Question

97 The PA and the Phony Data Sharon B. Buchbinder Mitch O'Neill was a hard-working, affable physician assistant (PA) with excellent annual reviews from his supervisors and peers at Midwestern Veterans Admin- istration Hospital (MVAH). A new member of the surgical staff, Dr. Edwards was struck by Mitch's can-do attitude and intelligence. Dr. Edwards attended a national conference where the VA System was recruiting investigators to partici- te in a multi-site random clinical trial (RCT) for a vascular surgery procedure. With the large number of veterans requiring limb revascularization in MVAH Dr. Edwards knew he could obtain enough patients for each arm of the trial. The t would cover the costs of health care for the veterans, many of whom lived at or near poverty level. Dr. Edwards asked Mitch if he would be willing to serve on the grant as a research assistant. If the grant was funded, Mitch's responsibili- ties would include data collection and writing annual reports. It meant about $10,000 per year for Mitch, enough to make it worth his while. The eager PA quickly agreed to be on the grant. Three months after Dr. Edwards submitted the application, the grant was funded. Dr. Edwards followed the clinical protocol of the RCT, as required. Mitch's job was to conduct physical assessments of the patients' blood flow post-op and record the results. Over time, they would be able to see if there was a statisti- cal and clinical difference between the two treatments with respect to increased blood flow to the lower limbs. It was a very exciting study, one that had great implications for future vascular surgery patients Each week, Dr. Edwards met with Mitch to discuss the study progress. Per the RCT protocol, at the one-year point an oversight committee would come and

Answer 1

1. The fact in this situation is that Mitch O' Neill is not a hard working and trust worthy physician assistant while he was a corrupt official . He has just made an image infront of others of a good person .

The thing which is known about Mitch O'Neill is that he is a good , hardworking physician assistant and the thing which is not known about him is that he is an untrusty corroup official .

2. The indications that research misconduct has happened are :-

- when Dr. Edward asks Mitch about report and Mitch say that it's all ready ,all data is well in hand

- when Mitch disappeared two days before committee members arrived for monitoring of the study

3. The think which motivated Mitch to disappear is that he got to know that Dr. Edward is taking advantage of him by making him do all the work at low fees .

Dr . Edward belived Mitch as a good , trust worthy individual because he had an excellent review from his supervisor and peers about Mitch O'Neill. Yes ,Dr. Edward should be responsible for Mitch's behaviour because he should have an eye on him than having blind faith on Mitch .

4. The outcome of the case will be legal actions will be taken against Dr. Edward and legal actions will include surrender of the study and penalty in the form of fine and cancellation of licence to conduct research .