Presenter from Acumen outlines forensic fitness‑for‑duty evaluations and how they support boards

Dr. Peter Graham, representing Acumen, presented to the investigative committee on forensic fitness‑for‑duty evaluations and their application to regulated health professionals. He said Acumen has provided evaluations for safety‑sensitive professionals for about 20 years and can tailor assessment intensity from brief focused evaluations to multi‑day neuropsychological batteries depending on referral questions.

Graham emphasized the distinction between evaluation and treatment: evaluations aim to give a neutral opinion about fitness for duty and risk, while treatment focuses on rehabilitation. He described common referral triggers—addiction, cognitive decline, disruptive or ethical behavior—and noted standard forensic elements that include collateral interviews, structured testing (cognitive and personality instruments), and urine or hair drug testing. He also discussed PETH testing to detect recent heavy alcohol use and said Acumen sometimes uses polygraph testing as an investigative tool.

Graham advised coordination with the state professional‑health program (KNAF), suggesting the program can take referral recommendations and manage monitoring. He acknowledged costs are not covered by health insurance for forensic evaluations and said Acumen aims to keep assessments targeted to answer the board’s specific questions so costs remain reasonable.

Why it matters: Boards rely on neutral, evidence‑based assessments to inform licensing and public‑safety decisions. Graham’s presentation identified resources and tests the committee could use when evaluating whether a licensee is fit to practice.

What’s next: Committee members thanked Graham and said staff could contact him with questions and to review the fuller slide materials he provided.