What MSPs can learn from homeland security

The medical credentialing process is incredibly long and bureaucratic, with massive amounts of repetitive paperwork going to several different agencies with different methodologies, each laboring under the impression that their means of operation is best. It would do MSPs well to learn from agencies in other fields with similarly complex processes. One of those fields is homeland security.

So where do the seemingly different fields of credentialing and homeland security have common ground? In both industries, the nature of success can be defined by the prevention of a quantifiable disaster, with failures being acute and measurable. In other words, they receive far more attention when they do something wrong than when they succeed.

In the intelligence community, there are three primary causes behind intelligence failure:

1. Failure of perspective: This occurs due to our inability to measure the ratio of our successes and our failures. MSPs cannot measure whether the strong or weak stance they took when advising their physician leader on an applicant prevented a potentially dangerous or incompetent doctor from causing future harm to patients. They are forced to work with the information at their disposal and advise their superiors accordingly, but ultimately do not make any decisions themselves. Intelligence specialists are similarly at the mercy of policymakers (and the constituents who re-elect said policymakers). Their primary job is to inform.
2. Pathology in communication: Gaps in the procedures that transmit information from one party to another can make it difficult for both parties to agree on the importance of said information. Many MSPs have been met with scenarios where hospitals that previously employed a certain practitioner are unwilling to share information that might be career damaging. Both MSPs and intelligence analysts are responsible for providing evidence with the capacity to condemn or vindicate a certain perspective, but they are presenting this information to recipients with varying motivations.
3. Paradox of perception: These are the preconceived notions held by both sides (e.g., analyst vs. policymaker, MSP vs. physician leaders/governing board) that prevent them from accurately assessing the data—in other words, their biases. This issue is the most crucial and most difficult to address. Bias is inevitable in any decision-making scenario. For example, when there is an attack warning, the inherent challenge is discerning and predicting enemy intentions in a timely manner. Policymakers have a difficult time accepting the validity and urgency of available intelligence because it runs the risk of contradicting current and prevailing assumptions. Similarly, physician leaders may be predisposed to favoring a specific physician due to previous experiences, matters of reputation, and personal friendships or rivalries. This leads to all incoming data being interpreted through a skewed lens.

Source: News and Analysis

Did you know?

Basic, Platinum, and Platinum Plus members of the Credentialing Resource Center (CRC) receive exclusive access to our complete collection of news and analysis, including articles from CRC's two flagship newsletters, Credentialing Resource Center Journal (CRCJ) and Medical Staff Briefing (MSB).