Peer Review

February 2, 2023

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have a physician who has been working his way through our peer review process with very little sustained success.  Recently, there were several significant clinical events that caused Medical Staff Leaders to escalate the matter to the Medical Executive Committee which decided to commence an investigation.

Our question is “do we have to re-do all the great work done by our Peer Review Committee, or can we use that as part of our investigation?”

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
This is an excellent question and one that we hear quite frequently.  We know from experience Medical Staff Leaders will be able to address and resolve most issues that come to their attention, whether they are of a clinical or behavioral nature, using collegial and progressive steps.  However, every once in a while, a practitioner can’t or won’t change and Medical Staff Leaders will need to escalate concerns to the Medical Executive Committee for a formal, capital “I” investigation.

The procedure for conducting an investigation is laid out in your credentials policy, bylaws or investigation manual.  Once you get to an investigation, the stakes are high for everyone, so it is very important to follow the procedures outlined in your documents.

It is also important that the investigation is thorough, fair, and objective.  However, that does not mean that you have to re-do all the work done by the Peer Review Committee.  That would simply make no sense.  The Medical Executive Committee, or more likely an investigating committee appointed by the Medical Executive Committee, should have access to any documents that it deems relevant, including documents from the practitioner’s credentials file and quality file.  The investigating committee can and should review and rely on informational and educational letters along with letters of awareness, and letters of counsel or guidance.  It can and should review and rely on prior performance improvement plans (aka voluntary enhancement plans).  The investigating committee can and should rely on case reviews and reports from external experts.

If you have worked your professional practice evaluation process, once you get to the investigation phase, you may have already done most of the heavy lifting.  The role of the investigating committee may be primarily to pull together all prior progressive actions that had been taken and consider potential patterns and trends.  Additionally, the investigating committee may want to conduct interviews of individuals with relevant information including staff, the department chair and members of the Peer Review Committee.  Critically, even if your governing documents don’t expressly require it, the investigating committee will want to provide the subject physician with notice of the concerns that have been identified and an opportunity to discuss, explain or refute those concerns.

So, the bottom line is you can and should consider information reviewed by and generated for the Peer Review Committee at part of an investigation.  But you should also use the investigation to answer any outstanding questions and to meet with the subject physician.

October 13, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
As part of our peer review process, we want to develop a plan requiring a physician to obtain 15 hours of CME (to improve performance in a couple of identified areas).  Our peer review committee has always forwarded these types of recommendations to the MEC and Board for approval prior to implementing them.  I recently heard that this is no longer recommended.  Can you explain why?  Did something change about MEC and Board oversight of Medical Staff activities?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
Medical Staffs have come a long way in the past 20 years.  As the roles and responsibilities of Medical Staff leaders have multiplied, many Medical Staffs have decided to dedicate the MEC to matters of oversight and strategy, while delegating the detailed, day-to-day work of the Medical Staff to other committees.  This is how the Credentials Committee first came into fashion.  More recently, the Leadership Council and Multispecialty Peer Review Committee have begun to assume greater roles within the Medical Staff.  This means not limiting the work of the committee to conducting clinical case reviews and reporting those results to the MEC.  Most modern peer review committees are responsible for so much more.

For example, multispecialty peer review committees are commonly responsible for all of the following:

  • Taking full responsibility for implementing the Medical Staff peer review policy
  • Recommending revisions to the peer review policy and process
  • Reviewing and approving the OPPE and FPPE indicators recommended by the departments for each specialty
  • Keeping track of system issues that are identified through the peer review process, to ensure that they are addressed and do not fall through the cracks
  • Reviewing cases referred to the committee for peer review (which includes developing performance improvement plans for practitioners, where appropriate)

Any peer review committee that is performing all of the above functions must be engaged, educated, and savvy about peer review (so it’s important to make good choices about committee composition and to provide periodic training).  So, it only makes sense a hospital and medical staff would honor the commitment of the committee’s members by letting go of micromanagement and embracing a pure oversight role.

