Peer Review

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 16, 2025

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
How should we handle distributing peer review materials prior to a meeting?

ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY NICHOLAS CALABRESE:
In general, we recommend that documents not be distributed before meetings.  You always take a risk when you distribute peer review materials prior to a meeting, because if the materials are lost, misplaced, or treated carelessly, peer review protections could be lost.  Confidential materials should not end up in the hands of someone who is not part of a legally protected peer review committee.

But, we also realize that sometimes confidential materials have to be reviewed prior to a meeting, because it may be a huge pile of documents.  So, here are a couple ideas:

You could keep all of the peer review materials in a central location, like the medical staff office.  Committee members can have access to the materials, but won’t be able to take them out of the office.  Also, here, don’t allow any copies to be made, unless the VPMA, CMO or CEO allows it.

Another idea is to put the committee member’s name and phone number on the materials, along with a number, like 1 of 12.  The committee members should be told that no copies may be made, and that the documents should be returned after the meeting.  Then, after the meeting, the materials should be collected, all of the numbers accounted for, and the copies destroyed – only keep the originals as official records.

One final idea that can be used with the first two ideas is to stamp all of the confidential materials with a stamp that states “Protected and Confidential Pursuant to the State Peer Review Statute.”  Again, a red flag goes up if the stamp is seen outside the meeting room.

During the pandemic, everything became virtual, which raised a whole host of issues.  Everyone is now more comfortable sharing peer review documents electronically through protected portals and the like, but there is still a need to be cautious.  So, sit down and think everything through on how to tackle this.  For example, think about:

  • How do you control access? (passwords, secure email, etc.)
  • Do you send emails to gmail accounts or only to hospital accounts?
  • Are you going to blind the records? Prohibit copies?

We advise pulling in your facility’s tech experts to work with you as a part of this process.  Which videoconferencing platform is secure for HIPAA and other privacy laws?  Create a list of approved software programs.

We’ve developed a policy on virtual meetings.  The highlights of the policy are:

  • Virtual participants should be required to maintain compliance with all policies relating to confidentiality, data privacy, electronic communications and security. We recommend that all meetings begin with a reminder about confidentiality, privacy and security, and that this be reflected in the minutes.  Quorum and voting requirements apply as if at an in‑person meeting.
  • The best practice is to prepare for calls by testing new cameras and microphones before the meeting. Also, minimize outside distractions, such as the dog coming in and out of the picture, hearing the neighbors fighting, or the kid next door testing out the new exhaust on his Dodge Challenger.  You can’t soundproof the walls, but do try to find a secluded, quiet space.

Some practical tips for virtual meetings…

  • Remember that you’re in a professional setting. During the pandemic, there were stories about people making dinner, brushing their teeth, etc., while on Zoom.  Avoid that and give the meeting the attention it deserves.
  • Remember that mute is your friend. Keep microphones on mute unless speaking, and always assume that the mic is hot.  Pre‑pandemic, there’s the famous story about President Ronald Reagan forgetting that he had a hot mic, and saying “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”  Then there are the pandemic stories – all members of a San Francisco area school board resigned after they were heard making disparaging comments about parents at a virtual board meeting.  Always assume the mic is hot and the camera is on.

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

May 23, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Recently, as part of our routine peer review process, a physician was asked to provide a written response to a behavioral concern that had been reported by one of our nurses.  The physician now wants to know who filed the report.  Should we disclose the identity of the nurse?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY HALA MOUZZAFAR:
No.  At this stage in the peer review process, we strongly recommend protecting the identity of any individual willing to come forward and raise a concern.

In most cases, who raised the concern is irrelevant.  For clinical concerns, the matter will be evaluated based on what is in the medical record, so whoever reported the matter is unrelated to the concern.  For behavioral concerns, assuming that witnesses are interviewed, and they corroborate the original reported concern, the individual’s identity is also irrelevant.

However, even if you do not disclose the identity of the nurse, that does not mean that the physician under review cannot guess who filed the report.  Accordingly, it is useful to gently remind physicians to avoid any action that could be perceived as retaliatory, even if retaliation isn’t the intent.

Depending on how far into the peer review process this matter gets, it is possible that you will eventually disclose the reporter’s identity.  For instance, if you get to the point that a Medical Staff hearing is going to be held to consider restricting the physician’s clinical privileges, the physician should be provided access to the same documents considered by the hearing committee.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Hala Mouzaffar at hmouzaffar@hortyspringer.com.

