OBJECTIVES: We compare findings from 10 years of experience evaluating physicians referred for fitness-to-practice assessment to determine whether those referred for disruptive behavior are more or less likely to be declared fit for duty than those referred for mental health, substance abuse or sexual misconduct. METHOD: Deidentified data from 381 physicians evaluated by the Vanderbilt Comprehensive Assessment Program (2001-2012) were analyzed and compared to general physician population data and also to previous reports of physician psychiatric diagnosis found by MEDLINE search. RESULTS: Compared to the physicians referred for disruptive behavior (37.5% of evaluations), each of the other groups was statistically significantly less likely to be assessed as fit for practice [substance use, %: odds ratio (OR)=0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.10-0.47, P<.001; mental health, %: OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.06-0.31, P<.001; sexual boundaries, %: OR=0.27, 95% CI=0.13-0.58, P=.001]. CONCLUSIONS: The number of referrals to evaluate physicians presenting with behavior alleged to be disruptive to clinical care increased following the 2008 Joint Commission guidelines that extended responsibility for professional conduct outside the profession itself to the institutions wherein physicians work. Better strategies to identify and manage disruptive physician behavior may allow those physicians to return to practice safely in the workplace.
OBJECTIVES: We compare findings from 10 years of experience evaluating physicians referred for fitness-to-practice assessment to determine whether those referred for disruptive behavior are more or less likely to be declared fit for duty than those referred for mental health, substance abuse or sexual misconduct. METHOD: Deidentified data from 381 physicians evaluated by the Vanderbilt Comprehensive Assessment Program (2001-2012) were analyzed and compared to general physician population data and also to previous reports of physician psychiatric diagnosis found by MEDLINE search. RESULTS: Compared to the physicians referred for disruptive behavior (37.5% of evaluations), each of the other groups was statistically significantly less likely to be assessed as fit for practice [substance use, %: odds ratio (OR)=0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.10-0.47, P<.001; mental health, %: OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.06-0.31, P<.001; sexual boundaries, %: OR=0.27, 95% CI=0.13-0.58, P=.001]. CONCLUSIONS: The number of referrals to evaluate physicians presenting with behavior alleged to be disruptive to clinical care increased following the 2008 Joint Commission guidelines that extended responsibility for professional conduct outside the profession itself to the institutions wherein physicians work. Better strategies to identify and manage disruptive physician behavior may allow those physicians to return to practice safely in the workplace.
Keywords:
Comprehensive psychiatric assessment; Disruptive behavior; Fitness for duty; Fitness to practice; Medical ethics; Physician health and wellness; Professionalism; Psychiatric diagnosis
Authors: Richard J Iannelli; A J Reid Finlayson; Kimberly P Brown; Ron Neufeld; Roland Gray; Mary S Dietrich; Peter R Martin Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2014-06-28 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Glory E Mgboji; Fasika A Woreta; Michael J Fliotsos; Sidra Zafar; Joseph Ssekasanvu; Divya Srikumaran; Jiawei Zhao; Daniel L Buccino; Linda Regan Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-08-01
Authors: Betsy White Williams; Philip Flanders; Elizabeth S Grace; Elizabeth Korinek; Dillon Welindt; Michael V Williams Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Safar Abadi Alsaleem; Najwa Mohammed Almoalwi; Aesha Farheen Siddiqui; Mohammed Abadi Alsaleem; Awad S Alsamghan; Nabil J Awadalla; Ahmed A Mahfouz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 3.390