Policy on Student Impairment, Ethical Misconduct, Problematic Behavior, and Incompetence

The purpose of this policy is to clarify and identify areas of professionalism and ethical conduct expected of the students in the graduate programs at Ottawa University, and to describe the procedures for identifying, assessing, and addressing issues related to impairment, ethical misconduct, problematic behavior, and incompetence.

This policy of conduct applies to all students who enroll in graduate courses, independent of their degree/certificate program.

Impairment is defined as an interference in professional functioning that is reflected in one or more of the following ways:

Inability or unwillingness to acquire and integrate professional standards into one’s repertoire of professional behavior;
Inability to acquire professional skills and reach an accepted level of competency; or
Inability to control personal stress, psychological dysfunction, or emotional reactions that may affect professional functioning.

More specifically, such health or mental health conditions often include, but are not limited to, the following:

Physical and emotional hardships
Chemical dependency
Stress, burnout, and workaholism
Extreme personal/relationship difficulties
Emotional and mental disorders

Formal Intervention

Initial formal, written reports of suspected unethical or unprofessional conduct should be made to the appropriate program director. The written statement should address the following questions:

What are the actual behaviors that are of concern and how are those behaviors related to the goals of the program?
How and in what settings have these behaviors been manifested?
What were the negative consequences for the program, training agency or others (e.g., clients, other students) of the problematic behaviors?
Who observed the behaviors in question?
Who or what was affected by the behavior (other students, clients, agency, atmosphere, training program, etc.)?
What was the frequency of this behavior?
Has the student been made aware of this behavior, and, if so, how was it done, and has the feedback to the student regarding the behavior been documented in any way? What was the student’s response to the feedback?
How serious is this behavior on the continuum of ethical and professional behavior?

(adapted from Lamb, Cochran, and Jackson, 1991)

Determining Appropriate Action

The program director or a review team appointed by the program director will take appropriate action to evaluate the nature and severity of the issues raised in the complaint. Faculty, site supervisors, or others identified in the report as related to the incident(s)/behavior(s) in question can be contacted for additional information on the complaint.

The program director and the review team will schedule a meeting with the student within ten days of receiving the written complaint. At this meeting, areas to be reviewed and discussed will likely include the nature, severity, and consequences of the situation and specifics, as outlined in the nine questions above. The student will be asked to reply to the issues raised. In addition, possible avenues of remediation will be discussed: the student will be asked to make suggestions for remediation, as well as those presented by members of the review team.

Remediation

While each case is different and requires individual assessment, the following factors may indicate that the problem is more serious and may represent impairment rather than a problematic behavior:

The student does not acknowledge, understand or address the problematic behavior when it is identified.
The problematic behavior is not merely a reflection of a skill deficit that can be rectified by training.
The quality of service delivered by the person suffers.
The problematic behavior is not restricted to one area of professional functioning.
The behavior has the potential for ethical or legal ramifications if not addressed.
A disproportionate amount of attention by personnel is required.
Behavior that does not change as a function of feedback.
Behavior negatively affects public image of agency of the University or training site.

Ample time will be allowed in this meeting for the student to present his/her view of the situation and to ask questions.

After this meeting with the student, the review team will meet to determine the next steps. If it is determined that further steps are required in response to the situation, they will develop a written plan for remediation or some other appropriate course of action and will schedule a meeting to discuss this concern with the student within four weeks of their initial meeting with the student. Students may submit their own ideas for remediation in writing to the appropriate program director during this period. The review team will consider the student’s recommendations in developing their own recommendations. The plan will be in writing and documented by the program director.

The written report of the review team will be reviewed in a second meeting with the student within thirty days of the first meeting.

Team findings and recommendations may include, but are not limited to:

Student continues in program activities while completing, under monitoring, a recommended plan for remediation.
Student continues in program but with a limitation on program activities while completing, under monitoring, a recommended plan of remediation.
Student is temporarily suspended from program activities (leave of absence) while completing, under monitoring, a recommended plan of remediation.
Student is permanently suspended from program with recommendations for personal remediation.

The student will be given the opportunity to accept the recommendations, to provide a written rebuttal, and/or to appeal. If the student chooses to provide a rebuttal, the review team will meet again to consider any new evidence presented by the student, and will provide written documentation of their decision within three weeks of the date the rebuttal was received.

If the student wishes to appeal the review team’s decision, he or she may contact the program director.

Regardless of the outcome of the meeting, the student and the program director (and the director of the student’s undergraduate or graduate program, if appropriate) will schedule a follow-up meeting to evaluate the student’s progress, and to recommend potential sources of guidance and assistance when necessary.

Examples of actions that may be included in the remediation plan include–but are not limited to–an increase in didactic instruction, a decrease in course load, a decrease in or temporary suspension of responsibilities, increased supervision and/or faculty advisement, leave of absence, and individual assistance. Progress may be reviewed periodically until the situation is considered remedied. Additional reviews may be scheduled as necessary.

Emergency Dismissal

The program director may impose an emergency dismissal when a student’s behavior constitutes a grave breach of professional ethics, when behaviors place other people’s welfare in jeopardy, or threatens to disrupt the educational process of the school. Students placed on emergency dismissal will not be permitted to continue to participate in some or all of the activities related to undergraduate or graduate study (e.g., to take examinations or submit papers or other course work, engage in practicum/internship activities) without written permission from the program director. Emergency dismissals will remain in effect until the review team recommends another course of action.