Three reasons to endorse core privileging
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, July 21, 2004
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Considering the limitations to the traditional approaches to privileges delineation, healthcare organizations need a system that they can rely on to help them make appropriate decisions regarding the kinds of privileges they will grant practitioners.
One alternative to privilege lists and vague categorizations is to use predefined criteria in conjunction with a clinically realistic, well-defined description of core privileges for each specific clinical specialty or subspecialty treatment area. Practitioners who meet the predefined criteria may be eligible to apply for core privileges, and those who can document additional training and experience can request special privileges.
The system we endorse is a solid for several reasons, including the following:
1. Consistency
Consistency is maintained because all practitioners who request privileges to treat the same conditions or perform the same procedures are asked to meet the same minimum threshold criteria covering education, training, experience, and current clinical competence. Consistency is a large part of risk management, because consistent criteria help to minimize the risk of corporate liability by ensuring that only practitioners with the proper education, training, experience, and competence perform certain procedures or treat certain conditions.
2. Flexibility
This system to privileging is also flexible. When an organization needs to develop core criteria for a new clinical area or technology, the format for developing those criteria is already in place, ready to be followed. Productivity increase, since much of the initial research can be done by nonclinicians.
3. Predefined minimum threshold criteria
The system's best advantage is that it defines minimum threshold criteria. Thus, those who do not meet the predefined criteria for core privileges or special requests are not eligible to apply. If unqualified practitioners cannot apply, there will be no denials, no fair hearings, and no reports to the state or the National Practitioner Data Bank.
That's it for today.
All the best,
Hugh Greeley
www.greeley.com/seminars
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
