General case review indicators should represent significant clinical outcomes or critical processes for which physicians are partially or completely responsible and therefore represent potential improvement opportunities. It is important to make sure that the general review indicators cover all...
In the second half of the 20th century, concepts and methods for quality measurement and improvement changed dramatically. In the 1960s and 1970s, peer review was mainly based on clinical audits, which took a clinical outcome, such as mortality, and inspected...
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 33, Issue 1
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee (the “Court”) denied a hospital’s motion to prohibit statements made by its employees to a patient’s family during a meeting from being discoverable at trial. This was despite the hospital’s claim that the contents of the meeting originated from...
In an insightful Q&A with Mathieu O. Gaulin, CPMSM, CPCS, senior director of professional medical staff services at Boston Children’s Hospital, we delve into the intricate relationship between credentialing processes and his overarching strategic goals.
Check out (and contribute to) the latest conversations on topics ranging from credentialing a pathologist assistant to choosing the best medical staff member category.
Credentialing Resource Center Journal - Volume 32, Issue 12
The Court of Appeal for the State of California (the “Court”) held that a hospital that flagged a physician’s cases for peer review was protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute.
