Characteristics, Predictors and Reasons for Regulatory Body Disciplinary Action in Health Care: A Scoping Review

Abstract

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.

The Government as Plaintiff: An Analysis of Medical Litigation Against Healthcare Providers in the Eastern Province of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

“…Second, previous studies have highlighted the need for more research in the area of medicolegal and disciplinary action against HCPs in contexts other than the United States. 1 Thus, findings of this study would contribute to the international literature and allow for comparative studies. Third, the study uses inferential analysis to identify significant predictors of receiving a guilty verdict and a specific type of verdict, respectively, moving away from descriptive studies that account for most of medical litigation literature, especially in KSA.…”

“…Such knowledge is important because it reflects a form of governmental oversight within the healthcare sector. Second, previous studies have highlighted the need for more research in the area of medicolegal and disciplinary action against HCPs in contexts other than the United States 1 . Thus, findings of this study would contribute to the international literature and allow for comparative studies.…”

“…Although various stakeholders can provoke medical litigation against healthcare providers (HCPs), patients have been the main plaintiff in litigations. 1,2 Governments have also incurred disciplinary actions on HCPs given medical litigations filed by patients. 3,4 Such actions reflect governmental oversight, which can take different forms with various foci.…”

“…Potential liability in healthcare may arise from malpractice, negligence, and deviation from standards of care or failure to uphold a duty of care. Although various stakeholders can provoke medical litigation against healthcare providers (HCPs), patients have been the main plaintiff in litigations 1,2 . Governments have also incurred disciplinary actions on HCPs given medical litigations filed by patients 3,4 .…”