Poll Question: How confident are you that the NPDB contains up-to-date information?
In light of Section 1921 updates, a recent newspaper article took a closer look at practitioner sanctions on the NPDB and found missing information. The article, produced by The Los Angeles Times and ProPublica, claims that states only sporadically report practitioners, such as nurses, pharmacists, psychologists and other licensed health professionals, and that states faced “no penalties,” for their actions
The article lists many examples of missing sanctions. “Judging from the federal numbers, no pharmacist has been disciplined in South Dakota or New Hampshire, and only one each in Alabama, Delaware, Ohio and Tennessee. But a search of those states’ websites showed hundreds of sanctions,” the article states.
After reading this report and considering your own experiences with the NPDB, how confident are you that the NPDB contains up to date information? Take our poll below and see how your opinion compares to your peers.
About the Author: Emily Berry is an associate editor at HCPro in the credentialing market. In addition to managing information on CRC she writes the Briefings on Credentialing newsletter and the Credentialing Resource Center Connection weekly email newsletter. A native of Ohio, she graduated from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland before moving east to attain her MS degree in journalism from Boston University.
Beth Mattox | Feb 19, 2010 | Reply
This article reveals some shocking information. Although in the medical credentialing field there are various tools to check and cross-check a health care professional’s history.The lack of data submitted by state agencies to the NPDB is shocking and one more reason for an MSP to a variety of verification sources hand when processing a health care professional’s request for facility privilegs or clinical practice employment. MSPs are truly the guardians of the public’s health safety when it comes to a professional’s past history. We are the one’s who will “dig”.
Shawn Moore | Feb 19, 2010 | Reply
I have had the misfortune of having a couple of different applicants that were “bad seeds”, and never had a single thing reported on them by their former hospital affiliations. Through the verification process, the former affiliations disclosed the information, but never filed an NPDB. They found mechanisms to avoid the long and legistic process of a Fair Hearing and filing a formal NPDB report. I am surprised at the number of institutions that are more concerned about the ramifications of filing an appropriate NPDB report on a clinically incompetent or morally unethical practitioner than on the safety of their patients. Stop passing these practitioners on to another facility to have to deal with. Deal with them right the first time.
Susan Manion-Galloway | Feb 20, 2010 | Reply
I, too, have had the misfortune of expediting an applicaiton and a reapplicaiton, when the state had failed to report board actions on the two providers. If we MSP’s have a responsiblity to report adverse actions within the time limit, we expect the states to do so, too, so that we can all protect the patient on the front end.