medical staff

February 13, 2025

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our team just attended your seminars in Amelia Island.  The one member who attended the Peer Review Clinic came out of the session with a strong belief we should remove “scoring” from our case review forms.  He’s had some trouble convincing the rest of us, so we wanted to hear it right from the horse’s mouth – why do you recommend against scoring cases?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
We are happy to back up your colleague on this one!  The reasons we recommend moving away from using scoring as a part of the peer review process are based on the following issues:

  • We have observed that peer review committees spend a lot of energy on assigning the score, which distracts from the more important issues of whether there is a concern with the care provided and, if so, the appropriate intervention.
  • While scoring gives a perception of being objective, we’ve found that numerical scores don’t necessarily capture the complexity of a case in the same way as a detailed description from a case reviewer.
  • We have found that reviewers may be uncomfortable assigning low scores, which often carry labels indicating that the physician’s care was “inappropriate” or “below the standard.” As a result, the reviewers choose higher scores indicating “care appropriate” even if there are concerns.
  • Negative scores may put physicians on the defensive, especially since most scoring systems don’t allow for the provision of nuanced information.

These characteristics of scoring can undermine efforts to make the peer review process educational rather than punitive.  Accordingly, we recommend having a peer review/professional practice evaluation (“PPE”) system that focuses on actions and performance improvements rather than scoring.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Ian Donaldson at idonaldson@hortyspringer.com.

Please join Ian Donaldson and Charlie Chulack at an upcoming Peer Review Clinic to learn more about the new approaches Medical Staffs are taking to traditional peer review matters. You can learn more by clicking here.

February 6, 2025

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
There is a private subreddit discussion group in which only Medical Staff professionals are approved to participate.  Most members of the group seek advice on credentialing, privileging, and peer review issues.  Community guidelines within the group caution against identifying the practitioners involved in their questions.  However, some posts may include specific details about problematic credentialing files or behavior incidents.  In some instances, individuals who post questions may include information such as their name and the hospital at which they work.  A few of our leaders are wondering if joining this group would help to bounce ideas off other Medical Staffs and their leaders.  Is this problematic?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY MARY PATERNI:
While we don’t mean to discourage professional interactions among Medical Staff professionals, there are legal risks to discussing credentialing and peer review issues about individual practitioners on social media.

Let’s be real, it’s social media.  There is never any guarantee that anything posted on platforms like Reddit, Facebook, or Instagram will remain private, even if a group is “closed.”  A member of the group could have a reason for disclosing information outside the group.  All it takes is a screen shot or copy + paste.  Plus, efforts to “de-identify” information do not always work.  Even the smallest bits of supposedly de-identified information can sometimes be pieced together and become identifiable.

There are a variety of legal risks if a post about credentialing or peer review matter gets back to the practitioner who is the subject of the post.  First, the practitioner could claim that the post was defamatory because it disclosed unfavorable information in a public setting.  Also, the practitioner could argue that the post constituted a breach of the confidentiality obligations set forth in the Medical Staff Bylaws, “tortiously interfered” with his employment prospects, or constituted a “breach of contract” under state law.

Social media posts could be problematic even if they are disclosed to individuals other than the practitioner in question.  For example, plaintiffs’ attorneys could use such posts as a reason to look for problems at a hospital.  Also, attorneys representing plaintiffs in malpractice or negligent credentialing cases could argue that the disclosure of peer review information on social media resulted in a waiver of the peer review privilege under state law of any information related to that matter.

So, we want to be careful here.  Again, we don’t mean to discourage professional interactions among Medical Staff professionals.  There are certainly many topics that could be discussed that don’t raise the potential problems discussed above.  However, recognize that there are risks to disclosing practitioner-specific information on social media.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Mary Paterni at mpaterni@hortyspringer.com.

