

| |Soft skills. |

| |Pathology. |

|8. |Strategic Direction – Evolving Practice: Define, sustain and advance the profession |

|8.1 |Advanced Practice: Medical Imaging Project Approval |

| | |

| |Staff explained that the needs analysis was the first phase of what was needed to build a proper program. What was meant by |

| |advanced practice across the country had to be clearly outlined. The board felt that the need was most likely there and that it |

| |would be more appropriate to rename the project “gap analysis”. The focus should be to identify the most promising areas for |

| |advanced practice. |

| | |

| |It was suggested to recognize the dynamic nature of Advanced Practice as it was different in each province and evolving. It was |

| |also important to have a broad approach that covered urban and rural centres. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Fader/Jetté |

| | |

| |To approve the Project Charter on Advanced Practice in Medical Imaging Gap Analysis. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |AGAINST: R. Hesler |

|8.2 |Limited Practice Project Approval |

| | |

| |A question was asked about the goal of this project. F. Couillard stated that during the strategic planning process this issue |

| |was brought up and the board felt it needed to find out the state of limited practice across the country in order to understand |

| |the implications for the profession and what to do about it. |

| | |

| |The old Professional Practices Committee had identified this some years ago, but it had not been pursued. |

| | |

| |F. Couillard stated that he wanted to engage the board to make sure they were asking the right questions on the White Paper. M. |

| |Given added that they needed to be able to make an informed decision as the limited practice technologists were pushing for |

| |regulation and scope of practice. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Luke/Fawcett |

| | |

| |To approve the Project Charter for a Limited Practice White Paper. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|8.3 |Advanced Practice: Advocacy Project Approval |

| | |

| |Director of Advocacy & Communications, Chris Topham, is the Project Manager for this project, the objective of which is to |

| |undertake activities that communicate the benefits of advanced practice to important stakeholders and decision-makers. There |

| |were no questions. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/Davis |

| | |

| |To approve the Project Charter on a National Advanced Practice Advocacy and Promotion Campaign. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|8.4 |CAMRT Member Code of Ethics and Processional Conduct Approval |

| | |

| |M. Given advised that he had taken all the comments from the board in May and brought them to the PPAC. The committee had |

| |realized that there was a section missing and added evidence-based to the document to reflect the request of the board. |

| | |

| |There was some disappointment that ethical responsibility for the environment had not been included. M. Given stated that he had|

| |talked about this with the committee and realized the importance of this, but felt that it was built into the regulations. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Hesler/MacPherson |

| | |

| |To approve the CAMRT Member Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |M. Given stated that the document would now be put in the hands of the Communications Department. |

|9. |Strategic Direction – Evidence & Knowledge: Develop & Support Research Capacity in the MRT Community |

|9.1 |Communities of Practice Project Approval |

| | |

| |The project objective states that “Through the development of communities of practice (COPs) for the MRT community, the CAMRT |

| |will create a platform that will achieve participation in COPs (strategic objective 4.1) by providing: |

| |A variety of communities to choose from across MRT disciplines. |

| |A forum to meet and connect with other MRTs with common interests. |

| |The opportunity to share knowledge and expertise on particular topics. |

| |Technology to link COPs members.” |

| | |

| |M. Given advised that he had a Ph.D student working on this project. |

| | |

| |MOTION: Luke/Jetté |

| | |

| |To approve the Project Charter to Establish and Nurture Communities of Practice. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

|10. |Other Business |

|10.1 |Update on National Network meeting |

| | |

| |D. Murley provided an update on the deliberations of the National Network meeting, which took place two days prior to the board |

| |meeting. She advised that the first day was a workshop on advocacy. The second day consisted of a business session. There had |

| |been a roundtable session where participants were asked to respond to two questions, first, on the future of the annual |

| |conferences (provincial and national) and, second, on the transition from association to college and an ideal |

| |communication/transition strategy. D. Murley stated that the provincial organizations still had an attachment to the national |

| |conference as they looked to them for networking and education. They were also struggling with their own provincial conferences.|

| | |

| | |

| |F. Couillard advised that they had updated the National Network on the national-provincial initiatives and they were given a |

| |demonstration of the new CPD depository. They had also been given a presentation on the future of technology and future of |

| |education symposiums. They had done a visioning exercise. |

| | |

| |F. Couillard advised that he and D. Murley had met separately with the BCAMRT and the NLAMRT. They wanted to have a proactive |

