Report card: How Rhode Island protects patients from sexually abusive doctors

Transparency: 68
Is complete and accurate information on physician discipline provided to help patients protect themselves? More...
The best states make it easy for the public to find comprehensive information on physicians, including whether they have been disciplined for sexual abuse or other violations. To assess transparency, the AJC used five measures. Top grades went to states where medical regulators posted disciplinary orders on websites going back at least 15 years; fully detailed the acts that led to sanctions; avoided private orders, reprimands or letters; provided easy web access to clearly labeled doctor information including disciplinary documents; and listed any hospital sanctions, criminal convictions and out-of-state disciplinary actions for each physician.
- Are all orders posted?: 12 of 20
  
  Only 10 years' worth of orders are posted. The public must request older ones.
- Do orders or other information online detail violations that led to sanctions?: 16 of 20
  
  Disciplinary orders usually detail findings.
- Does doctor profile information include hospital sanctions, criminal charges and orders from other states?: 12 of 20
  
  Doctors are required to provide to the board other states' final disciplinary actions, felony convictions and revocation or restriction of hospital privileges, all for the past 10 years, so the board can provide it to the public. But the information isn't listed; it is only available within any disciplinary orders that the Rhode Island may have issued.
- Is it easy to find all doctor information on the website?: 8 of 20
  
  You must search twice and re-enter a doctor's name to find complete information including disciplinary orders.
- Can boards issue private orders or letters?: 20 of 20
  
  The board doesn't issue private reprimands, orders or letters of concern.

Duty-to-report laws: 60
Are colleagues and institutions that are aware of potential physician misconduct required to notify regulators? More...
To break the code of silence that can shield abusive doctors, the best states have laws requiring all physicians and health care institutions to notify regulators of potential violations. To assess these laws, the AJC used five measures. Top grades went to states where a broad range of health care facilities, not only hospitals, are required to notify regulators of alleged physician misconduct; where there is a deadline of no more than 30 days for making those reports; where penalties for failing to report are clear and significant; where doctors are required to report fellow practitioners; and where courts or law enforcement agencies must notify regulators when a doctor is criminally convicted.
- Which health care facilities must report doctors to medical regulators?: 20 of 20
  
  Health care facilities must report any action which limits, suspends or revokes a physician's privilege or requires supervision of a physician either through formal action or through any voluntary agreement with the physician.
- Does the law set a deadline for them to notify regulators?: 12 of 20
  
  Within 30 days after taking action
- Does the law establish penalties for failure to comply?: 4 of 20
  
  None specified. The board is allowed to petition the court if anyone refuses to report as required and appeals. If the facility then fails to comply with the court order, that constitutes civil contempt.
- Are physicians required to report peers?: 4 of 20
  
  State law does not require physicians to report possible violations by fellow doctors.
- Are courts or prosecutors required to notify regulators of physicians’ criminal convictions?: 20 of 20
  
  Clerks of court are required to notify the board within 10 days when physicians are convicted of a crime.

Board composition: 85
Are consumer members included to balance physicians’ tendency to identify with their colleagues? More...
A blueprint developed by The Federation of State Medical Boards recognized the importance of having independent public members on physician-dominated medical regulatory agencies. To assess the composition of disciplinary agencies, the AJC used three measures, with the most weight given to consumer representation. Top grades went to states where public members make up at least 40 percent of the board; where those members represent consumers and where neither they nor their family members have professional or financial ties to health care; and where women hold at least 40 percent of the board seats.
- Is the public well represented?: 40 of 50
  
  The 13-member board has five public members, six physicians, one hospital administrator and one director of a department of health who is also a doctor.
- Are public members independent and do they represent consumers?: 20 of 25
  
  One public member must be a plaintiff's counsel who handles medical malpractice. One must be a member of the public not associated with the medical field who is at least age 60; and the other three must not be associated with the medical field.
- Are women well represented on the board?: 25 of 25
  
  Eight of the 13 board members in September were women.

Criminal acts: 20
Are medical regulators and law enforcement made aware of doctors’ criminal conduct? More...
The medical profession has long recognized the power imbalance between doctors and patients. But only in recent years have states enacted three key laws to try to protect vulnerable patients from dangerous doctors. The AJC considered two of these laws the most important. Top grades went to states where physicians must undergo criminal background checks, with fingerprints, at initial license application and periodically; and where doctor-patient sexual contact has been made a criminal offense in recognition that patients cannot give meaningful consent. In addition, the AJC also rated states on whether medical boards that learn of allegations of criminal conduct must alert law enforcement.
- Are physicians required to undergo criminal background checks?: 8 of 40
  
  Criminal background checks are not required
- Is board required by law to notify law enforcement?: 4 of 20
  
  No legal requirement
- Has the state criminalized sexual misconduct involving doctors and patients?: 8 of 40
  
  The state has no criminal laws specific to physicians.

Discipline laws: 80
Do state laws strengthen oversight and discipline of problem physicians? More...
Abusive physicians can be protected by laws that limit regulators’ ability to investigate cases and don’t require permanent revocation of doctor licenses for egregious offenses. To assess the legal environment for doctor discipline, the AJC examined four key laws. Top grades went to states that require permanent revocation of doctor licenses for some violations; where physicians who have been convicted of felonies or who have lost their licenses in other states cannot be licensed; where medical regulators are entitled to records and other proceedings of hospital peer review committees that examine doctor misconduct; and where there is a reasonable standard of proof required for disciplinary action against physicians, especially in sexual misconduct cases where there may be no independent witnesses.
- Does state law require revocation for some violations? Can revocation be permanent?: 10 of 25
  
  After five years, doctors whose licenses have been revoked are eligible for consideration of reinstatement. State law doesn't mandate revocation for any violations involving sexual misconduct or for convictions.
- Do medical regulators have the legal right to hospital peer review records and proceedings?: 20 of 25
  
  The board can subpoena peer review proceedings and records.
- Does state law mandate that regulators deny licenses to physician applicants who have committed certain violations?: 25 of 25
  
  Mandatory denial for applicant found guilty elsewhere of conduct that would violate Rhode Island medical rules. Also, licenses must be denied to applicants who have violated any laws involving moral turpitude or affecting their ability to practice medicine.
- What is the standard of proof for regulators to impose disciplinary sanctions?: 25 of 25
  
  The standard of proof required to discipline a doctor is preponderance of evidence. It basically means "more likely than not." That's also the typical standard for most lawsuits.

Rhode Island

State report card

More from Rhode Island

Highlighted case

Read more in this series

Researching a doctor

Complaint process

Where to file a complaint

Quoted

Key fact