January 9, 2025

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have an applicant who is refusing to answer one of the questions on our application form because she says that her lawyer told her it could violate a settlement agreement that she has with another hospital. We think that information is relevant to her request for appointment at our hospital. Can we still ask for the information?  Should we ask for a letter from her lawyer? Should the application be held incomplete?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
Yes! Credentialers have a duty to review all of the relevant qualifications of each applicant for Medical Staff appointment and clinical privileges and cannot allow the legal interests of an applicant, in an unrelated matter, to interfere with that duty. Accordingly, the Medical Staff Bylaws (or related policies) should state very clearly that every applicant bears the burden of submitting a complete application and of producing information deemed adequate by the hospital for a proper evaluation of current competence, character, ethics, and other qualifications and for resolving any doubts.

A similar issue arose in a 1997 case, Eyring v. East Tennessee Baptist Hospital, 950 S.W.2d 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), in which a physician applicant refused to sign a release form authorizing a hospital where he had previously practiced to send information to another hospital where he had applied. The physician argued that he received legal advice that signing the release could compromise his lawsuit against the hospital, which had revoked his privileges. The court held that because the physician had not provided the additional information that the hospital requested – irrespective of the fact that a settlement agreement was in place – he had not submitted a complete application and, thus, under its Bylaws, the hospital was not required to process his application further.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail LeeAnne Mitchell at LMitchell@hortyspringer.com.

December 12, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
The MEC recently learned that a department chair placed a physician on a “period of FPPE to include proctoring until such time as the requirement for supervision is lifted.”  This has raised some red flags within the Medical Staff leadership.  We are a bit worried about the use of the word “supervision” here.  Also, another main concern is that we revised our peer review process several years ago and, while our policy allows department chairs to perform clinical case reviews, send letters of guidance, and conduct informal collegial conversations with practitioners, the policy pretty clearly states that if something more intensive/intrusive – like a formal, planned collegial intervention meeting or performance improvement plan – is envisioned, the matter should be referred to the multi-specialty peer review committee or MEC for management.

Should we “undo” the actions of the department chair and “redo” the peer review according to our policy?  Since it’s already in progress (the practitioner has already been notified of the requirement) should we just let it ride out? This feels like quite a mess.

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
You know the saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”?  Well, right now you need a pound of cure.  It happens!  You are right to have some concerns about the process that has been followed thus far in reviewing this matter.  And the concerns you articulated in your question are astute.  The use of the word “supervision” probably is inappropriate and inapplicable here.  Most proctoring that is performed in the peer review world is observational only and does not involve true supervision by the proctor.  The role of the proctor is to observe and report back to the peer reviewers his/her opinions about the performance of the individual subject to review.  The proctor often consults with the practitioner collegially during that process, but the consultation does not generally rise to the level of supervision and the proctor generally does not have any authority to dictate how the practitioner provides the medical care in question.  Using the word “supervision” to describe the proctoring could give the wrong impression about these matters.  And just as importantly, it could set a negative tone, making this practitioner (and others, in the future) more defensive and less likely to be cooperative with the proctoring process.

It would also appear that the department chair overstepped his role in the process by implementing an activity (proctoring) that is generally reserved for performance improvement plans.  To the best of our knowledge, there are no legal or accreditation standards that dictate “who does what” in peer review.  But, your policy should serve as the guide for peer review activities within your hospital and medical staff.  And the way your policy has been drafted – to divvy up responsibility for certain interventions such that lower-level interventions are within the authority of individual leaders, but more intrusive interventions require committee action – are “best practice” within the industry.  Relying on multi-disciplinary committees to implement performance improvement plans provides a check and balance, helping to eliminate personal variation, as well as alleviate any concerns that competitive motives formed even part of the motivation for the action.

Now, for your real question:  Should you undo the action of the department chair?

In this case, that is probably the best course of action.  Of course, diplomacy is key.  As a first step, the MEC might simply ask a few individuals (the officers?  A Leadership Council?) to meet with the department chair and ask him to reconsider his decision.  Those leaders can also work with the department chair to notify the practitioner that the previous determination has been rescinded and, upon further consideration, it has been determined that the matter should be forwarded to the multi-specialty peer review committee for further consideration and determination of next steps.

With that done, you can then focus on the “ounce of prevention.”  Leadership roles turn over very frequently – and Medical Staff leaders are usually not provided any training in advance of their leadership terms.  Methodically providing an orientation letter to new leaders and regularly providing leadership education and training is a great way to help leaders navigate their many (and sometimes complex) roles.

An orientation letter can be used to summarize duties and make leaders aware of the Bylaws and policies that apply to them (and should be consulted when performing duties).  It does not need to be a “manual.”  A few pages often does the trick.  For example, the department chair’s role in peer review (as outlined in the policy you describe in your scenario) could be summarized as follows:

As department chair, you are also an important part of implementing the Medical Staff’s professional practice evaluation/ clinical peer review process.  Cases may be referred to you for clinical review, with a request that you report your opinions (on the forms provided).  You may conduct clinical reviews yourself or, where you lack expertise, assign the review to another clinical specialty reviewer within your department (to be reported back to you by the deadline that you set).  If your review reveals new or lower-level concerns that might be best managed through brief, informal collegial counseling or guidance, you may address the matter directly with the practitioner (reporting that outcome to the PPE Professional so that it can be recorded in the hospital’s files and reported to the multi-specialty peer review committee for oversight purposes).  More significant concerns and/or more significant interventions are generally referred to the multi-specialty peer review committee for review and management.  For more details, please refer to the Medical Staff Professional Practice Evaluation Policy.  A copy can be obtained…[describe where/how to obtain the policy]…

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Rachel Remaley at RRemaley@hortyspringer.com.

November 21, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
During our Peer Review Clinic Seminar in Las Vegas last week, several attendees asked if they should request input from a physician as soon as a case “falls out,” or if they should wait until later in the process. So, what do we think?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
We see different opinions on this when we work with Medical Staffs on new peer review policies. Some physician leaders want to obtain input as soon as a case is identified for review, believing it will expedite the review process (i.e., there won’t be a need for the reviewer to later pause the process to stop and obtain the physician’s input if they already have that information from the start).  Also, obtaining input right away can emphasize to Medical Staff members that the process is transparent and their input will always be considered.

However, we also hear the counterpoint that sending a request for input before the case is even sent for initial screening can cause undue stress if the case is ultimately closed with no issues.  In addition, the physician will have spent time preparing comments that weren’t needed.

Both of these arguments have validity, and there is probably not a right or wrong answer.  Some organizations we work with have incorporated a triage step in their review process, whereby cases are screened to help identify those where input would be helpful right off the bat (keeping the option to ask for input later on for all other cases).

Another option would be to get input from the physician right away if a case is identified due to a reported concern, referral from a sentinel event, referral from risk management, or some other source that makes it more likely that the individual or committee reviewing the case will want to hear from the physician under review.  But input might not be obtained right away for cases identified by a pre-determined trigger (because sometimes triggers can be more sensitive and identify cases that don’t raise a concern).

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Ian Donaldson at idonaldson@hortyspringer.com.

October 31, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We are working on rewriting our Medical Staff governance documents and noticed that the discussion draft of the Medical Staff Bylaws prepared by HSM attorneys includes the details on histories and physicals.  Why are the specifics of histories and physicals included in the Bylaws instead of the Medical Staff Rules and Regulations?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLES CHULACK:
This is a question and answer (but mostly the answer) that has perplexed us for quite some time so we understand any confusion.  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Conditions of Participation (“CoPs”), which are the federal regulations with which hospitals must comply to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, require the Medical Staff Bylaws to include certain details on histories and physicals, including those related to timing, practitioner eligibility for completion, use of histories and physicals performed before admission or registration, and options for using an “assessment” for outpatient surgical or procedural services.  See 42 C.F.R. § 482.22(c)(5).  Accreditation entities have followed suit and also require this information related to histories and physicals to be in the Bylaws.  See, e.g., The Joint Commission, Standards & EPs, MS.01.01.01, EP 16 (“The medical staff bylaws include…[t]he requirements for completing and documenting medical histories and physical examinations.”).

