Tip of the week: Aging practitioner policies should not focus on individuals
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, March 19, 2009
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
One circumstance to consider when developing a credentialing and privileging policy is practitioner aging. The airline industry has set the mandatory retirement age at 65. Although most medical staffs are uncomfortable setting such a standard, many are considering placing extra scrutiny on aging practitioners to ensure quality patient care. Doing so provides a mechanism to address this potentially thorny issue in a predetermined, fair, less confrontational manner.
Any approach should be nondiscriminatory and should not single out any particular individual. Rather, it should encompass all aging practitioners. Objective measures should be used to determine aging physicians’ physical and cognitive capabilities to perform the privileges requested.
This week’s tip is from The Greeley Guide to Medical Staff Bylaws, Second Edition, by Joseph D. Cooper, MD, CMSL.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Related Products
-
Credentialing Resource Center
CRC is now available online! Receive updates up to four days earlier than the print version and save on shipping costs.
-
The Final Verdict on MS.01.01.01:
The Joint Commission has finalized and communicated the changes to MS.01.01.01. This program will not restate what you...
-
The Greeley Guide to Medical Staff Bylaws, Third Edition
More than just boilerplate language, this easy-to-use resource empowers you with implementation strategies, tools, and...
-
The 15th Annual Credentialing Resource Center Symposium Seminar: Orlando, FL
The premiere event for credentialing and medical staff services professionals offers workable solutions for tough issues
-
Medical Staff Briefing
This monthly resource acts as a support system by providing time-saving tools, expert advice, and analyses to help you...
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