Professional regulation in the digital era: A qualitative case study of three professions in Ontario, Canada.

Technology is transforming service delivery and practice in many regulated professions, altering required skills, scopes of practice, and the organization of professional work. Professional regulators face considerable pressure to facilitate technology-enabled work while adapting to digital changes in their practices and procedures. However, our understanding of how regulators are responding to technology-driven risks and the impact of technology on regulatory policy is limited. To examine the impact of technology and digitalization on regulation, we conducted an exploratory case study of the regulatory bodies for nursing, law, and social work in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected over two phases. First, we collected documents from the regulators' websites and regulatory consortiums. Second, we conducted key informant interviews with two representatives from each regulator. Data were thematically analyzed to explore the impact of technological change on regulatory activities and policies and to compare how regulatory structure and field shape this impact. Five themes were identified in our analysis: balancing efficiency potential with risks of certain technological advances; the potential for improving regulation through data analytics; considering how to regulate a technologically competent workforce; recalibrating pandemic emergency measures involving technology; and contemplating the future of technology on regulatory policy and practice. Regulators face ongoing challenges with providing equity-based approaches to regulating virtual practice, ensuring practitioners are technologically competent, and leveraging regulatory data to inform decision-making. Policymakers and regulators across Canada and internationally should prioritize risk-balanced policies, guidelines, and practice standards to support professional practice in the digital era.

Politics, ecologies and professional regulation: The case of British Columbia's Professional Governance Act.

A variety of theories have been proposed to explain why states pass legislation to regulate professional groups, and why, more recently, they have acted to curtail professional privileges. While these theories have drawn attention to the importance of power dynamics and public protection, among other factors, the role of political interests has been downplayed. This article builds on ecological theory to argue that, with some modifications, the theory illuminates the centrality of state-profession relations and politics to regulatory change. The theory is applied to a case study of regulatory change in British Columbia, Canada impacting resources-sector professions, with particular attention to the controversies and political considerations that shaped reform. The case study suggests that when the political and professions ecologies are overlapping and symbiotic, as they were in BC, a challenge in the political ecology can implicate professions, prompting a solution that brings change within both ecologies.

Virtual care during COVID-19: The perspectives of older adults and their healthcare providers in a cardiac rehabilitation setting.

The present study aimed to explore the perspectives of older adults and health providers on cardiac rehabilitation care provided virtually during COVID-19. A qualitative exploratory methodology was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 older adults and 6 healthcare providers. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) Lack of emotional intimacy when receiving virtual care, (2) Inadequacy of virtual platforms, (3) Saving time with virtual care, (4) Virtual care facilitated accessibility, and (5) Loss of connections with patients and colleagues. Given that virtual care continues to be implemented, and in some instances touted as an optimal option for the delivery of cardiac rehabilitation, it is critical to address the needs of older adults living with cardiovascular disease and their healthcare providers. This is particularly crucial related to issues accessing and using technology, as well as older adults' need to build trust and emotional connection with their providers.

Transitional Care from Hospital to Cardiac Rehabilitation During COVID-19: The Perspectives of Older Adults and Their Healthcare Providers.

Transitional care to cardiac rehabilitation during the pandemic was a complex process for older adults, with additional challenges for decision-making and participation. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of older adults and health providers on transitional care from the hospital to cardiac rehabilitation, focusing on patient participation in decision-making. A qualitative exploratory design was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 older adults and 6 healthcare providers. Document analysis and reflexive journaling were used to support triangulation of findings. Six themes emerged from the data, related to insufficient follow-up from providers, the importance of patients' emotional and psychological health and the support provided by family members, the need for information tailored to patients' needs and spaces for participation in decision-making, as well as challenges during COVID-19, including delayed medical procedures, rushed discharge and isolating hospital stays. The findings of this study indicated a number of potential gaps in the provision of transitional care services as reported by older adults who had a cardiovascular event, often during the first few weeks post hospital discharge.

Protecting the public interest while regulating health professionals providing virtual care: A scoping review.

