Rethink your AHP policy
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, May 28, 2003
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Dear Credentialing Colleague:
Let me tell you about a fair hearing that recently took place at a typical American hospital. This hearing lasted slightly over eight hours, involved five fair-hearing panel members, two lawyers, three witnesses for the appellant, and four witnesses for the medical executive committee (MEC). Also in attendance were one court reporter, one representative of management, and the appellant's employer.
The cost of this hearing, including all time spent, added up to nearly one-third of the appellant's annual salary. Fortunately, there was no appeal to the board of directors.
And just what action prompted this large expenditure of resources? The MEC had recommended the revocation of privileges previously granted to an orthopedic surgeon's casting tech. Yes, this non-licensed, non-certified casting tech had been granted clinical privileges.
Prior to the fair hearing, this tech acted without professionalism, courtesy, or dignity while in the hospital. After considerable investigation and deliberation, the MEC decided to revoke his privileges.
One might wonder why this individual was granted clinical privileges and given the right to a hearing in the first place. At the very most, his employer could have been granted permission to employ the casting tech's services pursuant to hospital policy. Revoking such permission would not, under any circumstances, give rise to a hearing.
The hospital's explanation for granting privileges to this allied health professional (AHP) was as follows:
"We were told by a JCAHO surveyor to grant privileges to all allied health professionals."
As most readers know, JCAHO standards do not require all AHPs to be privileged. The only AHPs to which the privileging mechanism applies are licensed independent practitioners who practice without supervision. The casting tech does not meet either criterion.
Review your policies and procedures to ensure that simple matters do not become overly complex at your institution.
That's all for this week.
All the best,
Hugh Greeley
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- HealthDataInsights posts new issues for medical necessity claims
- New FAQ posted on storing laryngoscope blades
- Q&A: Incidental disclosures and patient privacy
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Tip of the Week: Treat faculty orientation like resident orientation
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- Q/A: New device pass-through categories
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- 2012 CPT code changes for ASCs: Shoulder and knee scopes and pain management
- News and briefs: GA may increase residency number s across state, but cut main hospital?s budget
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Tip: Know the common bunionectomy procedure codes and how to use them
- Code changes should help ease the pain when coding for facet joint injections
- Documentation and coding for toxic metabolic encephalopathy
- News and briefs: UA study links lack of empathy in residents to long shifts
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- Don't let improper discharge disposition codes fly under the radar at your facility
- Discharge Planning Under the MDS 3.0
- Correctly code for new cardiac, pulmonary rehab benefits
- Searched
