Former Minnesota neurosurgeon not being disciplined after moving to Texas
Credentialing Resource Center Connection, June 3, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
The Minnesota Board of Medical Practice disciplined former St. Luke’s neurosurgeon, Stefan Konasiewicz, in September 2010, but the sanctions the board imposed are not being enforced by the Texas Medical Board, where Konasiewicz now lives and practices at four hospitals.
The Minnesota Board of Medical Practice ordered Konasiewicz to have a preapproved supervising physician specializing in neurological surgery observe at least five of his surgeries per quarter, and to have that physician submit quarterly reports to the board regarding Konasiewicz’s overall work. He also was ordered to meet quarterly with a designated board member and review his progress, according to The Duluth News Tribune.
However, Konasiewicz is under no obligation to fulfill those sanctions under the Texas Medical Board, which does not list any investigations or actions against Konasiewicz on its website. Theoretically, Konasiewicz’s four malpractice cases should be listed in the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), but because the NPDB charges for queries, the Texas Medical Board can’t afford to check every physician with privileges in the state. Although one of the hospitals where Konasiewicz practices said that its thorough credentialing process detected all the issues associated with the neurosurgeon.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Credentialing Resource Center Connection!
Related Products
-
The Medical Executive Committee Handbook, Third Edition
Updated to reflect the new 2007 Joint Commission standards, this best-selling resource offers practical tools and strategies...
-
Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide, Sixth Edition
Written by experienced medical staff leaders currently working in hospitals, The Medical Staff Leaders' Practical Guide...
-
Assessing the Competency of Low-Volume Practitioners:
The Joint Commission requires that hospitals verify physician competence using performance data. Yet organizations often...
-
The Final Verdict on MS.01.01.01:
The Joint Commission has finalized and communicated the changes to MS.01.01.01. This program will not restate what you...
-
Medical Staff Briefing
This monthly resource acts as a support system by providing time-saving tools, expert advice, and analyses to help you...
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched