Medical malpractice: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Robert Badgett (New page: {{subpages}} '''Medical malpractice''' is the "failure of a professional person, a physician or lawyer, to render proper services through reprehensible ignorance or negligence or through c...) |
imported>Robert Badgett |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Expert testimony== | ==Expert testimony== | ||
The legal system has focused on assessing the quality of the expert who interprets evidence for the court rather than the quality of the evidence itself. Methods to assess expertise have included the [[Frye test]] and the [[Daubert standard]].<ref name="urlExpertise in Law, Medicine, and Health Care">{{cite web |url=http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/jhppl/shuman2.htm |title=Expertise in Law, Medicine, and Health Care |author=Anonymous |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |format= |work= |publisher=U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= |accessdate=2009-01-15}}</ref><ref name="urlFrom the Clinics to the Courts: The Role Evidence Should Play in Litigating Medical Care">{{cite web |url=http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/jhppl/morreim2.htm |title=From the Clinics to the Courts: The Role Evidence Should Play in Litigating Medical Care |author=Anonymous |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |format= |work= |publisher=U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= |accessdate=2009-01-15}}</ref> Occasionally, courts have used "Daubert panels" to assess evidence in large tort claims.<ref name="pmid10717019">{{cite journal |author=Hulka BS ''et al.'' |title=Experience of a scientific panel formed to advise the federal judiciary on silicone breast implants |journal=N Engl J Med |volume=342 |pages=812–5 |year=2000 |month=March |pmid=10717019 |doi= |url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=short&pmid=10717019&promo=ONFLNS19 |issn=}}</ref> | |||
Some states also use a locality rule, or local standards of care despite ethical problems with this standard.<ref name="pmid17579232">{{cite journal |author=Lewis MH, Gohagan JK, Merenstein DJ |title=The locality rule and the physician's dilemma: local medical practices vs the national standard of care |journal=JAMA |volume=297 |issue=23 |pages=2633–7 |year=2007 |month=June |pmid=17579232 |doi=10.1001/jama.297.23.2633 |url=http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17579232 |issn=}}</ref>, A well-publicized malpractice case of screening for [[prostate cancer]] was dtermined in this way.<ref name="pmid14709561">{{cite journal |author=Merenstein D |title=A piece of my mind. Winners and losers |journal=JAMA |volume=291 |issue=1 |pages=15–6 |year=2004 |month=January |pmid=14709561 |doi=10.1001/jama.291.1.15 |url=http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=14709561 |issn=}}</ref> This specific case has been associated with an increase in screening for prostate cancer.<ref name="pmid17389535">{{cite journal |author=Krist AH, Woolf SH, Johnson RE |title=How physicians approach prostate cancer screening before and after losing a lawsuit |journal=Ann Fam Med |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=120–5 |year=2007 |pmid=17389535 |pmc=1838685 |doi= |url=http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17389535 |issn=}}</ref> | |||
Decision analysis has been proposed to improve the reliability of expert testimony.<ref name="pmid2231036">{{cite journal |author=Weir SS, Curtis P, McNutt RA |title=Expert testimony based on decision analysis: a malpractice case report |journal=J Gen Intern Med |volume=5 |issue=5 |pages=406–9 |year=1990 |pmid=2231036 |doi=}}</ref> | Decision analysis has been proposed to improve the reliability of expert testimony.<ref name="pmid2231036">{{cite journal |author=Weir SS, Curtis P, McNutt RA |title=Expert testimony based on decision analysis: a malpractice case report |journal=J Gen Intern Med |volume=5 |issue=5 |pages=406–9 |year=1990 |pmid=2231036 |doi=}}</ref> | ||
Revision as of 12:38, 2 February 2009
Medical malpractice is the "failure of a professional person, a physician or lawyer, to render proper services through reprehensible ignorance or negligence or through criminal intent, especially when injury or loss follows".[1]
Epidemiology
Malpractice can occur in the inpatient setting, outpatient setting[2], and with telephone medicine.[3]
Relationship to medical error
According to the Harvard Medical Practice Study, "medical-malpractice litigation infrequently compensates patients injured by medical negligence and rarely identifies, and holds providers accountable for, substandard care."[4] In one study, one third of claims did not involve medical error.[5]
Expert testimony
The legal system has focused on assessing the quality of the expert who interprets evidence for the court rather than the quality of the evidence itself. Methods to assess expertise have included the Frye test and the Daubert standard.[6][7] Occasionally, courts have used "Daubert panels" to assess evidence in large tort claims.[8]
Some states also use a locality rule, or local standards of care despite ethical problems with this standard.[9], A well-publicized malpractice case of screening for prostate cancer was dtermined in this way.[10] This specific case has been associated with an increase in screening for prostate cancer.[11]
Decision analysis has been proposed to improve the reliability of expert testimony.[12]
Standard of care
References
- ↑ Anonymous (2024), term (English). Medical Subject Headings. U.S. National Library of Medicine.
- ↑ Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, et al (2006). "Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims". Ann. Intern. Med. 145 (7): 488–96. PMID 17015866. [e]
- ↑ Katz HP, Kaltsounis D, Halloran L, Mondor M (2008). "Patient Safety and Telephone Medicine : Some Lessons from Closed Claim Case Review". J Gen Intern Med. DOI:10.1007/s11606-007-0491-y. PMID 18228110. Research Blogging.
- ↑ Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, et al (1991). "Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III". N. Engl. J. Med. 325 (4): 245–51. PMID 2057025. [e]
- ↑ Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, et al (2006). "Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation". N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (19): 2024–33. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa054479. PMID 16687715. Research Blogging.
- ↑ Anonymous. Expertise in Law, Medicine, and Health Care. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved on 2009-01-15.
- ↑ Anonymous. From the Clinics to the Courts: The Role Evidence Should Play in Litigating Medical Care. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved on 2009-01-15.
- ↑ Hulka BS et al. (March 2000). "Experience of a scientific panel formed to advise the federal judiciary on silicone breast implants". N Engl J Med 342: 812–5. PMID 10717019. [e]
- ↑ Lewis MH, Gohagan JK, Merenstein DJ (June 2007). "The locality rule and the physician's dilemma: local medical practices vs the national standard of care". JAMA 297 (23): 2633–7. DOI:10.1001/jama.297.23.2633. PMID 17579232. Research Blogging.
- ↑ Merenstein D (January 2004). "A piece of my mind. Winners and losers". JAMA 291 (1): 15–6. DOI:10.1001/jama.291.1.15. PMID 14709561. Research Blogging.
- ↑ Krist AH, Woolf SH, Johnson RE (2007). "How physicians approach prostate cancer screening before and after losing a lawsuit". Ann Fam Med 5 (2): 120–5. PMID 17389535. PMC 1838685. [e]
- ↑ Weir SS, Curtis P, McNutt RA (1990). "Expert testimony based on decision analysis: a malpractice case report". J Gen Intern Med 5 (5): 406–9. PMID 2231036. [e]