Restricting Medical Licenses Based on Illness is Wrong - Reporting Makes It Worse

Part I of this article briefly explores the licensing and disciplinary processes. Because each state board has broad discretion in reaching its decisions, an illness might be ignored in one state, trigger only periodic monitoring in another, and be grounds for sanction in a third. As the duty of every state board is the same - to protect patients from incompetent doctors - this disparate treatment is absurd. The implicit notion that the impact of a physician\u27s illness on his ability to practice changes depending on a state line is not credible. Although statutes and cases may use different language to define incompetence, there is fundamental agreement that doctors in every state should practice with skill and safety. Part II exposes fundamental defects in the current reporting to national data banks. The goal of preventing incompetent physicians from injuring a series of uninformed patients in several states is commendable. Implementation is not

Restricting Medical Licenses Based on Illness is Wrong - Reporting Makes It Worse

Part I of this article briefly explores the licensing and disciplinary processes. Because each state board has broad discretion in reaching its decisions, an illness might be ignored in one state, trigger only periodic monitoring in another, and be grounds for sanction in a third. As the duty of every state board is the same - to protect patients from incompetent doctors - this disparate treatment is absurd. The implicit notion that the impact of a physician\u27s illness on his ability to practice changes depending on a state line is not credible. Although statutes and cases may use different language to define incompetence, there is fundamental agreement that doctors in every state should practice with skill and safety. Part II exposes fundamental defects in the current reporting to national data banks. The goal of preventing incompetent physicians from injuring a series of uninformed patients in several states is commendable. Implementation is not

The Relationship Between Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction, And Employee Performance in The Federal Government

Leaders in the U.S. Federal Government face performance challenges due to disengaged employees and employees with low satisfaction. Leaders within the federal government need to understand the relationship between employee engagement, job satisfaction, and employee performance, as decreased employee performance can result in decreased productivity, increased turnover, and have negative financial implications. Grounded in Herzberg’s two-factor theory and Kahn’s engagement theory, the purpose of this quantitative correlational ex post facto study was to examine the relationship between employee engagement, job satisfaction, and employee performance within the federal government. Data from the 2019 Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey (n = 100) were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. The multiple linear regression analysis results indicated the model was able to significantly predict performance F(2,97) = 43.836, p \u3c .001, R2 = .475. Employee engagement (t = 3.594, p \u3c .001, β = .504) was the only statistically significant predictor. A key recommendation for leaders in the federal government to engage federal employees is to recognize employee achievements, create a work environment promoting psychological safety, provide employees with adequate resources, and have well-defined roles and responsibilities for employees while allowing them to exercise autonomy in their work processes. The implications for positive social change include the potential for cost savings, helping leaders in the federal government assess areas of improvement, creating a more productive environment for improved employee performance, and increasing employee retention and job satisfaction in the workforce