View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Hospitals have traditionally credentialed and privileged, through the medical staff process,
all allied health professionals (AHPs) who are employed or supervised by the medical staff.
Now, The Joint Commission has defined an explicit group of practitioners, such as PAs, NPs,
CRNAs, and nurse midwives, who must continue to be credentialed and privileged, while
the rest must have their competence assessed in a manner equal to hospital employees.
The Joint Commission requirements regarding licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) who
bring their employees into the organization are at the crux of the AHP conundrum. These
dependent healthcare professionals often provide the same services as employees of the
organization, and must be authorized and have their competency assessed in an equivalent
manner. But does the MSO know the HR standards for compliance?
MSPs may do all the work to credential these practitioners, yet still fail to meet the Joint
Commission’s new standards to ensure that practitioners brought into the hospital through
LIPs are assessed at a level commensurate to those individuals employed by the hospital.
Using this book and CD-ROM set, discover how your organization can best authorize
non-credentialed practitioners and achieve compliance. You’ll learn how to:
• Identify which individuals belong in the medical staff privileging process and
which should be transitioned to the HR authorization process
• Develop nomenclature for the organization that is more descriptive than the
terminology used today
• Redesign current methods using a simple 6-step process
• Develop and implement a transition plan that is efficient and manageable for
both the MSO and HR
• Ensure that safety and quality of care are upheld when your hospital chooses
to transition practitioner authorization to HR
|200 Hoods Lane | Marblehead, MA 01945
www.hcmarketplace.com
SAHPC
Solvin
g the A
HP
Conundru
mCAIRNS
Carol S. Cairns, CPMSM, CPCS
Solvingthe AHPConundrumHow to Comply with HR Standards Related toNonprivilegedPractitioners
Solving the AHP
ConundrumHow to Comply with
HR Standards Related to Nonprivileged Practitioners
SAHPC-Cvr r1.qxp 8/20/07 3:14 PM Page 1
About the author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Step 1: Recognizing changes in healthcare that affect AHP credentialing . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Step 2: Setting a course for credentialing AHPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Step 3: Establishing terminology and definitions
for privileged vs. nonprivileged AHPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Step 4: Understanding The Joint Commission HR standards’ effect on
nonprivileged AHPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Step 5: Designing a new approach to credentialing nonprivileged AHPs . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Step 6: Transitioning to the HR process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Appendix A: Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Mercy Medical Center; Nampa, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91Figure A1.1: AHP credentialing process flow chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Figure A1.2: AHP decision grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Figure A1.3: Position description, private nonphysician surgical first assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Figure A1.4: Position description for a dental/oral surgery assistant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Figure A1.5: Worksheet for developing criteria for dental assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
Figure A1.6: AHP performance evaluation form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Contents
SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM © 2007 HCPRO, INC. iii
Hillcrest Medical Center; Tulsa, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115Figure A2.1: Draft policy and procedure for use of AHPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
Yakima (WA) Regional Medical & Cardiac Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123Figure A3.1: AHP-limited perfusionist job description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Appendix B: Contributions from the field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
St. John’s Hospital; Springfield, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137Figure B.1: Administrative policy for dependent AHPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
Figure B.2: AHP application for clinical privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
XYX Medical Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169Figure B.3: Flow chart showing process for transitioning AHPs to HR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170
Figure B.4: AHP annual clinical evaluation form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
Forrest General Hospital; Hattiesburg, MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177Figure B.5: Scope of practice for dependent AHPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
Figure B.6: Supervising physician statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181
Figure B.7: Dependent AHP annual performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
Figures B.8–B.21: Position descriptions for 14 AHP disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
Appendix C: Job descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211Figure C.1: List of job descriptions on accompanying CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212
Example Surgical Technician Job Description and Performance Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
© 2007 HCPRO, INC. SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM
Contents
iv
Recognizing changes inhealthcare that affect
AHP credentialing
Before an organization can focus on credentialing allied health practitioners (AHP) who do
not require privileging via the medical staff, it is essential to have a broad understanding of
the issues related to the allied health disciplines.
Understanding important changes in healthcare will help organizations chart future courses for
credentialing AHPs. In fact, these developments—such as variations in state licensure and the
broadening scope of healthcare services—push organizations to confront the issue of creden-
tialing AHPs.
