medical staff bylaws

November 14, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have an applicant for appointment and privileges who disclosed that she recently enrolled in our state health program and that she had enrolled in a similar program in the state where she previously practiced.  The applicant also shared that she had completed inpatient treatment for substance use disorder earlier in the year.   We were not particularly concerned with this disclosure since the applicant is being monitored by our state program which is quite thorough.

However, we just learned that the applicant’s employment had been terminated, by her previous employer, for practicing in the clinic while impaired.  We are concerned because she misrepresented this information on her application form. What can we do?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
Bylaws or credentials policies (the “Credentials Policy”) often allow a hospital to “not process an application” when there are misstatements or omissions.  Typically, the Credentials Policy requires, in situations like this one, that the applicant be notified, in writing, about the potential misstatement or omission, and be invited to explain.  Thereafter, the response will be reviewed, often by the Chair of the Credentials Committee and the Chief Medical Officer, and a determination will be made whether the application should be processed further.

Importantly, this process does not result in a “denial” of the application.  And, the Credentials Policy should make it clear that “No action taken pursuant to this Section will entitle the applicant or member to a hearing or appeal.”

This process should not be different even if an applicant is claiming a disability.  A physician’s substance use disorder may be a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  And, the ADA may not allow inquiries related to a physician’s impairment prior to a determination that the physician is otherwise qualified to fulfill the essential functions of appointment and clinical privileges.  However, an impairment does not excuse a physician for misstating information on an application, including that the physician was terminated, or otherwise disciplined, for practicing while impaired.

Therefore, you are free to treat a misstatement, like the one you described, in a manner consistent with any other misstatement or omission.  That means, if you provide notice to the applicant of the misstatement or omission and allow the applicant to respond and, thereafter, determine that the misstatement or omission is substantial enough to support a legitimate concern about the applicant’s integrity, you may, consistent with the controlling documents, decide not to process the application further.

Ideally, your Credentials Policy should treat these decisions as administrative in nature.  This decision should not be considered an adverse professional review action.  The decision not to process the application, because of a misstatement or omission, should not trigger a right to a hearing.  Thus, these decisions are not reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank and should not be reportable to the state board either.

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

November 7, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We asked Grok AI “What do you know about HortySpringer?” Here is what it said.

ANSWER:
Based on the information available up to September 2024, Horty, Springer & Mattern, P.C. is a law firm based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with a specialization in healthcare law. Here’s what can be inferred or is directly known about them:

  1. Specialization: The firm focuses exclusively on healthcare law, which means they deal with a wide array of legal issues related to healthcare providers, including hospitals, health systems, HMOs, managed care organizations, and other healthcare entities.  Their expertise covers areas like medical staff bylaws, physician contracts, healthcare compliance, and more.
  1. History: Founded in 1971, the firm has over 50 years of experience in the healthcare sector.  This longevity suggests a deep understanding of the evolving landscape of healthcare law.
  1. Clientele: They serve clients across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, indicating a national reach and reputation in healthcare legal services.  This includes consulting with physician leaders, health system executives, and boards, suggesting they’re involved in high-level strategic and governance issues within healthcare organizations.
  1. Innovative Practices: HortySpringer has been recognized for innovation, particularly in how they deliver legal services.  They’ve developed tools like HortySpringer LegalSifter Essentials Edition, which combines legal best practices with AI to help clients manage contract reviews more efficiently.  This indicates an approach towards modernizing legal services with technology.
  1. Education and Training: The firm offers training programs like HortySpringer Pathways, aimed at hospital and physician leaders to manage and oversee medical staff, which underscores their commitment to not just legal advice but also in enhancing the operational capabilities of healthcare professionals through legal education.
  1. Publications and Engagement: They engage actively with the healthcare community through newsletters like the Health Law Express, indicating a commitment to keeping their clients and the broader healthcare community updated on legal changes and best practices.
  1. Legal Expertise: Their involvement in cases and discussions around significant legal issues like the PSQIA (Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act) and the implications of Supreme Court decisions on healthcare indicates they’re not just practitioners but also contributors to the legal discourse in healthcare.
  1. Size and Structure: The firm has around 14 attorneys, all based in Pittsburgh, focusing solely on health care, which might suggest a boutique yet highly specialized approach to legal services.

In summary, Horty, Springer & Mattern, P.C. is recognized for its deep expertise in healthcare law, innovative service delivery, and a comprehensive approach that includes legal advice, education, and active engagement in healthcare policy and legal developments.  Their focus on healthcare governance, compliance, and operational support for healthcare entities makes them a notable entity in the legal landscape of healthcare in the U.S.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Nick Calabrese at ncalabrese@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.

