Tip of the week: Inclusiveness rules when developing core privileging criteria
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, February 14, 2008
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
When making the decision to move to a core privileging system, and during the process of developing each core, organizations should ensure that there is ample communication among everyone participating in the core privileging process. The process would be designed by the organization to include those practitioners who want to be involved and can make a contribution to the design of core privileges. The medical staff leadership should do everything possible to help everyone involved feel included in the process. Invite practitioners to open meetings to discuss the core privileging process and send written or electronic drafts of each core to everyone who might have an interest in them.
However, even if a significant effort is made to involve every practitioner in the process, there will almost always be at least one practitioner who will question the development or content of the draft core in his or her specialty. "Who did you meet with, and why wasn't it me?" he or she might ask. This response is predictable, and it would be appropriate to respond by telling the practitioner that he or she had plenty of opportunities to help develop the core description for the specialty and to list those opportunities.
This week's tip is from Core Privileges for Physicians, Fourth Edition: A Practical Approach to Developing and Implementing Criteria-Based Privileges, (HCPro, Inc.) by Wendy Crimp, RN, BSN, MBA, CPHQ; Sally J. Pelletier, CPMSM, CPCS; Vicki L. Searcy, CPMSM; and Mark Smith, MD, MBA, FACS, available here.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Comments
0 comments on “Tip of the week: Inclusiveness rules when developing core privileging criteria ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched
