• E-mail
• Print
• RSS

Featured blog post: 9 tips for conducting peer review in the face of discoverability

Medical Staff Leader Connection, August 26, 2010

Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!

They call Missouri the “Show Me State,” but perhaps that name is better suited for Florida. In the September issue of Credentialing & Peer Review Legal Insider, I spoke with George Indest, an attorney with The Health Law Firm in Almonte Springs, FL, about the consequences of Amendment 7. Amendment 7—otherwise known as the Patient Right to Know about Adverse Medical Incidents Act—makes what would normally be considered protected peer review information discoverable to the public. Originally meant to help patients do research on their healthcare providers, the amendment has stifled peer review efforts across the state since it was implemented in 2004. As case law continues to define the amendment, many medical staffs are choosing to minimally document peer review activities to protect physicians from the career-damaging effects of discoverability.

However, choosing to keep only sketchy documentation of peer review activities can have a negative effect on peer review as a whole. According to Indest, inadequate documentation can result in the inability to obtain meaningful feedback. Healthcare providers involved in specific incidents of adverse care might not be able to identify the specific incident or patient about whom feedback is being sought. Healthcare providers also might not be able to comply with certifying or accrediting organizations’ guidelines and requirements and fail to show compliance with state requirements for peer review activities.

To read more of this blog post, visit MedicalStaffLeader.com.

Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!

• E-mail to a Colleague
• Print
• RSS
• Archive