A robust peer review process often hinges on collaboration among a variety of disciplines. Specific participants are selected according to medical staff policies and procedures. In addition to the practitioner and the designated reviewer, additional support staff, including medical staff...
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 32, Issue 11
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the “Court”) dismissed a physician’s claims of breach of contract and defamation based on the reference letter he received from the residency program.
The plaintiff in the case, Jeffrey Weisman, MD, filed his claim against...
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 32, Issue 11
The configuration of the medical staff—ranging from fully employed to a mixed model of employed and independent practitioners—holds substantial implications for the operational dynamics within a healthcare system. This intricacy extends to the realms of medical staff services, which through...
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 32, Issue 10
To assist organizations in improving their credentialing and privileging processes, the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC) has released an updated version of its Credentialing and Privileging Toolkit.
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 32, Issue 10
Dawn Anderson, CPCS, CPMSM, director of credentialing, privileging, and licensing for Ob Hospitalist Group in Greenville, South Carolina, is a big advocate for preventing burnout among credentialing specialists. CRCJ spoke with Anderson earlier this year to discuss the organization’s burnout...
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 32, Issue 10
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (the “Court”) upheld a First Amendment retaliation claim against representatives from the State University of New York (SUNY) filed by a surgeon who was fired after providing a favorable peer review for another physician.
The...
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 32, Issue 9
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (the “Court”) ordered a National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) report submitted about a physician be voided after it concluded that the defendants “acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”
