The value of hospital verifications
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, May 20, 2010
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Anne R. Buss, CPMSM, CPCS, is a medical staff consultant based in Fayetteville, AR.
Dear readers,
For some time now I have struggled with the lack of value involved with verifying an applicant’s hospital affiliations. We send letters requesting verification of dates, copies of privileges, a release of information, and a questionnaire, and we have little hope that they will be returned. Often, these requests can amount to a dozen or more pages to be faxed or scanned. The most any of us expect in return is a canned letter giving the dates the applicant was at the hospital and that he or she left in good standing. What exactly does that mean—there are no clear clues as to how to interpret it?
I have seen a good solution to this problem. A number of facilities have posted information about their physicians on websites. To look up a physician, you have to log on with a username and password and search for the applicant using his or her Social Security number. We all love these sites because we don’t have to jump through the hoops with letters, privilege requests, or releases of information. Instant turn around!
I understand the importance of verifying clinical activity from education, training, and previous practices for applicants. But The Joint Commission does not require verification of affiliation, privileges or clinical responsibilities, or work history. The hospital is required to evaluate current competency. This involves verifying voluntary/involuntary relinquishment of license, voluntary/involuntary termination of medical staff membership, and voluntary/involuntary imitation, reduction, or loss of clinical privileges. In most cases, the disclosure portion of the application asks these questions.
It is the duty of our hospital to request from prior hospitals:
- The reason for the discontinuation of association
- Any pending professional misconduct proceedings or any pending malpractice actions (we also access these through the Federation of State Medical Boards [FSMB] and National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB]) in any state
- The outcome of the findings in these actions or proceeding (also accessable via the NPDB)
- A waiver by the physician of any confidentiality provisions concerning the information (Release of Information)
- A verification by the physician that the self-disclosed information is accurate and complete
It is the duty of the hospital or facility who answers the requests to provide the information to the extent that they have knowledge; and in doing so in good faith are not liable in any civil action for the release of such information. Who gives this information is important. MSPs can verify dates of affiliation, privileges held, reason for leaving, and the status of the applicant. However, medical directors, chiefs of staffs, or department or service chiefs must answer any questions of competency.
There are a number of ways that all this information can be obtained, in addition to the Web site example I gave above. One way is to send a letter to the medical staff services department (MSSD) with a release of information signed by the applicant. This should be sufficient to get the routine information. Competency-related requests should be sent directly to the hospital medical director, chief of staff, or department chief, along with the questionnaire, the privileges requested, and a release of information. A quick phone call to the MSSD will get you the correct person to address this information. That should garner the information you need.
And don’t expect an immediate response to your requests if you don’t provide the same.
Remember, those who are afraid to ask are afraid to learn.
All the best,
Anne R. Buss, CPMSM, CPCS
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
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
