More JCAHO Nonsense
Dear Dr. Scalpel:
In accordance with Joint Commission regulations, we are required to request an evaluation of your clinical performance. The Credentialling Committee now requires the completion of an evaluation form by a peer in your specialty who is not a member of your group practice.
Attached, you will find a letter and accompanying evaluation form which you should forward to a peer of your choice for completion. In order to proceed with the processing of your reappointment application, it is necessary that you ensure that the required evaluation form is forwarded to a peer and returned to us in a timely manner. A return envelope is provided for this purpose. Please note that the evaluation form must be returned to us by the person completing the form. If we do not receive the evaluation form before ________, your clinical privileges may be interrupted.
Sincerely,
An Unnamed Bureaucrat
Now I've worked at the same hospital exclusively for almost 10 years, but that doesn't matter to the geniuses at JCAHO. They still insist that I track down some former colleague who I probably haven't even spoken with in several years so this old buddy of mine can vouch for my ability to perform a precipitous delivery of a newborn, a pericardiocentesis, or a bladder catheterization, among (many) others. Not that this "peer" would have likely ever seen me perform any of these procedures, of course, but his judgment of my abilities is presumedly as important (and necessary) to the bureaucrats as the opinions of my current colleagues.
Sometimes I wish stupidity were painful. How did we let this happen?
In accordance with Joint Commission regulations, we are required to request an evaluation of your clinical performance. The Credentialling Committee now requires the completion of an evaluation form by a peer in your specialty who is not a member of your group practice.
Attached, you will find a letter and accompanying evaluation form which you should forward to a peer of your choice for completion. In order to proceed with the processing of your reappointment application, it is necessary that you ensure that the required evaluation form is forwarded to a peer and returned to us in a timely manner. A return envelope is provided for this purpose. Please note that the evaluation form must be returned to us by the person completing the form. If we do not receive the evaluation form before ________, your clinical privileges may be interrupted.
Sincerely,
An Unnamed Bureaucrat
Now I've worked at the same hospital exclusively for almost 10 years, but that doesn't matter to the geniuses at JCAHO. They still insist that I track down some former colleague who I probably haven't even spoken with in several years so this old buddy of mine can vouch for my ability to perform a precipitous delivery of a newborn, a pericardiocentesis, or a bladder catheterization, among (many) others. Not that this "peer" would have likely ever seen me perform any of these procedures, of course, but his judgment of my abilities is presumedly as important (and necessary) to the bureaucrats as the opinions of my current colleagues.
Sometimes I wish stupidity were painful. How did we let this happen?
Labels: administrators, bad ideas, questioning authority, rants, WTF
posted by scalpel at 8:55 PM
15 Comments:
What a weird requirement 'Not in your group". This presumes all docs work with many physicians who aren't in their group. Might be true of some docs, but for hospital based docs, that's going to be either a real challenge or a total farce.
I'm guessing the latter.
GruntDoc
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but individual doctors must be accredited by JCAHO? Who cares if you're JCAHO accredited? I don't.
I had the same issue! (blogged here) Even tougher when you're in solo office practice.
(Nurse K: JCAHO requires the HOSPITALS to credential all the docs on their staffs.)
E-mail it to me. I'll vouch for ya.
So do you think that all the Joint Commission workers have to find someone to vouch for them every few years in order for them to keep their jobs?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
So, if a doctor is sued, could the vouching physician be partially liable by saying the other doc was competent in various procedures?
I'm on our hospital credentials committee (why, I have no idea). Trying to explain Joint Commission stuff like this is always a good time - "I'm Just The Messenger." Sheesh!
Nurses go through this x 5 people at my hospital every two years when we have our evals.
Hmmmm . . . whenever I hear the word "bureaucrat," I suddenly remember Dave Chappelle's commercial for "Samuel L. Jackson Beer," when he screamed "Yes they deserve to die! And I hope they burn in hell!" LOL! Dave was a funny man before the stress of money cracked him!
And since when was "credentialling" a word anyway?
Good catch.
"Identifying information (has been) changed for the sake of confidentiality."
I wish misspellings were painful too.
We were too busy. We are the Miami Dolphins. We are playing the Patriots.
"Sometimes I wish stupidity were painful."
My last patient would have had 10 out of 10 if stupdity was painful. Oh wait, she had 10/10 anyway. My bad. *Rolls eyes*
"We" did not let this happen.
"We" have just been doing what we are supposed to be doing.
The problem is that the "we" you refer to does not act as a coordinated group to prevent this silliness.
It is often said that its the doctor's own fault because doctors don't get together to fight the necessary battles.
Your use of the word "we" implies this as well.
However, I think that this admonition is unwarranted.
I can explain very simply.
Capitalism is a success because "money aligns interests."
Lawyers, investment bankers and doctors differ in one major way.
The doctors' interests are aligned by concerns for patient well-being.
The doctors motivations are directed by his or her Hippocratic oath.
The lawyers' and investment bankers' interests are aligned, at least primarily, by profit.
For the investment banker "Greed is Good" can be a truism if it drives profits and shareholder value.
For the doctor "Greed id Good" has absolutely no role in motivating behavior.
"WE" should not be diminished in any way for being dedicated to the welfare of others.
There is a solution, however.
It is a new way for physicians to associate for the benefit of their patients and their profession. It is called a WIPP.
If you are interested in our ideas for improving healthcare eMail me for more information at LCornacchia@Doctations.com. - Doctors for Healthcare Reform
- Lou Cornacchia, M.D.
Post a Comment
<< Home