Verifying employment/appointment history: Determining how far back is far enough
Credentialing & Verification Update, March 28, 2007
Discuss the topic of verifying employment/appointment history-and in particular the topic of how far back into the practitioner's past to delve-with credentialing specialists, and you're likely to get opinions that run the gamut. Some credentialing specialists question the value of verifying a practitioner's entire career when attempting to determine his or her current clinical competence.
Each hospital must determine how far back to verify an applicant's healthcare-related employment, appointment, and/or privilege history. It is not unreasonable to think that verification of an affiliation where the physician practiced more than 10 years ago is not an indication of that physician's current clinical competence.
However, in the current environment of negligent credentialing lawsuits, the public expects hospitals to be aware of any problems in a practitioner's background. Further, it is difficult to defend a lack of due diligence to obtain a complete picture of an applicant's healthcare-related work history.
While the vast majority of healthcare practitioners are well qualified and highly ethical, fraudulent completion of applications does occur. A practitioner may include healthcare facilities where he or she has not practiced, or may give inaccurate details about an existing affiliation to enhance his or her resume.
Querying all healthcare-related affiliations minimizes the risk to the hospital should the credentialing process be scrutinized. Verification of current clinical competence is obtained from current professional references (and/or program directors if the applicant is recently out of training), a report of recent clinical activity, and a query of recent healthcare affiliations. However, the best practice is collecting information about the practitioner's entire career to the greatest extent possible.
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- 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