Oversight does not mean abdication of all responsibility.  But oversight does not require detailed information.  All the MEC and governing board need is enough information to be sure that good policies are in place and that the responsible individuals are following them.  This means summary/aggregate data reports work well.  For example, it should suffice if reports to the MEC and Board list the total number of cases reviewed through the peer review process within a specified period of time, with that data then broken down by department or specialty, with information about how those cases were addressed – e.g., through a letter to the practitioner, a collegial intervention, a performance improvement plan, or otherwise).

Empowering the multispecialty peer review committee to implement the peer review process has other benefits, in addition to demonstrating honor and respect for the committee’s members.  For one, by giving primary authority over the peer review process to a non-disciplinary committee, the Medical Staff promotes a peer review process grounded in collegial, progressive steps – rather than a punitive, threatening process.

Further, if collegial steps are unsuccessful in managing a practitioner’s performance issues, the MEC and/or Board may eventually need to get involved.  By keeping those bodies out of the initial collegial efforts of the Medical Staff peer review process, the hospital and Medical Staff preserve the members as disinterested individuals, allowing the MEC and/or Board to review matters with a fresh set of eyes when a practitioner comes before them.  This promotes fairness in the process, since practitioners who are subject to review can rest assured that there will be multiple layers of review – before committees/bodies that are for the most part disinterested – before any “disciplinary” action were to be imposed.

To conclude – we absolutely do recommend that hospitals and Medical Staffs empower their peer review committees to implement CME requirements, as well as other performance improvement measures, without first having those measures taken to the MEC or Board for approval.  It’s efficient, it shows trust in those leaders doing the legwork on peer review, and it is an important part of a collegial, fair process.

June 23, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We’re updating our process for peer review of clinical concerns. We want it to be more effective and less feared by Medical Staff members. Any tips?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY PHIL ZARONE:
Yes!  Here are a few:

  1. Create a Multi-Specialty Committee. Create a multi-specialty committee that works with practitioners on a voluntary basis to address clinical concerns.  If the multi-specialty committee believes there’s an opportunity for improvement with the care provided by a practitioner, the committee presents an improvement plan to the practitioner and asks the individual to voluntarily participate.  If the practitioner disagrees with the need for the improvement plan, the matter would be referred to the Medical Executive Committee for its independent review under the Medical Staff Bylaws/Credentials Policy.  This approach allows the multi-specialty committee to remain a supportive committee with no disciplinary authority, while the MEC is a second layer of review when needed.
  1. Obtain Specialty Expertise. Identify small committees or individuals (depending on state law) for each specialty that provide the specialty expertise that informs the decisions of the multi-specialty committee.  In larger hospitals with more volume, these committees/individuals can be authorized to take certain performance improvement actions (such as sending educational letters or engaging in collegial counseling discussions) while more significant concerns are sent to the multi-specialty committee for its review.
  1. Get Input from the Practitioner. A process will be perceived as more fair and credible if the practitioner under review has been provided notice of any concerns and an opportunity to provide input about those issues.  No performance improvement action should occur until the practitioner’s input has been obtained.
  1. Adopt Mechanisms to Identify “Lessons Learned” and “System/Process Issues.” Peer review should help everyone get better.  Case review forms and committee minutes should specifically ask if a review identified a lesson that would be of value to others in the specialty, or a system/process issue that needs to be fixed.  There should be mechanisms to ensure that such lessons learned or system/process issues are shared with the appropriate individuals or committees for follow-up action, and the multi-specialty committee should keep these items on its agenda until it receives word that they have been addressed.
  1. Stop Scoring. Rather than asking reviewers to assign a numerical value or category to a case, the reviewer should simply assess whether there was a concern with the care provided.  If so, how could that concern be addressed?  Scoring causes practitioners to be defensive and diverts energy away from what really matters in the review process (i.e., how to help a practitioner improve).
  1. Words Matter! The term “peer review” is viewed negatively by most practitioners.  Using new terminology will help to emphasize that a new process has been created that is educational and not focused on restrictions of privileges.  Consider creating a “Committee for Professional Enhancement” or “Performance Improvement Committee” rather than a more traditional “Peer Review Committee.”  Similarly, refer to the process as the “professional practice evaluation” process rather than “peer review” process.