In the past, we assumed that CMS was using “Bylaws” in the CoPs generally to encompass any of the Medical Staff governance documents, including the Rules and Regulations.  Thus, if a hospital was using a separate document approach (i.e., Bylaws, Credentials Policy, Organization Manual, Rules and Regulations, etc.), histories and physicals could be addressed in the Rules and Regulations.  This makes sense because the Rules and Regulations, traditionally, cover the rules for clinical services and the provision of care, such as those related to admissions, orders, consultations, surgical services, and anesthesia.  The rules for histories and physicals would be a logical fit for the Rules and Regulations.  However, we received feedback from CMS that the details on histories and physicals specified in the CoPs must be included in the Bylaws document itself.

Some medical staffs with which we have worked include only what is required by CMS in the Bylaws and then include additional details on histories and physicals (e.g., the details of the examination and documentation of the examination) in the Rules and Regulations.  This is perfectly acceptable but results in fragmentation and documents that are difficult to reference for purposes of discovering all the requirements for histories and physicals.  It may be easier to simply include all the specifics on the topic in the Medical Staff Bylaws with a cross-reference in the Rules and Regulations to the appropriate section, article, or appendix of the Bylaws.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Charlie Chulack at cchulack@hortyspringer.com.

October 24, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
After attending HortySpringer’s Peer Review Clinic in Amelia Island earlier this year, we decided to ramp up a multi-specialty peer review committee to provide oversight over what has traditionally been a department-based process at our hospital.  We are struggling with what kind of information that new committee should share with our MEC.  Any tips or suggestions?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
First off, thanks for attending the PRC! We are glad to hear our recommendations were helpful!

As it relates to your question, we recommend that your MEC not be given detailed, practitioner-specific information about individual cases that the multi-specialty peer review committee is reviewing.  There are several reasons for this recommendation:

  • If a peer review matter cannot be successfully resolved by the peer review committee, the matter may end up on the MEC’s agenda. If the MEC has been receiving detailed, practitioner-specific reports throughout the review process leading up to that referral, the physician under review may allege that the MEC has already “pre-judged” the matter and were biased by all the sound bites it received from the peer review committee.
  • The MEC is the only Medical Staff body that can recommend or take disciplinary action with respect to a physician, so to promote positive engagement with the peer review process, we like to keep the MEC out of day-to-day “routine” peer review matters. We have found this can help change the perception of peer review from one that has traditionally been viewed as punitive to one that is educational and constructive.
  • Providing practitioner-specific details to the 20 or 30 people who are in the room at your MEC meetings can undermine the principle that the peer review process is confidential.

All of the above has led us to believe that the MEC can satisfy its legal responsibilities to oversee the peer review process by reviewing aggregate, anonymized reports regarding the activities of the peer review committee, without having to give practitioner-specific details.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Ian Donaldson at idonaldson@hortyspringer.com.

October 10, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We are amending our medical staff governance documents and considering giving Advanced Practice Professionals (“APPs”) a larger role in medical staff affairs.  Do you have any recommendations based on your experience working with other hospitals?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLES CHULACK:
With the ever-increasing role that APPs, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, play in the delivery of health care in hospitals, we are seeing many hospitals across the country wrestle with this question.  Unfortunately, there is not a “one-size-fits-all” answer and the appropriate solution needs to take into consideration federal and state regulations and the culture of your medical staff and hospital, among other things.

Let’s start with the regulations.  The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Conditions of Participation (“CoPs”) defer to state law when it comes to appointing APPs to the medical staff:  “The medical staff must be composed of doctors of medicine or osteopathy.  In accordance with State law, including scope-of-practice laws, the medical staff may also include…non-physician practitioners who are determined to be eligible for appointment by the governing body.”  42 C.F.R. §482.22(a) (emphasis added).  However, you want to be sure to check your state’s laws and regulations to determine if those sources are more restrictive.  By way of example, Pennsylvania limits medical staff membership to physicians and dentists.  28 Pa. Code § 107.2.  Even though Pennsylvania has a “structured exception” allowing hospitals to admit podiatrists to the medical staff, there is no corresponding exception for APPs.  Compare Pennsylvania’s restrictive approach with the approach taken by Colorado, which allows both physicians and non-physician practitioners to be on the medical staff.

