To defend against malpractice suits, one speaker at the recent MGMA-ACMPE annual conference in San Antonio recommended, practices must maintain constant vigilance of their health information technology systems. Another speaker said lawsuits can be avoided by showing patients courtesy and respect.
They are probably both right, though the second speaker's message was more inspiring.
Ronald Sterling, an electronic health-record consultant based in Silver Spring, Md., gave a presentation titled "Malpractice Discovery in the Age of EHR" and warned his audience that he was about to address a "depressing" subject.
Sterling said the good news was that mitigation efforts in the area of malpractice discovery could best be described as "good housekeeping," and he warned against "ceding clinical control to the techno geeks."
Sterling sprinkled his talk with horror stories such as the pediatric practice whose patient immunization records were not transferred into the EHR, and his main message seemed to be: Test systems; verify data; train staff; and document what you did.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
Consolidation is occurring everywhere in healthcare. Without the involvement of public shareholders' or taxpayers' dollars, private companies have become very private about how much they're spending on their latest acquisition—unless the deal lands in court.
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
Although most public pronouncements from healthcare organizations these days sound like they're prepared from the same we're-all-in-this-together template, the latest scope-of-practice court fight showed that all sides still seem ready to drop the gloves at any moment.
A Colorado state appellate court affirmed a decision from the state's former governor permitting certified registered nurse anesthetists to administer anesthesia without a physician's supervision in the state's critical-access and rural hospitals.
Doctors then squared off against nurses and hospitals, and national organizations representing all sides joined in. The court acknowledged it was ruling narrowly on the issues of whether the governor had the authority to make his decision and whether the decision was consistent with state law. It said yes to both, but its opinion (PDF) also included this note:
"Our role is limited to determining whether Colorado law permits CRNAs to administer anesthesia without physician supervision. We may not pass on the wisdom of the decision to allow CRNAs to do so."
Read more »
Permalink | Post a Comment