Technology is transforming service delivery in many health professions, particularly with the rapid shift to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators must navigate legal and ethical complexities to facilitate virtual care while upholding their mandate to protect the public interest. The objectives of this scoping review were to examine how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals who provide virtual care, discuss policy and practice implications of virtual care, and make recommendations for future research. We searched six multidisciplinary databases for academic literature published in English between January 2015 and May 2021. We also searched specific databases and websites for relevant grey literature. After screening, 59 academic articles and 18 grey literature sources were included for analysis. We identified five key findings: the public interest when regulating health professionals providing virtual care was only implicitly considered in most of the literature; when the public interest was discussed, the dimension of access was emphasized; criticism in the literature focused on social ideologies driving regulation that may inhibit more widespread use of virtual care; subnational licensure was viewed as a barrier; and the demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed licensure and scope of practice changes. Overall, virtual care introduces new areas of risk, potential harm, and inequity that health profession regulators need to address as technology continues to evolve. Regulators have an essential role in providing clear standards and guidelines around virtual care, including what is required for competent practice. There are indications that the public interest concept is evolving in relation to virtual care as regulators continue to balance public safety, equitable access to services, and economic competitiveness.

Protecting the public interest when regulating health professionals providing virtual care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care is transforming the nature of healthcare, particularly with the accelerated shift to telehealth and virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators face intense pressures to safely facilitate this type of healthcare while upholding their legislative mandate to protect the public. Challenges for health profession regulators have included providing practice guidance for virtual care, changing entry-to-practice requirements to include digital competencies, facilitating interjurisdictional virtual care through licensure and liability insurance requirements, and adapting disciplinary procedures. This scoping review will examine the literature on how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals providing virtual care. METHODS: This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. Academic and grey literature will be retrieved from health sciences, social sciences, and legal databases using a comprehensive search strategy underpinned by Population-Concept-Context (PCC) inclusion criteria. Articles published in English since January 2015 will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full-text sources against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. One research team member will extract relevant data from the selected documents and a second will validate the extractions. DISCUSSION: Results will be presented in a descriptive synthesis that highlights implications for regulatory policy and professional practice, as well as study limitations and knowledge gaps that warrant further research. Given the rapid expansion of virtual care provision by regulated health professionals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, mapping the literature on how the public interest is protected in this rapidly evolving digital health sector may help inform future regulatory reform and innovation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BD2ZX ).

Regulating for-profit virtual care in Canada: Implications for medical profession regulators and policy-makers.

For-profit virtual medical care has been expanding rapidly in Canada, creating new societal and practical challenges requiring policy and regulatory reform. We mapped the current state of regulatory policy across 10 Canadian provinces by analyzing practice standards and guidelines for virtual care from medical profession regulators. Through a comparative framework, we assessed the extent to which virtual practice policies addressed issues around mobility and licensure, equitable access, privacy, complaints, and continuity of care. We also compared these regulatory documents to the model standards from the Canadian medical regulatory consortium and considered implications for practicing in for-profit virtual environments. We found considerable variation across provincial regulatory bodies, with most existing frameworks not adequately addressing equity, access, and practitioner competency and not providing flexible, nuanced, or risk-based approaches to virtual care provision. As we compared jurisdictions, we identified gaps and leading practices to inform recommendations for professional regulators and policy-makers.

Regulating in the public interest: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article has three aims. First, to reflect on how conceptualizations of the public interest may have shifted due to COVID-19. Second, to focus on the implications of regulatory responses for the health workforce and corresponding lessons as health leaders and systems transition from pandemic response to pandemic recovery. Third, to identify how these lessons lead to potential directions for future research, connecting regulation in a whole-of-systems approach to health system safety and health workforce capacity and sustainability. Pandemic regulatory responses highlighted both strengths and limitations of regulatory structures and frameworks. The COVID-19 pandemic may have introduced new considerations around regulating in the public interest, particularly as the impact of regulatory responses on the health workforce continues to be examined. Clearly articulating practitioner practice parameters, reducing barriers to practice, and working collaboratively with stakeholders were primary aspects of regulators' pandemic responses that impacted the health workforce.

"The workload is staggering": Changing working conditions of stay-at-home mothers under COVID-19 lockdowns.

