合规专业人员对法规误解的评估:一项多方法研究。

Q2 Social Sciences
The Permanente journal Pub Date : 2025-06-16 Epub Date: 2025-03-04 DOI:10.7812/TPP/24.086
Jeffrey Panzer, Lindsey E Carlasare, Maggie Hamielec, Christine A Sinsky, Jodi Simon
{"title":"合规专业人员对法规误解的评估:一项多方法研究。","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":"3-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12168038/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"3-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12168038/pdf/\",\"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\":\"2025/3/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2025/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:行政法规、标准和相关任务的数量和复杂性增加了卫生保健领域的行政负担。对法规的误解和误用阻碍了效率,并导致了职业不满。目的:作者旨在1)了解合规专业人员的角色、培训和背景;2)揭示他们对文件和管理负担的看法;3)识别合规专业人员常见的监管误解。方法:2023年6月,作者调查了在联邦合格医疗中心国家网络目录中列出的合规角色服务的专业人员样本。数据通过REDCap收集。在2023年9月至11月期间完成了4名参与者的后续访谈。对所有定量变量进行描述性统计;访谈记录采用快速定性分析进行分析。采用方法学三角测量来确定调查和访谈回答的主题。结果:约三分之一(5/ 16,31 %)的合规专业人员接受过正规培训。大多数人(15/16,94%)同意或强烈同意“如果临床医生的行为没有记录下来,那就没有‘完成’。”合规专业人员对临床情景中遵守法规的看法表现出高度的可变性,一些参与者注意到在没有违反法规的情况下不遵守法规。与会者认识到卫生保健方面的行政负担和浪费,但对他们是否在保护临床医生免受行政负担方面发挥作用的看法存在分歧。结论:本研究揭示了合规专业人员对法规和标准解释的不准确性,并表明书面法规与组织层面的解释之间存在差距。这种过度解读可能会给医生和他们的团队带来不必要的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Misinterpretation of Regulation by Compliance Professionals: A Multimethod Study.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信