River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
FREE TEMPLATE

Hospital Privileging Application Checklist

Three documents and three sheets that score each requested privilege against its own case-volume threshold, and compute whether waiting alone clears a shortfall.

Free download  ·  No account needed

Requirement Register by Facility

One row per privilege, never per department

Illustrative preview. Each requested privilege carries its own threshold, window and reference requirement.

PrivilegeThresholdWindowStatus
    
    

Why one row can't cover four privileges

Two privileges in the same department routinely carry different case-volume thresholds and different lookback windows under the facility's own bylaws. Resolving them as one blended line loses exactly the distinction the credentials committee applies anyway.

Remaining columns: References Required, Reference Recency Limit, Source Document, Verified Against Bylaws.

Every hospital privileging checklist for this query lists the same four categories: application form, case logs, references, primary source verification. All correct, and none resolved to where it matters. A privileging application is not one approval. It is one approval per requested privilege, and a facility's own bylaws set the case-volume threshold, the lookback window, and the peer-reference recency requirement separately for each one under 42 CFR 482.22(c)(6). A checklist that says "case logs" once treats four requested privileges as needing identical evidence, and under most bylaws they don't.

So the Requirement Register by Facility resolves at the privilege level, and where a threshold is a rolling lookback, the Case Volume Evidence sheet computes something a static list cannot. It shows whether the applicant's recent case rate is actually closing the gap, or whether the window's own churn is holding it flat as old cases roll off nearly as fast as new ones arrive. The National Practitioner Data Bank query runs on a separate clock entirely, every two years, whether or not the facility's own reappointment review is on time.

Dr. Priya Osei requested four GI privileges at a fictional facility, Thornwell Regional Medical Center. Three cleared immediately: 187, 164 and 58 logged cases against 50-case thresholds. The fourth, therapeutic ERCP, sat at 61 against a 75-case, 24-month rolling threshold. Rolling that window forward six months at her historical rate moved the total to just 62, since the oldest quarters drop off almost as fast as new ones enter. Clearing 75 within six months needs close to double her historical rate, not more time.

Four privileges, one register, three clocks

The per-privilege scoring, the rolling-window projection, and the renewal calendar with the NPDB query on its own clock.

Requirement Register by Facility

Illustrative request for a fictional applicant, Dr. Priya Osei, at a fictional facility, Thornwell Regional Medical Center.

PrivilegeThresholdWindowLoggedRefs (2 req.)Status
Diagnostic colonoscopy5024 mo1872 of 2Ready
Diagnostic upper endoscopy5024 mo1642 of 2Ready
Therapeutic ERCP7524 mo612 of 2Short 14
Endoscopic ultrasound5024 mo582 of 2Ready

Three of four are ready to submit today. References clear on every line, including ERCP, since two of Dr. Osei's three candidate references observed her within the 12-month recency window. Only the case-volume column is holding one privilege back, and the register keeps that one line separate rather than describing the whole application as not ready.

Why waiting alone does not close the ERCP gap

Trailing 24-month ERCP volume, by quarter, oldest to newest.

Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Total
8787887861

61 against a 75-case threshold, short by 14. Roll the window forward two quarters: Q1 and Q2 (8+7=15) drop off the back. At her historical rate, two new quarters add roughly 16. Projected total in six months: 62, still 13 short. The window loses old cases almost as fast as it gains new ones.

The rate that would actually clear it

Reaching 75 in six months needs the next two quarters to contribute 29 cases combined, about 4.83 a month, versus her historical 2.54 a month. That is close to double her rate, not a matter of time passing.

