What is Happening with the Texas BON!!!

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2966465

Scores of Texas nurses are drug, sex offenders, newspaper finds
Associated Press

AUSTIN -- Scores of licensed nurses in Texas are convicted drug and sex offenders, and some of them are working in violation of state law, a newspaper investigation has found. ADVERTISEMENT


An analysis by The Dallas Morning News found that 57 licensed Texas nurses are felony sex offenders, including 31 who are listed in the state sex-offender registry. About 140 nurses have felony drug records, and about half of them hold current nursing licenses.

In one case, teacher Shellie Jorden was sentenced to five years deferred adjudication for fondling one of his fifth-graders in San Antonio. Authorities recommended he no longer teach kids, and the state revoked his teaching license.

But no one restricted the vocational nursing license he also held. Jorden, registered as a sex offender, successfully completed his community supervision and returned to nursing.

Now, at the community health clinic where he works, Jorden spends about half his time working with young children seeking immunizations. He said he understands concern about whether he should be working as a nurse.

"I can see your point," he said.

But, he added, "all it was, was an allegation." He said he pleaded guilty because "that was the best thing for me at the time. It's not actually that I'd done anything or harmed a child."

However, the mother of Jordan's victim said she is outraged he is working with children again.

"This man has no business being around any children, period," she said.

There are about 500,000 licensed nurses in Texas. About half of the licenses are current. Many of the rest have lapsed but could be activated easily if the nurse pays a fee or enrolls in professional coursework.

Texas prohibits felony offenders from working as nurses if they have gone to prison. The newspaper found 58 nurses who have been incarcerated for felony sex or drug offenses whose licenses have not been surrendered or revoked.

The state board that licenses nurses conducts few background checks, in part because there is not enough money to do so. Instead, state officials rely on nurses to self-report their criminal convictions.

Katherine Thomas, executive director of the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners, acknowledged that the agency "may not be aware" of nurses who have not self-reported their records. She said the board "would like an opportunity to investigate."

The Texas Hospital Association, which represents about 85 percent of the state's hospitals, said most hospitals perform their own background checks. But they are not required by law to do so. And most doctors' offices and clinics probably do not check nurses' backgrounds, Thomas said.

It's impossible to know whether any of the felons are harming patients, but victims' rights advocates questioned whether it is appropriate for them to be nurses.

"You probably don't want somebody who is a registered sex offender being alone with you in a room where you are probably not completely dressed," said Kristianne Hinkamp, executive director of the Dallas group Victims Outreach.

However people who help rehabilitate sex offenders say a blanket ban would go too far.

"Just because someone is convicted of a sex crime does not determine their dangerousness," said Allison Taylor, executive director of the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment. "We've really got to look at who is dangerous and who is not."

But Taylor said it is important for licensing agencies to be aware of potential problems.

This summer, the licensing agency initiated disciplinary proceedings against several nurses it discovered had felony charges in their backgrounds. Until disciplinary charges are filed, officials said they couldn't say how many are under investigation.

Like Texas, most states rely on employers to check nurses' criminal histories, said Vickie Sheets, director of practice and regulations for the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The council recommended in 1999 that all state boards implement criminal background checks, but limited funding has made it difficult to implement the practice.

Texas' board got legislative approval to run checks on registered nurse applicants last year, but it did not push to check all nurses. In tight budgetary times, "we didn't want to ask for anything we didn't have to ask for," Thomas said.

The agency said it would incur significant costs for postage and processing the forms, even though the check itself is paid for by the applicant.

This year, the board considered asking the Legislature for approval to check all licensees -- registered nurses and licensed vocational nurses. But that effort would cost millions of dollars.

To save money, the Legislative Budget Board instead asked the licensing agency to conduct background checks on all vocational applicants, plus random checks as nurses come up for license renewal over the next 10 years.

this is probably true of any BON in any state. The Texas BNE has been doing background checks on new grads for more than a year. Prior to that, they had to depend on candidates volunterring information and the BNE would spot check. People who passes background checks may commit a crime later and it would not be known by the BNE. So I imagine we will all have to pay for background checks, fingerprinting and such, in order to get a baseline on all 50,000 RN's in Texas. Then, we might have to pay more for our license renewal to offset the expense of updating info on all the licensees. Personally I do not think nurses are any worse than any other group, but I admit they have opportunities to harm people that others might not have.

