Addressing Gender Disparity: Increase in Female Leadership Increases Gender Equality in Program Director and Fellow Ranks

Digestive Diseases and Sciences - Women make up 15% of the total number of practicing gastroenterology (GI) physicians in the US. Despite this disparity, only 33% of the current GI fellows are...     

Legal Issues for the Medical Director

The nephrologist serving as medical director of a dialysis clinic must understand that the role of director is not simply an extension of being a good nephrologist. The two roles—nephrology practice and the leadership of a dialysis clinic—may be filled by a single person. However, each role contains unique tasks, requiring specific skill sets, and each role comes with inherent, associated legal risks. The medical director assumes a new level of responsibility and accountability defined by contractual obligations to the dialysis provider and by state and federal regulations. Hence, a medical director is accountable not only for providing standard-of-care treatment to his or her private practice patients dialyzed at the clinic but also for maintaining the safety of the dialysis clinic patient population and staff. Accordingly, a nephrologist serving in the role of medical director faces distinct legal risks beyond typical professional liability concerns. The medical director must also be mindful of regulatory compliance, unique avenues to licensure board complaints, and implications of careless communication habits. A thoughtful and prepared medical director can mitigate these risk exposures by understanding the sources of these challenges: contractual obligations, pertinent regulatory responsibilities, and the modern electronic communications environment.     

Medical Director Responsibilities to the ESRD Network

The 18 regional ESRD Networks are established in legislation and contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to improve the quality and safety of dialysis, maximize patient rehabilitation, encourage collaboration among and between providers toward common quality goals, and improve the reliability and the use of data in pursuit of quality improvement. The Networks are funded by a $0.50 per treatment fee deducted from the reimbursement to dialysis providers, and their deliverables are determined by a statement of work, which is updated in a new contract every 3 years. The Conditions for Coverage require dialysis providers to participate in Network activities, and failure to do so can be the basis for sanctions against the provider. However, the Networks attempt to foster a collegial relationship with dialysis facilities by offering tools, educational activities, and other resources to assist the facilities in meeting the evolving requirements by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on the basis of national aims and domains for quality improvement in health care that transcend the ESRD program. Because of his/her responsibility for implementing the quality assessment and performance improvement activities in the facility, the medical director has much to gain by actively participating in Network activities, especially those focused on quality, safety, patient grievance, patient engagement, and coordination of care. Membership on Network committees can also foster the professional growth of the medical director through participation in quality improvement activity development and implementation, authorship of articles in peer-reviewed journals, creation of educational tools and presentations, and application of Network-sponsored materials to improve patient outcomes, engagement, and satisfaction in the medical director’s facility. The improvement of care of patients on dialysis will be beneficial to the facility in achieving its goals of quality, safety, and financial viability.     

The Activity Director in a Nursing Care Facility

No abstract available for this article.     

The Medical Director in Integrated Clinical Care Models

Integrated clinical care models, like Accountable Care Organizations and ESRD Seamless Care Organizations, present new opportunities for dialysis facility medical directors to affect changes in care that result in improved patient outcomes. Currently, there is little scholarly information on what role the medical director should play. In this opinion-based review, it is predicted that dialysis providers, the hospitals in which the medical director and staff physicians practice, and the payers with which they contract are going to insist that, as care becomes more integrated, dialysis facility medical directors participate in new ways to improve quality and decrease the costs of care. Six broad areas are proposed where dialysis unit medical directors can have the greatest effect on shifting the quality-care paradigm where integrated care models are used. The medical director will need to develop an awareness of the regional medical care delivery system, collect and analyze actionable data, determine patient outcomes to be targeted that are mutually agreed on by participating physicians and institutions, develop processes of care that result in improved patient outcomes, and lead and inform the medical staff. Three practical examples of patient-centered, quality-focused programs developed and implemented by dialysis unit medical directors and their practice partners that targeted dialysis access, modality choice, and fluid volume management are presented. Medical directors are encouraged to move beyond traditional roles and embrace responsibilities associated with integrated care.