Renewal Calendar: three clocks, never merged

ClockAnchorDueActualStatus
Reappointment (2-yr cycle)2024-03-012026-03-012026-04-13Late
NPDB re-query2024-03-012026-03-012026-04-13Late, 43 days
ERCP volume re-verification2024-03-012026-03-01Not yet metPending

The NPDB query runs on its own independent clock under [45 CFR 60.17(a)(2)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/section-60.17): every 2 years, regardless of whether reappointment itself is on schedule. Here the committee's own review ran 43 days late, and the query, which staff assumed would happen automatically alongside it, lapsed for the same 43 days. Under 60.17(b), a hospital that misses the query "is presumed to have knowledge of any information reported to the NPDB" for that period, a different and sharper exposure than a late packet.

What's in the pack

01

Requirement Register by Facility

One row per requested privilege, never per department, with that privilege's own case-volume threshold, lookback window, and reference count and recency limit, sourced from the facility's own bylaws.

02

Case Volume Evidence

Scores logged cases against each privilege's own threshold, and for any rolling-window shortfall, computes the rate needed to actually clear it rather than reporting the gap and stopping there.

03

Renewal Calendar

Tracks the reappointment date, the National Practitioner Data Bank query date and any privilege-specific re-verification as three separate rows, so a delayed reappointment review is never mistaken for cover on the query clock.

04

Application Packet

Groups requested privileges by ready and not-ready rather than treating one shortfall as a reason to hold the whole request, and states the specific gap on any line that isn't ready yet.

05

Case Log Summary

The quarter-by-quarter arithmetic behind any rolling-window shortfall, including the projected total if the applicant's rate holds steady and the rate that would actually close it.

06

Reference Request Letters

Drafted per privilege against that privilege's own recency requirement, and tracks each candidate's most recent direct observation of the applicant performing the specific procedure, in months.

How to use it

  1. 1

    Open in River, or download it

    Open the pack in River and let the agent score your case logs against the facility's criteria, or download the blank Word and CSV files and work through them on your own.

  2. 2

    Send the bylaws criteria and the request list

    The exact privileges being requested, and whatever the bylaws or the privilege delineation form state about the threshold, window and references for each one.

  3. 3

    Send case logs and reference candidates

    From every facility where the applicant has performed each procedure, plus who can confirm direct, recent observation of that specific work.

  4. 4

    Read the register per privilege, not blended

    Which lines are ready today, which are short, and on a rolling window, whether waiting closes the gap or the case rate itself has to rise.

Frequently asked questions

Is this template free?

Yes. Download the three documents and three sheets as Word and CSV files with no signup and no card. "Edit with AI" is a separate, optional path for practices and applicants who want the agent to build the register from their own bylaws and case logs. The rest of the library is at the template library.

What format are the downloaded files?

Word documents (.docx) for the Application Packet, the Case Log Summary and the Reference Request Letters, and CSV (.csv) for the three registers, zipped into one download. They open natively in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets.

Why does the register resolve per privilege instead of per department?

Because that is how the facility's own bylaws set the criteria. 42 CFR 482.22(c)(6) requires bylaws to include criteria for privileges and a procedure for applying them, and two privileges in the same department routinely carry different thresholds. Blending them loses the distinction the credentials committee will apply anyway.

Why doesn't waiting alone fix a rolling case-volume shortfall?

Because a rolling window drops old cases off the back at close to the same pace new ones enter, so a flat case rate produces a flat trailing total no matter how long you wait. The sheet computes the rate that would actually clear the threshold and compares it to the applicant's recent rate.

Does this replace payer credentialing?

No. Payer enrollment and hospital privileging are separate processes with separate document sets, and this pack covers privileging specifically. The provider credentialing checklist covers the payer side, and renewals on both run on their own dates tracked in the recredentialing tracker.

How is the NPDB query different from the reappointment date?

They are two separate clocks. 45 CFR 60.17(a) requires a hospital to query at initial application and again every 2 years regardless of the facility's own reappointment cadence. A hospital that skips the query is presumed to know whatever the NPDB holds on that practitioner.

Find out which requested privilege is actually short, and by how much

Download the blank pack as Word and CSV files, or open this exact pack in River and let the agent score your case logs against the facility's own thresholds.

Edit with AI