Predictive Factors of State Licensure Board Disciplinary Actions in Occupational Therapy

One primary function of occupational therapy state licensure boards (SLBs) is the discipline of ethical misconduct by licensed occupational therapy practitioners. However, SLB sanctioning is poorly understood by practitioners, regulators, and the public.

To identify predictors of occupational therapy practitioner sanctioning outcomes in the United States.

Retrospective study; all public final consent orders and database entries provided online by SLBs were analyzed. Supervised gradient boosting machine learning, logistic regression, and contingency tables were used to generate odds ratios for variables associated with each sanctioning outcome. Multinomial testing was used to identify attribute overrepresentation among cases and national practitioner distributions.

A total of 2,400 cases were analyzed across 47 states and Washington, DC.

None.

Numerous complaint and respondent attribute variables were collected from final consent orders and database entries.

Complaint reason, practice setting, and complaint source had the highest influence on predicting sanction outcome; geographic region, number of complaints in a given case, and length of investigation in months were secondarily influential. Being male or a certified occupational therapy assistant was associated with higher odds of severe sanctioning outcomes.

Disciplinary actions against occupational therapy practitioners were determined by numerous contextual factors; however, the most influential factors were complaint reason, practice setting, and complaint source. These results provide direction for exploring factors that predict sanctioning outcomes in the United States and also provide occupational therapy practitioners and SLBs a basis of applied outcomes that may improve implementation and education regarding clinical practice ethics. Plain-Language Summary: Occupational therapy state licensure boards (SLBs) are responsible for disciplining licensed occupational therapy practitioners for ethical misconduct. SLB sanctioning is poorly understood by practitioners, regulators, and the public. In this study, we identify the factors that predict the sanctioning outcomes of occupational therapy practitioners. The results may help state regulators, educators, and national associations more effectively act in a way that protects the public faith in occupational therapy services by providing contextualized information on practitioner behaviors that result in specific sanctioning outcomes. The study findings also provide occupational therapy practitioners and SLBs a basis of applied outcomes that may improve the implementation of and education regarding clinical practice ethics.