Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MALPRACTICE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

[The surgeon's role as expert witness in malpractice lawsuits. Purpose and requirements of legal medical opinions].

Even experienced medical advisors need clear guidelines on the extent and form of expert opinions presented to courts of law. The importance of thorough document study, correctly organizing findings, and carefully weighing the various factors influencing an opinion cannot be stressed enough. Presented here is a sample opinion for German civil court trials at the state level. It illustrates how best to combine research and clinical results, personal professional experience, and citations from the literature to structure legally valid evidence in the form of an expert opinion. The importance of cogent response to examiners' and cross-examiners' questions is demonstrated, as are differences between civil and criminal proceedings. An appendix cites the appropriate passages from the German legal code concerning remuneration for expert opinions.

Certification↗
PubMed2002

[Determining responsibility for surgical positioning of the patient and malpractice for damage caused by patient position].

The cooperation of surgeon and anaesthetist in positioning of the patient is subject to the principles of horizontal division of labour recognized in the interdisciplinary agreement and confirmed by the legislature: anaesthetist and surgeon carry out their respective tasks independently of each other, each bearing full responsibility for their own work (principle of strict separation of functions), they tailor their procedures to fit in with each other (duty of coordination), and each is entitled to expect and rely on due care in the other (principle of trust). In the case of conflict--when the best position for the specific intervention leads to a higher anaesthesiological risk--the principle of predominance of the actual requirements applies. If no agreement is reached it is incumbent on the surgeon to make the decision; this means that the surgeon bears the medical and legal responsibility for appropriate deliberation. Faults in organization are regarded under the law as faulty treatment. Anaesthetist and surgeon are each responsible for their own errors. According to the interdisciplinary agreements, positioning and checks on position are the task of the surgeon, while the anaesthetist is responsible for the "infusion arm". This does not exclude the possibility that anaesthetist and surgeon may agree on a different division of labour in the operating room. The patient bears the burden of proof that errors were committed in a case for damages. The doctor does, however, have to prove that the patient was correctly positioned. The demands of jurisdiction in terms of documentation of the positioning and of presentation of evidence are practically oriented and can basically be met. The same is true of the information supplied to the patient on the risk that positioning can cause harm. The doctor is obliged to supply evidence of the patient's substantive consent and the provision of information that this implies.

Anesthesiology↗