Some boards, in fact, plan to use a series of markers to identify doctors whose competence may be in question, such as a string of malpractice cases or failing successive attempts to become recertified by a specialty board. If we can get somebody trained back up to minimum standards, everyone's a winner. If the assessment is utilized early on, when a pattern of problematic care is first suspected, physicians may be able to avoid protracted and costly challenges to their licenses. Board investigations could be cut short if doctors demonstrate that their practice is, indeed, up to snuff. Or licensure restrictions could be focused on a particular aspect of a doctor's practice if deficits identified are not wide-ranging.
Consumer advocates support the concept of broader clinical assessments and remediation.
But they emphasize that this kind of work should not be a substitute for sanctions. Even when something's been caught at an early phase, the public deserves to know about it. Perhaps it's that view that typically makes doctors who undergo assessments at a board's direction initially defensive, even though referral for assessment alone generally will not be a reportable disciplinary action. Those who support the concept, though, believe it's a fair process that ultimately should benefit both individual doctors and the profession overall. This process works when the physicians who may be clients and those of us who are educators are able to approach it with a little bit of humility and look to the greater good, the welfare of the community we serve.