| Greensheet - January 2000
- Table of Contents -
E-DR. NETWORK SUPPORTS ARBO'S WEB SITE E-Dr. Network is proud to sponsor ARBO’s OptometryCE.org Web site. "As the leader in online ordering, we see the tremendous importance in supporting communication on the World Wide Web," said Jerry Hayes, OD, founder and chairman of E-Dr. Network. "The Internet will be the greatest educational tool ever developed for transmitting clinically oriented text and digital imagery. We fully expect more than 80 percent of all optometrists to be online in their offices within the next few years. It is our goal to create the Internet infrastructure for the good of the entire eyecare industry. We can help connect patients with practitioners; practitioners with suppliers; and educators and diagnostic specialists with clinicians." "We appreciate the support of our e-commerce customers and pledge to continue to devote our energies to the advancement of the profession and to the visual welfare of the public." Take a look at this issue of the Greensheet. See something new? Anything different? For most, this will be the first time for you to see our new name and logo in print. At the Annual Meeting last June in San Antonio, the International Association of Boards of Examiners in Optometry House of Delegates voted to change its name to the Association of Regulatory Boards of Optometry (ARBO). We began in 1919 as the International Board of Boards (IBB), and late in the 1920s became the International Association of Boards of Examiners in Optometry (IAB), the name which has been retained until just this past year. We believe that the new name, ARBO, is a more accurate reflection of who we are and what we do, and will help us move forward in forging and strengthening our identity. ARBO touches the lives of every optometrist who possesses a license to practice, and ARBO is becoming a major player as a leading organization in the optometric community-at-large. We are grateful for your support for this historic change at the 1999 meeting, and for the future. To date, the program which has significantly heightened optometry's awareness of ARBO is the Council on Optometric Practitioner Education, better known as just 'COPE'. As of January 6, 2000, COPE has received over 3,700 courses since its inception on January 1, 1995; has granted the COPE Qualified Administrator designation to over 200 organizations/individuals; and approved over 1,000 continuing education programs. In October the COPE Committee had a meeting with National Board of Examiners in Optometry Executive Director, Norman Wallis, O.D., Ph.D., at which Transcript Quality (also know as Institution Certified) continuing education was discussed and debated at length. Subsequent to Dr. Wallis' presentation, COPE adopted a new set of quality standards for optometric TQ educational courses and programs. Expect to see the promulgation of these new standards in the coming months. COPE is also expanding coverage for CE courses at this year's American Academy of Optometry meeting. Last year all 200+ hours of the 1998 Ellerbrock continuing education courses were COPE Approved. AAO ’99, recently held in Seattle in December saw the debut of COPE Approval for the Section Symposia portion of the Scientific Program. This important milestone typifies COPE’s continued relevance and timeliness to our Member Boards on the important issue of CE. Stay tuned for more as we head into 2000! --Board Certification discussions expected to dominate proceedings REGIONAL MEETING DATES FOR 2000 ANNOUNCED For more information, visit http://www.arbo.org/about/regionalmeetings2000.shtml COE SEEKS CONSULTANTS FOR ACCREDITING PROCESS The Council on Optometric Education is looking for optometrists to volunteer to participate in the accreditation process as consultants on site visits to the schools and colleges of optometry, optometric residency programs, and optometric technician programs. As Dr. W. David Sullins, Jr., COE chair, told the ARBO delegation during COE's annual presentation to ARBO on June 22, 1999 in San Antonio, "ARBO members are major stakeholders in the process of accreditation. Accreditation is the process of self-study and external review which assures that an educational program meets or exceeds established standards. We encourage you to become involved." To be considered for the Council's consultant pool, ARBO members should submit a letter of interest and curriculum vitae to:
All consultants will be required to complete a Web-based training
program called "Orientation to the Council on Optometric Education"
and attend one of the following afternoon training sessions at a
major optometric meetings in 2000: February 23, 2000, Southern Educational Congress of Optometry, Atlanta, Georgia June 22, 2000, American Optometric Association Congress, Las Vegas, NevadaAfter undergoing training, the major responsibilities of consultants include participating in evaluation visits when appointed by the COE chair. This participation requires the consultant to do the following:
50 OPTOMETRY BOARDS NOW ACCEPT