August 1, 2024

Posted on by jwilbert

QUESTION:
Our Medical Staff Bylaws allow the MEC or Board to be represented by a lawyer at a medical staff hearing only if the practitioner who requested the hearing is also planning to be represented by a lawyer. We recently went through a hearing where this caused some issues, because the physician who was the chair of the MEC at the time the Committee made its adverse recommendation was not available to present the MEC’s case at the hearing. No one else wanted to step up to advocate the MEC’s position at the hearing. Since the practitioner did not choose to be represented by his lawyer, we had to scramble to find someone to represent the MEC at the hearing. We wish we could have used our lawyer. Is there a better way to handle this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
There is a better way to handle this! You will be glad to know that neither the Medicare Conditions of Participation for Hospitals nor the accreditation standards prohibit hospitals or their medical staffs from being represented by a lawyer at a hearing, even if the practitioner is not represented. Additionally, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), which grants a safe harbor for immunity for the hospital and those who engage in peer review activities on behalf of the hospital, does not prohibit the hospital or its MEC from having legal representation. The HCQIA does require you to permit the physician who requested the hearing to have legal representation at the hearing, and to provide notice to the physician of that (and other) rights to which he is entitled at the hearing. But if the physician fails to take advantage of those rights – including the right to be represented – there is no obligation on the part of the hospital or MEC to make the same sacrifice. So, it is completely within your discretion to amend the Medical Staff Bylaws to make representation at hearings a right of both parties (without regard to whether the opposing party decides to be represented). Of course, you should always check with your counsel first, so that any applicable state laws and regulations can be consulted (just in case those include more stringent hearing provisions).

While you are free to (and probably should) adopt Bylaws language that provides for a universal right to legal representation at medical staff hearings, you should consider a different course of action when conducting professional review activities that are part of the collegial, progressive steps of the peer review/professional practice evaluation processes. We have long recommended that the peer review process be conducted as it was originally intended: peer-to-peer, without the meddling of legal counsel. After all, the whole point of “peer” review has always been to ensure that those who have the clinical expertise and ethical/professional obligations of the medical profession are at the forefront of reviewing their colleagues’ work and assisting with continuous performance improvement. Lawyers play no role in this process. Having lawyers present at collegial conversations and interventions can only hamper conversation and increase defensiveness. It is sure to stifle the process.

For this reason, we have always recommended that Bylaws documents and peer review policies state that no lawyers are allowed (both for the peer reviewers and for those subject to the review process) at these types of meetings. Your policy might allow for rare exceptions to this general rule, where requested by the practitioner subject to review and for good reason, but only if the exception is agreed to by the committee/body conducting the peer review activity. Further, we recommend that such exceptions rarely be made. Importantly, however, if an exception is made to allow the practitioner to bring a lawyer to a meeting, the peer review body should also be granted the same exception (allowing its legal counsel to be present, if it so desired).

In sum, at a medical staff hearing, the practitioner will always be entitled to be represented by counsel if he or she wishes. Therefore, the MEC and Board are not in any way compromising the interests of the physician if the Bylaws provide them with the unqualified right to utilize counsel for representation at the hearing (regardless of whether the physician chooses to have legal representation). By contrast, in routine peer review activities at the Hospital, the practitioner will almost never be entitled to be represented by counsel and, in turn, it would be unfair to allow the MEC and Board to utilize legal representation at meetings that are held pursuant to that process – unless an exception has been made to the general rule, permitting the practitioner to bring counsel to a meeting.

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

July 25, 2024

Posted on by jwilbert

QUESTION:
We are confused about whether an applicant for Medical Staff appointment and clinical privileges is entitled to a hearing because of his failure to disclose certain unfavorable information and our decision to not process his application.  The physician claims that he is entitled to a hearing.  How should we handle this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY CHARLIE CHULACK
While it is always important to consult requirements under state law, which may address situations when a hearing is required, your Medical Staff Bylaws or Credentials Policy (“Bylaws”) should clearly define the consequences for certain events and the circumstances that give rise to a hearing.  For example, if the physician failed to disclose an “accusation” filed against him by the state licensing board and such information is requested on the application, the Bylaws should spell out the results of failing to disclose such information requested on the application.  Specifically, the Bylaws should state that any misstatement in, or omission from, the application is grounds to stop processing the application. A decision not to process an application for these reasons should not entitle the applicant to a hearing or appeal (and this should be clear in your Bylaws).

