[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-277116-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-277116-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","board-of-osteopathic-examiners-in-medicine-and-surgery-report-highlights-april-2001","Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery - Report Highlights - April 2001","","April 2001 report highlights the Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery’s mission to protect public health through licensing, discipline for unprofessional conduct, and consumer information. It concludes the Board often fails to take warranted disciplinary action, delays or does not open complaints, and keeps inaccurate and incomplete complaint records. It identifies weaknesses in investigations, decision-making, timeliness, and record deletion rules that can limit available disciplinary evidence.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/forms/","Forms",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/board-of-osteopathic-examiners-in-medicine-and-surgery-report-highlights-april-2001/277116/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/board-of-osteopathic-examiners-in-medicine-and-surgery-report-highlights-april-2001/277116.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Fez","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-23","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the Board’s stated mission in the report?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To protect public health and safety by licensing osteopathic physicians, disciplining unprofessional conduct, and providing consumer information.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why does the report say the Board often fails to take warranted disciplinary action?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It frequently does not open complaints when notified of malpractice settlements or judgments, resolves complaints slowly, and maintains inaccurate or incomplete complaint records, leading to inadequate outcomes.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How does the report recommend improving investigations and decision-making?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Investigations should be complete, staff should interview complainants and support conclusions on standard-of-care and evidence for each allegation, and the Board should use disciplinary guidelines and check disciplinary history before adjudication.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},277116,1790343445,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,113,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":110,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":26},2336478940794,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | . |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  | \u003Cbr>| \u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery\u003Cbr>(Report Highlights)\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  | April 2001\u003Cbr>The Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery’s (Board) mission is to protect public health and safety by licensing osteopathic physicians, disciplining physicians guilty of unprofessional conduct, and providing consumer information. Osteopathic physicians qualify for unlimited medical practice just as do allopathic physicians (MDs).\u003Cbr>Our Conclusions: The Board frequently fails to take disciplinary action when warranted. In addition, the Board has not been opening complaints when notified of medical malpractice settlements or judgements, and is slow in resolving complaints. Further, the Board’s complaint records are inaccurate and incomplete. Finally, the Board had to reduce its staff and its budget and receive emergency funding due to a financial crisis caused by overspending. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  | \u003Cbr>The Board can protect the public by investigating and adjudicating instances where physicians may have violated the Board’sunprofessional conduct statutes. The Board’s statutes define the appropriate actions the Board should take in response to complaints. Specifically, the Board should:\u003Cbr>􀀁 Dismiss the complaint if it is without merit;\u003Cbr>􀀁 Issue a Letter of Concern if the Board is concerned about the physician’s actions, but lacks evidence to prove a statutory violation; and\u003Cbr>􀀁 Discipline when the physician is found guilty of violating unprofessional conduct statutes. |  |  | The Board has a range of disciplinary options including:\u003Cbr>􀀁 Censure\u003Cbr>􀀁 Probation\u003Cbr>􀀁 Civil Penalties\u003Cbr>􀀁 Suspension or Revocation A dismissal or letter of concern is not considered a disciplinary action. However, in the last three years, most letters of concern have been issued when there is evidence that the physician violated unprofessional conduct\u003Cbr>statutes.\u003Cbr>Letters of Concern inappropriately issued (18) 72%\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>Letters of Concern appropriately issued (7)\u003Cbr>28%\u003Cbr>In addition, 4 of 30 dismissed complaints had evidence of unprofessional conduct; therefore the Board should have disciplined the physicians. |  |  |  |  |\n\nReport No 01-06  \nPage 1  \nA physician, licensed in Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, failed to diagnose his patient’slung cancer.  \n􀀁 Florida:  \n􀀁 Issued a reprimand;  \n􀀁 Imposed a $3,500 fine; and  \n􀀁 Ordered additional education  \n􀀁 Ohio accepted a surrender of his license.  \n􀀁 Pennsylvania imposed an $800 fine;  \n􀀁 Arizona issued a letter ofconcern.  \nThe Board should improve investigations—Staff do not always investigate every complaint allegation nor interview every complainant. Investigations also lack conclusions regarding:  \n􀀁 Whether evidence supports every complaint allegation  \n􀀁 Whether the physician met the standard of care.  \nThe Board should improve its decisionmaking processes—The Board can also improve how it reviews and adjudicates cases. Currently, the Board does not reach a formal conclusion for each allegation as to whether a violation has occurred. In addition, the Board does not:  \n􀀃 Use disciplinary guidelines, as other boards do, for consistency in deciding penalties.  \n􀀃 Always check to see if a physician has a history of letters of concern or disciplinary actions to see if progressive discipline is warranted.  \nThe Board should:  \n􀀁Take disciplinary action when a physician violates the Board’s unprofessional conduct statutes  \n􀀁Ensure that staff perform complete investigations and provide conclusions on whether the physician met the standard of care  \n􀀁Before discussing penalties, determine for each allegation whether a violation has occurred  \n􀀁Establish and use disciplinary guidelines  \n􀀁Review a physician’s letter of concern and disciplinary history prior to adjudication.  \nComplaints come from two main sou","cbCaigPKpUf140jd","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigPKpUf140jd","pdf",106337,"English","# Report Highlights\n## Mission and conclusions\n## Appropriate actions and disciplinary options\n## Investigation and decision-making gaps\n## Complaint sources and timeliness\n## Complaint database accuracy\n## Statutory change and record deletion impacts","[{\"question\":\"What is the Board’s stated mission in the report?\",\"answer\":\"To protect public health and safety by licensing osteopathic physicians, disciplining unprofessional conduct, and providing consumer information.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the report say the Board often fails to take warranted disciplinary action?\",\"answer\":\"It frequently does not open complaints when notified of malpractice settlements or judgments, resolves complaints slowly, and maintains inaccurate or incomplete complaint records, leading to inadequate outcomes.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the report recommend improving investigations and decision-making?\",\"answer\":\"Investigations should be complete, staff should interview complainants and support conclusions on standard-of-care and evidence for each allegation, and the Board should use disciplinary guidelines and check disciplinary history before adjudication.\"}]","Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery - Report Highlights - April 2001 | PDF",1789497906]