National Practitioner Data Bank

September 21, 2023

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We recently received an NPDB report for one of our Medical Staff members.  The Adverse Action Code, used by the hospital in its NPDB report, was “Voluntary Surrender of Clinical Privilege(s), While Under, or to Avoid, Investigation Relating to Professional Competence or Conduct.”  However, the narrative section of the NPDB report reflected that the physician resigned during a “performance improvement plan” (PIP).  We don’t consider a PIP to be an investigation and ordinarily we would not report a physician who resigned during a PIP.

The problem is that the threshold criteria in our bylaws state that an individual is ineligible for appointment, reappointment or continued appointment if they “resign during an investigation or in exchange for not conducting an investigation.”  Our bylaws also provide that failing to satisfy threshold criteria at any time results in an automatic relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges.

The physician is a longstanding member of our Medical Staff and we have never had any quality or behavior issues with him.  Based on the NPDB Report, he doesn’t seem to meet our threshold criteria and his appointment should be automatically relinquished, at least according to our bylaws.  What do we do?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
Before you make any decisions, you are going to need additional information.  You can start with the physician and ask him to provide information regarding the underlying issues that led the other hospital to adopt the PIP.  You are also going to want a copy of the PIP itself.  Your bylaws should allow you to request this information from the physician.  You can also request the physician to sign an authorization so you can get information directly from the other hospital.  This will allow you to understand their side of the story.

Depending on what you learn, it may be appropriate to allow the physician to request a waiver for failing to satisfy one of the threshold criteria.  For instance, if you learn that the PIP was being carried out as part of initial collegial efforts and progressive steps activities, without any history of prior problems, and would not have risen to an investigation in your hospital, you may consider granting the physician a waiver.

The waiver process typically involves all the heavy hitters including input from the department chair and a recommendation from the Credentials Committee and Medical Executive Committee with final action by the Board.  Any grant of a waiver should expressly articulate the reasons supporting the decision.

Even if you decide to grant a waiver, that doesn’t mean you have to ignore the PIP.  If the PIP developed by the other hospital has useful conditions, you may want to adopt some or all of them to help you evaluate the physician’s performance and provide meaningful feedback to him.

The language in the Bylaws pertaining to automatic relinquishment if threshold criteria are not met should include a reference to the waiver process.  Therefore, the granting of a waiver should address and resolve the automatic relinquishment with no need for further action.

Both the threshold eligibility criteria and the automatic relinquishment language in the Bylaws are incredibly useful tools and are two of our “go to” favorites.  As we expand our list of robust threshold criteria and our list of events that trigger an automatic relinquishment, we should also strive to make sure that these are being applied in a way that is fair and reasonable.  Along these lines, it is important to make sure we have adequate information, especially from the involved physician, before making a final decision.  And if occasionally we bend to make sure the result is appropriate under the circumstances, that’s not a bad result either.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Susan Lapenta at slapenta@hortyspringer.com.

February 10, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have a physician who was brought in through a contract with a locum tenens company.  Within the first couple of weeks, he had several horrible outcomes in cases.  We started to review his cases through our peer review process and we are considering a precautionary suspension.  Our CMO just told us that the hospital has instructed the company that the physician can no longer be scheduled at our hospital.  This will result in the termination of his clinical privileges.  Should we suspend his privileges anyway, continue with our peer review process, and then report him to the National Practitioner Data Bank?  We are concerned that he is just going to go someplace else and hurt patients again.

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
We understand the desire to follow your peer review process, especially when there are serious concerns about the clinical care provided by a physician.  The peer review process is, by design, thoughtful, deliberative, and educational with built-in collegial efforts, progressive steps, and, when needed, opportunities for improvement.  As successful as the peer review process can be, it is not well suited to address concerns about physicians who are brought into practice on a temporary basis.

That does not mean you should ignore those concerns.  However, your medical staff may not be in the best position to evaluate, address, and resolve the concerns identified in a physician who is practicing at your hospital on a temporary basis.  In fact, once the hospital has exercised its rights under the contract with the locum company and instructed the company not to schedule the physician again, there is not much left for the medical staff to do through its peer review process.  It difficult to review a physician’s care when the physician is no longer practicing at the hospital and there is no action left to take after the physician’s appointment and privileges have been terminated through the contract with the locum company.