With that in mind, it also makes sense to review your application forms to confirm that the application questions are seeking information that you need to make an informed decision about someone’s qualifications.  For example, your application should not only seek information on past actions by licensing boards, it also should ask for information on pending actions.  Confirm that the questions on the application form are consistent with provisions in the Bylaws with respect to the threshold eligibility criteria that someone must satisfy for eligibility for appointment.  If one of your threshold eligibility criteria requires an applicant to “have a current, unrestricted license to practice that has never been subject to any restrictions, conditions, or probationary terms and have never had a license to practice in any jurisdiction denied, revoked, restricted or suspended by a state licensing agency,” then there should be a corresponding question on the application seeking this information.

Finally, your Bylaws should place an obligation on members to notify the Medical Staff Office of any change in information provided as a part of the application and state that a failure to do so may result in administrative relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges.  This permits the Medical Staff and Hospital to evaluate any changes in an individual’s qualifications, weigh those changes against eligibility criteria, and assess the appropriateness of any applicable consequences under the Bylaws.  Unless state law requires it, an automatic relinquishment of appointment and clinical privileges because of failure to continuously satisfy threshold eligibility criteria does not give rise to a Medical Staff hearing.

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

July 11, 2024

Posted on by jwilbert

QUESTION:
A physician recently resigned employment with a group that’s affiliated with the hospital.  Is there anything we should consider with respect to the physician’s Medical Staff appointment and privileges?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY MARY PATERNI
Yes, you’ll want to evaluate whether the physician is still eligible for continued appointment and privileges under the Medical Staff Credentials Policy (or Bylaws).

Malpractice insurance is often provided through employers, so physicians who resign their employment often lose their malpractice coverage.  Most Medical Staff Credentials Policies state that such insurance is a threshold eligibility criterion for appointment and privileges and that physicians will “automatically relinquish” their privileges if they lose their insurance.  (If your Credentials Policy doesn’t say this, it should!)  So, one step is to determine if the physician has acquired new malpractice insurance.

Similarly, Credentials Policies often require physicians to have acceptable coverage arrangements to be eligible for appointment and privileges.  Resignation from a group may mean that those coverage arrangements are no longer in place, so the existence of appropriate coverage should be confirmed with the physician.

Finally, all the other eligibility criteria in the Credentials Policy should be reviewed to determine if the physician’s resignation from employment will cause the physician to be ineligible.  For example, some Credentials Policies require the physician to maintain an office within the hospital’s service area as a condition of being granted appointment and privileges.

On the employment side, a physician’s employment contract may contain an “incident and coterminous” provision saying that the physician’s privileges will automatically be resigned upon termination of the contract.  Similarly, the contract may include a restrictive covenant prohibiting the physician from practicing in a defined geographic area for a certain amount of time after the contract ends.  However, the employer (not the Medical Staff) is responsible for enforcing such contractual provisions.

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

April 25, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We caught wind of the fact that one of our surgeons was cited for boating under the influence (or “BUI” – yes, this is a thing in our state) last weekend.  Does our Medical Staff leadership need to take any action, or do we only need to act if we’ve observed problems in the hospital?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
A BUI or (more commonly) a DUI may reflect a momentary lapse in judgment or be the sign of a more significant problem.  Given this uncertainty and the potential risks to patients, we think it makes sense to speak with the individual about the BUI/DUI, gather any additional information that may be relevant, and decide if any further action is needed.  This approach should give you the information you need to make sure patients are kept safe.  It will also help you to determine if any steps should be taken in regard to your Medical Staff colleague.

Ideally, you have processes in place through your Medical Staff Bylaws and policies to help your physician leaders navigate these issues in a supportive, non-punitive manner.  If you do not, a practitioner health policy should be on your Medical Staff leadership’s “to do” list for this year, as impairment of all kinds (substance abuse, mental and physical health, disease, etc.) can occur at any time.

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

March 21, 2024

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 because it involves actions on appointment and privileges.  Can we still ask for the information?  Should we ask for a letter from her lawyer?  Should the application be held incomplete?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
Yes! Credentialers have a legal duty to review all relevant information that has any bearing on the qualifications of an 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 made an application.  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 – regardless 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.

