Assert the Fifth with Uniform Disciplinary Act

Pleading the Fifth Amendment in responding to a DOH investigation, where the licensee has a duty to cooperate under the Uniform Disciplinary Act in RCW 18.130.180(8), at the risk of being charged with unprofessional conduct for not cooperating, is a tough line to walk.  Regardless, you should confer with criminal counsel before being substantively responsive and we err on the side of asserting this constitutional right:

Licensee has conferred with criminal counsel (or will confer with criminal counsel) and has been instructed to decline to answer questions about these allegations more specifically, to preserve and avoid waiving their Fifth Amendment right under King v. Olympic Pipeline Co., 104 Wn. App. 338, at 351, 16 P.3d 45 (Div. 1, 2000).  The Fifth Amendment protects against real danger, i.e., criminal exposure, that may result in incriminating oneself and is not simply available whether one has been indicted or not.[1]  Id at 359. 

[we include further analysis and assertions here]—be aware that your failure to be responsive may cut against you in the admissions process and DOH may still charge you with unprofessional conduct for not cooperating with its investigation. 

You should consult with counsel for your specific facts.

[1] This only becomes a factor to consider if the individual is seeking the stay of another related civil and/or administrative matter.  Id.