I was surprised to see international medical school education among the factors associated with disciplinary action:
Male sex (OR, 2.76; P<.001), lack of board certification (OR, 2.22; P<.001), increasing age (OR, 1.64; P<.001), and international medical school education (OR, 1.36; P<.001) were associated with an elevated risk for disciplinary action that included license revocation, practice suspension, probation, and public reprimand.
Related posts:
- IMGs: Get used to it
- My take: Mid-levels, cost-shifting, IMGs
- Can we rely on IMGs to help with the primary care shortage?
- Medical relatives
- Primary care is supported by international medical graduates
- iPhone in action
- Why do so few Americans apply to medical school?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Some of those factors tend to aggregate. For example psychiatry has a very high proportion of foreign medical graduates and board non-certification. It also has a higher proportion of it’s practitioners still active at more advanced ages.
When I look at the monthly list of california practitioners disciplined, they are mostly unpronouncable names.
I would expect that, for a host of unsavory/discriminatory reasons, those with “unpronouncable names” are much easier for hospital boards to scapegoat and destroy/discard . . . even if that’s what not what peer review, in it’s purest/noblest form is supposed to accomplish.
Comments on this entry are closed.