January 31, 2019

QUESTION:        When a concern is raised about the behavior of a Medical Staff member, we’ve typically referred it to our department chairs. The chairs give it their best shot, but we were wondering if there’s a better way?

ANSWER:            Yes! There are many drawbacks to asking a single individual — regardless of who that person is — to deal with difficult behavioral matters.

First, the department chair is often either a competitor or partner of the physician under review. This can make it difficult for the department chair regardless of whether an actual “conflict of interest” exists.

Also, depending on the size of a department, the department chair may not deal with many behavioral concerns. As a result, the chair never obtains enough experience to become truly comfortable addressing behavioral issues.

Individual department chairs have no built-in opportunity to brainstorm about the issues under review. If they want to seek assistance, they have to find another physician leader and bring that person up to speed.

Thus, we recommend that a core group of physician leaders — referred to as a Leadership Council — handle behavioral concerns. The Leadership Council might be comprised of the Chief of Staff, Chair of the Professional Practice Evaluation/Peer Review Committee, and Chief Medical Officer. The advantages of using a Leadership Council to handle behavioral concerns include:

  • consistency across departments (no more variability based on the personality of individual department chairs);
  • easier to avoid conflicts of interest;
  • permits department chairs to preserve their working relationships with physicians under review;
  • expertise through experience;
  • emphasizes the importance of the issue and enhances the credibility of the physician leadership because a group of leaders – not a single person – is speaking with the physician under review; and
  • problems are discussed by a small group, which promotes the exchange and development of ideas.

For more information on Leadership Councils and other important topics, please join us at Disney’s Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Orlando, FL on March 7-9, 2019 for The Peer Review Clinic.

December 13, 2018

QUESTION:        We recently asked a physician to meet with our Leadership Council (a small group of Medical Staff leaders) to provide input regarding a concern about his behavior.  He says he’ll be happy to attend the meeting, but only if accompanied by his attorney.  Our policies do not address this issue – do we have to let the attorney attend the meeting?

 

ANSWER:            No.  The meeting is not a hearing.  It’s simply an opportunity for physicians to talk with one another in a collegial manner.  There’s no legal obligation to permit an attorney to attend, and the presence of an attorney would likely make the process less effective by making it seem more confrontational than it needs to be.

It’s much easier to address this situation when the applicable policy includes language such as the following:

  • To promote the collegial and educational objectives of this Policy, all discussions and meetings with a Practitioner shall generally involve only the Practitioner and the appropriate Medical Staff Leaders and Hospital personnel.  No counsel representing the Practitioner, Medical Staff or Hospital shall attend any of these meetings.

Of course, the physician may consult an attorney prior to the meeting (and the physician shouldn’t be discouraged from doing so).  The attorney can even accompany the physician to the hospital and wait in an appropriate location, if the physician insists.  But there’s no obligation to allow the attorney to accompany the physician during the meeting.

For more ideas on handling difficult peer review issues, check out our Peer Review Clinic.

July 20, 2017

QUESTION:        Our Leadership Council is developing a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) for a practitioner at our hospital who does not play well with others.  One member of our leadership team suggested that we send the practitioner out for a psychiatric evaluation before finalizing the PIP.  Does this make sense?

ANSWER:            As a rule of thumb, we recommend that you stay away from requesting psychiatric evaluations from practitioners who have failed to meet your Medical Staff’s standards regarding professionalism.  In our experience, such an evaluation only tends to cloud the Leadership Council’s thinking on how best to address the inappropriate behavior that has been identified. Additionally, a request for an evaluation might give the practitioner a basis for claiming that he or she was discriminated against under the ADA if disciplinary action is ultimately taken.  That is why we believe it is better to focus on the behavior at issue rather than spending too much time and energy trying to identify its cause.

Of course, impairment and “burnout” are real concerns.  So, if there is compelling evidence that suggests that the practitioner is dealing with a legitimate health issue, then an evaluation may be appropriate.  But that should be managed through your process on practitioner impairment, not your Professionalism Policy.

To make sure you have the tools you need to manage difficult scenarios like this, please join Barbara Blackmond and Rachel Remaley on August 1, 2017 for a special audio conference on “best practices” for your Professionalism Policy.  More information can be found here.

June 22, 2017

QUESTION:        I am a new physician CEO at a physician group affiliated with a hospital system.  I get calls and e-mails from physicians directly when they have concerns about the communication/behavior/responsiveness of other physicians, before any medical staff involvement.  There is an agreement to share information between medical staff committees and the employer group.  How should I respond?

ANSWER:            It would be a good idea to develop a policy for the group as to how issues are triaged and addressed. If the issues primarily involve conduct in the hospital setting, as opposed to employment, you could still choose to handle them initially within the group process (and consider subsequent reporting if the issue is not resolved) or you could report the concerns to the appropriate individual in the hospital. That may be the CMO, a medical staff officer, or Leadership Council as described in a Medical Staff Professionalism Policy.

