Remedial education presented as an alternative to discipline; PBI outlines course design, outcomes and follow‑up

Catherine Caldicott, medical director at PBI, and Casey Cleary, PBI senior education manager, told the Kansas State Board of Nursing’s Investigation Committee that intensive remedial education can reduce repeat professional infractions when used as part of regulatory resolutions or alternatives to discipline.

"Remedial courses are highly personal and require truth telling, the development of insight, and the crafting of a plan of ongoing accountability to prevent recidivism," Catherine Caldicott said. She described intensive, live courses (typically limited to about a dozen participants) that go beyond one‑hour continuing education and instead require pre‑work, a participant "my story" assignment, small‑group discussion, faculty questioning, and a written post‑course evaluation for the regulator.

Casey Cleary said PBI’s model includes pre‑course readings and topic‑specific self‑assessments, mandatory engagement, and written action plans that address workplace safeguards, professional boundaries and personal health measures. Course participants must pass assigned work; attendance alone is not sufficient. PBI faculty and staff also offer a longitudinal follow‑up program—Maintaining Accountability with Support (MAS)—a weekly, faculty‑facilitated cohort intended to keep learned safeguards active over time.

Caldecott presented limited outcome data from a PBI review of clinicians from a single state who completed remedial courses between 2010 and 2014 and were followed through 2020. "Out of the 210 folks who met inclusion criteria, less than 3 percent of them had primary recidivism over a period of between 6 and 11 years, and less than 7 percent had secondary recidivism," she said, while noting the sample was small and follow‑up research is challenging. The presenters cautioned that recidivism statistics are difficult to interpret because of differences in definitions, varying public records and other follow‑up barriers.

The presenters also described practical matters for regulators: how to choose a reputable provider, what to expect in a referral letter, and the range of course costs. PBI staff said course prices vary by length and topic—from roughly $600 for one‑day risk/ethics modules to $2,000–$3,000 for three‑day boundary and communication remediation—and that payment plans are available. The presenters recommended regulators consider an "approved list" of reputable providers to streamline case management and speed participation.

Following the presentation, members of the committee discussed whether statutory language should be changed to create explicit alternatives to discipline and asked staff to explore how other state boards and in‑state regulatory programs handle remedial options. The committee did not adopt statutory changes at the meeting; members asked staff and interested board members to prioritize proposed revisions and to return with draft options for future review.

Ending

Board members praised the presentation and asked staff to bring proposals for how remedial education might fit into the state’s disciplinary and alternative‑to‑discipline framework. PBI offered to provide follow‑up consultation to the board and to review draft referral language if requested.