March 7, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
A physician was invited to attend a collegial counseling meeting with the Chief of Staff and CMO, to discuss a recent case where his management of a patient’s care had been called into question.  The physician came to the meeting, but once he learned what we were going to talk about, he refused to proceed unless he could record the meeting on his cell phone.  He said that it was his intention to fully comply with the review, but that he’d been treated unprofessionally at similar, previous meetings and felt that he needed to take steps to protect himself.  What’s the right response to this?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
I’m glad to hear that the physician you are dealing with intends to fully comply with your review process.  That’s a good starting point and may give you room to salvage this process, even though you have experienced an initial setback.  A few tips to consider:

First, it is a good idea to inform a practitioner about the general nature of the issue(s) that will be discussed at a collegial counseling session before the meeting.  In other words, inform the practitioner of the concern in the invitation to the meeting.  In some cases, it may even make sense to inform the physician of the concern and ask for specific information in writing.  This approach gives the practitioner a chance to learn about the concerns, work through initial feelings of surprise and defensiveness, gather thoughts, refresh memories, and prepare a thoughtful response.  And all of those things can set you up for a better (and more effective, in the long run) review process.  Even if you don’t intend to ask for the practitioner’s written comments, letting the practitioner know about the leadership’s concerns prior to a meeting almost always makes sense – so that they can arrive at the meeting fully prepared to discuss the matter at hand.  When would you not give advance notice of your concerns?  It can make sense to withhold that information if the leadership wants to see the practitioner’s reaction when informed about the matter under review (and use that observation to help weigh the practitioner’s credibility).  Also, if the practitioner has a long history of retaliatory behavior – or retaliation is a significant concern for some other reason – you may wish to withhold information about the nature of the matter under review until you get to the meeting itself.  That way, the leadership can give an in-person reminder to the practitioner about the importance of avoiding retaliatory behavior (and even have the practitioner sign an anti-retaliation agreement, if that is deemed necessary).

Even with advance notice of the issues of concern, some practitioners are going to be uncomfortable with the peer review process (after all, if you’ve never been in a leadership position, the process likely feels very foreign, and no one likes to receive criticism).  So, how can you deescalate a situation where the physician feels the need to record the process to protect his rights?  Consider stating in the notice/invitation who will be present at the meeting.  In other words, if the practitioner is being asked to meet with just the Chief of Staff and CMO, say so in the invitation.  And if they are acting on behalf of a committee (e.g., a Leadership Council or MEC), state that as well.  If the committee is one charged with implementing the Medical Staff’s collegial, progressive steps of peer review – and does not manage disciplinary matters – consider stating that as well.  That way, the physician knows early on that he is meeting with a committee for a collegial discussion that is not intended to result in any disciplinary recommendation or action.

Make sure that your Medical Staff Bylaws (or related Medical Staff governance documents/policies) include provisions stating that attorneys are not permitted to be present at any meetings between hospital/medical staff leaders and practitioners, nor are any recordings of such meetings permitted to be made (instead, legal counsel and recordings are permitted only during medical staff hearings and appeals).  Consider informing practitioners of the rules against lawyers/recordings in the invitation to meetings.  Doing so can prevent the physician from spending the time and money to arrange to have a lawyer present, only to find that you have no intention of letting the person into the room.  And, if you have communicated your “no recording” rule to the practitioner prior to the meeting, you won’t have to feel so awkward if you feel that you must ask for mobile phones and/or other recording devices to be left outside the room (to prevent surreptitious recording).  Nor will you have to feel bad canceling the meeting if the physician refuses to proceed without making a recording (or having a lawyer present).

Finally, while the above steps are likely to help avoid misunderstandings and disagreements about the procedures that will be followed, it is important that leaders have enforcement tools they can call upon if necessary.  So, your Medical Staff Bylaws (or related Medical Staff governance documents/policies) should specify that if the physician refuses to attend and participate in the meeting without making a recording, then this will constitute his refusal to attend a mandatory meeting.  Your Bylaws should go on to state that the failure to attend a mandatory meeting will result in the automatic/administrative relinquishment of medical staff membership and all clinical privileges until such time as the practitioner attends a rescheduled meeting.  We would suggest setting a time limit for compliance – for example, by stating that if the practitioner has not resolved the automatic/administrative relinquishment (by attending the meeting) within 30 days, that will be deemed to constitute his automatic resignation of medical staff membership and privileges (meaning that any future request to practice at the hospital would not occur via reinstatement from automatic/administrative relinquishment but would, instead, require an application for initial appointment).  If this all seems like “a big to do” over not attending a meeting, know that the intention of this sort of Bylaws language is to never have to invoke it.  It is reasonable for medical staff leaders to expect that when they volunteer to take on leadership roles (often without any pay) and agree to spend their free time furthering patient safety, quality, and standards of professionalism in the hospital, they have every right to expect that their colleagues will meet them half-way.  And that includes attending meetings when requested and given adequate notice – and also complying with the rules that have been established by the medical staff to promote an informal, peer-led review process.  So, the great hope is that the automatic/administrative relinquishment language can be used, if necessary, to remind practitioners of their obligations to be involved in the review process (in hopes that leaders never have to actually enforce it).

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