Physicians that are genuinely tumultuous put patients at risk are a drain on a company and have to be taken care of.
However, given that the term's ambiguity and potential for misuse, are hospital administrators actually the top enforcers?
This appears to be an issue ideally suited to physician direction, whether from a health manager or via peer doctor intervention. If doctors are the first line of defence against tumultuous peers, then it is not as likely to be a wedge issue between doctors and hospital administrators. To know about the steps taken in eliminating disruptive physician behavior disorder, you can browse to official sources.
The Joint Commission's new benchmark requiring licensed institutions to deal with disruptive behaviour is a step in the ideal direction since it formalizes the procedure, but it just vaguely involves a code of behaviour and procedures for coping with "disruptive and inappropriate behaviours," without a transparent sign of exactly what that means.
And maybe, more importantly, it does not address doctor participation in the procedure. The hospital remains free to define tumultuous behaviour as it pleases, and that may leave fantastic doctors vulnerable to unfair abuse.
Everybody's ultimate purpose is to root out the physicians who are causing difficulties for patients and other suppliers.