Summary#
Bill 40 would amend New Brunswick’s existing Health Quality and Patient Safety Act and its regulation, not create a separate health agency. Its stated aim is to improve the quality and safety of health services; the bill would require more incident reviews, patient disclosures, improvement planning and data reporting. Only the first-reading text is provided, so later amendments or changes made before passage cannot be confirmed.
- The Health Minister must establish and maintain a Quality of Care and Patient Safety Advisory Committee. The proposed regulation sets its membership, including at least one patient, family member or caregiver, and says it advises the Minister.
- A staff member who discovers a patient safety incident must report it to the health care organization. The organization must review “critical events” and “multiple-patient events”; it may review other incidents in specified circumstances.
- An organization must tell a patient about an incident if it caused harm or the organization finds an ongoing safety risk. When available, it must share relevant facts, required care and any approved review recommendations.
- Organizations must submit annual quality improvement plans and reports, follow Minister-set requirements, and carry out activities required by the Minister. The Minister may approve funding for these activities and may withhold payments for non-compliance.
- The bill changes confidentiality and evidence rules: some quality and surveillance information must be shared with government or committees, while much is protected from disclosure. Apologies cannot be treated as admissions of fault or liability.
What it means for you#
- Patients: If an incident harmed you or presents an ongoing safety risk, the organization must notify you as soon as circumstances permit. When available, it must disclose the listed information. You may request the incident report, free of charge. The organization may also tell you about resulting improvement activities.
- Health care staff: The staff member who discovers an incident must submit a report as soon as circumstances permit. The bill does not require every reported incident to be reviewed.
- Health care organizations: They must conduct reviews of critical and multiple-patient events, prepare reports after reviews, and submit annual plans and reports. They must also maintain incident-reporting systems and share specified data. Regional health authorities must make additional data submissions beginning on the dates below.
- Public and taxpayers: Organizations may disclose some reports or performance information to the public, but the bill does not require general public release of all incident information. The bill does not directly change taxes, health-service eligibility or benefits.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated cost.
- The Minister may approve funding for improvement activities and may set or change conditions on that funding. The Minister may withhold all or part of payments for non-compliance.
- Organizations must supply staff time and systems for reporting, reviews and improvement planning; no staffing levels or costs are stated.
- Regional health authorities’ submissions to two national reporting systems start April 1, 2027, and December 1, 2027.
What is unclear#
- The Act text says plans and reports go to the Minister; the proposed regulation says annual plans and reports go to the Advisory Committee. The bill does not explain how these directions fit together.
- The bill does not provide the definition of “health care organization” from the existing Act. The parent Act was not supplied, so the full current-law coverage and how much is new compared with current practice could not be verified.
- The Minister has broad power to set standards, policies, reporting details and required improvement activities. The bill does not set out a review or appeal process for those decisions.
- The bill does not specify when reviews must be completed, how the Minister decides whether a risk needs public notice, or how patients and families take part in reviews.
- The bill permits disclosure of some information, including surveillance information that may contain personal health information. The detailed rules governing that disclosure are not all set out in the bill text.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that mandatory reviews of the most serious or widespread events could help organizations identify causes and reduce repeat risks.
- Requiring patient notification, relevant facts and available recommendations could give affected patients more information about what happened and what care they need.
- Standardized incident data and annual plans could help the Minister and organizations identify safety patterns and track improvement.
- A patient or family representative on the Advisory Committee could bring patient experience into advice to the Minister.
Case against#
- One concern is that organizations must follow Minister-set standards and activities, and funding can be withheld, while the bill does not spell out an appeal process or limits on those decisions.
- Broad collection and sharing of surveillance information could raise privacy concerns, even though the bill sets confidentiality rules and limits some disclosures.
- The bill does not set review deadlines or explain how recommendations will be checked or enforced after committees approve them.
- It is unclear how much the new reporting and committee duties will cost, or whether organizations will receive enough funding to meet them.