The first part of this page contains the information about the variable from the CPHN Guide for Common Indicators for Canadian Physician Health Programs, version v1.0.  CPHN is editing the guide and will eventually produce a new version, v1.1.  Concurrently, we are also writing a new version of the guide, for use with CiviCase.  We will call this stream v2.0.

Regulatory Involvement

 v1.0 (Refers to CPHN indicator 15 "Regulatory Involvement")

This variable indicates whether the regulatory body (Provincial licensing body - i.e. College of Physicians and Surgeons) is involved with the case, and whether the individual is involved with the regulatory body in any way.  The involvement indicated here is not the same as having been referred by the regulatory body, which may be indicated by [referral source].  A client my be involved with the  regulatory body, but referred by someone else.

v2.0 (plans for CiviCRM)

The first things I notice about this indicator is that it truly applies to a CASE and not to an individual (contact).  That's so because if a regulator becomes involved in a particular case about Doctor John Doe, and then that case is resolved (closed), the regulator would not be by default involved in a future new case with Dr. Doe. This is qualitatively different from, say, the marital status of Dr. Doe, which might be conveniently presumed to remain constant between cases, even though it could actually change.

Involvement Related to Presenting Problem

Here's how we're planning to record this in the CiviCRM Structure.

The case manager will record either an observed activity (if the regulator has direct contact with the PHP about the current case) or a reported activity (if the regulator contacted someone other than the PHP, and this activity was reported to the PHP in the context of an observed activity).  The activity that the case manager records will indicate that one of the contacts in the activity (either the source or the target) was in the role of "regulator" with respect to the case.   The activity record will have a date, and may contain a note about the extent or nature of the involvement.   The case manager indicates that the activity in which the regulator was one of the contacts IS directly related to this case (by selecting Y from a single select, Y/N field).

Involvement not related to Presenting problem

Here's how we're planning to record this in the CiviCRM structure.

The case manager will record a reported activity (I think it will always be a reported activity rather than an observed activity, since it's in the past and not related to the current case).  The activity that the case manager records will indicate that one of the contacts in the activity (either the source or the target) was in the role of "regulator".  The activity record will have a date, and may contain a note about the extent or nature of the involvement.   The case manager indicates that the activity in which the regulator was one of the contacts is NOT directly related to this case (by selecting N from a single select, Y/N field).

 No regulatory body involvement

Here's how we're planning to record this in the CiviCRM structure.

The case manager will just not record either of the two activities, from which the conclusion will be drawn that there is no regulatory involvement in the case.  This is actually slightly different from asking the question and getting "no" for an answer, but I think it probably matches the operational reality where it's not usually possible to determine that the absence of something is the same as failing to ask/record a negative.  The default assumption, then, is that there is no regulatory involvement unless it is recorded.

v1.1 (updates to 1.0 planned for implementation in Ontario)