May 2007 ISSUE
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE & ETHICS CORNER
APEGGA members with professional practice or ethics questions are welcome to
mail them to Ray Chopiuk, P.Eng., Director, Professional Practice, APEGGA, 1500
Scotia One, 10060 Jasper AV NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 4A2; fax them to 780-426-1877;
or
e-mail them to rchopiuk@apega.ca.
Q What is the difference between APEGGA’s practice reviews and peer reviews?
As part of its regulatory role, APEGGA has an obligation to ensure that the practices of engineering, geology and geophysics are conducted in a competent and professional manner. One means to achieve that objective is practice reviews of permit-holding organizations and individuals. APEGGA’s Practice Review Board conducts these reviews under the authority of Section 16 of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act.
In keeping with the act and regulations, practice reviews focus primarily on members’ competence to continue practicing and on whether the professions are being practiced within acceptable standards. However, the reviews are also potential opportunities for members to gain valuable insight into improving their practices and delivering their professional services. Nevertheless, it is mandatory to comply with a review initiated under the legislation.
Permit holders or individuals are usually chosen at random. They are sent a practice review guide and are required to submit a completed questionnaire and a copy of their Professional Practice Management Plan. The Practice Review Board assigns one of its members to review the documentation and conduct an initial practice review at the permit holder’s or individual’s office. The interview usually takes no more than a couple of hours or so.
The review looks at scope of practice, professional resources, facilities and technical resources, professional documents and records, and quality control.
The board member submits a report on the review to the Practice Review Board. In most cases, the practice is found to be satisfactory and the member is advised that the review is concluded. Occasionally, the board implements a more rigorous audit procedure if the outcome of an initial practice review indicates that further investigation is necessary. Such reviews proceed in accordance with the framework outlined in the act and regulations.
In some instances over the past several years, the in-depth reviews or investigations that resulted from the initial reviews have led to restrictions being placed on members’ practices, to alerts being issued to municipal authorities, and to complaints of unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct being lodged with the Investigative Committee. In other instances, the in-depth reviews have simply resulted in recommendations being made for improvement of the members’ professional practices.
Peer reviews are different from regulatory practice reviews, although fellow
professionals are involved in both instances. In a peer review, a firm chooses
to pay an agency such as ASFE or the American Council of Engineering Companies
to do an assessment of its performance and to identify potential improvements
in the firm’s business, project, financial and human resource management.
A peer review also assesses marketing practices, business development opportunities,
facilities, etc.
In that regard, peer reviews have a different purpose and scope and are distinct
from the regulatory practice reviews that the Practice Review Board conducts
for the purpose of assessing a member’s fitness to continue professional
practice.
Peer reviews are discussed more fully in Section 4 of APEGGA’s Guideline for Professional Practice, which is viewable at www.apega.ca/pdf/Guidelines/ 16.pdf.