Q: How was your experience working with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Íøygfcmw¡¤(Öйú)Õ¾Èë¿ÚÖ±½Ó½ø?
Renee Harvey: HUMC has 30 disease-specific and advanced care programs. So, we’re very familiar with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Íøygfcmw¡¤(Öйú)Õ¾Èë¿ÚÖ±½Ó½ø and the review process. We know that Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Íøygfcmw¡¤(Öйú)Õ¾Èë¿ÚÖ±½Ó½ø has done a great job with our organization. They send people who know what they’re doing, who usually practice in the area that’s being reviewed on a regular basis. I can only say tremendously positive things about Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Íøygfcmw¡¤(Öйú)Õ¾Èë¿ÚÖ±½Ó½ø and the review process because they entertained our questions and collaborated with us.
Elizabeth Polanco: From a clinical perspective, I can describe the three-day review as having run three marathons in three days. I have to say that it was nothing but positive, because I think that the team came in with an open mindset of, “we’re going to learn from this.” Our reviewers were relentless in their pursuit of trying to see what our program was about, and to make sure that what we were showing them was accurate. It was a positive experience, and a learning opportunity for all of us.
Jennifer Kopelman: This was a great way for us to say, “We’ve invited Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Íøygfcmw¡¤(Öйú)Õ¾Èë¿ÚÖ±½Ó½ø here, and we want to showcase what we do. This is our time to shine. This is our time to partner with them.” If anything, this process fostered that joint partnership of our clinical teams with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Íøygfcmw¡¤(Öйú)Õ¾Èë¿ÚÖ±½Ó½ø. No one is looking to fail anybody. No one is looking to get someone in trouble. We’re both looking to utilize each other’s expertise and collaborate, in order to make ourselves better for our patients.