From the June 2011 issue of HealthCare Business News magazine
Hospitals and other health care facilities are also experiencing growing levels of risk exposure through increased accountability for physician liability.
In most states, if a clinician has behavioral issues or other problems with their qualifications that should have been revealed by proper and effective credentialing, the facility can be held responsible for any harm caused to patients by that provider. Injured patients may also have legal recourse against the hospital for malpractice if the credentialing process was incomplete, inadequate or non-existent. These growing levels of risk responsibility on the part of the hospital are increasingly supported by courts across the nation.
Consider the Utah Supreme Court, which recently reversed an earlier decision against a woman who had brought several claims of malpractice against the physician who mishandled her abdominal surgery at St. Mark’s Hospital in Salt Lake City, where the original operation was performed. The plaintiff, whose subsequent treatment after discharge included six corrective surgeries, claimed that St. Mark’s Hospital was negligent – or guilty of culpable conduct – in credentialing the surgeon. St. Mark’s argued that Utah did not recognize a cause of action for negligent credentialing.
Rejecting the hospital’s contention that the woman’s claim was barred by the immunity afforded to health care providers for discharging duties under the state’s peer review, the court maintained that St. Mark’s held the ultimate responsibility for medical staff decisions. The court went on to recognize negligent credentialing as a viable common law claim.
In the landmark 1998 case, Romero vs. Columbia, a hospital paid $23.2 million in damages after a routine hernia operation resulted in extreme loss of blood and consequent heart attack. The court found the hospital liable in the screening process of the offending physician, who had been sued 11 times and had privileges suspended from another state prior to the malpractice incident. Due to a restraining order the surgeon had placed on his former hospital, the suspensions never surfaced. The hospital argued due diligence in the screening process, but could not arbitrate against the overwhelming undocumented evidence that had escaped them during their credentialing of the provider.
In the end, incomplete and inefficient credentialing led to massive financial loss on the part of the hospital, further damage to the hospital’s reputation and most importantly, unacceptable harm to a patient.
