Why Quantifying Recidivism After Remediation Is So Difficult: The Experience of an Education Provider

Abstract

Regulator-ordered sanctions for professional offenses committed by clinicians often include remedial coursework to address ethics, boundary or professionalism lapses. The purpose of requiring remedial coursework is to protect the public by reducing clinicians’ likelihood of reoffending, thereby avoiding recidivism. Although there are ways of assessing remedial course effectiveness, accurately quantifying their effectiveness at reducing recidivism is fraught with challenges. This article describes one course provider’s follow-up of a subset of licensees who attended remedial courses in ethics, professionalism and/or boundaries for a period of six to 11 years after course graduation. The article presents descriptive statistics from a review of members of this cohort who had post-course encounters with their regulator. The process of tracking this cohort for subsequent allegations or board actions uncovered many reasons why accurately quantifying recidivism after remediation is so difficult. By illuminating obstacles to the accurate tracking of professional conduct post-discipline, this review contributes to a more nuanced understanding of ways in which future studies of recidivism might be improved. It concludes by identifying factors that can facilitate such future studies and generating recommendations for consideration by regulators and professional organizations.