Rao v Auburn indicates a particular factor may be considered in credentialing decisions. What is it?

Rao v Auburn indicates a particular factor may be considered in credentialing decisions. What is it?

• A. Personality
• B. Race
• C. Gender
• D. Age

Answer: (A)

The point being tested is whether a non-medical attribute like personality can be used in credentialing decisions. Rao v. Auburn supports the idea that behaviors reflecting how a practitioner communicates, works with others, and demonstrates professionalism can be relevant to job performance and patient safety, so a credentialing decision may consider them when supported by objective, documented evidence tied to core duties. In practical terms, this means evaluating observable behaviors and outcomes—such as teamwork, reliability, and professional conduct—rather than making arbitrary judgments. On the other hand, race, gender, and age are protected characteristics; using them in credentialing decisions would be discriminatory and is not appropriate or lawful, which is why they do not fit as permissible factors.

The point being tested is whether a non-medical attribute like personality can be used in credentialing decisions. Rao v. Auburn supports the idea that behaviors reflecting how a practitioner communicates, works with others, and demonstrates professionalism can be relevant to job performance and patient safety, so a credentialing decision may consider them when supported by objective, documented evidence tied to core duties. In practical terms, this means evaluating observable behaviors and outcomes—such as teamwork, reliability, and professional conduct—rather than making arbitrary judgments. On the other hand, race, gender, and age are protected characteristics; using them in credentialing decisions would be discriminatory and is not appropriate or lawful, which is why they do not fit as permissible factors.