Editor's note: The following is a CRC members only article that Credentialing Resource Center has made available to the public.

In healthcare, change is constant, and credentialing and privileging are no exception. Rapidly expanding technology and increased variation in how practitioners are providing care (e.g., telemedicine, locum tenens, outpatient vs. inpatient) means that MSPs need to be proactive and monitor how these changes will alter the clinical privileges granted to their practitioners.

Even when your facility has a policy for assessing and adding innovations, there is still a temptation to react to each individual practitioner’s application, rather than to consult the policy. Every request, it seems, comes with its own “special circumstances.” However, such a haphazard approach can spawn problems that could be avoided by following your policy. Figures 1 and 2 can prevent you from making rash decisions.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice recently released an open letter addressed to Maryland Senator Dan K. Morhaim, MD, board member of the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS), concerning its views on Maryland House Bill 857, which was withdrawn after receiving an unfavorable report by health and government operations. The Bill centers on physician specialty board certification, addressing whether an organization granting a physician privileges can require that the physician be board-certified by a specific board in order to qualify for privileges.

MSPs, we want to hear from you for our next Medical Staff Briefing article! As as the end of the year nears, we encourage you to reflect on this past year and look eagerly towards the coming one. If you're interested in sharing your 2018 achievements and 2019 aspirations with us and your fellow MSPs, please email kaccorto@hcpro.com for more information. Your contributions are greatly appreciated!

Join us for a peer review virtual workshop on January 16th and get your current peer review challenges solved! During this 2.5-hour workshop, peer review experts Robert Marder, MD, and Marla Smith, MHSA, will provide attendees with solutions to peer review issues specific to their organization. Attendees will have the opportunity to anonymously share their organization’s peer review challenges by completing a brief questionnaire in advance of the program; Marder and Smith will use this questionnaire to help attendees develop solutions. Attendees will walk away not only with solutions to their own struggles, but also with insight into how other organizations have solved their pressing peer review issues. Marder and Smith will additionally present case studies on organizations who have successfully worked through bias, culture, or logistic issues regarding peer review. To see the agenda, or to register, click here.

Peer review remains a vital part of both credentialing and privileging, and it is indicative of the desire to pursue physician excellence. Beyond the need to meet regulatory requirements, when peer review is done from a performance improvement perspective, it provides the opportunity for the medical profession to get ahead of the curve with respect to data transparency and risk management. However, for peer review to be successful, hospital professionals must secure physician buy-in.