La Pine: It seems we are protecting the practitioner, but are we harming the patient?

By now many MSPs have heard that the Fifth Circuit Court ruling released the Louisiana hospital from the duty to disclose negative information while saying the hospital has the duty not to make “affirmative misrepresentations.”  To put this into reality, here’s how this now plays out:  When you receive a letter requesting verification of medical staff membership, you need only tell the basics -- date on staff, date of resignation/termination.  Often the letter will ask if the physician was “in good standing.”  If the physician is one of those rare practitioners whose clinical competency was in question, do you leave the question blank?  How does this response help the investigating facility to ensure the practitioner candidate will deliver safe patient care to its patients?

This latest ruling on the Kadlec appeal is going to result in some very interesting debates among MSPs.  It further raises more questions about the “right” response.  While audio conferences will soon be presenting opinions on what information can and should be provided to requesting entities, I wonder if thought will be given regarding the patient.  Seems we are protecting the practitioner, but are we harming the patient?

La Pine’s Law:  Patient safety first.