| |approach and avoid duplication. He advised that the BCAMRT would still need to have an association after the transition. They |

| |would like the CAMRT to submit a proposal for services that they usually out-sourced to association management services. The |

| |NLAMRT, on the other hand, might not have an association when they were regulated and they asked how the CAMRT could play a role |

| |in some shape or form. F. Couillard advised that they would be exploring different models. |

|10.2 |CAMRT/CAR meeting at RSNA – Topics for discussion |

| | |

| |F. Couillard advised that he and D. Murley would be meeting with the leadership of the CAR at the RSNA at the end of November and|

| |he enquired whether the board had any burning issues they wanted them to bring-up with the CAR. He said that the CAR wanted to |

| |talk about advanced practice. |

| | |

| |The following subjects were suggested: |

| | |

| |Asking the CAR what they saw as the MRT role in the utilization of appropriateness. |

| |Future of mini RSNA’s in Canada. |

| |Best practice and radiology. |

| |A technologist day at the CAR. |

|11. |Next meeting dates and locations |

| |February 26, 2016: Board Teleconference |

| |June 7, 8, & 11, 2016: Board meeting – Halifax |

| |November 18 – 19, 2016: Board meeting – Ottawa |

| |MOTION: Cyr/Fader |

| | |

| |To adjourn the meeting. |

| | |

| |CARRIED |

| | |

| |The meeting ended on Saturday, November 21, at 3:00 p.m. |

President Date

Vice-President Date

APPENDIX A

Impact of regulation of provincial associations on the role of the CAMRT provincially and membership

What is at stake and what could be the impact on the CAMRT (positive or negative) of the continuing regulation of the profession?

At stake:

• Membership numbers.

• National perspective for disciplines – consistency.

• Provincial standards – legitimacy to practice.

• Viability of the association: financial, political, cultural.

• Decreased revenue.

• Increased need for CPD.

• Certification exams, if taken by the regulators.

Impact:

• Decline in revenue potential – decreased number of CAMRT services.

• Provincial competency profile and/or exam.

• No national perspective:

- Practice consistency: entry to practice; advanced practice.

- How CAMRT shows up to external stakeholders.

• Loss of mass.

• Loss of influence.

• Inequality in number and type of services.

• Increased premiums due to increase claims.

• CAMRT: certification not association.

• Increased need for association services.

• Change business model of CAMRT/governance model.

What can we learn from previous transitions?

• Have provinces adopt CAMRT competency profile and certification exam.

• CAMRT and provinces need to promote CAMRT services (CPD opportunities; PLI; BPG; etc.).

• Value in being part of a larger community – COP.

• If combined regulatory and association – difficult to be all things.

• Redefines roles of regulatory body versus association.

• Realizing it takes a long time to stabilize.

• Education of members.

• Certification agreements across country.

• Role for Alliance to play.

• Engaging members, i.e., regulations, getting them on board; show the value for patients.

• Education for the public – public members.

• Engage employers.

What can the CAMRT do proactively to anticipate and mitigate any future negative outcomes?

• Focus on membership value.

• Communicate and advocate CAMRT value.

• Be more visible, especially among groups that are related to MRT practice.

• Stay on the cutting edge of practice.

• Strategic focus on member value.

• Increased visibility.

• Don’t make assumptions.

• Increased marketing.

• Increased relationships with provincial associations – pre agreements?

• Travelling road show: CAMRT, regulators; reduce fear.

• Educate members.

• Be present: constant updates; communication, clarity of roles between regulators and association.

• Advocacy for the role of the association.

APPENDIX B

Impact of Regulation of Sonographers

In five years, how will our relationship with provincial organizations change as a result of the regulation of sonography? What likely scenario will emerge with respect to the roles of the CAMRT, Sonography Canada and POs?

• Smaller provinces: Ultrasound may want to be regulated with a larger group (provincial regulator).

• Larger provinces: Ultrasound have their own regulation or join a larger regulatory college.

• Sonography Canada and CAMRT: Huge opportunity for hybrid practice and possible advanced practice. Increased patient satisfaction. Improved management practices.

• Delivery of DI services (all): Flexibility in practice.

• Reconceptualize our practice with ultrasound within it.

• Provincial MRTs partners with provincial ultrasound.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download