For more information about creating an effective peer review process for clinical concerns, please join us this season at The Peer Review Clinic in Las Vegas, Orlando, or Nashville!

June 9, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
This past weekend, a patient presented to the emergency room with an injury that required immediate surgery.  Our hospital was out of the patient’s network, so when it was determined that the patient was stable, we offered them the option to be safely transferred by ambulance (per doctor’s orders) to a hospital that is down the street and in-network.  However, the patient declined this offer and chose to remain at our hospital for the duration of their care.  Can we give the patient a written notice and get them to consent to waive their protection under the No Surprises Act, which would allow us to balance bill them for any subsequent post-stabilization services during their stay?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY MARY PATERNI:
At this point, the answer is no.  Under the No Surprises Act (“NSA”), the hospital is prohibited from balance billing patients for emergency services even if the patient signs a consent waiving their protections under the NSA for such services.  Generally, post-stabilization services are also considered emergency services under these new rules.

However, in certain circumstances, an out-of-network provider or facility may provide notice to and get written consent from a patient that would waive their balance billing protections for post-stabilization services.  For this to occur, the following requirements must be met:

(1)        the patient is stable enough to travel using nonemergency medical transport to an available in-network provider/facility and that provider/facility is within reasonable traveling distance considering the patient’s condition;

(2)        the patient or their representative is in a condition where they can receive information and provide informed consent;

(3)        the hospital provides written notice and obtains written consent from the patient to waive their balance billing protections; and

(4)        the hospital is in compliance with all relevant state laws.

At this point, the patient requires medical transportation via ambulance in order to travel.  As such, the patient cannot receive notice or give consent to waive their balance billing protections under the NSA.  The hospital is prohibited from balance billing the patient for any post-stabilization services provided to the patient during their stay so long as that requirement is not met.  If, however, there comes a time when the patient can be safely transferred to another hospital through means other than medical transport, but the patient wishes to remain at your hospital, then you may consider providing notice and getting written consent from the patient to waive their protections so long all other notice and consent requirements mentioned above are met.

May 5, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We’ve got a debate going on at the MEC.  Does the Chief of Staff vote, not vote, or vote only when needed as a tie-breaker?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:

No need to debate any longer!  The good news is that, for the most part, Medical Staffs and their leaders are free to conduct their meetings however they wish.  You are not bound by any sort of formal parliamentary procedure (e.g. “Robert’s Rules of Order”) and, in turn, can set your own rules.  So – the answer to your question is that your Chief of Staff, who chairs the MEC, can vote if your Bylaws and related Medical Staff documents say so.  If the documents are silent, as a general rule, the chair decides procedural matters for the committee.  Since the chair, in this case, has a bit of a conflict of interest, the committee itself may wish to weigh in and make a determination (or develop a policy/guideline for how it will conduct meetings/voting).

If you are wondering how other organizations do it, note that there is not one, “right” position on this matter.  We see some Medical Staff committees that lean toward inclusivity and let all members of the committee vote, whether or not they are the chair, whether or not they are an administrator (e.g. CMO, Medical Director, Service Line Director), and whether or not they are physicians.  I tend to prefer this type of organizational structuring, since I believe providing voting rights to each member of the committee honors the time and energy that they commit to the committee’s work.

We also see Medical Staff committees that only allow physician members to vote (including any chairs, employed physicians, administrators).

Finally, we sometimes see Medical Staff committees that only allow voting by specified, physician members (sometimes limited to physicians who are members of the Active Staff category).

