NPDB Insights

Is It Reportable?

Is It Reportable image

A physician applying for renewal of his hospital clinical privileges falsified his application by omitting information about an ongoing licensure investigation. The hospital took a professional review action to deny his renewal application, which the MEC considered to be related to the practitioner's professional conduct, even though there was no actual patient harm. Should this be reported to the NPDB?

It depends. A clinical privileges action must be reported to the NPDB if it is the result of a professional review action that relates to professional competence or conduct that adversely affects, or could adversely affect, the health or welfare of a patient and lasts for a period longer than 30 days. Whether an action affects or could affect patient health or welfare is generally a determination that must be made by the entity taking the action. If, in the opinion of the MEC, the practitioner's falsification of his application could adversely affect the health or welfare of a patient, and the action is the result of a professional review, the action must be reported to the NPDB.


Easily Share e-Guidebook Content

The NPDB recently added new social media sharing buttons at the top of the e-Guidebook reading pane. To share specific Guidebook sections, simply click the following icons:

  • Facebook: Share the Guidebook section on a Facebook page.
  • Twitter: Compose a tweet featuring the Guidebook section.
  • Web address link: Copy a URL to paste and share the section anywhere.
  • Email: Send an email containing a link to the Guidebook section.

In addition, the link "Print this Section" allows you to print just the Guidebook section you are viewing.

These buttons will allow you to share specific and relevant content with your colleagues.


May Compliance Review Completed

Compliance Infographic

May 1st NPDB Compliance Posting

An infographic that shows the May 1, 2017 results of the compliance efforts by the NPDB.

See the full infographic

The NPDB is pleased to provide the results of our most recent compliance review, which examined reporting compliance for disciplinary actions taken between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015 for the District of Columbia and the following states: Alaska, California, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. The results are presented for each state, board, and profession. An explanation of the compliance status definitions is available on the NPDB website. For full compliance results, visit Reporting Compliance Status by State.

The NPDB congratulates all of the state boards that achieved the "Compliant" status by May 1, 2017. The NPDB would like to thank all of the state boards for their hard work in meeting NPDB reporting requirements. We continue to work with state boards that need assistance with meeting federal reporting requirements. Please send inquiries to dpdbcompliance@hrsa.gov.



The latest updates and resources are available at https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov.

Previous editions of NPDB Insights are available in our archive.