Hold on, what makes you think the board is being malicious or sabotaging the resident? I understand that residents who get terminated or in trouble are always made out to the be the victims, but many of us have witnessed egregious acts by residents who deserved to be under a microscope. Don't assume that just because someone's in trouble, it means they're being sabotaged.
1) Your baseless suggestion that "residents who get terminated or in trouble are always made out to the be the victims" shows your ineptitude with respect to this topic. With all of the training you received on evidence-based medicine, I would think that you might do some research before you make brash suggestions about a constituency of people that you clearly have no understanding of. Painting any group of people with broad strokes of criticism and disdain using absolute terms, such as "always," serves no purpose to this discussion other than to degrade the content of this post to a senseless back-and-forth of biased speculations based upon singular events that in no way help the OP or any others reading its content other than to reinforce bias and perpetuate baseless assumptions.
There aren't many specialties where one won't be dealing with sick patients. Maybe Op should try to get into preventive medicine.
Occupational medicine and preventative medicine are one of the only ways that disenfranchised physicians are able to become "board-certified" in something so that they can practice medicine.
To be clear, the poster is saying they may grant him a license with restrictions. If he was terminated after 3 years of residency, I don't think we can assume that putting restrictions on his license is evidence of sabotage which is what I was respond to. Sure it sucks. But it doesn't mean that someone's out to get him.
1) Having a restricted license without board-certification has drastic career implications. Dismissing the severity of this reality by saying "it sucks" is not only disrespectful, it is reckless and ignorant.
2) Taking the singular point of issuing a restricted license out-of-context and inferring that I suggested that it was evidence of sabotage by the medical board is not only narrow-minded, it is downright pathetic. You yet again illustrate your bias and lack of insight into this topic.
No, I don't. So often, attendings and even PD's are too nice. They allow things to slide because they dont' want to wreck someone's career and most things aren't significant enough to terminate a resident over. Remediation, sure. But termination? Naw. Until it happens, that huge thing that's too egregious to look the other way and/or they fail remediation and/or people freak out that this person is about to graduate and they're incompetent. Any PD worth his salt knows that they're vouching for the skills of every person they graduate. If someone sucks as a PGY 1, there's time to improve. Sucks as a PGY 2? We'll remediate him and he'll be good. Suck as a PGY 3 and people start to really worry
1) Making a generalization that attendings and PDs are "too nice" has no relevance to this discussion.
2) Your point about a PD vouching for the skills of every person they graduate is valid. But why not give another PD in the same specialty the opportunity to evaluate a residents qualifications by allowing that resident to transfer to another program? What harm would come from a resident finding success in another program?
3) Instead of receiving assistance finding another opportunity, the resident in question now cannot even obtain a medical license to maintain an income while struggling to find a way to continue his training. Every month that the medical board delays his licensure is a month that he is unable to obtain income.
Exactly. I got my full SC license 7 months into my PGY-2 year. That license has not changed in any way since that time. It carried the same legal authority then as it does now.
Legal authority means little without board-certification. It is impossible to comprehend, unless you have personally been in that situation.
I know that since I got an unrestricted license into my PGY2. What I was trying to say is that even if you have a FULL license, that does not mean you will get hospital privilege because hospitals ask for board eligibility. That's why I said the license is somewhat restricted by default.
I just hate seeing someone completed 11 yrs of training and cant even work in urgent care, prisons, IHS, health departments etc...
This is the most insightful comment that has been made on this topic. Without completion of an ACGME-accredited residency program and board-certification/eligibility, you will not be hired. While most places will cite insurance reasons, I have yet to come across any policy that states either of these as a requirement. However, the time and energy it takes for employers to explore this non-traditional pathway can be perceived as overly burdensome and impede these individuals from gaining employment. The options for these physicians are thus few and far between.
This is what I mean about people being too nice. This is how it happens when we see someone being terminated after PGY 3 year. The "I just hate seeing someone..." mantra has time and place and I agree it sucks. But with a full license, you can absolutely get hospital privileges and especially urgent care, even without being board eligible. So let me ask this -- if your mom went to urgent care for any reason, would you want her doctor there to be someone who was not allowed to complete residency because he was clinically incompetent?
Thank you for yet again showing your ineptitude by suggesting that every resident that is terminated, issued a restricted license, etc is "clinically incompetent". I don't even have words for how appalling this statement is.
Why let him/her complete 3 yrs with no remediation if he/she was that dangerous? It makes no sense IMO.
One reason among many: When there isn't justification for termination, it takes time to build a paper trail robust enough to either coerce residents to resign and prevent them from successfully appealing any decision of termination or contract non-renewal.