AHA seeks edits to revisions of MS.1.20
Medical Staff Leader Connection, October 25, 2006
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
The American Hospital Association (AHA), in a letter to the accrediting body on Oct. 23, expressed support for the revisions to standard MS.1.20, but requested edits to element of performance (EP) 27, and urged the JCAHO to allow hospitals two to three years to be in compliance. Hospitals and medical staffs have commented that previous proposed revisions to the standard were overly prescriptive and burdensome. The proposed EP 27, which would require hospitals to have a provision to allow the medical staff to propose medical staff bylaws and amendments to the hospital's governing body, as currently worded "suggests that the governing body's approval of medical staff bylaws and amendments that originate with the organized medical staff is inevitable or nothing more than a formality," according to the AHA's letter. The AHA suggested wording that "conveys a necessarily more precise meaning that EP 27 is to be implemented consistent with the ultimate decision-making authority of a hospital's governing body." Citing hospital reports that it takes a minimum of two years to adopt bylaws amendments, the AHA recommended that the JCAHO permit hospitals to amend their medical staff bylaws during the hospital's next regular updating cycle, and establish an "outer time limit" of three years from the adoption of MS.1.20 to come into compliance. The National Association Medical Staff Services (NAMSS) is urging the JCAHO to discontinue its revisions to Standard MS.1.20, or to clarify in the introduction to the standards that adoption of the proposed revisions to MS.1.20 is voluntary. The JCAHO will close a third field review of MS.1.20 on October 27. To read the letter from the AHA, click here.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader 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
- 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
