Credentials policy

May 18, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        A registrant at our Complete Course for Medical Staff Leaders in New Orleans two weeks ago asked:

Appreciated the suggestion in the case study to hold an application incomplete if there remain questions and concerns, but couldn’t the Credentials Chair or another physician leader suggest that an applicant withdraw the application?

ANSWER:           They could.  However, such a suggestion must be done with care. Suggesting that an applicant withdraw could invite a contention from an applicant’s lawyer that leaders are attempting to talk an applicant out of a “right” to a hearing.  That’s not the case if there has not been a recommendation for “denial,” but dealing with the contention could consume valuable resources.  Instead of appearing to push the applicant to withdraw, it may be better to present the physician with the potential consequences of the options, including withdrawal, appealing a denial recommendation, or allowing the application to remain incomplete.  It is a best practice to have a framework of clear language in the bylaws or credentialing policy (premised on the applicant’s burden), that incomplete applications will not be processed; and any application that remains incomplete after information has been requested, and not fully provided after a stated period of time (30, 45 or 60 days), will be deemed to be withdrawn.  It is easier for someone to simply wait for the expiration of the time period than to have to formally write a letter of withdrawal.  If your documents don’t have that language, you can still use this technique by stating a time period in the letters posing questions and requesting information.  Add additional language to guide future credentialers, next time revisions are considered!

March 30, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        We received word through the grapevine that a Medical Staff member was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) last weekend.  Does our Medical Staff leadership need to take any action, or should we only act if we’ve observed problems in the hospital?

ANSWER:            A DUI may be a sign of a significant underlying problem, or it may reflect only a momentary lapse in judgment.  Given this uncertainty and the potential risks to patients and the practitioner, it makes sense to speak with the practitioner about the DUI, gather relevant information, and decide if any additional action is needed.  This approach protects both patients and the practitioner.

Gathering information about the DUI is consistent with the process followed by some state medical boards, which use a trained professional to interview physicians who are arrested for a DUI to determine if an additional assessment or intervention is required.

The hospital’s Credentials Policy and Practitioner Health Policy should help physician leaders to address these issues:

  • The Credentials Policy should make clear that applicants and members of the Medical Staff must notify the Medical Staff Office, the Chief of Staff, or the Chief Medical Officer of any change in information provided on their application form. In fact, the Credentials Policy could specifically state that physician leaders must be notified of any DUI or similar matter.
  • The Practitioner Health Policy should outline a non-punitive, supportive process for carefully obtaining a practitioner’s input, evaluating a potential health issue, and helping the individual resolve the issue.

For more information on how to handle these and other issues, join us May 4-6 in New Orleans (and enjoy Jazz Fest at the same time – responsibly!).

March 23, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        We have an applicant for medical staff appointment who disclosed that he was under probation for a time during his residency. Despite our requests, he has refused to provide any additional information related to this matter. He also has declined to sign an authorization that would allow us to talk freely with his program director.

We have language in our Medical Staff Credentials Policy stating that the burden is on the applicant to provide any information requested, or his or her application will be held as incomplete.  Is this a situation where we can rely on this provision?

ANSWER:            Most definitely.  When it comes to enforcing such a provision, the law is on your side. Courts from jurisdictions across the country have held that a hospital can refuse to process an application that is incomplete.  For example, an Illinois appeals court, in a case with facts very similar to the situation described above, held that an applicant must “provid[e] all information deemed necessary by the hospital…as a condition precedent to the hospital’s obligation to process the application.”  Similarly, an appeals court in Tennessee ruled in favor of the hospital in a case where a physician up for reappointment refused to release information on pending malpractice claims.  In that case, the court found that that application for medical staff membership clearly required the physician to assist in providing the information necessary to determine his qualifications.

Of course, having good language in your Medical Staff documents (and on your application form) that makes it clear that the burden to provide information is on the applicant – and that an incomplete application will not be processed – is key.  Since you stated that you have this language in place, you can feel confident in holding this application as incomplete until the applicant meets his burden of providing the information you need.

March 9, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        In our Medical Staff Professionalism Policy, should we have a different process for addressing reports of sexual harassment?


ANSWER:            Since there are unique legal implications surrounding sexual harassment, we recommend that a policy addressing inappropriate conduct incorporate a modified process for review of reports involving sexual harassment.

We recommend that a single, confirmed incident of sexual harassment trigger a well-defined process that involves the medical staff and hospital taking immediate and appropriate action to address the conduct and to prevent it from reoccurring.  For example, a personal meeting should be held with at least two members of the professionalism committee (or similar committee) to discuss the incident.  If the physician acknowledges that the incident occurred and agrees not to repeat the conduct, the physician is sent a formal letter of admonition and warning that is placed in his or her file.  The letter should set forth any additional actions or conditions imposed on the physician’s continued practice at the hospital which result from the meeting.  If the physician refuses to acknowledge the confirmed incident of sexual harassment or there are confirmed reports of retaliation, the matter should be immediately referred to the Medical Executive Committee to conduct a review consistent with the credentials policy or bylaws.  A well-defined process which incorporates these details demonstrates the hospital’s efforts to address any incidents of sexual harassment and attempts to prevent them from occurring again, minimizing the risk of the hospital being held liable in court.

February 16, 2017

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        Our Medical Staff Credentials Policy has a detailed list of threshold eligibility criteria.  In the provisions that deal with criminal histories, the policy mentions felonies and misdemeanors that involve “moral turpitude.”  What’s moral turpitude?

ANSWER:            Moral turpitude is a broad term that can be used to refer to a variety of crimes.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines moral turpitude as “conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or morality.”  The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual explains that the most common elements of moral turpitude are “(1) Fraud; (2) Larceny; and (3) Intent to harm persons or things.”  Blended together, you might say that moral turpitude refers to acts which clearly involve fraud, larceny, or an unjust attempt to cause serious harm to persons or property.  If you have any one of those three ingredients, you’re most likely dealing with an act of moral turpitude.

Be prepared for applicants who try to hide their questionable criminal history by twisting the meaning of “moral turpitude” or understanding it in a very narrow sense.  For example, maybe an applicant has been convicted of crimes relating to the possession of controlled substances.  This person might argue that his conviction didn’t involve moral turpitude, because he didn’t obtain the controlled substances by fraud, didn’t steal them, and didn’t intend to hurt anyone else by using them.

For this reason, keep in mind that “moral turpitude” is not a catch-all term and won’t patch up a set of poorly-drafted threshold eligibility criteria.  However, we do recommend including it in your policies, because it encompasses a wide variety of criminal conduct that could reflect negatively on a person’s suitability for Medical Staff appointment.  As a best practice, consider calling out other specific categories of offenses, such as criminal possession of controlled substances, so that you get a full picture of an applicant’s background.

While we always advise our clients to adopt robust eligibility criteria and to set a high standard for their Medical Staff, we recognize that criminal backgrounds can be a controversial subject and that institutions will have different perspectives on the matter.  The most important thing is to ensure that your policies reflect your values and your goals.