Consumer background and composition on state medical boards: Who are these citizen members and do they adequately protect the public?

The composition and background of members of state medical boards, including public or citizen members, can impact the functionality and public perception of medical boards in the United States. This study analyzed the number of public members on each state medical board and their professional backgrounds or expertise to regulate the medical profession. The findings show that for nearly half of state medical boards public members comprise at least a quarter of their voting members; however, more than half of public members for all state medical boards have no measurable medical experience or background, including in patient safety. The need for public members to have medical expertise or background – especially in patient safety -- is discussed along with potential policy recommendations.

Expert Psychiatric Evidence in Sexual Misconduct Cases Before State Medical Boards

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800007085 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 18 (3) ◽

pp. 171-201

Author(s):

Andrew L. Hyams

Keyword(s):

Sexual Abuse ◽

Child Sexual Abuse ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Sexual Misconduct ◽

The Public ◽

Medical Board ◽

Current State ◽

Rules Of Evidence ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

The growing problem of physician sexual misconduct has captured the attention not only of the medical and legal communities, but of the public as well. State medical boards, administrative agencies with generous rules of evidence and varying levels of expertise, face the difficult task of responding to patients’ allegations of physician sexual abuse. This Article, based in large part on the author's survey of current state medical board practice, reveals an increasing reliance on expert psychiatric testimony to explain the behavior of complainants and accused physicians. Drawing analogies from the use of psychiatric evidence in child sexual abuse cases, the author examines the factors that boards must consider in determining the admissibility of expert testimony in physician sexual misconduct cases, and calls upon states to establish clear evidentiary rules to govern the use of such testimony in administrative hearings.

State Medical Board Disciplinary Hearings as Tools for Teaching Professionalism in Medical Education

10.30770/2572-1852-97.3.8 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 97 (3) ◽

pp. 8-12

Author(s):

Onelia G. Lage ◽

Sydney F. Pomenti ◽

Edwin Hayes ◽

Kristen Barrie ◽

Nancy Baker

Keyword(s):

Medical Students ◽

Ethics Education ◽

Faculty Members ◽

Specific Method ◽

Pilot Studies ◽

Medical Board ◽

Medical Institutions ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

State Medical Board ◽

The Impact

ABSTRACT This article proposes a partnership of state medical boards with medical schools to supplement professionalism and ethics education for medical students, residents, physicians and faculty members of medical institutions. The importance of professionalism has been recognized by several studies, but a specific method of teaching and developing professionalism has yet to emerge. Studies suggest that there is an association between a lack of professionalism in medical school and future disciplinary actions by medical boards. However, there has been little collaboration between these institutions in addressing unprofessional behaviors. One collaborative concept that holds promise, however, is the idea of inviting medical students to attend physician disciplinary hearings. Students and physicians alike report that watching a hearing can significantly impact attitudes about professionalism as a part of medical practice. While formal research is scarce, the positive response of individual students who experience disciplinary hearings firsthand suggests that further pilot studies may be useful. Presented in this paper are the perspectives of three individuals — a medical student, a faculty member and a medical board chair — who discuss the impact and potential of attending disciplinary hearings in developing professionalism and ethics. Also included is a review of the current literature.

Characteristics of Physicians Referred for a Competence Assessment: A Comparison of State Medical Board and Hospital Referred Physicians

10.30770/2572-1852-96.3.8 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 96 (3) ◽

pp. 8-15 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Elizabeth S. Grace ◽

Elizabeth J. Korinek ◽

Zung V. Tran

Keyword(s):

Clinical Competence ◽

Competence Assessment ◽

Average Performance ◽

Medical Board ◽

Key Characteristics ◽

Different Types ◽

Specialty Board ◽

And Performance ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

ABSTRACT This study compares key characteristics and performance of physicians referred to a clinical competence assessment and education program by state medical boards (boards) and hospitals. Physicians referred by boards (400) and by hospitals (102) completed a CPEP clinical competence assessment between July 2002 and June 2010. Key characteristics, self-reported specialty, and average performance rating for each group are reported and compared. Results show that, compared with hospital-referred physicians, board-referred physicians were more likely to be male (75.5% versus 88.3%), older (average age 54.1 versus 50.3 years), and less likely to be currently specialty board certified (80.4% versus 61.8%). On a scale of 1 (best) to 4 (worst), average performance was 2.62 for board referrals and 2.36 for hospital referrals. There were no significant differences between board and hospital referrals in the percentage of physicians who graduated from U.S. and Canadian medical schools. The most common specialties referred differed for boards and hospitals. Conclusion: Characteristics of physicians referred to a clinical competence program by boards and hospitals differ in important respects. The authors consider the potential reasons for these differences and whether boards and hospitals are dealing with different subsets of physicians with different types of performance problems. Further study is warranted.