Hi,

I read this story in several papers and was amazed at the trash journalism published these days. An 'investigation' by 'the newspaper' would brand the profession as rampant with social psychopaths. We need to recognize the danger that Pee Wee Herman could possibly recieve a Texas Nursing license. However if the numbers are true, the article demonstrates that in fact, we and the BON have done a great job at keeping our profession cleanunder intense scrutiny. I always thought it peculiar that the elected officials, some of whom have the authority to start a nuclear war, object and refuse drug screens as an invasion of privacy. After all if you have nothing to hide...

After all is said and done, and you convert the term 'a score' to a number, figure in the 'abouts' and 'probably's (would you like to have 'about' the right dose of medication? Or drive across a bridge that will 'probably' support your car?)take the 140 drug addicts(?) half of whom are working...why half a number?...then throw in the sex offenders, you get the figure of 127. Do the math yourself, divide for percentage and get 0.025%. Give me a city of 500,000 people with 127 questionably threatening people in it, and I'll walk the streets at midnight, and re-elect the mayor. The only mistake that the board and Ms. Thomas made was failure to claim credit for an excellent track record. Using this sort of methodology, by percentage the population of nurses boasts less antisocial behavior than:

1.) The number of U.S. Senators currently serving, who took a 'friend' home drunk behind the wheel and ended up in a MVA with a fatality (1%). (ETOH is a drug, and adultery is at least a morally illicit sex act, although dead men tell no tales)

2.) The number of pop stars currently under indictment for multiple child molestations who get T.V. publicity for throwing gala parties for children...talk about poor taste...

3.) The number of impeached or resigned Presidents (and impeachment is no easy task). Or the number of resigned Vice Presidents pleading 'nolo contendre' to tax fraud. Fraud is also an antisocial behavior.

4.) The number of singers who shot a man in Reno...it's a small city.

5.) Did you hear the one about the Priest that...oh, never mind, it's not that funny anyhow. And they moved him to a different parish.

6.) The number of conservative radio commentators involved in drug diversion and addiction who are models for overcoming a struggle after admitting they 'made a mistake'. After they got caught.

Now let's air the trash for what it is. I could find no investigative reporter named, only 'writers and contributors', so the person is either not going for the Pulitzer with this one, or doesn't want to end up like Dan Rather nor the editor that published "Dewey beats Truman" back in the mid century. Additionally, the investigation was a slap in the face of teachers, and lawyers who allegedly counsel their ex-teacher clients to go to nursing school.

Carefully remaining politically correct, only white males were directly named, and details were hazy. No report of named drug convictions so I guess that portion of the sociopathic element must not be white males. Additionally, we all know that there are laws on the books proscribing certain consentual adult practices which are illegal, non-violent, and nobody's buisness. Exception being if you consider yourself above the aforementioned law, and you are a Representitive from the Tyler district who campaigned on neighborhood watch and family values. One such individual was caught soliciting a hooker to perform a proscribed act that his wife would not perform, in addition to carrying an illegal concealed weapon. This individual remained in office and did weekend jail time for a while, and the papers had a great time.

Consider that 'scores' of people spent jail time for molestations who were vindicated (but not forgotten), when the child grew to an age of reason and admitted that they lied or were coerced or led by authority figures into wrongful accusation. If I were in the same unfortunate situation, innocent, and had the chance of plea bargaining my way out (which indicates pretty shaky evidence, but high emotions), or the alternative of being subjected to the physical harm and male rape in a prison, I would probably grasp the nettle and do the probation and community service. I know a man who was very likely railroaded by his two daughters in retaliation for parental discipline. But I digress...

A 'score' is twenty. It is used here for emotive shock value. It is also used if you are British... ('I say Smithers, I gave the patient twoscore and ten of Demerol.' 'Quite right, old bean, jolly good.'). So if you have more than 39 of something, you have scores. I spent scores of dollars on my wife this Christmas, and there are scores of people dead after the Tsunami (sp?).

Additionally, off the subject matter, the docs lobbied us to vote in favor of caps on malpractice awards recently. They got it. Now where are they when we need them to speak up and put an end to this foolishness? If for no other reason that it does after all affect them indirectly. They have the power. Perhaps docs need to learn the meaning of reciprocity either in principle or in action. (Byline...'Scores of physicians severely limiting their practice due to providing hands on care to their patients.').

I could say a lot more about this after 23 years in the profession. I've had more background checks and pee tests than a dog has fleas, 9 pee tests in 3 years, what with traveling and agency work, et.c. and I don't need to tolerate defamation by someone that won't name themselves. And I don't need my patients to fear me. We are important providers in the greatest health care system on the face of the earth, ever. Hold your head up and look 'em in the eye. Scores of times if necessary.

Excellent points, on both sides.

