MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327425612 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000000937

Characteristics of Internal Medicine Physicians Disciplined by Professional Colleges in Canada

2015· article· en· W2327425612 on OpenAlex
Jessica J. Liu, Asim Alam, Hanna R. Goldberg, John Matelski, Chaim M. Bell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyMisconductPatient careInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physician misconduct is of serious concern to patient safety and quality of care. Currently, there are limited data on disciplinary proceedings involving internal medicine (IM) physicians.The aim of this study was to investigate the number and nature of disciplinary cases among IM physicians compared with those of other disciplined physicians.Our retrospective study reviewed information from all provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons (CPS) and compiled a database of all disciplined physicians from 2000 to 2013 in Canada. Disciplinary rate differences (RDs) were calculated for IM physicians and compared with other physicians.From 2000 to 2013, overall disciplinary rates were low (9.6 cases per 10,000 physician years). There were 899 disciplinary cases, 49 of which involved 45 different IM physicians. IM physicians comprised 10.8% of all disciplined physicians and were disciplined at a lower rate than non-IM physicians, incurring 5.18 fewer cases per 10,000 physician years than other physicians (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.62-6.73; P < 0.001). They were significantly less likely to be disciplined for: unprofessional conduct (RD 1.16; CI 0.45-1.87; P = 0.001); unlicensed activity (RD 0.78; CI 0.37-1.19; P < 0.001); standard of care issues (RD 1.37; CI 0.49-2.26; P = 0.002); sexual misconduct (RD 1.65; CI 0.90-2.40; P < 0.001); miscellaneous (RD 0.80; CI 0.11-1.50; P = 0.020); mental illness (RD 0.06; CI 0.01-0.12; P = 0.025); inappropriate prescribing (RD 0.74; CI 0.15-1.33; P = 0.010); and criminal conviction (RD 0.33; CI 0.00-0.65; P = 0.048). No significant differences were found with respect to unclear violations, fraudulent behavior/prevarication, or offenses involving drugs/alcohol (all RDs less than 0.32). IM physicians were also less likely to incur the following penalties: voluntary license surrender (RD 0.53; CI 0.37-0.69; P < 0.001); suspension (RD 2.39; CI 1.26-3.51; P < 0.001); retraining/assessment (RD 1.58; CI 0.77-2.39; P < 0.001); restriction (RD 1.60; CI 0.74-2.46; P < 0.001); other (RD 0.52; CI 0.07-0.97; P = 0.030); formal reprimand (RD 2.78; CI 1.77-3.79; P < 0.001); or fine (RD 3.28; CI 1.89-4.67; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found with respect to revocation or mandated counseling/rehabilitation (all RDs less than 0.46).Generally, disciplinary rates among physicians were low. Compared with other physicians, IM physicians have significantly lower disciplinary rates overall and are less likely to incur the majority of disciplinary offenses and penalties.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it