Should the standards make it clearer that the physician sign-off of the IRP is for the clinical treatment portion of the plan, not the recovery part of the plan?
If a physician is involved in the Individualized Recovery Planning process as a result of provision of clinical treatment, such involvement should not be limited to the clinical treatment aspect. As described in the Draft Standards (page 1), “clinical treatment interventions are expected to be highly integrated into the support and rehabilitation focus of the PROS program.” Therefore, when clinical treatment is provided, it is not appropriate to artificially separate this component from other aspects of the program.
Related Questions
- Should the standards make it clearer that the physician sign-off of the IRP is for the clinical treatment portion of the plan, not the recovery part of the plan?
- Day Authorizations are throwing off the treatment plan team schedules and conflict with licensing standards, is this a problem?
- Is there a Health Care Plan available that doesn require approval from a Family Physician before treatment?
