This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Fitzhugh Mullan, MD; Stanford Bastacky, DMD, MHSA; Robert Politzer, MS, ScD; John Rodak, MS; Caroline Lewis, MA; Robert Harmon, MD, MPH
Rockville, Md

JAMA. 1992;268(24):3430.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

— We concur with Dr Goffen's concern about the "remarkable variability" of reporting of adverse actions and malpractice payments on physicians throughout the United States. Indeed, much of the variability in the observed rates derives from the variability in practices relating to disciplinary actions and reporting rather than to the quality of the physicians in a given state or locale. This same problem presents itself to physicians engaged in credentialing or peer review work. It is their job to assess information provided to them by the physician in question or from other sources when deciding whether to grant privileges, licenses, and membership. The NPDB simply makes that information available in a uniform and regularized fashion. The task of peer review and decision making remains firmly in the hands of physician-led credentialing authorities.

One can only agree with Goffen's concern about the apparent irregularity in the system. The solution . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?