About the standard
The Non-Treating Medical Examinations standard is under review after being issued by Council in January 2010. The addition of a preamble, definitions and other revisions better communicate roles and expectations, provide improved clarity and context, and protect examinees and members from misunderstandings and potential complaints. The inclusion of potential conflicts of interest and identified eligibility requirements strengthen impartiality and clarify expectations. Requirements added around consent help reinforce ethical safeguards while also supporting member autonomy.
What’s changed?
- The addition of a preamble and a list of definitions provides context, clarifying roles and expectations to protect examinees and members from potential misunderstandings.
- Identifying eligibility requirements and potential conflicts of interest provides clarity and strengthens impartiality.
- Amendments around communicating with examinees improves transparency, with the potential to reduce complaints.
- Revisions and additions highlighting consent requirements reinforce ethical safeguards and preserve regulated member autonomy.
View the draft standard
For your convenience, the draft standard has clean and marked copies available.
All ResourcesYour opinion matters
Changes to CPSA’s Standards of Practice impact your day-to-day practice. Your feedback is important to us, as it helps us develop clear, reasonable expectations and helpful, applicable resources. We appreciate the time you take and the input you provide.
CPSA regulated members, partner organizations, other healthcare professionals and Albertans are invited to provide feedback from Oct. 7 to Nov. 6, 2025. Feedback may be provided via survey, email or the comment form below.
Anonymized feedback will be considered by Council. Once amendments are finalized and approved by Council, members will be notified by email and The Messenger newsletter.
We respect your privacy
All feedback is subject to CPSA’s Privacy Statement. CPSA reviews all comments before publication to ensure there is no offensive language, personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations.
Other feedback on this standard
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Non-Treating Medical Examinations SOP. It is clear and an improvement on the previous document. I wonder about how best to ensure that undergraduate and postgraduate health professionals are made aware of these and other documents. While the "devil in the details" may be disarming, the CPSA's SOP approach is vital to quality, safety and quality improvement. Who within the CPSA and our respective medical schools are collaborating on this?
I have done 3000 NTMEs over the past 40 years and assisted the CPSA with their initial IME guidelines in the early 1990s. I like the updated version but have one concern about the documentation of consent. Many IME providers now ask that I obtain a signature on a 3 page form written by a committee of lawyers. Lawyers themselves will provide a simple consent in advance if it’s their own client and routinely tell the client to refuse to sign anything when acting as opposing counsel. When presented with a 3 page document, the examinee will often ask for an explanation of the document. My golf buddies who also happen to be judges tell me that this is giving legal advice! I have therefore declined to do this and have told the third party to obtain this consent beforehand. As always, I give a detailed and nuanced verbal description of what’s happening for at least
3 minutes before I proceed. Is documenting this conversation in the report sufficient?
My golf buddies tell me that allowing someone to sign something they actually don’t understand is actually potentially worse
We want to year from you!
Send us an email with your feedback.