PURPOSE: Previous studies discussing the risk of medical misconduct amongst anesthesiologists differ in their conclusions. In Canada, there is a paucity of data regarding demographic information, disciplinary findings, and penalties received by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to identify potential characteristics for discipline within the specialty of anesthesiology by ascertaining disciplinary findings and types of penalties received by anesthesiologists and comparing these with cases of disciplinary action against other Canadian physicians. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort design, we constructed a database of all Canadian physicians disciplined by their respective provincial and territorial regulatory colleges between 2000-2011. We collected and compared physician demographic information, types of disciplinary findings, and penalties received by anesthesiologists and other physicians during that time period. RESULTS: Between 2000-2011, various physicians were disciplined 721 times in Canada. Nine anesthesiologists were found guilty of 11 (1.5%) disciplinary findings. One anesthesiologist was disciplined three separate times. All anesthesiologists subject to discipline were males, ten (90.9%) were independent practitioners, and almost two-thirds (63.6%) were international medical graduates. The most common types of disciplinary findings were related to standard of care issues, inappropriate prescribing, and fraudulent behaviour. Anesthesiologists appeared less likely than other physicians to be disciplined for sexual misconduct and unprofessional behaviour. CONCLUSION: Anesthesiologists in Canada have been subject to low rates of disciplinary action. Specifically, there have been low rates of sexual misconduct and unprofessional behaviour. Interventions to reduce disciplinary findings in anesthesiology could be directed toward bolstering education relating to standard of care issues, prescribing practices, and fraudulent behaviour.
PURPOSE: Previous studies discussing the risk of medical misconduct amongst anesthesiologists differ in their conclusions. In Canada, there is a paucity of data regarding demographic information, disciplinary findings, and penalties received by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to identify potential characteristics for discipline within the specialty of anesthesiology by ascertaining disciplinary findings and types of penalties received by anesthesiologists and comparing these with cases of disciplinary action against other Canadian physicians. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort design, we constructed a database of all Canadian physicians disciplined by their respective provincial and territorial regulatory colleges between 2000-2011. We collected and compared physician demographic information, types of disciplinary findings, and penalties received by anesthesiologists and other physicians during that time period. RESULTS: Between 2000-2011, various physicians were disciplined 721 times in Canada. Nine anesthesiologists were found guilty of 11 (1.5%) disciplinary findings. One anesthesiologist was disciplined three separate times. All anesthesiologists subject to discipline were males, ten (90.9%) were independent practitioners, and almost two-thirds (63.6%) were international medical graduates. The most common types of disciplinary findings were related to standard of care issues, inappropriate prescribing, and fraudulent behaviour. Anesthesiologists appeared less likely than other physicians to be disciplined for sexual misconduct and unprofessional behaviour. CONCLUSION: Anesthesiologists in Canada have been subject to low rates of disciplinary action. Specifically, there have been low rates of sexual misconduct and unprofessional behaviour. Interventions to reduce disciplinary findings in anesthesiology could be directed toward bolstering education relating to standard of care issues, prescribing practices, and fraudulent behaviour.
Authors: Jessica J Liu; Asim Q Alam; Hanna R Goldberg; John Justin Matelski; Chaim M Bell Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.889