Assessment of Misinterpretation of Regulation by Compliance Professionals: A Multimethod Study.

Q2 Social Sciences
Jeffrey Panzer, Lindsey E Carlasare, Maggie Hamielec, Christine A Sinsky, Jodi Simon
{"title":"Assessment of Misinterpretation of Regulation by Compliance Professionals: A Multimethod Study.","authors":"Jeffrey Panzer, Lindsey E Carlasare, Maggie Hamielec, Christine A Sinsky, Jodi Simon","doi":"10.7812/TPP/24.086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The volume and complexity of administrative regulations, standards, and associated tasks contribute to administrative burden in health care. Misinterpretation and misapplication of regulations impede efficiency and contribute to professional dissatisfaction.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The authors aimed to 1) understand the compliance professional role, training, and background; 2) uncover their perspectives toward documentation and administrative burden; and 3) identify common regulatory misconceptions by compliance professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In June 2023, the authors surveyed a sample of professionals serving in compliance roles listed within the directory of a national network of federally qualified health centers. Data were collected through REDCap. Follow-up interviews were completed with 4 participants between September and November of 2023. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all quantitative variables; interview transcripts were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Methodological triangulation was employed to identify themes across survey and interview responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About one-third (5/16, 31%) of compliance professionals had formal training. The majority (15/16, 94%) agreed or strongly agreed that \"If a clinician's action is not documented it is not 'done.'\" Compliance professionals' perceptions of regulatory adherence in clinical scenarios showed high variability, with some participants noting noncompliance in situations where there were no regulatory infractions. Participants perceived administrative burden and waste in health care but diverged in their views of whether they have a role in protecting clinicians from administrative burden.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study reveals inaccuracies in compliance professionals' interpretations of regulations and standards and suggests a gap between written regulations and interpretation at the organizational level. This overinterpretation may create unnecessary work for physicians and their teams.</p>","PeriodicalId":23037,"journal":{"name":"The Permanente journal","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Permanente journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/24.086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The volume and complexity of administrative regulations, standards, and associated tasks contribute to administrative burden in health care. Misinterpretation and misapplication of regulations impede efficiency and contribute to professional dissatisfaction.

Objectives: The authors aimed to 1) understand the compliance professional role, training, and background; 2) uncover their perspectives toward documentation and administrative burden; and 3) identify common regulatory misconceptions by compliance professionals.

Methods: In June 2023, the authors surveyed a sample of professionals serving in compliance roles listed within the directory of a national network of federally qualified health centers. Data were collected through REDCap. Follow-up interviews were completed with 4 participants between September and November of 2023. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all quantitative variables; interview transcripts were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Methodological triangulation was employed to identify themes across survey and interview responses.

Results: About one-third (5/16, 31%) of compliance professionals had formal training. The majority (15/16, 94%) agreed or strongly agreed that "If a clinician's action is not documented it is not 'done.'" Compliance professionals' perceptions of regulatory adherence in clinical scenarios showed high variability, with some participants noting noncompliance in situations where there were no regulatory infractions. Participants perceived administrative burden and waste in health care but diverged in their views of whether they have a role in protecting clinicians from administrative burden.

Conclusions: This study reveals inaccuracies in compliance professionals' interpretations of regulations and standards and suggests a gap between written regulations and interpretation at the organizational level. This overinterpretation may create unnecessary work for physicians and their teams.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
The Permanente journal
The Permanente journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信