State Medical Board Exposure to Threats of Violence

10.30770/2572-1852-99.3.11 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 99 (3) ◽

pp. 11-17

Author(s):

Kelly C. Alfred ◽

Timothy Turner ◽

Aaron Young

Keyword(s):

Threat Assessment ◽

The State ◽

Board Members ◽

Security Level ◽

Stressful Situation ◽

Medical Board ◽

Local Law Enforcement ◽

Training Resources ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

ABSTRACT Between 2010 and 2012, the Federation of State Medical Boards Research and Education Foundation (FSMB Foundation) conducted a survey of state medical boards in an effort to ascertain the extent to which state medical board members and staff have experienced threats of violence and the actions taken by state boards in response to such threats. The survey also assessed current and anticipated levels of security being provided by state boards. Of the 70 boards queried, 37 responded, with 73% (n=27) of these boards reporting that their board members and/or staff had experienced either explicit or implied threats of violence. These threats targeted board members (85%), board staff (78%) and others (15%). Many of the threats directed at board members occurred after board meetings and/or hearings and were made by either a physician or a family member of a physician. Most of the threats directed at board members, staff and others were verbal, including threats of death. Most boards provide a security presence at board meetings, ranging from local law enforcement agencies to private security firms, but less than half of the respondents in the survey expressed satisfaction with their present security level. The results of the survey suggest that the state medical board community should be aware of the potential for violence against board members and staff, and should formulate prevention and threat-assessment policies as a precaution. Educational and training resources may be needed at the state board level. This could include the development of educational modules to train state public officials in conflict management, the prevention and handling of acts of violence, and how to identify and assess the seriousness of a potentially violent or stressful situation.

Food vs. fuel — A turning point for bioethanol?

Acta Agronomica Hungarica ◽

10.1556/aagr.56.2008.4.8 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 56 (4) ◽

pp. 429-433 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

K. Harlander

Keyword(s):

Agricultural Production ◽

Public Perception ◽

Turning Point ◽

The United States ◽

The Public ◽

The Us ◽

Additional Demand ◽

Oil Crisis ◽

Emotional Resistance ◽

The Eu

Bioethanol is made from sugar- or starch-containing plants that are also used in food production. In the public perception this has led to an emotional resistance against biofuels, which in real terms is not substantiated. Generally biofuels are a political product. Triggered by the oil crisis in the 1970s, fuel ethanol programmes were first launched in Brazil and in the United States. Concerns regarding energy security and sustainability, together with the option of new markets for surplus agricultural production, have led to similar measures in the EU and other countries in recent years. Accordingly, the industry invested heavily in new bioethanol plants — especially in the US — and created an additional demand for maize and wheat, with some record-breaking prices noted in late 2007. A look back into statistics shows a drastic decline in real prices for decades, which have now simply returned to the level of 30 years ago. The grain used for bioethanol is currently only 1.6% in the EU and is therefore unlikely to be the real driver of price development. The European Commission concludes in its review of agricultural markets that Europe can do both: nutrition and biofuels.

In Search of a New Ethic for Treating Patients with Chronic Pain: What Can Medical Boards Do?

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1111/j.1748-720x.1998.tb01679.x ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 26 (4) ◽

pp. 332-349 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Ann M. Martino

Keyword(s):

Chronic Pain ◽

Opioid Analgesics ◽

Conventional Wisdom ◽

High Profile ◽

Medical Board ◽

Medical Establishment ◽

The Press ◽

Substantial Risk ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

A decade ago, conventional wisdom in the medical establishment was that physicians treating chronic pain with opioid analgesics were at a substantial risk of being sanctioned for overprescribing by state medical regulatory boards. Dozens of articles written since have alluded to this risk as an obstacle to effective pain re1ief. In the early 1990s, a number of high profile cases in which physicians were disciplined by regulatory boards for overprescribing to patients with chronic pain were reported in the press. Although the board actions in many of these cases were eventually overturned by state judiciaries, the publicity heightened practitioners’. sensitivity to the regulatory risks associated with prescribing opioids.A review of the available data on state medical board actions nationwide for the period from 1990 to 1996 reveals that the perception of regulatory risk far exceeds the reality. Indeed, relatively few (less than 5 percent) of the disciplinary actions taken for overprescribing by state medical boards in any given year directly concern the treatment of chronic pain—malignant or nonmalignant—in patients.

