Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Respiratory care committee takes complaint about therapist's credential claims 'for information'
Summary
The Respiratory Care Examining Committee reviewed a complaint that Kelly Elizabeth Walton represented herself as a registered respiratory therapist when public records show a certified respiratory therapist credential; the committee found no clear violation of the practice act and took the matter for information while noting remedial education could be recommended.
The Respiratory Care Examining Committee reviewed a complaint from Forest City Medical Center that Kelly Elizabeth Walton had presented herself as a registered respiratory therapist when state records list a certified respiratory therapist credential.
Angela Sanders, who called the meeting to order, said the matter appeared to involve miscommunication rather than an obvious statutory violation and suggested the committee could recommend remedial continuing education. "I don't know how to fix someone not being honest about their credential," Sanders said, adding that an option would be to recommend additional ethics and boundaries CEUs.
Committee members discussed specific courses offered by the American Association for Respiratory Care, including "Law and professional ethics" and "Ethical failures and the impact of medical mistrust." The committee noted the courses cost roughly $15–$30 for nonmembers; Sanders said two courses would be about $40 for a nonmember.
Committee counsel Michael Lewis advised the group that the panel could ask the clinician to complete courses but could not impose mandatory remedial training without providing the clinician an opportunity to respond at a formal hearing. "You could do it as a request or ... set it for a show-cause hearing," Lewis said, adding that a show-cause proceeding at the state board level would be the mechanism to effectuate a sanction if a violation of the practice act were found.
After discussion, a member moved that the committee "take it for information" with the understanding that, based on current review, there had not been a violation of the Respiratory Practice Act. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The committee said its recommendation and the file would be transmitted to the board as informational material; the record will reflect the complaint and the committee's determination that a practice-act violation was not established at this time.
Next steps: the committee did not impose remedial requirements, and members said the board could elect to open a show-cause hearing if it later determines further action is warranted.
