 |
|
Hospital Peer Review and the National Practitioner Data Bank
Clinical Privileges Action Reports
Laura-Mae Baldwin, MD, MPH;
L. Gary Hart, PhD;
Robert E. Oshel, PhD;
Meredith A. Fordyce, PhC;
Robin Cohen, MPH;
Roger A. Rosenblatt, MD, MPH
JAMA. 1999;282:349-355.
Context The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) is believed to be an important source of information for peer review activities by the majority of those who use it. However, concern has been raised that hospitals may be underreporting physicians with performance problems to the NPDB.
Objective To examine variation in clinical privileges action reporting by hospitals to the NPDB, changes in reporting over time, and the association of hospital characteristics with reporting.
Design Retrospective cohort study of privileges action reports to the NPDB between 1991 and 1995, linked with the 1992 and 1995 databases from the Annual Survey of Hospitals conducted by the American Hospital Association.
Setting and Participants A total of 4743 short-term, nonfederal, general medical/surgical hospitals throughout the United States that were continuously open between 1991-1995 and registered with the NPDB.
Main Outcome Measures (1) Reporting of 1 or more privileges actions during the 5-year study period and (2) privileges action reporting rates (numbers of actions reported per 100,000 admissions).
Results Study hospitals reported 3328 privileges actions between 1991 and 1995; 34.2% reported 1 or more actions during the period. The range of privileges action reporting rates for these hospitals was 0.40 to 52.27 per 100,000 admissions, with an overall rate of 2.36 per 100,000 admissions. The proportion of hospitals reporting an action decreased from 11.6% in 1991 to 10.0% in 1995 (P=.008). After adjustment for other factors, urban hospitals had significantly higher reporting than rural hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.21 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.02-1.43]), while members of the Council of Teaching Hospitals of the Association of American Medical Colleges had significantly lower reporting than nonmembers (adjusted OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.40-0.73]). There were notable regional differences in reporting, with the east south Central region having the lowest rate per 100,000 admissions (1.49 [95% CI, 1.33-1.65]).
Conclusions The results of this study indicate a low and declining level of hospital privileges action reporting to the NPDB. Several potential explanations exist, 1 of which is that the information reported to the NPDB is incomplete.
Author Affiliations: Department of Family Medicine and Washington Wyoming Alaska Montana Idaho (WWAMI) Rural Health Research Center (Drs Baldwin, Rosenblatt, and Hart and Ms Fordyce), University of Washington, Seattle, and the Division of Quality Assurance, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration (Dr Oshel and Ms Cohen), Rockville, Md. Ms Cohen is now with the Office of Science and Epidemiology, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, Md.
RELATED LETTER
The National Practitioner Data Bank and the Quality of Peer Review
Frank L. Frable, Edward Warren, Helen M. Hunt, Laura-Mae Baldwin, L. Gary Hart, Meredith A. Fordyce, and Roger A. Rosenblatt
JAMA. 2000;283(7):886-887.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLES
Hospital Peer Review and Clinical Privileges Actions: To Report or Not Report
Troyen A. Brennan
JAMA. 1999;282(4):381-382.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
July 28, 1999
JAMA. 1999;282(4):399-400.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Perspective--Professional Work: The Emergence of Collaborative Community
Adler et al.
Organization Science 2008;19:359-376.
ABSTRACT
The Role of the National Practitioner Data Bank in the Credentialing Process
Waters et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 2006;21:30-39.
ABSTRACT
The Law and Psychiatry
Simon
Focus 2003;1:349-372.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Medical Staff Appointment and Delineation of Pediatric Privileges in Hospitals
O'Connor and Committee on Hospital Care
Pediatrics 2002;110:414-418.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Malpractice: Provider Risk or Consumer Protection?
Fanaeian and Merwin
American Journal of Medical Quality 2001;16:43-57.
ABSTRACT
The National Practitioner Data Bank and the Quality of Peer Review
Frable et al.
JAMA 2000;283:886-887.
FULL TEXT
Hospital Peer Review and Clinical Privileges Actions: To Report or Not Report
Brennan
JAMA 1999;282:381-382.
FULL TEXT
|