The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to the home as a work environment, but the focus has centered on the experiences of paid workers. Stay-at-home mothers (SAHMs), for whom the home was already a workplace, have received little attention. This article explores how pandemic-induced lockdowns impacted SAHMs' working conditions and their experiences of childrearing. Combining a Marxist-feminist conceptualization of domestic labor with a labor process framework, we performed a qualitative content analysis of vignettes SAHMs shared about their day-to-day domestic labor in an online mothering community. Our findings show that, under lockdown conditions, the primacy given to partners' paid work combined with children's increased demands for care and attention reduced SAHMs work autonomy and exacerbated gender inequalities in the home. Combining labor process theory with literature on motherwork illuminates the home as a gendered work environment and enhances understanding of how changing conditions of domestic labor can intensify gender inequalities (and workers' awareness of them) that typically remain "hidden in the household."

Professional regulation, profession-state relations and the pandemic response: Australia, Canada, and the UK compared.

The COVID-19 pandemic provoked a surge in demand for health services. To help meet this demand, governments and health profession regulators implemented regulatory policy change to enhance professional availability and flexibility. Some nations may have been better positioned to make such changes due to their systems of healthcare profession regulation. More specifically, countries like Australia and the United Kingdom with their national regulatory structures could be more adaptable than Canada with its provincial system of regulation. To determine if this is the case, and guided by Abbott's (1988, 2005) ecological approach, we conducted a policy analysis. We find few differences in regulatory policy changes in terms of what was done, with the exception of scope of practice changes, which were implemented in Canadian provinces, but were not necessary in Australia and the United Kingdom. Instead, in the latter two countries practitioners were asked to bear responsibility for their own scopes. Additional content analysis of medical journals explored what professionals thought about policy responses, finding that Australian professionals were more positive than others. Moreover, government responses were regarded more favourably when they were perceived to be collaborative. Although there is little evidence that one regulatory system is better than another in facilitating crisis responses, regulatory structures do shape the nature of regulatory policy change.

How gender shapes interprofessional teamwork in the operating room: a qualitative secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial implications for healthcare provider practice and patient outcomes, gender has yet to be systematically explored with regard to interprofessional operating room (OR) teamwork. We aimed to explore and describe how gender and additional social identity factors shape experiences and perceptions of teamwork in the OR. METHODS: This study was a qualitative secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with OR team members conducted between November 2018 and July 2019. Participants were recruited across hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We conducted both purposive and snowball sampling until data saturation was reached. Transcripts were analyzed thematically by two independent research team members, moving from open to axial coding. RESULTS: Sixty-six interviews of OR healthcare professionals were completed: anesthesia (n=17), nursing (n=19), perfusion (n=2), and surgery (n=26). Traditional gender roles, norms, and stereotypes were perceived and experienced by both women and men, but with different consequences. Both women and men participants described challenges that women face in the OR, such as being perceived negatively for displaying leadership behaviours. Participants also reported that interactions and behaviours vary depending on the team gender composition, and that other social identities, such as age and race, often interact with gender. Nevertheless, participants indicated a belief that the influence of gender in the OR may be modified. CONCLUSIONS: The highly gendered reality of the OR creates an environment conducive to breakdowns in communuication and patient safety risks in addition to diminishing team morale, psychological safety, and provider well-being. Consequently, until teamwork interventions adequately account for gender, they are unlikely to be optimally effective or sustainable.

Health professional regulation in historical context: Canada, the USA and the UK (19th century to present).

BACKGROUND: There is no widespread agreement over what form healthcare professional regulation should take, and the evidence base concerning the effectiveness and fairness of regulatory systems and practices is limited. Those urging policy change argue there is a need to modernize; however, there is much we can learn from reviewing the history of healthcare professional regulation. MAIN BODY: An overview of the history of regulation in Canada, with consideration of the United States of America and the United Kingdom, is provided. Self-regulating professions emerged in the nineteenth century, influenced by a variety of stakeholders responding to local concerns for healthcare quality, access and professional training. Regulatory practices changed over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in response to changing stakeholders and shifting interests. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewing the history of healthcare professional regulation reveals lessons to inform policy in a range of settings.