Webman v Little Company of Mary involved duty to credential when physician refused to authorize release of information. Which statement best reflects this duty?

• A. Duty to credential triggered by physician refused to authorize release of information
• B. Duty to credential triggered by hospital expansion
• C. Duty to credential triggered by patient complaint
• D. Duty to credential triggered by board audit

Answer: (A)

The essential idea is that the credentialing duty is ongoing and independent of a physician’s cooperation. In this scenario, the physician’s refusal to authorize release of information needed to verify qualifications is the event that activates the hospital’s obligation to continue credentialing. The hospital cannot neglect its responsibility to ensure that all credentials, licenses, and background details are verified for patient safety, even when a physician withholds information. The response must proceed by pursuing available sources, documenting attempts to obtain the information, and taking appropriate steps (such as using alternative records or provisional decisions) to complete the credentialing process. The other options don’t reflect what actually triggers credentialing in this situation: hospital expansion, a patient complaint, or a board audit are not the events that prompt the credentialing duty when information release is blocked.