Even in the states that permit APPs to be on the medical staff, we are seeing a variety of approaches.  Some hospitals make APPs eligible for medical staff membership, including appointment to the Active Staff.  That being said, these hospitals impose appropriate limitations on their prerogatives when compared to physician members of the Active Staff such as not being able to serve as the President of the Medical Staff (the Interpretive Guidelines to the CoPs say that the President of the Medical Staff “must be a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or, if permitted by state law where the hospital is located, a doctor of dental surgery, dental medicine, or podiatric medicine”).  While we don’t see this approach taken frequently, it is more common with Critical Access Hospitals or smaller hospitals where the majority of clinical services are provided by APPs.

A more common approach is gradual integration of APPs into medical staff functions.  For example, the medical staff may begin by creating an APP Credentials Committee which reviews applications of APPs and reports to the regular Credentials Committee, or appoint APPs to the Credentials Committee to tap into their expertise when it comes to state scope of practice laws for APPs, how they practice, and what they are permitted to do in similarly-situated hospitals.  Some hospitals are also appointing an APP to the Medical Executive Committee and Multi-Specialty Peer Review Committee.  It varies with respect to whether they are given voting rights since we have seen some physician members of the medical staff express discomfort with an APP, who may have a supervising agreement while practicing in the hospital, evaluating the care they provide as a part of one of these committees.

In conclusion, APPs are increasing in number and have a growing role in providing clinical services in hospitals.  If your medical staff has not yet addressed this issue, the odds are that it will need to in the future.  Nevertheless, these are interesting and exciting issues whose solutions can result in a more vibrant and robust medical staff and hospital.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Charles Chulack at CChulack@hortyspringer.com.

September 19, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We recently learned that one of our internists lost three fingers in an alligator attack while on a fishing retreat in Florida. He hasn’t been in the hospital for about seven weeks. Do we need to place him on a leave of absence or send him a request for information/records/medical clearance?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
What a traumatic and unfortunate thing to have happen!  When new concerns about practitioner impairment are raised, the hospital and medical staff have a responsibility to take steps to assure patient safety.  The right approach often depends on the circumstances.

In your scenario, the physician is an internist.  As a first step in evaluating whether the new health information raises concerns about the physician’s safety might be to evaluate his privilege delineation.  Does it include privileges that require manual dexterity?  The ability to grasp with a fist?  The use of both hands?  Also consider other Medical Staff obligations.  Would losing full use of one hand affect the physician’s ability to utilize the electronic medical record or other hospital equipment?

If the answer to any of the above is “yes,” then the matter should probably be referred to the committee within your hospital that handles matters of practitioner health (e.g., your Medical Staff Leadership Council or Practitioner Health Committee or Wellness Committee).  That committee can then decide next steps (in accordance with your Practitioner Health Policy, of course!), which might include some or all of the following:

  • Reaching out to the physician to inquire about his well-being, express peer to peer concern, ask about his practice plans, and offer support to the physician as he navigates how this new injury will affect his practice long-term. This initial communication might be a good time to ask the physician if he is planning to request a leave of absence in light of this extended time away from his hospital practice.
  • If the physician does not intend to request a leave of absence, the leadership may consider implementing one unilaterally – if the Medical Staff Bylaws (or other policies) authorize it. We recommend Bylaws language authorizing leaders to place a practitioner on a leave of absence in situations where the practitioner has been absent for a specified period of time (for example, 30 days) and the reason is believed to be related to a health issue.  This allows the leadership to not only plan adequately for the practitioner’s absence (e.g., reconfiguring the ED call schedule without the LOA practitioner on it), but also to ensure a meaningful reinstatement process when the practitioner is ready to return to practice.

In your case, a leave of absence would be a perfectly appropriate option.  Any decision to place the practitioner on leave should, of course, be communicated to the practitioner and memorialized in writing.  Further, it is generally helpful to take this opportunity to inform the practitioner about the reinstatement process, so that as he contemplates his return to hospital practice, he can plan accordingly (including making his reinstatement request well in advance of his planned return and, as appropriate submitting information and medical clearances along with the request).