In fact, this is an area where the National Practitioner Data Bank, through its Guidebook, has been very clear.  If a physician’s clinical privileges are terminated as a result of a contract, that termination is not an adverse professional review action and should not be reported to the Data Bank.

If you are concerned that the locum company is going to turn around and place the physician in another hospital, you may want to put the company on notice of your specific concerns.  The company should have a process for evaluating the care and competence of the physicians and other practitioners it is placing.  But be careful what you say to the locum company.  Your communication with the company may not be protected under your bylaws, or state or federal law.

To protect yourself, request the locum company to have the physician sign an authorization and release so that information about the physician’s practice can be shared.  Additionally, if you receive a request from another hospital who is seeking to privilege this physician, you can request an authorization and release before providing any information, including the standard “name, rank, and serial number.”  A request for an authorization should send a message that there are issues that require further review and evaluation.

July 15

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

 

QUESTION:
“A physician recently smelled of alcohol and was behaving oddly while conducting rounds.  The physician refused a screening test, so the Medical Staff leadership imposed a precautionary suspension.  Is there a better way?”

ANSWER:
Yes!  First, all hospitals should have a Practitioner Health Policy to govern health issues affecting privileged practitioners.  Such a policy is required if your hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission, and it’s a best practice in any event.  A Practitioner Health Policy allows Medical Staff leaders to identify practices and procedures that work in your setting, and can then be applied in a consistent manner (which helps to avoid allegations of discrimination).

Your Practitioner Health Policy should have a section dealing with responses to immediate threats, such as the one you describe above.  The first step is for the Policy to identify who may respond to handle such situations.  We recommend that a broad group of Medical Staff leaders be authorized to take the steps described in the Policy, to ensure that someone is always available.

The Policy should then identify who, and how many, individuals may request a practitioner to undergo a screening test to identify a possible impairment.  Ideally, two Medical Staff leaders will make such a decision (or a Medical Staff leader and an administrator such as the CMO).  Having two individuals involved in the decision protects them from allegations of bias, and should enhance the credibility of the process in the eyes of the practitioner under review.

To answer your specific question, if the practitioner refuses to cooperate with a screening test, the Practitioner Health Policy should say that the individual automatically relinquishes clinical privileges pending further review by the Leadership Council (or whatever committee handles health issues).  This is not a permanent fix – potentially impaired practitioners would not be permitted to simply move out of town and subsequently harm themselves or others.  Instead, it’s a method of buying time to persuade the practitioner to cooperate with the review process without imposing a suspension.  A suspension causes the situation to feel more confrontational, which sends the wrong message when the goal is to help a colleague.  A suspension also starts the clock ticking for hearings and NPDB reports, which can detract from efforts to constructively deal with the health issue.

For more information about how to deal with practitioner health issues, please join us in Orlando, FL from September 19 – 21, 2021 for the Peer Review Clinic. For more information, click here.

June 20, 2019

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:              I noted that one of the cases that was in this week’s HLE arose as a result of a hospital granting temporary privileges to an applicant for medical staff appointment.  While we do not routinely grant temporary privileges, they are useful from time to time.  How much risk is there in granting temporary privileges?

 

ANSWER:                 While temporary privileges should not be routinely granted, it is not unusual for a hospital’s medical staff bylaws to state that temporary privileges may be granted to applicants for initial appointment whose complete application is pending review by the Medical Executive Committee and the Board. In order to be “complete” there must be verification of licensure, training or experience, current competence, and an ability to perform the privileges requested. In addition, the bylaws should state that in order to be eligible for temporary privileges, an applicant must (i) have had no current or previously successful challenges to licensure or registration, (ii) have not been subject to involuntary termination of medical staff membership at another organization; and (iii) have not been subject to involuntary limitation, reduction, denial, or loss of clinical privileges.   The bylaws may include other criteria that must be met before temporary privileges are granted.