While it may be suitable for you to handle some issues in an informal way by your personal immediate involvement, too much of that style of intervention may not be a good use of your time.  Many issues are best directed through appropriate channels within either the group or the hospital/medical staff.  (That doesn’t necessarily mean too much bureaucracy!)  There may be more to a story than what is reported by one person; often, more fact-gathering is needed.

For issues that implicate medical staff performance, in some systems, a group’s CMO may be appointed to a hospital medical staff peer review committee or may be invited to the Leadership Council or similar group. A Leadership Council is commonly composed of the officers, hospital CMO and key support staff, and can convene regularly or when an issue involving the hospital practice or behavior of an employed physician is to be triaged.

February 23, 2017

QUESTION:        One of our busiest general surgeons is chronically late in dictating her operative reports.  She often does not dictate the complete operative report until days or weeks later.  We are concerned about patient care and compliance with accreditation standards.  And we are expending unnecessary resources sending constant reminders. We think our rules and regulations are clear.  What can we do?

ANSWER:            You are correct that a surgeon’s failure to timely complete an operative report has patient care and compliance implications.  It is difficult to imagine how an accurate operative report can be dictated days or weeks after the procedure, especially when the surgeon has a busy practice.  That is why the issue of operative reports is addressed both in the Conditions of Participation and the Joint Commission Standards.

According to §482.51(b)(6) of the Conditions of Participation: “An operative report describing techniques, findings, and tissues removed or altered must be written or dictated immediately following surgery and signed by the surgeon.”  Joint Commission RC.02.01.03 Element of Performance 5 requires: “An operative or other high-risk procedure report is written or dictated upon completion of the operative or other high-risk procedure and before the patient is transferred to the next level of care.” There is an exception to this requirement when an operative progress note is written immediately after the procedure, in which case the full report can be written or dictated within a time frame defined by the hospital.

In dealing with your particular situation, we recommend, as a first step, that you gather information about the surgeon’s non-compliance with your standards, including any reminder letters that have been sent within the last year.  Share this with the Leadership Council (typically the Chief Medical Officer, the Chief of Staff, the Chair of the Credentials Committee and the Chair of the Peer Review Committee) and the Chair of the Department of Surgery.  Then invite the surgeon to meet with the Leadership Council.

In advance of the meeting, the Leadership Council can outline a proposed Performance Improvement Plan, including specific expectations and consequences.  For example, the Performance Improvement Plan may provide:

You acknowledge and agree that an operative progress note must be entered into the medical record immediately after surgery and before the patient is transferred to the next level of care.  This progress note must include the following:  the names of the physician(s) and physician assistants, procedure performed, findings, estimated blood loss, specimens removed, and post?operative diagnosis.

You acknowledge and agree that a complete operative report must be dictated within 24 hours of the surgery/procedure.

You may want to consider a course on medical record documentation and mentoring sessions to further help the surgeon correct the underlying issues.

Some medical staffs have had success in gaining compliance with medical record requirements by imposing fines for non-compliance. Other medical staffs use the concept of automatic relinquishment.  Both approaches can be progressive with each subsequent incident of non?compliance leading to higher fines and/or longer periods of relinquishment of appointment and privileges.

December 1, 2016

QUESTION:        Our Medical Staff policies call for a multi-specialty peer review committee to address concerns about a physician’s clinical skills, and a small Leadership Council to address behavioral concerns.  What happens if there are concerns about a physician that involve both clinical and behavioral issues.  Which process should we use?

ANSWER:            One option is to have the multi-specialty peer review committee address the clinical matter while the Leadership Council separately addresses the behavioral concern.  However, if the clinical and behavioral concerns are related, it may be best to have the same committee review both.  Using two committees may result in a less effective review.

Another option is to have a single committee address both the clinical and behavioral concerns.  However, if this approach is used, it should be explicitly described in your policies.  Otherwise, no matter what review path is chosen, the physician in question might claim that the review is invalid because it was conducted by the wrong committee.

We recommend that language similar to the following be in the Professional Practice Evaluation Policy (for clinical concerns):

If a matter involves both clinical and behavioral concerns, the Chairs of the Leadership Council and the Professional Practice Evaluation Committee (“PPEC”) shall coordinate the reviews.  The behavioral concerns may either be:

(i)         addressed by the Leadership Council pursuant to the Professionalism Policy, with a report to the PPEC, or

(ii)        addressed by the PPEC pursuant to this Policy, with the provisions in the Professionalism Policy being used for guidance.

Similar language should be included in the Professionalism Policy.

To learn more about these and similar issues, please join us in sunny Naples on February 2-4, 2017 for The Peer Review Clinic!