Waters Teresa M, Warnecke Richard B, Parsons Jennifer, Almagor Orit, Budetti Peter P
Department of Preventive Medicine and Office of Community Affairs, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA.
Am J Med Qual. 2006 Jan-Feb;21(1):30-9. doi: 10.1177/1062860605283644.
Federal law requires hospitals and permits other entities to seek information from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) but places no requirements on how that information should be used. Our survey of NPDB users demonstrates that although the NPDB has generated substantial controversy and its information is nominally available from other sources, it still plays an important role in the credentialing process. Most institutions make timely NPDB inquiries that facilitate widespread use of the information in credentialing activities (4-5 individuals or committees). However, in 3% to 7% of cases, a decision was reached before the institution had the NPDB report. Between 5% and 30% of privileging and licensure applications involving an NPDB report were not granted "as requested," suggesting the NPDB data are important to the process. Unfortunately, underreporting was also evident: 60% to 75% of reportable actions were not reported, limiting the information to which health care entities have access.
