Medical Staff

  • Home
    • » Medical Staff Main Page
Medical Staff

Medical Staff

HCPro, Inc., and its sister company, The Greeley Company, offer real-world solutions to meet the challenges of the evolving medical staff by offering expert advice to comply with regulations, ensure physician competence, and achieve high-quality care.

Medical Staff Headlines

Want to receive headlines like these in your inbox? Subscribe to one of our free Medical Staff e-Newsletters

Top Stories

  • Help hospitalists’ communication skills during handoffs

    For many physicians, taking the time to perform a thorough and effective hand off is a chore they know they should do, but culture and logistics often get in the way.

  • Florida's three-strike rule falls flat, attorney challenges enabling language

    One Florida malpractice attorney wants to make sure that the three–strikes-your-out rule stays on the books.

  • In the news: Changes to Section 1921 affect NPDB reporting

    The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) has implemented changes to Section 1921, which expands the practitioner information the data bank collects. More details about the new Section 1921 regulation can be found in the January 28 Federal Register.

  • Tip of the week: Identify which individuals may submit references for new applicants (free form)

    In the past, institutions often relied solely on references supplied by the applicant. But now it is recommended, and in some cases required, that the institution identify which individuals may submit references.

  • Ask the expert: What is inter-rater reliability (free form)?

    Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which two or more individuals (or raters) agree. In the context of medical staff peer review, inter-rater reliability can be defined as the extent to which two separate reviewers come to the similar conclusion regarding a physician’s performance. It also applies to a single reviewer coming to the same or similar conclusions when reviewing like cases.  

  • See one, do one, teach one: Do you have a peer review training program?

    This weekly column from The Greeley Company addresses current issues in peer review, bylaws and governance, credentialing and privileging, and other important medical staff related topics.

    “See one, do one, teach one.” That is the medical school adage that formed the basis for much of our training. While many medical students felt this was an abrupt introduction to patient care activities, at least we got to see a procedure before we did one. Many physicians, when they are appointed to a peer review committee, are pushed right into doing without the luxury of seeing. The committee may assume that because physicians are looking at medical records during the course of patient care, there is no need to instruct them on how to conduct peer review. Thus, most hospitals do not have a peer review orientation or training program for new members.

    Read the rest of this column by Robert Marder, MD, CMSL, vice president of The Greeley Company, a division of HCPro, Inc. in Marblehead, MA.

More Medical Staff Headlines »

Quick Poll

Are you in favor of CMS's proposed bundled payment system?

 

Medical Staff Blog

On Hospitalist Leadership, our featured bloggers and program management leaders share their expertise via short daily news posts and opinion editorials. We encourage active participation from readers and bring expert advice from around the country to your desktop.

Recent Posts:

Read Hospitalist Leadership

Spotlight

  • Lack of inpatient beds is major cause of ED crowding

    Crowding in the emergency department (ED) is caused, in part, because of a lack of inpatient beds, according to a recent report by Government Accountability Office, “Hospital Emergency Departments: Crowding Continues to Occur, and Some Patients Wait Longer than Recommended Time Frames,” published in April 2009.

    In 2006, 119 million Americans visited the ED. Based on 2006 data, researchers studied indicators of ED crowding, including ambulance diversion, patient wait times, and patient boarding.

    Researchers found that the majority of patients with an “immediate” acuity level, i.e., patients who should have be seen immediately (under one minute), waited about half an hour (28 minutes). Half of the patients with an “emergent” acuity level who had a recommended wait time of 1–14 minutes waited double that amount of time (37 minutes), according to the report.

    However, urgent or semi-urgent patients were seen at an acceptable wait time. “Urgent” patients, who should be seen within 15–60 minutes, waited an average of 50 minutes—right on time. Those who were considered “semiurgent,” who should be seen within one to two hours, only waited 68 minutes.

    “In terms of factors that contribute to crowding, we reported that crowding is a complex issue, and no single factor tends to explain why crowding occurs,” states the study. “However, we found that one key factor contributing to crowding was the availability of inpatient beds for patients admitted to the hospital from the emergency department.”

    [via HospitalistLeadership.com]