Unlike physicians or dentists—whose scopes of practice have been defined over time and are
therefore clearly understood by licensing and regulatory authorities, by institutions that cre-
dential and privilege them, and by patients—AHPs’ scopes of practice are not clearly defined
and thus are not always understood. For example, the state licensure for physicians is fairly
uniform across the 50 states. Regulatory agencies such as The Joint Commission and the
National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) clearly identify healthcare entities’ responsi-
bilities to credential and/or privilege physicians. Likewise, patients generally understand the
SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM © 2007 HCPRO, INC. 1
1STEP
2
ST E P 1
© 2007 HCPRO, INC. SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM
scope of practice of their physicians—whether they are primary care practitioners or specialists.
However, the allied health disciplines do not share this clarity of scope of practice.
State statutes vary
One important area in healthcare undergoing change is states’ individual treatment of AHPs. As
states develop their own statutes (licensures) related to AHPs, they have created a varied and
uneven landscape with regard to whether the advanced practice allied health disciplines may
practice independently. In one state, a nurse practitioner (NP) may be considered an independ-
ent practitioner with the authority to practice completely independently of a physician—he or
she could have an independent office practice and have full authority to prescribe medication
by state licensure. In another state, the same NP may be required to have a collaborating or
supervisory agreement with a physician and may or may not have prescriptive authority.
In the case of a massage therapist or an acupuncturist, one state may license or register either
individual, while another state may not, thus leaving healthcare organizations to rely on certifi-
cation as a possible criterion for credentialing. And as with the NP, the scope of services that
states may authorize for a particular individual is not consistent across the nation—for example,
the acupuncturist may be allowed greater latitude in providing patient care independently in
one state than in another.
This lack of uniformity among state licensure and the continuously evolving licensing statutes
that apply to the allied health disciplines pose problems for healthcare entities as well as AHPs.
For example, a physician assistant (PA) who has been licensed (authorized) in state A to pre-
scribe medications, including controlled substances, may move to state B, which does not per-
mit PAs to prescribe a narcotic medication. If the PA orders a controlled substance for a hospi-
talized patient in state B, the PA is functioning beyond the scope of his or her license. Further,
the PA’s physician supervisor, medical staff, and governing body in state B are also at risk for
allowing this practice to occur. Although the licensure laws of each state generally are clear, this
circumstance happens easily and often as practitioners move from state to state. As more profes-
sional organizations seek recognition of AHP professions, licensing bodies will be under increas-
ing pressure to recognize and authorize the services that these individuals provide.
Additional confusion is created by varied wording within state statutes regarding AHPs’ eligibility
for membership on hospital medical staffs. Hospital licensing regulations in some states clearly
3
Recognizing changes in healthcare that affect AHP credentialing
SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM © 2007 HCPRO, INC.
define which medical disciplines are eligible to be members of the medical staff. For example,
state A’s statute may provide that “physicians, dentists, and podiatrists are eligible for member-
ship to the hospital medical staff,” whereas state B’s statute leaves the option to the hospital by
stating that “the healthcare organization will determine the healthcare disciplines that are eligi-
ble for membership.”
Still other states, such as Ohio, may require that if an organization chooses to provide services
from a particular discipline—such as psychology or podiatry—then an individual practicing in
that discipline must be eligible for membership on the medical staff or for professional privi-
leges. In this instance, if an organization is contemplating offering podiatric or psychological
services, the medical staff bylaws must also provide the individual access to medical staff mem-
bership or clinical privileges. Ohio regulations also stipulate that if the organization provides
maternity services, in considering and acting on requests, it shall not discriminate against a
qualified person solely on the basis that the individual is authorized to practice nurse midwifery
and not obstetrics.
Adding another layer, some states are very protective of the AHP’s right to practice. For exam-
ple, in New York, healthcare organizations may not discriminate against a chiropractor who
wishes to order and receive the results of diagnostic radiology testing. However, other state
statutes authorize the use of radiological modalities by chiropractors but restrict such use to
specified parts of the body. In such situations, the healthcare organization must consider its
state’s imposed limitation when considering any chiropractic request.
Another example of varied state regulations: Statutes in California, Hawaii, and Wisconsin
expressly allow psychologists hospital admitting privileges, and statutes in Mississippi and
Montana specifically state that psychologists are allowed joint admitting privileges; and there are
many more states that do not allow psychologists to admit to a hospital. Thus, when consider-
ing psychologists’ eligibility to admit or co-admit, hospitals should base their decisions on state
law as well as on the clinician’s training and experience.
Yet another example of the range of permissiveness of state licensing agencies is in prescriptive
authority. For example, the vast majority of states do not allow psychologists to prescribe.
However, in 2002, New Mexico became the first state to permit psychologists to use this clinical
authority. In May 2004, Louisiana did so as well, provided that the psychologist has completed
certain defined postgraduate education in psychopharmacology and passed an examination. The
Louisiana law also requires the psychologist to work collaboratively with the patient’s physician
4
ST E P 1
© 2007 HCPRO, INC. SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM
when prescribing medication. The scope of the prescriptive authority is limited to medications
for nervous and mental health disorders.
