FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W59590978> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W59590978 startingPage "1175" @default.
• W59590978 abstract "A medical center department chair has just been notified that a physician in his department, G, is being sued for the fifth time in seven years. The CEO of co-defendant hospital wants the chair to solve Dr. G's problems. At the chair's request, the hospital peer committee evaluates Dr. G's malpractice cases. While committee members note some minor concerns in the cases, they conclude that in each circumstance he has met the standard of care. They cannot identify any specific technical or educational need, nor can they supply justification for a disciplinary action. The chair is in a vexing situation. Is Dr. G. the victim of bad luck, or is something more systematic at work? Is there some failure or deficiency other than technical incompetence which is making this physician vulnerable to malpractice suits? If so, is it remediable? In this Article, we analyze the ability of peer to recognize and reduce physicians' risk of medical malpractice claims. Critics argue that peer neither consistently identifies substandard physicians, nor ensures their removal, while it unfairly targets colleagues for reasons such as economic competition. They suggest that the solution may be to modify statutes governing privilege and immunity, or to increase penalties for healthcare institutions that violate reporting statutes. Critics' concerns may be misplaced. We will argue that peer is not deficient in its basic conception, but rather aspects of its design and implementation which often do not directly link it to an institution's risk management activities. We assert that peer can effectively identify a physician's risk of generating a disproportionate share of medical malpractice claims ex ante, and present a sample methodology which allows peer to more effectively help physicians address that risk. Part I of this Article discusses the background and authority for peer review. Part II outlines common criticisms of peer and discusses shortcomings in these analyses. Part III describes background medical malpractice research and introduces the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS^sup SM^) program for peer review. In Part IV we conclude with a discussion of programmatic elements which, if incorporated into the legal framework for peer review, may allow peer committees to systematically evaluate, monitor, and, potentially reduce physicians' medical malpractice claims risk. I. BACKGROUND OF PEER REVIEW A. Traditional Review Peer review is a generic term representing a range of processes established by hospitals, medical groups, and other health care entities to ensure qualified and competent medical staff and quality care.3 Three premises underlie traditional peer review. The first premise is that due to their unique and specialized training, only physicians can properly evaluate and judge other physicians' medical practices and detect when colleagues pose a risk to patient care.4 The second premise is that a milieu supporting candid communication is most likely to foster recognition of both exemplary and substandard care.5 The third premise is that peer participants are motivated to maintain high standards of care in their group or institution and act in good faith.6 The idea of peers reviewing each other as a quality control measure would appear to have several advantages.7 offers an incentive for similarly trained physicians working in the same environment to identify colleagues with knowledge gaps or deficiencies in technical skills, facilitate their remediation, and monitor their progress and performance, in preference to external parties assuming this responsibility.8 In addition, when serious problems are identified, appropriate steps can be taken to limit doctors' contact with patients well before government agencies are involved or can act.9 may also lead physicians to seek and accept help for medical, psychiatric, or impairment issues. …" @default.
• W59590978 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W59590978 creator A5004419607 @default.
• W59590978 creator A5072356901 @default.
• W59590978 creator A5074420987 @default.
• W59590978 creator A5075545285 @default.
• W59590978 creator A5076784496 @default.
• W59590978 date "2006-05-01" @default.
• W59590978 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W59590978 title "Rethinking Peer Review: Detecting and Addressing Medical Malpractice Claims Risk" @default.
• W59590978 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W59590978 type Work @default.
• W59590978 sameAs 59590978 @default.
• W59590978 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W59590978 countsByYear W595909782012 @default.
• W59590978 countsByYear W595909782013 @default.
• W59590978 countsByYear W595909782016 @default.
• W59590978 countsByYear W595909782019 @default.
• W59590978 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W59590978 hasAuthorship W59590978A5004419607 @default.
• W59590978 hasAuthorship W59590978A5072356901 @default.
• W59590978 hasAuthorship W59590978A5074420987 @default.
• W59590978 hasAuthorship W59590978A5075545285 @default.
• W59590978 hasAuthorship W59590978A5076784496 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C114104786 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C2776798817 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C2780138299 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C61783943 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W59590978 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C114104786 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C121332964 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C138885662 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C160735492 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C17319257 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C17744445 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C199539241 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C27206212 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C2776798817 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C2780138299 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C2780791683 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C61783943 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C62520636 @default.
• W59590978 hasConceptScore W59590978C71924100 @default.
• W59590978 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W59590978 hasLocation W595909781 @default.
• W59590978 hasOpenAccess W59590978 @default.
• W59590978 hasPrimaryLocation W595909781 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W157203151 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W1601963020 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W176780744 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W1985036670 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2014651053 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2016303444 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2027429203 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2035025783 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2039961581 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2040061680 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2059422712 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2071679590 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2101426718 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2115003134 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2148669053 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2151475839 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2159327837 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2298386988 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W28059546 @default.
• W59590978 hasRelatedWork W2082215523 @default.
• W59590978 hasVolume "59" @default.
• W59590978 isParatext "false" @default.
• W59590978 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W59590978 magId "59590978" @default.
• W59590978 workType "article" @default.