Additionally, the hospital must query and evaluate information from the National Practitioner Data Bank and check the Office of Inspector General’s List of Excluded Individuals/Entities before temporary (or any privileges) can be granted.  Finally, the grant of temporary privileges should be time limited consistent with the standards of the applicable accreditation organization.  According to The Joint Commission standard “Temporary privileges for applicants for new privileges are granted for no more than 120 days.” 

It is not clear, but it appears from the facts of the case described above, that the hospital’s hospitalist group had such a need for the nocturnist that it wanted to use temporary privileges to rush a candidate through the hospital’s credentialing process.  The temporary privileges were granted and rescinded in 2012, but the litigation did not end until 2019.  In this case, not only did granting temporary privileges fail to fill the nocturnist position, but also caused the hospital years of litigation.

The best way to avoid these kinds of situations and the endless litigation that sometimes ensues is only to grant temporary privileges to applicants after a thorough vetting, after confirmation that there are no red flags and only under the above-described circumstances.

March 14, 2019

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        We are part of a five-hospital system.  Many of our physicians practice at multiple hospitals in our system.  We’ve had a couple of occasions lately where one hospital addressed a problem applicant or a problem physician, but the physician just moved to another hospital in our system.  We are separate hospitals and separate medical staffs.  We have an information sharing agreement and that helps, but we’re not sure it’s enough.  Can you help?

 

ANSWER:            You’re off to a good start with an information sharing agreement.  That should allow you to share confidential peer review information between and among your sister organizations.  There is also language you can add to your bylaws or credentials policy (bylaws documents) that can help.  For instance, we recommend threshold eligibility criteria that would render someone ineligible if he or she had staff appointment or privileges “denied, revoked, or terminated” for reasons related to clinical competence or professional conduct at any hospital or health care facility, or had resigned appointment during an investigation, or had an application for appointment not processed due to an omission or misrepresentation.  These threshold eligibility criteria apply not only at appointment and reappointment but during the term of appointment and your bylaws documents should make it clear that failure to satisfy these criteria during appointment will result in an automatic relinquishment.

It is also helpful to have language in your bylaws documents that makes it clear that certain actions, such as a performance improvement plan, automatic relinquishment, or professional review action, when taken at one hospital in the system will be automatically effective at all of the other hospitals in the system.  The bylaws language should allow for a waiver by the Board, upon the recommendation of the appropriate Medical Executive Committee, when it would not be necessary or appropriate for the action to be effective at any given hospital.  This language gives you some wiggle room and some discretion, but it also helps ensure that you are not caught up in redoing peer review efforts, including investigations and hearings, at multiple hospitals in the system.  Fortunately, there is helpful language in the National Practitioner Data Bank Guidebook which makes it clear that administrative actions taken by hospitals in a system based exclusively on the action taken at a sister hospital should not be reported to the NPDB.

November 1, 2018

Posted on by hortyspringer

QUESTION:        We are considering having a Credentials Verification Organization (“CVO”) perform primary source verification and other required verifications for our credentialing process.  Do we need to have some sort of agreement in place?  If so, what should that agreement include?

ANSWER:            Regardless of whether you are using an internal CVO (i.e., one that is a part of your organization) or an external, independent CVO (i.e., one that has no corporate affiliation with your hospital), there should be an agreement in place between the CVO and the hospital.

An agreement should define the obligations of the CVO, including the services that it will provide.  The agreement should also specifically identify the information that will be verified and the sources that will be used for verification purposes.  If ongoing monitoring of practitioners’ credentials is a part of the services the CVO will provide, the agreement should state this and indicate the credentials that will be monitored (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid sanctions and exclusions).

Furthermore, sharing of confidential credentials information should be addressed and include provisions on how sensitive information such as National Practitioner Data Bank reports and drug or alcohol treatment information will be handled and shared.  If the hospital is involved in delegated credentialing for third-party payors, there are special considerations for sub-delegation agreements, which would include agreements with an external CVO to perform verification activities.

Specifically, the agreement must require semiannual reporting of the CVO to the hospital on its conduct of the contracted-for activities, describe the process by which the hospital evaluates the CVO’s performance under the agreement, and describe the remedies available to the hospital if the CVO does not fulfill its obligations, including revocation of the delegation agreement.