Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “National Practitioner Data Bank”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

Physician understanding of the National Practitioner Data Bank.

National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) reports are part of the process for acquiring staff privileges, professional credentials, and licenses throughout a physician's entire career. We surveyed our hospital's 66 residents to assess their understanding of NPDB. Only 9 residents had heard about NPDB. A follow-up survey of the 10 medical schools in Pennsylvania and Maryland showed just 4 schools covered NPDB in their curricula. Finally, we did a third survey--of 1,410 Pennsylvania Medical Society members. Eighty-one percent did not know that denial of initial license application was not a reportable offense; 69% did not know that voluntary entrance into alcohol/drug rehabilitation was not reportable; and 75% did not know that denial of expanded privileges because of level of clinical competence was reportable. Only 13% knew how to obtain their files. Our surveys suggest physicians have a poor understanding of NPDB even though these reports could have career-jeopardizing implications, especially if the Clinton administration expands access to NPDB.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Malpractice data from the National Practitioner Data Bank.

The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) is a computer depository of healthcare providers' malpractice payments by insurers and adverse actions by licensing boards, hospitals or professional societies accumulated since September 1, 1990. The NPDB provides a resource for health care entities to query before hiring healthcare providers with the hope of identifying possible incompetent practitioners. The statistics isolating physician and nursing malpractice payment used in this article were obtained from Senator Inouye who requested their compilation from the Department of Health and Human Services. An examination of the NPDB malpractice payment reports to 1993 for Registered Nurses (RN), Advanced Practice Nurses (APN), and physicians shows that RNs and APNs are reported much less frequently than physicians. This article presents the raw and rate data, discusses accuracy of the data, and presents implications for APNs.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed1992

The National Practitioner Data Bank: an introduction.

The National Practitioner Data Bank, mandated by law, has created a great deal of anxiety in the medical community. The author describes the origin, development, and operation of the bank. Army implementation procedures emphasize safeguards for practitioners and are also felt to be fully consistent with patient protection. Potential problems and areas for further research are described. Linking practitioner entry to standard of care or setting a dollar cut-off for entries are two possible solutions.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed1991

Implications of the National Practitioner Data Bank for nurse practitioners.

The National Practitioner Data Bank is a new federal repository of data on malpractice payments and adverse actions taken against the clinical privileges and licenses of all health care practitioners. This article summarizes the law governing the data bank and its implications for nurse practitioners. Specific reporting requirements are discussed, as well as guidelines for those who must and those who can access the data bank. This article also explains how NPs are notified when reports are made and gives methods for correcting errors in reports.

Data Collection↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The National Practitioner Data Bank: the first 4 years.

The National Practitioner Data Bank became operational September 1, 1990, as a flagging system to identify health care practitioners who may have been involved in incidents of medical incompetence. Query volumes have grown substantially over the Data Bank's first 4 years of operation. The greatest increase has come in the number of voluntary queries. By the end of 1994, the Data Bank had processed more than 4.5 million requests for information on practitioners, more than 1.5 million of which were received in 1994 alone. The proportion of queries for which the Data Bank contains information on the practitioner in question has grown as the Data Bank has come to contain more reports. During 1994, 7.9 percent of queries were matched. The Data Bank contained more than 97,500 reports at the end of 1994. More than 82 percent of the reports concerned malpractice payments. Licensure reports made up the bulk of the rest. Physicians predominate in reports, accounting for slightly more than 76 percent of the total. The remainder are related to dentists (16 percent) and all other types of practitioners (8 percent). Since reporting of adverse actions is mandatory only for physicians and dentists, the proportion of reports attributable to these types of practitioners is higher than it would be if adverse action reporting requirements were uniform for all practitioners. State malpractice payment rates and adverse action rates vary widely, but a State's rate in any given year is highly correlated with its rate in any other year. State malpractice rates are not strongly correlated with adverse action rates, neither are the rates for physicians strongly correlated with those for dentists. There is a weak tendency for States with smaller physician populations to have higher levels of licensure and privileging actions.

Allied Health Personnel↗
PubMed1991

Malpractice and the National Practitioner Data Bank: what OR nurses need to know.

The National Practitioner Data Bank will record any payments made for any reason related to a malpractice suit in a central data bank available to a number of designated parties. Hospitals will be required to request this information to screen applicants and at least every 2 years for appointment renewals. The data bank may also be consulted by hospitals and state licensing boards as they deem necessary and by professional societies when reviewing membership applications. It is in the best interests of all malpractice defendants to insist on adequate representation of their personal, professional, and financial interests, which may necessitate insurance carriers providing each defendant with individual counsel.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed1991

"Black marks on your soul"--the National Practitioner Data Bank.

In 1986, Congress mandated establishment of a National Practitioner Data Bank. The goal was to improve the quality of medical care by creating an environment to weed out impaired or incompetent physicians. The authors discuss the effects of the Bank since it became operational on September 1, 1990.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1993

National Practitioner Data Bank.

Recently the federal government started keeping records relating to the conduct and competence of doctors. This article will discuss the National Practitioner Data Bank and how it relates to optometry. Potential problems are raised by the author while the need and benefits of such a program are left for future discussion.

Humans↗
PubMed1990

National Practitioner Data Bank.

The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a National Practitioner Data Bank to collect and release certain information relating to the professional competence and conduct of physicians, dentists and other health care practitioners. After a lengthy delay, the federal agency, on October 17, 1989, released detailed rules and regulations regarding reporting, disclosure and other requirements for the Data Bank. The following sets forth questions and answers covering significant aspects of the complex regulations.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1993

Amending the National Practitioner Data Bank reporting requirements: are small claims predictive of large claims?

This study addresses whether a physician incurring small malpractice claims is predictive of large claims. This is one consideration behind reevaluating whether all claims that result in an indemnity payment should continue to be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank, or whether claims with payments below some "floor" should be excluded. Using a claims database from 3,098 physicians for 1977-1986, both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses show that an individual having a small claim (under $30,000) is indicative of a propensity to incur large claims. This finding is robust to the cutpoint between large and small claims.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