When conducting professional practice evaluation for APPs, peer reviewers should come from the same discipline whenever possible—PA to PA, NP to NP, CRNA to CRNA, and so forth. Of course, there may be times when it isn’t possible to get an evaluation from a peer in the same discipline. In such cases, you may have to rely on an NP evaluation of a PA, or vice versa. There may also be times when the only person with firsthand knowledge of the APP’s clinical abilities is a physician.

Patients covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and health plans subsidized under the Affordable Care Act will face an uphill battle in medical malpractice lawsuits if a bill drafted by House Republicans passes. The bill, which is part of Republicans plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, places a $250,000 noneconomic damages cap on lawsuits. It also protects physicians who prescribe a drug or medical device approved, licensed, or cleared by the FDA from being named in a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer or seller of the product.

"We realize they don't live in a vacuum."

-Dr. Kevin Koo, MD, discusses physicians inappropriate behavior on social media.

Abstracting meaningful professional practice evaluation data for advanced practice professionals (APP) is often a challenge given the dearth of available clinical activity information. This tool from HighPoint Health System in Gallatin, Tennessee, is a peer review rating form allowing reviewers to identify core privileges and special procedures for the given specialty that may require additional training and certification.

NPs and PAs' scope of practice is determined by education and experience, much like physicians. That scope is further defined by state law, hospital credentialing, and collaborating or supervising physician agreements. Where nurse practitioners (NP) are not permitted by state law to practice independently, it is important to delineate the NP's scope of practice in a collaborative practice agreement. For physician assistants (PA), a supervisory agreement is utilized to delineate scope of practice.

The United States could face a shortage of 40,800–104,900 physicians by 2030, according to a March study from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

To engage in credentialing by proxy for telemedicine practitioners, originating-site hospitals/critical access hospitals must explicitly recognize the option in their medical staff governing documents (e.g., bylaws and/or policy). This resource provides sample language to get you started.  

As the value of “value” increases in healthcare, organizations must look at all means of increasing safety, quality, access, and cost. One entity that cannot be ignored is the EHR.

Thank you to all the MSPs, quality professionals, and medical staff leaders who made the 2017 CRC Symposium so memorable! This year’s conference may be over, but the application of lessons learned—and the friendships formed—are just beginning. Here are a few post-conference reminders from the CRC team:

2017 CRC Symposium attendees can now access updated/supplemental materials for two of the event’s interactive sessions (“Credentialing Advancements in a New Delivery Era” and “Making Peer Review Actionable”), as well as full slide decks for the two Achievement Award ceremonies through the conference app. Simply navigate to the “Agenda” tab, click on the relevant session, and download the updated documents listed under the “Files & Links” header.

Access nearly 100 snapshots from educational sessions—and off-hours exploration—captured during the two-day training extravaganza in Austin, Texas. 

Let us know which department in your organization performs payer enrollment tasks. You must be signed in with your free or paid CRC account to participate.

Have a hot medical staff or credentialing topic you’d like your peers to weigh in on? Send proposed questions to Editor Son Hoang at shoang@hcpro.com, and you could see your idea showcased in a future poll.