February 8, 2024

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
This question was raised by a registrant at our Complete Course for Medical Staff Leaders last week – should we notify Medical Staff members immediately, as soon as a case “falls out” in our peer review process?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
No!  There are so many different indicators that hospitals track – some required by Medicare, some by accreditation standards, some based upon specialty-specific evidence-based medicine – and the mere fact that a case “tripped” one of these many indicators does not mean that there are specific concerns that need to be addressed.  We hear that Medical Staff members already tend to view the peer review process as something that can feel more punitive than performance improvement based, and if we start sending letters out to individuals the minute that a case has met a specific indicator, we risk making that perception even worse.  Professional practice evaluation/peer review policies should clearly state that cases that make their way into the process can be closed at the earliest, most initial stage of review, and that practitioners need to be notified of cases only once questions or concerns about the care provided by the practitioner have been identified.

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

November 30, 2023

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our hospital is part of a regional system, and while there had been some low-level discussions about whether we may want to have a unified medical staff, the consensus was that we aren’t there yet – however, there is a strong desire for our medical staff processes to become more integrated even if unification isn’t our ultimate outcome.  Are there options short of formally becoming one unified medical staff?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY LEEANNE MITCHELL:
Absolutely!  While one of the main objectives of medical staff unification is consistency in core processes such as credentialing, privileging and peer review – with the goal towards promoting a single standard of care and reducing the administrative burden for the medical staffs and their leaders – many of these benefits can be obtained even in the absence of a unified medical staff.

A good first step is having similar (or identical) policies for credentialing, privileging and peer review at each system hospital that use the same eligibility criteria for appointment and privileges and the same process for evaluating applications among similar types of hospitals.  The same is true for policies governing clinical peer review, professionalism and health.  Consistent bylaws, policies and procedures across the system help the medical staff leaders to do their jobs, and are also helpful for members of the medical staffs who may practice at more than one system hospital to know what the rules are.

Even if a system has the same process for credentialing, privileging and peer review and has adopted the same standards for these activities, there remains the potential for different outcomes when different committees are making decisions.  Steps that the system and its medical staffs can take to address this concern – short of unification – include things such as:

  • Utilizing a central Credentials Verification Office to ensure each medical staff gets the same information about applicants;
  • Utilizing a system (or regional) Credentials Committee, which includes representation from all relevant hospitals, to avoid inconsistent recommendations being made by individual Credentials Committees on practitioners who are applying to more than one system hospital. The same goal can be accomplished in the peer review process by utilizing a system Peer Review Committee – a process that can be even more helpful when system hospitals include much smaller facilities that may have fewer individuals able to serve on such committees; and
  • Incorporating provisions into the medical staff bylaws/credentials policies for each system hospital which state that certain types of significant actions that directly implicate a practitioner’s qualifications to practice – such as performance improvement plans, precautionary suspensions, automatic relinquishments and final actions by the board – become effective immediately at each system hospital where the individual practices, unless the automatic action is waived by the “receiving” hospital’s MEC and the Board.

While these steps don’t achieve the same level of consistency that a unified medical staff would, they are definite steps along the “continuum of integration” that most systems are exploring and implementing.  Also, as the medical staff sees these integration steps in action, they can also help to quell the concerns that are sometimes voiced about possible unification and can be good first steps towards that goal.

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

October 19, 2023

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our hospital is in the process of refining our peer review process.  Our existing framework involves a multi-tiered review where cases are evaluated and assigned a level of complexity or concern, ranging from Level 1 to Level 4.  We are actively exploring enhancements to our current process.  Any suggestions?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY HALA MOUZAFFAR:
The peer review process is one of the most essential processes a hospital has in its toolbelt.  While a hospital’s peer review process should be tailored to fit its culture and needs, we do have some general guidelines that we suggest for everyone.

(1)        Ditch Numbering Systems
Reviewers should be assessing whether there was a concern with the care provided and how that concern could be addressed.  The problem with numbering is that no case ever fits neatly into one category.  So, more energy is put into deciding if a case is a 2 or 3 than what really matters in the review process (i.e., how to help a practitioner improve).

(2)        Incorporate Progressive Steps
Only rarely does peer review need to result in disciplinary action.  Some events can be addressed through a simple conversation or a letter educating the provider on what went wrong.  Other times, tools like performance improvement plans (for example, additional training) might do the trick.  Whatever you choose, your process should emphasize educational, collegial options with disciplinary action being the rare last resort.

(3)        Be Flexible
Do not create such a strict peer review policy that you box yourself in.  It’s not reasonable to create a rigid structure (i.e., first offenses will receive an educational letter, second offenses will receive a collegial conversation, etc.).  Make sure your process is constructed in a way that gives your peer review committee flexibility to identify the most effective performance improvement option under the circumstances.  A fundamental tenet should be to use the least restrictive option that will keep patients safe and help the practitioner to improve.  On the other hand, if a real red flag case comes through, you want to make sure your policy clearly states you can handle the case appropriately (by taking more significant action right away, if needed) instead of being required to work your way through each of the steps in the policy.

If you have a quick question about this, e-mail Hala Mouzaffar at hmouzaffar@hortyspringer.com.