COPE The Council on Optometric Practitioner Education (COPE), an ARBO service now in operation for almost five years, is pleased to announce that the Kansas Board of Optometry is the fiftieth board of optometry to recognize and accept COPE Approved courses. Acceptance of COPE-Approved courses is effective immediately. Forty-seven states, plus the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico, now accept COPE approved courses. Larry D. Stoppel, O.D., President of the Kansas Board of Optometry, said, "Kansas law has very specific requirements for optometric CE approval. COPE has demonstrated a high level of quality, scrutinizing both the instructors and the course material. The Kansas Board of Optometry believes COPE is a valuable resource that will make our CE approval easier. The second factor in our decision to approve COPE courses was the online resources. Our practitioners can go to http://www.arbo.org/cope/Archive/copehome.htm and quickly find optometric CE in whatever category they need. We look forward to teaming with COPE for our future Continuing Education approvals." Dr. Barry Schneider, COPE Chair, noted, "The addition of the Kansas Board of Optometry as the fiftieth board to accept COPE is a milestone achievement. The recognition by all the participating boards truly signifies that the profession now has a generally accepted, uniform standard for CE, and that standard is COPE. The decision by both the American Optometric Association (AOA) and American Academy of Optometry to utilize COPE to attain approval for CE demonstrates that COPE has achieved a level of acceptance among CE providers that was widely believed unattainable just four short years ago. This can only be seen as a huge plus for the profession, and a great service for practitioners. "Watch for more news in the coming months," warned Dr. Schneider, "as more changes are planned that will make COPE an even greater resource for all things CE-related!" In a separate development, the COPE Committee announced that plans were underway to implement more stringent and specific TQ (also known as Institution Certified) filing requirements. The announcement is seen as a move by the committee to support the published findings of the April 1999 ARBO-hosted National Optometric Continuing Education Conference (NOCEC), which recommended the development of new standards for the administration and presentation of post-course testing. The new standards will also apply to what COPE refers to as "Recorded Media" courses, which are courses delivered in formats such as CD-ROM, audio tapes, video tapes, etc., or which are Internet-based (viewed as a growth area in CE delivery). The standards are being developed in consultation with the National Board of Examiners in Optometry (NBEO), nationally acknowledged experts in the field and long considered Optometry's official testing body. The committee also agreed to adopt a key NOCEC recommendation which suggested that changing the nomenclature of post-course testing CE would greatly enhance its understanding in the optometric community, and additionally, reinforce its emerging role, recognized by many participants at the NOCEC, as a viable tool to assure practitioner competency assurance. COPE has agreed effective February 2000 to refer to all forms of post-course testing as "Continuing Education with Examination (CEE)". The old term, TQ, will be phased out during the rest of 2000 and will no longer be used in any context after Dec. 31, 2000. The new standards, which are to be published in newly-revised application booklets in February, are expected to impact virtually all CE administrators, and a sizeable number of instructors/educators, who are typically invited to prepare the post-course tests. Institutions that conduct the administration and scoring of the tests will also be affected by the new standards. "It'll be a new educational effort by COPE to spread the news of these important changes," said ARBO Executive Director James Vrac. "COPE must demonstrate its leadership position in all issues related to continuing education, and implementing quality control standards for this form of CE was long overdue. We expect those boards who require TQ education to welcome these proposed changes, and COPE will be working hard to meet our obligation to provide a credible CE review process for participating boards by actively enforcing them." COUNSEL'S CORNER Just Say No The authority of a regulatory board to discipline a licensee is based upon the legal concept of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction comes in the form of "personal jurisdiction" which addresses the notion that an individual must have certain contacts or be present within a jurisdiction to personally subject him or herself to the authority of a regulatory board. Subject matter jurisdiction defines the authority of a board to hear and decide certain matters based upon the authority granted to such board through the legislative process. It is under these concepts that accused licensees subject to an administrative proceeding may attempt to divest the board of jurisdiction by relinquishing the license prior to the formal administrative action. As discussed at the annual meeting, boards of optometry must be very wary of "accepting" or "recognizing" the voluntary surrender of a license by a practitioner. A physician in North Dakota was accused of numerous violations of the practice act involving a formal grievance filed by a patient. The particular patient was diagnosed by the physician as suffering from bipolar disorder. Thereafter, the physician and patient began a consensual sexual relationship. Eventually, the professional relationship was terminated. Based upon this relationship, the physician was accused of engaging in sexual abuse, misconduct or exploitation related to the practice of medicine. Furthermore, the physician was also charged with the use of a false, fraudulent or forged statement or document in connection with the licensing requirements. This accusation was based upon a renewal application whereby the physician stated that he had not been treated for any mental illness since his last renewal of his license. In fact, such physician had received treatment for a mental illness. Formal charges were filed against the physician and various pre-hearing conferences were held. Prior to the formal administrative hearing, the physician and his attorney notified the administrative law judge (ALJ) that neither the physician nor legal counsel would be at the hearing to contest the complaint. Furthermore, the physician forwarded a letter to the board resigning his license effective midnight the day before the formal hearing. Such letter duly received by the board continued to deny the charges detailed in the complaint. Rather than proceeding in default, a prima facie case hearing was held whereby evidence was presented substantiating the allegations in the complaint. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing the ALJ recommended to the board that the physician's license to practice medicine in North Dakota be revoked. The board adopted this recommendation and entered an order revoking the physician's license. Thereafter, the physician appealed the board decision to the district court which issued a memorandum opinion affirming the result. This decision was appealed by the physician to the Supreme Court of North Dakota. The physician raised nine issues on appeal, one of which included that the board lacked the authority to revoke his license. In support of this argument, the physician argued that the North Dakota code authorized the board to take action only against "licensed physicians." Based upon his resignation prior to the formal hearing, he argued that the board did not have the authority (or jurisdiction) over his license after that date. In response, the board stated the following: The board had not even met to consider his resignation, however, it has always been the practice of the board to exercise its responsibility in disciplinary actions, although a physician may want to tender his license in order to abort the process. There is no doubt, based upon the actions and arguments of [physician] subsequent to the hearing that he may want his license returned. Thus, had the board not taken any action, it would be its duty to return the license to [physician] absent any finding of discipline or the imposition of any sanctions pursuant to the [North Dakota Practice Act and Administrative Procedures Act]. Based upon this and the findings of law, the Supreme Court held that the physician was "still a licensed physician at the time of the board's meeting." Accordingly, the board maintained jurisdiction to discipline the licensee. The court also upheld numerous other grounds for discipline and the ultimate activities of the board and affirmed the revocation of the physician's license. The danger of the position taken by the Supreme Court insofar as the licensure surrender is concerned is the potential to read into this decision that should the board have accepted the license, it would have divested itself of jurisdiction. Based upon this potential, boards of optometry are encouraged to not accept the voluntary surrender of a license under any circumstances. Generally, licensees may allow their license to lapse should they no longer wish to renew such status. Furthermore, boards must follow through on investigations of accused practitioners and arrive at an ultimate decision on the merits should the licensee not agree to a consent order. This will allow the board to enter the disciplinary action into any database available and publicize the fact that the practitioner was disciplined. This will prevent individuals from fleeing one jurisdiction and seeking licensure in another. Without board action, individuals will answer applications that they have never been disciplined in any other jurisdiction. This is a dangerous practice not only within each individual state board, but also to the neighboring state boards as well. Be aware of the voluntary surrender. Larsen v. Commission on Medical Competency, 585 N.W.2d 801 (ND 1998) COPE has recently mailed out a new survey to all state boards regarding CE requirements for licensees. COPE is looking to expand the availability of key CE-related information for both state boards and practitioners who visit the site and listing the CE requirements for each state is considered a valuable first step in meeting the needs of COPE's constituent groups. The survey is designed to offer just a snapshot of CE requirements for each state, so the COPE committee is looking for boards to prepare a short summary of requirements, rather than the complete text of any regulations or rules. The survey has a deadline of February 11. We appreciate your time and valuable participation in this important project, and look forward to receiving your responses. COPE welcomes volunteers to assist with the review of CE courses. Volunteers only need to donate some of their time and a little effort to help make the program work. You must be recommended by your state board, but you do not need to be a serving member (however, we welcome both serving board members and non serving doctors as well). COPE Reviewers are sent courses to review on a rotational basis and are required to respond within 10 days of receipt of a course. If you are interested in becoming a COPE Reviewer, please contact Ms. Jonette Vaughan at the COPE office at (800) 758-COPE, email at jvaughan@arbo.org, or write to COPE, 4401 East West Highway, Suite 205, Bethesda, MD 20814-4521. DUES NOTICES FOR 2000 ARE IN THE MAIL! ARBO recently mailed out dues notices for 2000 to all designated dues recipients for our member boards. We stress the importance of not only your membership in ARBO as your international organization on issues that concern everyone, but also of remitting your membership dues promptly to help ARBO in next year's budgeting process. Remember, one of your most important benefits, voting rights at the Annual Meeting, may be in jeopardy if your member board has not paid dues in time to participate in the business of the House of Delegates. OPTOMETRIC RESOURCES ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB For those board members and staff who actively surf the Internet, here is a small guide to key optometry related resources currently available:
Our links page contains many more optometry-related links. To see our complete list, please visit our 'Internet Resources' page at http://www.arbo.org/. If you know of any that we have missed, or that are incorrect, please let us know! E-mail us at jvaughan@arbo.org. |