However, if there is one sex offender or "former" felon with a nursing license, that needs to be brought to the attention of the BON.

If that info was available to write the article, it was available to let the BON know.

This is not a case of having to choose between saving the dying accident victim or filming the carnage because under the First Amendment the public has the right to know.

This is a case of both having the info and being able to inform the BON.

If the info is true, why has the author not informed the BON?

It used to be the case that if you had info about a crime, if you knew a crime was going to be commited, you had a moral obligation to "tell." Now it is as though there is something wrong with you if you do. Well, this is what you/we get when that's how we think.

The author should "put up" now that it's too late to "shut up."

So much for improving the public's perception of nurses?

I agree with Chris. If this information is common enough knowledge that there's an article written on it, why doesn't the BON know? And if they know, why aren't they doing anything about it?

I'm just curious (not actually from TX myself, though my husband would LOVE to move there)

I think the investigative gumshoe and the writers of this trash story have realized that it was a one time shot at selling papers through shock value. Or perhaps it was intended to be just that. The ripples created were certainly enough for at least a few days of people following up in the papers.

In answer to witholding evidence, the crimes themselves (if they be crimes, we have not determined that, and even if so we have not determined them to be violent or threatening crimes) are already committed, and penalty paid. It may be a violation of regulations by the individuals involved, but there is a difference there. OSHA may levy a fine for knowingly failing to report an unsafe condition, but that is violation of meeting a set standard of safety rather than premeditated malice. And it was reported to the board. The very act of interviewing Ms. Thomas informed her.

"One is too many" is an oft used form of emotional argument, but in the world we live in, we know that there are going to be bad eggs or those who were once bad eggs show up in virtually any group. Hence, we have licensing agencies, penal systems, police, a military and so forth. One driver who is too old to react appropriately in a traffic emergency is too many, but I don't see a mudslinging campaign against a group as well oraganized as retired persons. They'd vote the legislators out of office, right or wrong and regardless of the number of deaths and injuries they may cause, and it is a considerable number lately. I was rear-ended on the highway myself at a complete stop by an elderly person less than a month ago, who did not even apply her brakes. Should I conclude that all elderly people are potential hazards? It would be expensive, but feasable to spot check the reaction time of this population (at their expense) by the generating of a small pool of random license numbers of anyone over a certain age group on a weekly or monthly basis, and provide the world with a little more security. Remember that children and babies travel in cars, so if we want to use the argument of protecting children, there would be as good a reason, if not better, to concentrate on elderly drivers than to persecute the nursing profession on the basis of a 0.025% rate of, at best questionable prior offenses. If nurses were better organized, we would not have to put up with this sort of insult and threat. We have done a good job keeping our act clean. Please don't think me insensitive to the elderly, or to children. It's simply that the trend nowdays is to wave the 'children' flag if we can't find an acceptable reason for the growth of power over ordinary people, for sensationalism, and for assuming someone guilty until proven innocent.

Nobody is secure in the knowledge of all that is in our records somewhere, and we don't know if it is accurate. Ever get a bad credit report? Were all cases in the newspaper verified by the investigators, or did they just blurt out the first thing they wanted to see? Behaviors that may have once been considered a minor violation at one point in time (like smoking pot at a rock concert as a teen in the '70s) could easily become scandalous if placed under scrutiny in a wave of hysteria at a later point. Is anyone out there sure that their closet is completely clean against future scrutiny? Are you sure that your juvenile record has really been destroyed, if you had one? Ever use the 'N' word, or make a homosexual joke in hearing range of a busybody? Ever say or do something that you don't even know might become terribly offensive, or criminal later on, and come back to haunt you? As times change, anyone could suddenly find themselves as the outsider. As nurses, we have our pasts, our fingerprints and our bodily fluids up for examination on a continual basis as it is, and DNA is probably not far behind. When is enough enough? I am not willing to trade my freedom for a little security, because as it has been pointed out, I will neither have nor will I deserve either one. Fortunately, it is close enough to retirement time that I won't probably get caught up in a new wave of hystrionics. And yes, I do care, even if I have nothing to hide. I have nothing to hide when I use the toilet, but I still close the door.

I don't think in this world, any of us have the necessary power of an eternally guaranteed immunity to conduct ourselves toward others in a smug or hostile manner, and that includes reporters. Too reminiscent of the Pharisee's prayer "God, thank you that I am not like these others". Self righteous people might wind up with a pretty red face someday, and no one to feel sympathy toward them. Vicarious enjoyment of suffering (which was all that this "news" report has turned out to be) is what has fueled too many atrocities. This article was not news! It was an inflated observation of human fallibility written in the most shocking way possible, and without verifiability. National Enquirer caliber reporting. Let us hope that at least our profession does not fall to this level, and turn on it's own in the public sector.

