Do you find yourself performing duplicative work because of redundant standards?
NAMSS has partnered with the National Credentialing Forum (NCF) to identify the top redundant credentialing standards that are creating unnecessary time and cost burdens in medical services offices nationwide.
If you find yourself wasting time on repetitive tasks due to overlapping standards, NAMSS asks that you help us with this project by completing the following survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=82VJa68fa_2fyUdSK77yYLaQ_3d_3d
The data collected through this survey will help NAMSS and the NCF promote the need for streamlined credentialing standards so MSP time can be better spent on effective quality measures, not on completing tasks that have already been performed.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Georgia High Court Rules Routine Credentialing Information Discoverable
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that "routine credentialing information" is not protected from discovery under state medical and peer review laws unless the information contains a peer review evaluation of actual medical services provided.
The ruling stems from a medical malpractice suit by Thurman Meeks against the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County and Dr. Terry Tri. Meeks alleged that the hospital was negligent in credentialing Tri to perform the surgery that preceded his wife's death.
The Court affirmed a decision at the appellate level, which ruled that statutory privileges only protect evaluations by a peer review committee regarding a provider's performance to gauge his or her ability to provide quality care. The privilege does not extend to "routine credentialing information," which includes the provider's education, training, and employment history.
The Court clarified that this rule would apply even to hospitals that delegate full review of the credentialing file to a peer review committee. Applying the privilege to routine credentialing information just because it is peer reviewed in this instance, says the Court, would be unfairly prejudicial to those seeking to file negligent credentialing claims.
The Court's full opinion can be found here:
http://supreme.courts.state.ga.us/pdf/s09g0466.pdf.
Source: BNA
The ruling stems from a medical malpractice suit by Thurman Meeks against the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County and Dr. Terry Tri. Meeks alleged that the hospital was negligent in credentialing Tri to perform the surgery that preceded his wife's death.
The Court affirmed a decision at the appellate level, which ruled that statutory privileges only protect evaluations by a peer review committee regarding a provider's performance to gauge his or her ability to provide quality care. The privilege does not extend to "routine credentialing information," which includes the provider's education, training, and employment history.
The Court clarified that this rule would apply even to hospitals that delegate full review of the credentialing file to a peer review committee. Applying the privilege to routine credentialing information just because it is peer reviewed in this instance, says the Court, would be unfairly prejudicial to those seeking to file negligent credentialing claims.
The Court's full opinion can be found here:
http://supreme.courts.state.ga.us/pdf/s09g0466.pdf.
Source: BNA
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Joint Commission Updates Definition of "Physician"
The Joint Commission has made changes to the definition of "physician," which will apply to hospital programs starting July 1, 2009.
The change amends the definition in the Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals to reflect the definition of "physician" used by CMS. The new definition recognizes the following groups as "physicians," based on state licensure requirements:
The change amends the definition in the Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals to reflect the definition of "physician" used by CMS. The new definition recognizes the following groups as "physicians," based on state licensure requirements:
- Doctors of medicine and osteopathy
- Doctors of dental surgery or dental medicine
- Doctor of podiatric medicine
- Doctors of optometry
- Chiropractors
This change will affect several Elements of Performance. The latest revision of accreditation requirements have been updated to show when an EP applies to a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or a physician under the CMS definition.
The change in definition has been made to comply with CMS requirements for deemed status.
More information on this change, including the new definition of "physician," can be found in the June 2009 issue of Perspectives.
For the revised accreditation requirements, click here:
http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/C9298DD0-6726-4105-A007-FE2C65F77075/0/CMS_New_Revised_HAP_FINAL_withScoring.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)