Again, as a general rule, it is up to each organization to establish its own culture and rules regarding meetings and voting.  Note, however, that you should always check with your medical staff counsel before making changes to committee membership and/or voting, since counsel can verify that any changes are consistent with the statutes and other laws in your state that exist to protect (through immunities and privileges) the peer review activities that your Medical Staff conducts through its committees.  Some states have a more narrow definition of a “peer review committee” or “quality assurance committee” that requires membership to be all or mostly physicians, etc.  Counsel can help to make sure you stay within the confines of applicable law and maximize your protections.

April 21, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Do hospital-employed physicians have a conflict of interest with respect to private practice physicians in matters involving credentialing?  Privileging?  Peer review?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY IAN DONALDSON:
Some independent physicians may feel that employed physicians should not be involved in leadership positions for fear that their employment relationships could influence their actions.  Legally, there is no support for viewing an employment relationship as a disqualifying factor.  And we have rarely seen the type of political pressure from management that independent physicians worry about being brought down on employed physicians.

Of course, if a specific concern is raised about an individual’s participation in any given review, it always makes sense to consider whether an individual has a conflict that could bias the process (e.g., direct competitors, close friends, etc.).  These types of situations should be addressed under the Medical Staff’s conflict of interest guidelines.  But those guidelines should make it clear that employment by, or other contractual arrangement with, a hospital does not, in and of itself, preclude an individual from participating in Medical Staff functions.

April 14, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
A few weeks ago, a nephrologist resigned from our medical staff to take an opportunity out of state.  It’s been brought to my attention that one of the nephrologist’s cases had been flagged for review by our peer review specialist.  The specialist sent me an email asking whether we should continue with our standard peer review process.  Do you have any guidance?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY JOHN WIECZOREK:
This situation is more common than you would think.  Because the nephrologist is no longer a member of your medical staff, we would advise that specific peer review of that physician’s medical services should be discontinued.  The purpose of peer reviewing that physician is to ensure and improve quality; this purpose can no longer be effectuated if the physician has left the medical staff.  Among other things, many of the tools that could be used to improve care would no longer be available (such as having the physician complete additional training and then monitoring a few of the physician’s cases at the hospital).  Also, a malpractice attorney may argue that the peer review privilege doesn’t apply to reviews conducted after a physician has left the medical staff.  Finally, continuing peer review of a physician no longer on your medical staff may give an eager plaintiff’s attorney something to squawk about (e.g., allegations that the purpose of the review is to harm the physician).

March 24, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
I am the chief of the division of family medicine at my hospital.  I recently learned that a nurse’s aide complained to her supervisor about my tone when speaking with the mother of a patient in our clinic.  The complaint made its way into the peer review system, and I was sent a “letter of guidance” referencing the organization’s Code of Conduct and encouraging me, for lack of a better explanation, to be on my best behavior and be mindful of my reputation and that of the health system.

To be honest, although I am involved in leadership and understand the underlying motivation for the Code of Conduct, I found this to be a really patronizing experience.  The aide who made the complaint knows nothing about my history with this patient and his mother, nor the practical or clinical reasons why I might take a serious tone with her.  My treatment of this patient and his mother was appropriate, given the circumstances and I feel pretty strongly that the aide should have stayed out of it or at least raised her concerns with me before reporting me to her supervisor.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss this situation with the aide and her supervisor.  It’s important for the aide to understand that some patients of the clinic are well known by clinic staff to require more intense interactions regarding appropriate treatment options and the importance of compliance with the treatment plan.  I am not expecting an apology from the aide as a result of this conversation but, instead, see this conversation as an opportunity to improve how the clinic team operates and, hopefully, prevent frivolous reports in the future.

Last week, I approached the supervisor regarding this, to schedule a time for all three of us to sit down to talk (me, the supervisor, and the aide).  The supervisor told me that my plan was not appropriate and could be viewed as intimidation.  She refused to schedule the session and said I’d better run my plan past the Chief of Staff first.  I did and she said it’s better to “leave it alone.”