Again I ask, where is the support of the docs who lobbied us for support on malpractice caps and got it?

I'd like to respond to the Pee Wee Herman comment.
Before we all blow this out of proportion, I don't know any nurses, but I do know one TX teacher who had her teaching license pulled for being a "sex offender."
Her offense? She was caught in the heat of the moment making out with her very own husband in their car in a park in the middle of the night and slapped with indecent exposure charges.
Any of you nurses out there who can claim to not to have ever been involved in any activities such as that in your lifetimes are either liars or truely prudes.
I would hardly compare her to child molesters or rapists but that is what we all think of when we hear the term "sex offender".
Pee Wee Herman was in an adult movie theater or bookstore or whatever doing whatever he was doing but my point is that it does not mean that his activity would necessarily make him a threat to patients if he were to become a nurse.
What exactly do you all think that people do in the many adult video stores and strip clubs that line the interstates of Dallas and Houston??
Check out videos or watch dancers and go home?
Wake up people.
Like I said before, those places are all over Texas so apparantly they do well business wise. Somebody in our state is giving these places a lot of business or they wouldn't be here and we'd be naive to think that they are all shady non-professional types and that nurses do not get involved in this type of activity.

I intended the Pee-Wee thing as a joke, and I think your response indicates that you are aware, and recognize it for what it is. So we's in agreement.(and there's no basement in the Alamo...see 'Big Adventure')

But your comment does bring to mind another view of this matter. Is the public drawing an inference that this sort of behavior is likely due to media's portrayal of the Nurse occasionally (once is too many) as a closet drunk or junkie, more often as 'angel of death', and quite often as a doctor's whore? From MASH to CSI( is that the right name? I watch little or no TV) to E/R this stereotype is employed, and as I understand, it is often employed in the porn movies you allude to. (I don't watch porn, either...after all these years of O/R and ICU looking at the naked human form, I expect to be on the clock to have to look at another one.)

I don't understand the value system. Mike Tyson rapes and beats a girl and goes to prison (briefly), then comes home to a hero's welcome and resumes his boxing career; Magic Johnson sleeps with so many women he gets AIDS, and is promoted to a national 'poster child' for AIDS awareness as well as an Olympic participant. Meanwhile poor old Pee-Wee does something non-violent that involves no one else, and has his career ruined by busybodies. I enjoyed his show immensely, it was very creative, no one got shot to death, and it let me be a kid for a bit on Saturday mornings. God save me from the 'good people'.

Maybe running a peep show would be a better deal, you get less bad press, probably better money, and be an upstanding citizen in your community. I guess the worst you have to do is give the cops a few bucks off the top and find someone to mop the place a few times a day.

One more time...Docs, where are you?

We don't have to venture very far to find oodles and oodles of inconsistencies in the justice system, our society's value system and similar settings and situations.

I believe that in nursing, we are dealing with a different scenario. Our clients are potentially among the most vulnerable, and they trust us because we are nurses.

If there is a "sex offender" (or other offender) currently licensed, that's a problem. I'm not questioning anybody's honesty, integrity or knowledge of any facts. But we know what we mean when we express concern about insuitable persons being able to practice as nurses, or in any other professional capacity, if they are actually of questionable trustworthiness, or if they got caught in some stupid snafu.

But, that said, I know of too many people convicted (or at least caught in flagrante) who continue to practice with unfettered licenses. And I am just one person.

I agree that Pee Wee Herman was overkill and others noted above got special treatment and/or their notoriety increased their status and prestige. We can look at Martha Stewart behind bars, and the Enron boys still running around loose for the most part (here we are in Texas again).

Bottom line. If we know someone ought not to be practicing and we have good and legitimate cause, we have a moral, ethical, legal and professional responsibility to report it to the BON.

Having said that, I did once report someone who I knew personally had violated a client's confidentiality in a huge, huge way. (She was, and I guess still is, an LPC/LMFT in Oklahoma.) She was a friend of one of the board's honchos. I followed up on it a year or so later. Nothing had happened. Nothing. And she was a wacko, so it's not like it was a one time thing or a slip of the tongue. She really thought she was just fine.

I guess the best we can do is the best we can do. If we do that, we should be able to consider that we have fulfilled our obligation. (Risk of injury notwithstanding. In that case, I say, keep at it til the right thing happens.)