Patient Care and Quality Review Board Secretary

The Patient Care and Quality Review Board Secretary was NOT listed as an independent public body at the start of 2024 under British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Information Management Act.

The following Patient Care and Quality Review Boards are independent public bodies that would be considered part of the broader public sector within these laws. Vancouver Coastal, Fraser Valley, Island, Northern, Interior, PHSA.

FIPA submitted focused FOI requests to each Patient Care and Quality Review Board to determine how the public body was interpreting and applying freedom of information and information management laws. While each Patient Care and Quality Review Board is an independent public body, their shared response came from a coordinating secretary.

They responded with the following linked documents.

As of January 2025, based on the documents released, we considered the following:

Is the organization likely meeting the expectations of British Columbia residents for a public body as identified in polling conducted by IPSOS?

Overall

unlikely

accountability and governance

unlikely

Do the documents indicate that:

They comply with and implement laws passed by the legislative assembly.
They act on the recommendations that they receive from independent oversight bodies like the Ombudsperson, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Representative for Children and Youth, and Auditor General.
They create and maintain full and accurate records necessary for the efficient and effective administration of activities.
That they exercise their discretion in releasing information considering the public interest in disclosure.

records management

unlikely

Do the documents indicate that:

They maintain accurate and complete records of their activities.
They are able to readily find and retrieve records.
They align records management systems to international standards.
They have an organization-specific set of policies and procedures about records management and open government.
They maintain and regularly review organization-specific file classification plans that are used to organize records.

accessibility and fees

unlikely

Do the documents indicate that:

They identify and regularly review types of documents and data that can be released without request.
They respond to freedom of information requests within the 30-business day statutory timelines unless a specific, articulable, and legitimate reason can be given to extend the timeline otherwise.
They respect that fees are a barrier to access and do not charge the optional $10 application fee.
They ensure the use of fees is principled and restricted to evidence-based calculations for processing large and complex requests, rather than on arbitrary estimates.
They ensure that when fees are used, the applicant is paying for a large and complex request rather than poor records management on the part of the public body.

Our Observations:

Besides a memo and its “Guide for Records Management on the LAN,” this public body did not have any of the features necessary for a complete implementation of FOIPPA or IMA. We suspect this is a function of resources limitations.

This is a part of FIPA’s ongoing monitoring and research of freedom of information in BC. https://fipa.bc.ca/research-resources/access-assessments/

These records will also be used in the analysis and publication of a more in-depth study. Access Regimes: Social Studies of Recordkeeping, Bureaucracy, and Secrecy under Freedom of Information Law https://osf.io/n2xmu.

People like you help fund FIPA research like this.

You help us stay independent and keep these resources available to everyone. Every contribution – big, small, one-time, or recurring – makes a difference.

Click here to support this work

Other public bodies being assessed:

Core Government

Broader Public Sector

20250525 PRB-PS-CTL-Web Download