Sally J. Pelletier, CPMSM, CPCS, is a consultant with The Greeley Company, a division of HCPro, Inc., specializing in the areas of credentialing and privileging.

Dear credentialing colleague:

In a previous ezine article, I mentioned that a credentials committee member recently asked me, “How do you know what to look for when analyzing a credentials file?”

In order to fine tune your credentialing and privileging review process your medical staff leaders should first identify red flags with the potential to trigger a more thorough analysis of a particular credentials file. Fortunately, the majority of applicants who apply have what we would call “clean and green” files that are “routine” with no red flags that would raise concerns. So, the idea would be to treat the unusual credentials file in an unusual manner. The following is a list of red flags (your organization may identify others) that warrant a higher level of scrutiny:

Over 15% of Maryland’s AHP positions remained unfilled in 2007, according to an annual study released by the Maryland Hospital Association (MHA) last week. These include positions for physician assistants, occupational therapists, speech therapists, and respiratory therapists. Many nursing positions were also left unfilled. The national average for unfilled nursing positions is 8%, Maryland surpasses that at 10%.

Yes. Michael Cassidy, Esq., a healthcare lawyer at Arensberg Attorneys in Pittsburgh wrote about the situation recently on Med Law Blog (www.medlawblog.com) in the post “Physicians Must Reimburse Hospitals and Medical Staff Officers for Successful Defense of Peer Review Claims.”