JCAHO postpones new requirement for medical staff bylaws
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, May 5, 2005
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Medical services professionals (MSPs) can breathe a huge sigh of relief. The JCAHO announced it will delay until January 2007 a new requirement that would have forced many hospitals to rework their medical staff bylaws.
In response to "serious concerns" from hospitals that the changes to standard MS.1.20 are "prescriptive and burdensome," the JCAHO said in its just released April issue of This Month at the Joint Commission, that it would not implement any new requirements under controversial Element of Performance (EP) 19 until 2007. The JCAHO also left the door wide open for further modifications before that date.
The new EP 19, just released by the JCAHO, requires the medical staff and governing body agree on the following:
· The issues hospitals must address in the bylaws.
· The criteria hospitals will use to identify the issues they must address in the bylaws.
· The process used to joint adoption/approval of other issues that are addressed in the rules, regulations, and policies.
In other news from the JCAHO, the accreditor has revised leadership standard LD.3.70 to address hospitals' responsibilities for individuals not employed by the organization who provide services under the direct responsibility of a licensed independent practitioner (LIP). The revised standard takes effect
It will require hospitals to ensure providers-such as nurses, therapists, technicians, and surgical assistants who are employed by an LIP-are appropriately credentialed and competent. The level of competence must be equal to that of individuals employed by the healthcare organization to perform the same or similar services. Go to http://www.jcaho.org/about+us/news+letters/this+month+/index.htm#Revised to read the JCAHO's April newsletter.
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
