There are exciting advancements in credentialing software, including innovative technology, web crawlers/automation and centralized documentation storage. These improvements have streamlined the credentialing/privileging process, decreased turnaround time and reduced risk. As the landscape of credentialing software is changing, updating or migrating to new software can help your institution maximize efficiency. But it’s important to consider all the software capabilities, as they can greatly impact implementation and the workforce.

For areas that have not fully embraced credentialing and privileging, such as dentistry, these new software advances make moving to a contemporary and responsible level in this area less daunting. Stigmas such as tedious and time-consuming tasks riddled with provider email follow-up and manual database searches, particularly during the credentialing and recredentialing processes, are manageable. Additionally, institutions need to securely store documents, obtain signatures from providers and division chairs and track progress using checklists and limited reports.

There are numerous software options that provide new opportunities to reduce manual processing, handle the full scope of credentialing documentation and compliance, are web and cloud-based and integrate privileging and track provider educational activities. Additionally, some of these newer programs include automated verification of licenses, certifications and background checks; make it easier to enroll providers in associated care programs and insurance and control data and access. These improvements have streamlined the credentialing/privileging process, decreased turnaround time and reduced risk. The future linearity for use at specified intervals (e.g., initial credentialing, re-credentialing, monthly, etc.) makes it a comprehensive solution.

There is currently a way to either upgrade or enter the credentialing and privileging arena with less risk and staff investment. The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, in partnership with The Ohio State University Medical Center, was prepared to transition to an advanced credentialing software solution. Several contenders offered all or some of the desired features. After thoroughly reviewing and testing options with vendors and credentialing staff, OSU selected a credentialing platform that enables each organization to create its own branded credentialing applications, privileging forms and other institution-specific criteria within a single system, thereby best supporting its credentialing and privileging process.

While our experience was positive overall, it was mixed on some points. Benefits included:

1. The ability to specify requirements within the application process (e.g., professional photo, CV, NPDB self-query, etc.) allowed for complete application submissions and less follow-up communication from the credentialing specialist (CS) with providers.
2. The efficient CS review of the applications for completeness. With previous systems, the preliminary review took approximately 25 minutes per application as the CS had to open and close each submitted document. With enhanced technology, submitted documents can be reviewed at a glance, reducing review time to approximately 10 minutes per application.
3. CS review and verification of automatically retrieved verifications, peer recommendations and privileging requests within the single software system limited privacy risks. This also reduced the time from 10 minutes per application to 2 minutes. 
4. Automated notifications to applicants and CS (e.g., outstanding applications, licensure/certification/permit expiration dates, etc.) were established with intervals of 90 days, 60 days, 30 days and daily until the deadline.
5. User-created expanded reporting allowed for quick analysis and ease of identifying issues (e.g., data entry errors, ongoing monitoring of DEA registration, licensing and sanctions).
6. The web crawler identified one provider with an unreported license issue.
7. The CS completed most new credentialing applications within 30-60 days, a reduction from 60-90 days.

Even technologically advanced credentialing software systems have limitations that require follow-up communication by the CS (e.g., verifying previous employment, education, etc.) and leave analysis and approval to the institution. Transitioning from one credentialing software system to another requires organizational coordination when a dental academic institution shares a credentialing system with its medical center.

References

1. Kass JS, Rose RV. Medical malpractice reform – historical approaches, alternative models, and communication and resolution programs. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18:299-310.
2. Myers R, Yoon AJ. Faculty credentialing: a survey of forty-six U.S. dental schools. J Dent Educ. 2006;70(6):636-643.
3. Robinson FG, Fields HW, Marado L, Heinlein DJ, Larsen PE, Kearney RC. Outcomes of a contemporary credentialing and privileging program in a dental school. J Dent Educ. 2023;87:631–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.13161