Has the whole world gone crazy?  Can’t professionals talk to each other anymore?  How is this supposed to improve the patient care environment?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY RACHEL REMALEY:
It’s easy to see why you might be frustrated, given the scenario you have described.  A key component of any peer review process should be transparency.  This means all practitioners who are subject to the process should understand that it exists and how it works.  Information should, ideally, be periodically pushed out to members of the Medical Staff to help them understand the many moving parts to the peer review process.  When the process is better understood, practitioners are less likely to feel targeted when their own practices come under scrutiny.

Transparency requires more than knowledge of the process, however.  It also requires practitioner involvement in their own peer review.  In your case, it appears as though the peer review of the concern involving your conduct was concluded without anyone ever asking for your input and getting your side of the story.  How can practitioners be expected to buy-in to a process that does not include their input?  As you describe it, that input may have been vital in deciding the appropriate outcome.  Maybe if you had been given a chance to discuss the facts with those conducting the review, they would have concluded that rather than sending you a letter of education, they should provide additional information and training to clinic personnel regarding tough, non-compliant patient management.

At this point, what’s done is done.  Your best bet may be to respond to the letter of education explaining your side of the story and requesting that consideration be given to obtaining your input should any future, similar concerns be reported.  Further, you might consider recommending that clinic personnel receive additional training to help them understand and manage situations like this.  Don’t worry that your response will be seen as controversial or adversarial.  A professionally-worded response, sent through appropriate channels, is part of the review process and is completely appropriate.  After all, the aim of the peer review process should not only be to work with privileged practitioners to address concerns that are under their control, but also to bring to light related, systemic concerns that should be addressed to improve patient care overall.

With that said, we agree with the aide’s supervisor that it is not a good idea for you to sit down with the aide to discuss this matter.  While doing so might be the fastest, most efficient way to get from point A to point B, the supervisor is right – your actions could intimidate the aide.  And, in the long run, that could lead to aides (and other personnel) being reluctant to report meaningful concerns about practitioners due to fear of retaliation.

This advice may be frustrating, because your intentions may be good.  Instead of focusing on your intentions, though, try to think about process.  Can an effective peer review process rely on the good intentions of every physician whose conduct is reported?  If practitioners are given free rein to “confront” those who report concerns about that, would that have a chilling effect on future reports?  Would that promote advancements in quality?

You can see where we are going with this.

Ideally, this issue would have been addressed with you earlier (when your input was first sought by the leadership reviewing this matter) and, at that time, the organizational definition of retaliation could have been provided, along with a caution about engaging in any conduct that could be viewed as retaliatory.  Our recommendation is that a professionalism policy include any contact with the individual who filed a report, in an attempt to discuss the matter, as retaliatory – no matter the intention.  Letting practitioners know this early in the process avoids any embarrassment or confusion later.  Further, bringing it up early in the process avoids an implication that the practitioner is pursuing retaliatory conduct and allows it to serve as a generalized, non-confrontational FYI.  In most organizations, it works well and keeps disputes (and retaliation) to a minimum.

Peer review is tough and imperfect. Organizations are constantly tweaking their processes to correct deficiencies and improve the experience for the practitioners who are subject to review.  We hope you can take the flaws you perceived in this review of your conduct and work through available channels at your organization to suggest appropriate changes (e.g., earlier, methodical request for the practitioner’s input and guidance to practitioners of who they can contact to discuss the matter).

February 10, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
We have a physician who was brought in through a contract with a locum tenens company.  Within the first couple of weeks, he had several horrible outcomes in cases.  We started to review his cases through our peer review process and we are considering a precautionary suspension.  Our CMO just told us that the hospital has instructed the company that the physician can no longer be scheduled at our hospital.  This will result in the termination of his clinical privileges.  Should we suspend his privileges anyway, continue with our peer review process, and then report him to the National Practitioner Data Bank?  We are concerned that he is just going to go someplace else and hurt patients again.

