AMA physicians want more input with JCAHO
Medical Staff Leader Connection, November 28, 2006
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Delegates to the American Medical Association's (AMA) House of Delegates criticized the JCAHO for not heeding the input of physicians in adopting new standards, and sounded the alarm on standards they view as undermining physician autonomy, at the group's policymaking meeting in Las Vegas in November.
The JCAHO should notify physician groups six months in advance of adopting or modifying new standards, the delegates determined, and make the standards available to any licensed physician in print or online format "without hindrance," according to a report in the Dec. 4 edition of American Medical News, a publication of the AMA.
The delegates passed resolutions on key standards, MM.4.10 (medication reconciliation), and MS.1.20 (medical staff governance).
On MM.4.10, which requires that prescriptions for non-urgent or high-risk drugs to be reviewed by a pharmacist prior to giving the first dose to the patient, delegates called for changing the standard, "so that medication administered in a hospital setting does not require first-dose review by a pharmacist."
Responding to MS.1.20, which allows medical executive committees to act on behalf of the medical staff to propose medical staff bylaws directly to the governing body, the AMA delegates proposed including language to the standard that recognizes the self-governing nature of medical staffs, and the rights of medical staffs to develop policies, to assess dues, and retain legal counsel.
"JCAHO is being used as a tool by the government to take over the practice of medicine through the hospitals," said David McKalip, MD, an alternate delegate from
Source: "Doctors demand more input on hospital standards," American Medical News, Dec. 4, 2006.
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- 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