The importance of identifying applicable state statutes for all AHPs cannot be overemphasized
and will be reiterated throughout this book. It is paramount that organizations understand the
difference between what scope of practice is permitted by the state licensing organization and
what scope of practice will be permitted by the healthcare facility.
AHPs’ scopes of practice
A second important area that has changed in healthcare is AHPs’ scopes of practice. Due to
physician shortages, the education and training of many AHPs has intensified, especially in
underserved areas. Physicians often seek out higher levels of education and training for their
AHP support staff and mentor these colleagues to enhance their understanding of the clinical
conditions being diagnosed and treated. Physicians are also teaching AHPs to perform proce-
dures that historically have been performed only by physicians—and physicians expect hospitals
to privilege the AHP for these procedures.
The need for hospitals, managed care organizations (MCO), and physicians to contain or
decrease healthcare costs is another incentive to encourage AHPs to seek advanced training. By
using AHPs as “physician extenders,” physicians can become more efficient by focusing their
efforts on those responsibilities that require the level of knowledge and expertise gained
through medical school and residency training.
Patients benefit by AHPs’ increased expertise in a more narrow area of clinical practice. For
example, physicians often employ nurse educators to assist in patient education during the diag-
nosis, treatment, and postoperative phases of care. These nurses are well-trained in the specific
clinical issues related to diagnoses and surgical procedures (e.g., nutrition, appropriateness and
timing of exercise, wound care, management of complications or outcomes, use of prosthetics,
etc.). Further, patients frequently report that nurses take extra time with them and are often
more available for follow-up questions than are physicians.
As AHPs’ levels of knowledge, training, and experience increase, these individuals and AHP pro-
fessional organizations seek recognition for their enhanced abilities—comparable to the process
that physicians have sought in specialty and subspecialty board certification and certificates of
5
Recognizing changes in healthcare that affect AHP credentialing
SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM © 2007 HCPRO, INC.
added qualifications. In fact, over the past 10 years, at both the state and federal levels, many
pieces of legislation have been introduced that propose:
• Expanding AHPs’ scopes of practice
• Extending the level of AHPs’ clinical independence
• Entitling more categories of AHPs to direct reimbursement
Some of these efforts were successful. For example, in West Virginia, NPs won the right to be
considered primary care practitioners within health maintenance organizations. Optometrists
were able to expand their authority to prescribe diagnostic and therapeutic pharmaceuticals in
several states. In Virginia, physical therapists now have the authority to see patients without the
need for a physician order, and several other states are also considering this option.
Early on, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and
Washington legislated the right of registered nurse first assistants to direct reimbursement. As of
this writing, several more states have approved or were considering similar legislation.
There is, of course, continuing controversy over the level of independence of the certified regis-
tered nurse anesthetist (CRNA). Until the end of 2001, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services required physicians to supervise CRNAs. However, a rule published in the November
13, 2001, Federal Register gave state governors the authority to allow CRNAs to administer anes-
thesia care to Medicare patients without physician supervision. So far at least 12 states have
opted out, thus exempting CRNAs from physician supervision.
Services provided by healthcare organizations
The changing services provided by healthcare organizations have also affected AHP credential-
ing. In the past, hospital care was clearly defined: Acute care was provided in a two- to nine-
story building clearly identified as a hospital; hospitals had no interest in expanding to ambula-
tory sites or extending into community settings.
Yet nothing escapes change. Here are just some of the ways that healthcare organizations’ serv-
ices have radically evolved:
• Enhanced diagnostic tools
6
ST E P 1
© 2007 HCPRO, INC. SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM
• Expanded technology, allowing for ultrasonic, computer-assisted, or endoscopic
approaches for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes
• Emphasis on decreasing the use of invasive procedures and increasing the use of
pharmacological agents
• Increased importance and education regarding health and fitness measures
• Decreased reimbursement for services rendered
These changes have prompted additional use of AHPs in a variety of settings that are no longer
solely within the domain of the acute care facility. Increasing numbers of AHPs—including chiro-
practors, massage therapists, independent NPs, social workers, and nutritionists—are approaching
healthcare organizations, seeking approval to provide services within that setting.
Regulatory compliance
Another key area of change within healthcare is the evolution of regulatory standards. Prior to
the advent of managed care, generally only hospitals were required to credential and privilege.
