Question

The Case of the Phony PA

As a Senior Investigator at University Hospital, you were awarded a large grant to study the effects of new medications on healing leg wounds. The grant calls for either a nurse practitioner (NP) or a physician assistant (PA) who will be able to document the processes and keep the paperwork up-to-date on the grant. You interviewed several candidates and have found that Charles Tony, a PA, appeared to be the best candidate. His resume indicated that he earned a bachelor’s degree from a prestigious midwestern university, worked several years as an EMT, then went to PA school and earned an associate’s degree as a PA. He presented diplomas and copies of licensure certificates and had excellent recommendations from many reliable sources. This package was presented to you by the Human Resources Department. He was interviewed by several colleagues who would be participating in the study and was hired. He began work and appeared to be doing a good job. After a few months, some strange events started to occur. For instance, the locker he shared with one of the physicians was broken into. Multiple purchases were made on the physician’s credit cards in a very short time. Mr. Tony claimed his wallet had been stolen during that same incident. Other employees stated he was acting somewhat strange around them. He began dating an employee in the institution, then her apartment was broken into. At this point, no one was really suspicious, and Mr. Tony appeared to perform the functions of this job without any problems. Approximately 14 months after he was hired, he did not show up for work, did not answer his phone, and none of the records he was responsible for could be located. You contacted the HR Department and they began an investigation. To everybody’s surprise, you learned none of his credentials was actually checked back to their primary sources. When this check was completed after he disappeared, none of the academic institutions had ever heard of him. His references were all fraudulent. The police searched his apartment and found many missing pieces of University Hospital equipment. Mr. Tony was, however, nowhere to be found. It appears you hired a true pretender.

• Background Statement

• Major Problems and Secondary Issues

• Your Role

• Organizational Strengths and Weakness

• Alternatives and Recommended Solutions

• Evaluation

Answer 1

BACKGROUND STATEMENT - It is a case of document fraud. It emphasizes the importance of document verification and background checking.

MAJOR PROBLEMS - it is a mistake on part of the recruiters. Neither the human resources department nor senior investigator bothered to verify the candidate's claims.

SECONDARY ISSUES - companies must regularly assess the working of new recruits. Even without background verification , the fraudster would have been caught, if his workings were checked regularly.

YOUR ROLE - My role was to ensure that recruit was genuine. I blindly trusted the information from the humans resources department. Now, I must support the authorities by sharing whatever information I have at my disposal.

ORGANISATIONAL STRENGTHS -
•adequate staffing
•accepting candidates of prestigious colleges to ensure quality
•a proactive HR department
•quick enough to accept it's mistakes , rather than hiding it.

WEAKNESSES -
•no background verification is done.
•no checking for genuine recommendations.
•not taking frequent updates of a new recruit.
•no one in the office complained of the ongoing suspicious activities.

ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS -
•Human resource department must be made accountable for background verification , when they suggest a name.
•Interview process can also be used for verification. Must be done by a diverse team to check the candidate's knowledge.
•CCTV cameras must be installed to detect any suspicious activities.
•frequent updates of a new recruit must be taken, in order to check frauds.

EVALUATION
•A too good to be true resume of the candidate was suspicious. He should have been thoroughly questioned during the interview process.
•Several incidents , which should have been noted , were ignored -
✓ breaking of the locker
✓ multiple purchases on the physician's credit card.
✓ theft in a colleague's apartment.
These incidents reveal the sheer ignorance of the organization.

It could have been prevented if the organization was more alert and proactive