All Entries Tagged With: "peer review"
Confusing peer review laws hinder NPDB reporting, AMA article says
Previous research has suggested that medical staffs don’t report practitioners to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) as often as they should. But why? One factor might be confusing peer review laws, according to an AMNews article.
The NPDB requires medical staffs to report practitioners if it restricted or revoked the practitioner’s privileges for more than 30 days based on competency problems or professional misconduct.
However, hospitals choose to deal with competency problems and professional misconduct in different ways, and if they don’t involve privilege suspension, they may not be reported to the NPDB.
Greeley Medical Staff Institute contest entry
Thanks to Mary Jo Hallaert, RN, BSN, CPHQ, quality resource specialist at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, CO, for sending in this great suggestion regarding physician peer review. When her organization reorganized its peer review program, physician reviewers requested broader access to peer review materials to help them meet their timelines. The quality resources department developed several customer defined screens within the Meditech system to accommodate this request.
She writes:
“While we continue to tweak the system to help physicians review efficiently, entering information in the computer for case review has enhanced our reporting options for OPPE, FPPE, and other physician quality committee needs.”
Click here to see the two screens that physicians can access to answer questions related to their peer case reviews. Physicians enter the module using an assigned password and find the cases that they are assigned to. Case history notes are available to read, as well as access to the whole peer review record. Physicians can move in and out of the case records as needed, and still return to the review categories and text boxes to document their findings and choose their dispositions.
Mary Jo explains that at committee meetings, worksheets can be downloaded for discussion, and at the end of the quarter, the peer review committee can generate reports, such as cases per physicians, categories, dispositions, system improvements identified, and reviewer comments.
Thanks for sharing such a great idea with us, Mary Jo!
Georgia Supreme court redefines discoverability
The Supreme Court of Georgia in June ruled that plaintiffs who bring negligent credentialing lawsuits against a hospital can discover certain hospital credentialing records in Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County, d/b/a South Georgia Medical Center v. Meeks et al.
“Unless the credentialing information involves the evaluation of the quality and efficiency of actual medical services, it does not come within the peer review and medical review privileges,” states the court document.
Given that credentialing and peer review are interdependent, this ruling could greatly affect how the two functions are performed. My first thought was “Is nothing sacred?” but I”m curious what you think. Is this fair?
Free demonstration of Physician Profile Reporter software June 30
As editor of Medical Staff Briefing, I get a lot of feedback about the struggles medical staffs have with designing an effective way to provide physicians with performance feedback. If deciding what to measure isn’t hard enough, compiling the data can make you want to tear your hair out if your technology systems don’t cooperate.
To help get your organization moving in the right direction, I’d like to let you know about a free on-line demonstration for Physician Profile Reporter software on June 30 at 1:00 ET. During the demonstration, Marla Smith, MHSA, a consultant with The Greeley Company, will walk you through how to generate reliable performance reports that can be easily distributed to each medical staff member.
Complying with the Joint Commission’s FPPE and OPPE requirements doesn’t have to take over your life if you have the right tools, so I encourage you to sign up for this free demonstration.
State peer review systems under the microscope
Californians have long doubted the effectiveness of the physician peer review process in hospitals, which came under fire once more at a state senate hearing on Monday, March 9. According to an article in the Enterprise Record, the hearing was held by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee to evaluate whether the current peer review structure in California allows inept physicians to treat patients—sometimes for years.
HCQIA and peer review: What?! No immunity?
From what I’ve read so far about the Poliner case, it seems that the HCQIA (immunity) is in jeopardy. If the court upholds the decision, it may be more and more difficult to find physicians willing to serve on “fair hearing” committees or who will report inappropriate clinical care.
[more]
Will the Supreme Court take on Poliner peer review case?
Quite possibly, according to American Medical News:
Dr. Poliner is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to look at his case to decide whether a court can exclude evidence of subjective motives when it considers whether peer reviewers had a “reasonable belief” that the action was taken to further health care quality, which HCQIA requires.
Todd Morrison
Managing Editor