But the arrival of MCOs created a need to develop standards of excellence for the managed care
industry. In 1990, the NCQA became independent of its parent organization, the Group Health
Association of America, and now represents the interests of consumers and healthcare organiza-
tions.
The NCQA has developed credentialing standards for MCOs, managed behavioral healthcare
organizations, physician organizations, preferred provider organizations, and credentials verifica-
tion organizations for the credentialing and recredentialing of licensed independent practitioners
(LIP) with whom organizations contract or employ, and who fall within its scope of authority and
action. Thus, the NCQA’s minimum expectation is that the MCO will credential physicians, den-
tists, podiatrists, chiropractors, various behavioral health practitioners, and practitioners who
would provide care to patients as a primary care practitioner. These standards do not apply to
the AHP disciplines that are the focus of this book.
The Joint Commission is another regulatory body that directs the credentialing of AHPs. In the
past, The Joint Commission devoted an entire chapter to specific requirements for the credential-
ing and privileging of AHPs in the Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals (CAMH).
However, this chapter no longer exists. The current medical staff standards delineated in the
7
Recognizing changes in healthcare that affect AHP credentialing
SOLVING THE AHP CONUNDRUM © 2007 HCPRO, INC.
CAMH do not specifically address AHP credentialing, although they do reference LIPs who are
permitted to function independently by the state and by the organization.
The Overview of the Medical Staff Standards chapter of the CAMH and one standard in the
Human Resources chapter address the credentialing and privileging of advanced practice nurses
and PAs (see Step 2 of this book). The Joint Commission has outlined new regulations for
physician-employed or -sponsored AHPs who do not require privileging but do require equiva-
lent competence to an employee. (The current Joint Commission requirements related to cre-
dentialing nonprivileged AHPs are found in Step 4 of this book.) Therefore, healthcare organiza-
tions must be knowledgeable of these requirements to make the right choices regarding the
routes and methods of processing AHPs.
Public awareness and demand
The fifth area of change is the effect of public awareness and demand on healthcare organiza-
tions. Patients increasingly request that healthcare entities provide additional services such as
midwifery, acupuncture, marital counseling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation therapy, massage
therapy, and relaxation techniques (e.g., biofeedback, imagery, and hypnotherapy). Expanding
patient awareness and demand—especially in the complementary and alternative medicine
arena—has become another challenging issue for organizations’ medical and administrative
leadership.
Fear of antitrust
The sixth change affecting the role of AHPs is healthcare organizations’ fear of being accused of
excluding a discipline and therefore inviting charges of antitrust activity. A variety of allied
health disciplines have brought suit against professional associations, states, and hospitals, alleg-
ing antitrust activities.
As noted in the beginning of Step 1, it is important to reflect upon not only what has changed
but also on what is changing to determine future courses of action. Understanding these
changes will help organizations determine opportunities for redesigning their credentialing
routes and methodologies.
Name
Title
Organization
Street Address
City State ZIP
Telephone Fax
E-mail Address
Order your copy today!
Title Price Order Code Quantity Total
$
Shipping* $ (see information below)
Sales Tax** $ (see information below)
Grand Total $
*Shipping InformationPlease include applicable shipping. For books under $100, add $10. For books over $100, add $18. For shipping to AK, HI, or PR, add $21.95.
**Tax InformationPlease include applicable sales tax. States that tax products and shipping and handling: CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV.
State that taxes products only: AZ.
BIllInG OPTIOnS:
Bill me Check enclosed (payable to HCPro, Inc.) Bill my facility with PO # ________________
Bill my (3 one): VISA MasterCard AmEx Discover
Signature Account No. Exp. Date
(Required for authorization) (Your credit card bill will reflect a charge from HCPro, Inc.)
© 2008 HCPro, Inc. HCPro, Inc. is not affiliated in any way with The Joint Commission, which owns the JCAHO and Joint Commission trademarks. Code: EBKPDF
Order online at www.hcmarketplace.com Or if you prefer: MAIl ThE COMPlETEd OrdEr fOrM TO: HCPro, Inc. P.O. Box 1168, Marblehead, MA 01945
CAll Our CuSTOMEr SErvICE dEPArTMEnT AT: 800/650-6787
fAx ThE COMPlETEd OrdEr fOrM TO: 800/639-8511
E-MAIl: customerservice@hcpro.com
P.O. Box 1168 | Marblehead, MA 01945 | 800/650-6787 | www.hcmarketplace.com
Please fill in the title, price, order code and quantity, and add applicable shipping
and tax. for price and order code, please visit www.hcmarketplace.com. If you
received a special offer or discount source code, please enter it below.
Your order is fully covered by a 30-day, money-back guarantee.
Enter your special Source Code here:
Recommended