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY SUSAN LAPENTA:
We understand the desire to follow your peer review process, especially when there are serious concerns about the clinical care provided by a physician.  The peer review process is, by design, thoughtful, deliberative, and educational with built-in collegial efforts, progressive steps, and, when needed, opportunities for improvement.  As successful as the peer review process can be, it is not well suited to address concerns about physicians who are brought into practice on a temporary basis.

That does not mean you should ignore those concerns.  However, your medical staff may not be in the best position to evaluate, address, and resolve the concerns identified in a physician who is practicing at your hospital on a temporary basis.  In fact, once the hospital has exercised its rights under the contract with the locum company and instructed the company not to schedule the physician again, there is not much left for the medical staff to do through its peer review process.  It difficult to review a physician’s care when the physician is no longer practicing at the hospital and there is no action left to take after the physician’s appointment and privileges have been terminated through the contract with the locum company.

In fact, this is an area where the National Practitioner Data Bank, through its Guidebook, has been very clear.  If a physician’s clinical privileges are terminated as a result of a contract, that termination is not an adverse professional review action and should not be reported to the Data Bank.

If you are concerned that the locum company is going to turn around and place the physician in another hospital, you may want to put the company on notice of your specific concerns.  The company should have a process for evaluating the care and competence of the physicians and other practitioners it is placing.  But be careful what you say to the locum company.  Your communication with the company may not be protected under your bylaws, or state or federal law.

To protect yourself, request the locum company to have the physician sign an authorization and release so that information about the physician’s practice can be shared.  Additionally, if you receive a request from another hospital who is seeking to privilege this physician, you can request an authorization and release before providing any information, including the standard “name, rank, and serial number.”  A request for an authorization should send a message that there are issues that require further review and evaluation.

January 6, 2022

Posted on by Courtney Patterson

QUESTION:
Our peer review committee is wondering if the name of the physician under review should be redacted so that committee members are not aware of the physician’s identity.  Would this promote a fair review process?

OUR ANSWER FROM HORTYSPRINGER ATTORNEY PHIL ZARONE:

While at first blush it might seem like a good idea, we do not recommend that the “blinding” of reviews be part of the peer review/professional practice evaluation (“PPE”) process.  Here’s why:

  • This practice could actually create unnecessary legal risk because it makes it more difficult to manage conflicts of interest. If a disqualifying conflict of interest exists between a committee member and the physician under review, the blinding of information might prevent this from being identified early on.  As such, there could be an allegation later that the committee member actually knew the identity of the subject physician but was deliberately not recused.
  • Obtaining input from the physician under review is an essential component of a fair and effective process. While this input is generally written, there are times a meeting is beneficial as well.  While you could probably shield the identity of physicians when they submit written comments, of course it would be impossible to do so for meetings.  Thus, physicians would be treated differently depending on whether a meeting was held or not.
  • If blinding of information is a component of the peer review process but members of the committee determine the identity of the physician in some cases (e.g., because they heard of a certain case or because there is only one physician in a certain subspecialty), it could lead to allegations by an unhappy physician that the committee violated its policy/practice because the committee knew the identity of that individual. It could be alleged this is “proof” that the committee members were biased in their review.
  • It would take a tremendous amount of careful work to attempt to blind reviews consistently and we think it is impractical on a day-to-day basis. It would stress the PPE specialists (i.e., those who support the review process) more than is necessary, distract them from assisting the process in other and better ways, and all for no great gain.
  • Despite everyone’s best efforts, it is exceedingly difficult to do this completely and ensure anonymity. In many cases, committee members will still know the identity of the physician subject to review.
  • There may be times when the committee members want to access a portion of the EHR during deliberations, which would clearly reveal the identity of the physician.

•   Once the case at issue is assessed, it is then critical for the committee members to know the physician’s history, personality, circumstances, etc.  This information will help the committee identify the most appropriate performance improvement tool (e.g., collegial counseling, educational letter, etc.) and who should be involved.