What research has been done to characterize the outcomes of disciplinary action or fitness-to-practice cases for regulated health professionals? To answer this research question, relevant publications were identified in PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, and Scopus. Included papers focused on reviews of regulatory body disciplinary action for regulated health professionals. Of 108 papers that were included, 84 studied reasons for discipline, 68 studied penalties applied, and 89 studied characteristics/predictors of discipline. Most were observational studies that used administrative data such as regulatory body discipline cases. Studies were published between 1990–2020, with two-thirds published from 2010–2020. Most research has focused on physicians (64%), nurses (10%), multiple health professionals (8.3%), dentists (6.5%) and pharmacists (5.5%). Most research has originated from the United States (53%), United Kingdom (16%), Australia (9.2%), and Canada (6.5%). Characteristics that were reviewed included: gender, age, years in practice, practice specialty, license type/profession, previous disciplinary action, board certification, and performance on licensing examinations. As most research has focused on physicians and has originated from the United States, more research on other professions and jurisdictions is needed. Lack of standardization in disciplinary processes and definitions used to categorize reasons for discipline is a barrier to comparison across jurisdictions and professions. Future research on characteristics and predictors should be used to improve equity, support practitioners, and decrease disciplinary action.
Background: Past research on disciplinary action by pharmacist regulatory bodies has shown that most cases concern community pharmacists, with few occurring in a hospital setting. Objective: To investigate how discipline-related issues involving pharmacists are dealt with by hospital pharmacy departments in Canada. Methods: Hospital pharmacy directors and managers from small, medium, and large hospitals across Canada were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews. The interview questions focused on the discipline process in participants’ organizations, the situations when reporting to the regulatory body is deemed to be warranted, possible penalties, and recommendations for improving the regulatory body or organizational discipline process. Results: Ten participants, from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, agreed to be interviewed. Five key themes emerged as contributing to lower rates of hospital pharmacist discipline cases being escalated to the regulatory college level: robust organizational discipline processes independent from the regulatory college, a practice environment promoting competence, union representation, preference for a remedial approach to discipline, and lack of clarity about when to report to the regulatory authority. Conclusions: This study identified a number of reasons why discipline of hospital pharmacists by a regulatory body may be less prevalent than discipline relating to community pharmacists. The main reasons may be lack of clarity about when to report a case to the regulator and a lack of transparency, given that many cases are handled internally within hospitals. Environmental supports for competence and employee protections (e.g., through a union) may also reduce discipline cases. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Des recherches antérieures sur les mesures disciplinaires prises par les organismes de réglementation des pharmaciens ont montré que la plupart des cas concernaient des pharmaciens communautaires, et que peu se produisaient en milieu hospitalier. Objectif : Examiner comment les questions disciplinaires impliquant des pharmaciens sont traitées par les départements de pharmacie hospitalière au Canada. Méthodes : Les directeurs et gestionnaires de pharmacies de petits, moyens et grands hôpitaux au Canada ont été invités à participer à des entrevues téléphoniques semi-structurées. Les questions portaient sur le processus disciplinaire en place dans les organismes des participants; les situations où le signalement à l’organisme de réglementation était jugé justifié; les sanctions possibles; et les recommandations pour améliorer le processus disciplinaire de l’organisme de réglementation ou de l’organisme. Résultats : Dix participants de la Colombie-Britannique, de la Saskatchewan, de l’Ontario, du Nouveau-Brunswick, de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard et de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador ont accepté d’être interrogés. Cinq thèmes clés ont été identifiés comme contribuant au taux plus faible de cas de discipline des pharmaciens hospitaliers remontés au niveau de l’organisme de réglementation : des processus disciplinaires organisationnels solides indépendants de l’organisme de réglementation; un environnement de pratique favorisant la compétence; la représentation syndicale; la préférence pour une approche corrective de la discipline; et le manque de clarté quant au moment où il faut signaler à l’autorité de réglementation. Conclusions : Cette étude a identifié un certain nombre de raisons pour lesquelles les mesures disciplinaires relatives des pharmaciens hospitaliers par un organisme de réglementation peuvent être moins répandues que celles liées aux pharmaciens communautaires. Les principales raisons pourraient être le manque de clarté quant au moment de signaler un cas à l’autorité réglementaire et un manque de transparence, étant donné que de nombreux cas sont traités en interne dans les hôpitaux. Les soutiens environnementaux pour la compétence et la protection des employés (par exemple, par l’entremise d’un syndicat) peuvent également réduire les cas de discipline.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.