The Effect of State Medical Board Action on ABMS Specialty Board Certification

10.30770/2572-1852-105.2.33 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 105 (2) ◽

pp. 33-41

Author(s):

Michael L. Farrell

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Care ◽

Board Certification ◽

Medical Board ◽

Specialty Board ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

State Medical Board ◽

Board Action

ABSTRACT State medical board action that is deemed a restriction by an ABMS specialty board can result in a loss of board certification, impacting a physician's ability to practice, and frustrating a medical board's efforts to rehabilitate the physician and improve the quality of care provided to patients. State medical boards have difficulty predicting what types of actions constitute a restriction by a specialty board and imposing appropriate discipline because specialty boards use varying criteria to evaluate state medical board action. ABMS specialty boards experience frustration of their own when attempting to interpret actions from 70 separate state medical boards, each governed by its own laws and using its own nomenclature. This article summarizes the inconsistency of both specialty boards and state medical boards, describes the efforts to resolve this issue, and proposes a series of steps that will bring a higher degree of predictability to this process and meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Public Perceptions of the Podiatrist and the DPM Degree

Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association ◽

10.7547/0980223 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 99 (3) ◽

pp. 223-231 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Michael D. Akers ◽

Jennifer M. VanDemark-Teplica ◽

Alex Kiss ◽

Donna M. Alfieri ◽

Maureen B. Jennings

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Public Perception ◽

The United States ◽

Public Perceptions ◽

Public Knowledge ◽

Foot Surgery ◽

Heart Problem ◽

The Public

Background: The purpose of this study was to ascertain public perception of the terms podiatry and DPM. Methods: We distributed a survey to 847 people in ten states across the United States. It was hypothesized that most respondents would be less familiar with the DPM degree than the term podiatrist. It was also expected that people would choose MD over DPM for more complex procedures. Results: The majority of respondents selected a podiatrist and a DPM as a foot specialist, almost one-half selected DPM for foot surgery, but only one-third stated they would have foot surgery done by a DPM if they had a heart problem. In addition, it was hypothesized that respondents would choose the contrived PMD over DPM simply because PMD looks more like MD; this was not shown to be true. Conclusions: Although there are gaps in the public knowledge, our study revealed a greater familiarity with podiatry and the DPM degree than originally thought. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(3): 223–231, 2009)

How will state medical boards handle cases involving disclosure and apology for medical errors?

Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management ◽

10.1177/25160435211070096 ◽

2022 ◽

pp. 251604352110700

Author(s):

Doug Wojcieszak

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Patient Safety ◽

Medical Errors ◽

The United States ◽

Completion Rate ◽

Policy Makers ◽

State Medical Boards ◽

American State

Surveys were sent to 68 American state medical boards, including territories of the United States, inquiring how they handle—or will handle—cases involving disclosure and apology after medical errors. Surveys were not sent to specialty boards. Thirty-eight state medical boards ( n = 38, 56%) responded to the survey, with 31 completing the survey (46% completion rate) and seven boards ( n = 7) providing explanations for nonparticipation and other thoughts; 30 boards did not respond in any manner. Boards that completed the survey indicated that disclosure and apology and other positive post-event behavior by physicians are likely to be viewed favorably and disclosing physicians will not be easy targets for disciplinary measures, though boards also stressed they view each case on the merits and patient safety is their top priority. Recommendations are made for policy makers and other stakeholders.

A conceptual model for a geriatric fellowship in podiatric medicine

Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association ◽

10.7547/87507315-90-6-313 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 90 (6) ◽

pp. 313-319 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

AE Helfand

Keyword(s):

Medical Profession ◽

The United States ◽

Fellowship Training ◽

Direct Patient Care ◽

Health Care Needs ◽

Older Individuals ◽

Care Needs ◽

Foot Health ◽

The Public ◽

Professional Degree

The number of older individuals living in the United States is projected to increase significantly over the next few decades. To help meet the health-care needs of this growing population, podiatric medicine must assure the public of the availability of specially educated teachers and practitioners who can not only provide direct patient care, but also participate in establishing national policies and priorities pertaining to foot health. Fellowship training, the traditional educational model beyond the first professional degree and residency education, is one means of accomplishing this goal. This article proposes a model for a geriatric fellowship in podiatric medicine. Implementation of such fellowship training in geriatrics can help the podiatric medical profession pursue its mission and fulfill its responsibility to the public.