Review of Professional Practices by a Peer Review Committee

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Health
4. Regulation and Construction of Hospitals and Other Health Care Facilities
5. Regulation of Hospitals and Related Institutions
6. Review of Professional Practices by a Peer Review Committee

1. A hospital or ambulatory surgical center shall provide for the review of professional practices in the hospital or ambulatory surgical center for the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality and for the improvement of the care of patients in the hospital or ambulatory surgical center. This review shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
   1. The quality of the care provided to patients as rendered in the hospital or ambulatory surgical center;
   2. The review of medical treatment and diagnostic and surgical procedures in order to foster safe and adequate treatment of patients in the hospital or ambulatory surgical center; and
   3. The evaluation of medical and health care services or the qualifications and professional competence of persons performing or seeking to perform such services.
2. The functions required by subsection (a) of this Code section may be performed by a "peer review committee," defined as a committee of physicians appointed by a state or local or specialty medical society or appointed by the governing board or medical staff of a licensed hospital or ambulatory surgical center or any other organization formed pursuant to state or federal law and engaged by the hospital or ambulatory surgical center for the purpose of performing such functions required by subsection (a) of this Code section.
3. Compliance with the above provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section shall constitute a requirement for granting or renewing the permit of a hospital or ambulatory surgical center. The functions required by this Code section shall be carried out under the regulations and supervision of the department.
4. Proceedings and records conducted or generated in an attempt to comply with the duties imposed by subsection (a) of this Code section shall not be subject to the provisions of either Chapter 14 or Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50.
5. Nothing in this or any other Code section shall be deemed to require any hospital or ambulatory surgical center to grant medical staff membership or privileges to any licensed practitioner of the healing arts.

(Code 1981, §31-7-15, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 1494, § 1.)

Code Commission notes.

- Ga. L. 1987, p. 1091, § 1 and Ga. L. 1987, p. 1494, § 1 enacted different Code sections designated Code Section 31-7-14. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, the Code section enacted by Ga. 1987, p. 1494, § 1 was redesignated as Code Section 31-7-15.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

What constitutes peer review records.

- Reports generated as part of the state's hospital licensing activities, rather than as peer review activities, are not protected from disclosure under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. Georgia Hosp. Ass'n v. Ledbetter, 260 Ga. 477, 396 S.E.2d 488 (1990).

Scope of peer review.

- Nothing in O.C.G.A. § 31-7-131(3)(B)(vi) implies that every part of the review in O.C.G.A. § 31-7-15 constitutes peer review. Hosp. Auth. v. Meeks, 285 Ga. 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009).

No expansion of civil immunity afforded to peer review groups.

- O.C.G.A. § 31-7-15 does not expand the privilege set forth in O.C.G.A. § 31-7-133(a) to those proceedings and records of a peer review committee which involve only the credentialing process and not a peer review function. The same analysis is equally applicable in holding that § 31-7-15 does not expand the civil immunity otherwise afforded to peer review groups under O.C.G.A. § 31-7-132(a) so as to include all aspects of the credentialing process. Hosp. Auth. v. Meeks, 285 Ga. 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009).

State action immunity.

- Action of individual doctors on a peer review committee were actions of a hospital authority for purposes of the state action immunity doctrine and, thus, the members were immune from an antitrust action brought by a doctor who was denied staff privileges. Crosby v. Hospital Auth., 93 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1116, 117 S. Ct. 1246, 137 L. Ed. 2d 328 (1997).

Hospital bylaws are not contract.

- Hospital bylaws, by themselves, do not constitute a contract per se between the hospital and the doctors because there is no mutual exchange of consideration which brought the bylaws into existence. Robles v. Humana Hosp. Cartersville, 785 F. Supp. 989 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

Bylaws may be enforced by injunction.

- Hospital is bound by the bylaws the hospital creates and if the hospital does not follow the procedures established by the bylaws, the court can enjoin the hospital to follow those procedures. Robles v. Humana Hosp. Cartersville, 785 F. Supp. 989 (N.D. Ga. 1992).

Negligent credentialing claim - when expert affidavit required.

- Expert affidavit regarding negligent credentialing by a hospital was not automatically necessary under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.1(a) because a hospital was not classified as a "professional"; the affidavit requirement applied to tort claims against a hospital when grounded upon acts or omissions requiring skill and judgment by professionals listed in the statute. In this case, the record did not reflect who had performed the credentialing function. Houston Hospitals, Inc. v. Reeves, Ga. App. , 846 S.E.2d 219 (2020).

Cited in Hosp. Auth. of Valdosta v. Meeks, 294 Ga. App. 629, 669 S.E.2d 667 (2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Right of voluntary disclosure of privileged proceedings of hospital medical review or doctor evaluation processes, 60 A.L.R.4th 1273.

Scope and extent of protection from disclosure of medical peer review proceedings relating to claim in medical malpractice action, 69 A.L.R.5th 559.

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.