  • In many cases, you may find that the practitioner with a new impairment is not ghosting the hospital in order to avoid detection or scrutiny but, rather, because he is still actively managing/recovering from the injury or illness and simply needs more time – or because he has insight into his changed circumstances and is stepping away from some of his hospital duties temporarily or permanently while he evaluates the impact the impairment will have on his ability to continue aspects of his practice. If you talk to the practitioner and find that he is thoughtfully managing his recovery, has taken steps to protect patients in the meantime (e.g., made plans to cover his practice, modified his practice while he recovers), then the leadership might decide that no leave of absence is required.  This does not mean you need to forego oversight altogether.  But, depending on the situation, the leadership might decide to simply send the practitioner a letter memorializing their conversation – and then ask the physician to let the health committee know in advance (e.g., 10 days or 30 days – whatever is reasonable) that he intends to return to practice so that the situation can be revisited at that time.  Again, this can be a good time to give the physician a “heads up” that additional information about his condition or a health evaluation could be requested in the future, depending on how things go.
  • Finally, if the physician’s condition clearly implicates his safety for some of his privileges (those requiring full use of the hands), the health committee may need to eventually go through the interactive process of discussing with the physician his intentions with respect to his hospital practice (e.g., does he intend to voluntarily relinquish those that require the use of both hands?) and/or whether any reasonable accommodations would be appropriate to assist him in fulfilling the essential functions of Medical Staff membership and/or his clinical privileges (e.g., will special equipment be required to support one-handed typing or voice transcription? Scribe services?).  You may need to request additional information from the physician at that time.  But, it’s possible that once he has fully recovered, your internist will come to you with ample information about his condition and a reasonable plan for practice.  Unless there is a pressing need to request additional information right now (for example, the physician tells you that he will not be requesting a LOA because he intends get back to practice as soon as possible), it may be best to wait to have these conversations after the physician has recovered enough to be thinking about his return.

In the end, it is important that Medical Staff Bylaws and related documents (e.g., Credentials Policy, Rules and Regulations, Practitioner Health Policy) give physician leaders the tools they need to effectively and efficiently address concerns about practitioner health and impairment (like procedures for implementing LOAs and processing reinstatement requests).  Sometimes you need to take advantage of those tools.  But sometimes, depending on the practitioner and the circumstances, those tools end up being unnecessary (leaving the leadership in the enviable position of simply exercising oversight, without having to invoke more formal intervention strategies).

August 29, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our Credentials Committee is reviewing a reappointment application for a medical staff member who has had some pretty significant behavioral issues over the past year.  We want to recommend that she be reappointed for less than a full two-year appointment term to reinforce the need to change her behavior, but some members of the committee think that it would be an “adverse recommendation” and give her the right to a hearing. Is it?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
The short answer is that whether or not a recommendation to grant appointment for less than two years (or three years for those hospitals that have made the switch to longer terms) is governed solely by the existing medical staff bylaws.  If your bylaws do not guarantee two-year appointment terms, and the grant of appointment for less than two years is not specifically listed as one of the things that gives an individual the right to request a hearing in the pertinent section of the bylaws, then no, it would not be considered adverse.

Arriving at this conclusion can be more challenging if, rather than listing specific, clear recommendations that trigger the right to a hearing, the bylaws instead provide that “any recommendation that adversely affects an applicant or member” gives the right to request a hearing.  Whether the hospital views a less than two-year appointment term as adversely affecting an individual or not could very well differ from the viewpoint of the medical staff member at issue.

Bottom line, medical staff bylaws should affirmatively state that medical staff appointment will be granted for “not more” than two (or three) years and should give the Credentials Committee and the Medical Executive Committee the clear ability to grant appointment terms of less than the relevant time period – without concerns that it constitutes an adverse recommendation.  A short-term appointment can be a helpful tool in the exact situation posed above – when medical staff leaders are trying to get someone’s attention, emphasizing the need to make changes during a shortened time period of more focused review.  It can also be helpful when a medical staff member is in the midst of a review process that will not be fully concluded before the current term expires, giving the ability to reappoint that individual on a short-term basis, pending the outcome of the relevant review process.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail LeeAnne Mitchell at LMitchell@hortyspringer.com.