Vrednotenje tveganja za nastanek zapleta in sprožitev spora v gastrointestinalni endoskopiji
Abstract
Background: Discussion of risk management may seem trivial to physician in the day-to-day activities of practice. Most physicians recognize the benefits of being proactive in trying to minimize the risks of malpractice litigation through careful documentation, informed consent and adhering to accepting many other areas of risk. The standard of care is a legal concept within professional guidelines describing the duty that physician endoscopists fulfill in their care of a patient. The endoscopist’s legal duty is to practice within the reasonable standard of care. A failure to practice within the standard constitutes a »breach of duty«, which is one of the elements of proof that a plaintiff must satisfy to win a malpractice claim. Practicing within the standard is the endoscopist’s ultimate legal defense. Unrequested interaction between practitioners of the legal and medical fields is not usually the one anticipated with great pleasure by people at all.
Conclusions: This article considers endoscopists’ practice from the legal point of view concepts and provide a better understanding how the standards and guidelines in gastrointestinal endoscopy reflect clinical practice. It is also meant for endoscopists and any other physicians who are interested in reviewing their practices for potentially litigious situations and in discussion how to optimize their protection against a successful judgment.
Downloads
References
Miskovitz P, Gibofsky A. Risk management in endoscopic practice. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1995; 5: 391–401.
Gerstenberger PD. Risk management for the endoscopy center. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2002; 12: 367–84.
Bartlett EE, Holman KI, Bobetic K, Douglass M, Johnson L, Machnowski G, et al. The early diagnosis project: a collaborative approach to risk management. J Health Risk Manag 1999; 19: 21–7.
Richards EP, Rathbun KC. Medical care law. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publisher; 1999.
Marriner WK. What recourse? Liability for managed care decision and the employee retirement income security act. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 593–6.
Gerstenberger PD, Plumeri PA. Malpractice claims in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Analysis of an insurance industry database. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 132–8.
Brennan TA, Sox CM, Burstin HR. Relationship between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical malpractice. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1963–7.
Phillips C. Communication: the first tool in risk management for long-term care. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2004; 5: 123–6.
Delvaux MM, Crespi M, Armengol-Miro JR, Hagenmuller F, Teuffel W. The GASTER project: building a computer network in digestive endoscopy: the experience of the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Application for Standards in Telecommunication, Education and Research. J Clin Gastroenterol 1999; 29: 118–26.
Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Laird NM, Herbert LE, Peterson LM, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence: Results of the Harward medical practice study III. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 245.
Flis V. Pojasnilna dolžnost – kako obsežna in v kakšni obliki. In: Flis V, Reberšek-Gorišek J. Medicina in pravo – Izbrana poglavja 2001, 2002, 2003. Maribor: Splošna bolnišnica Maribor, 2004: 121–8.
Zdravniška zbornica Slovenije. Zavarovanje pacientov za škodo pri koriščenju zdravstvenih storitev v primerih, ko strokovna napaka ni izkazana. Slovenija. Ljubljana: Zdravniška zbornica Slovenije; 2004.
Lofft AL. Informed consent for endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1995; 5: 457–70.
Feld AD. Informed consent: not just for procedures anymore. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 977–80.
Vreček B. Zdravniška napaka – kriminološki vidik. Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta; 2002.
Todd J. Precise language minimizes risk. Provider 2004; 30: 45–8.
Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA 1997; 277: 553–9.
Witman AB, Park DM, Hardin SB. How do patients want physicians to handle mistakes? Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2565–9.
Dajčman D. Bolnikova zavestna privolitev v zdravljenje – prelaganje odgovornosti odločanja ali zloraba pravic v postopku zdravljenja!? ISIS oktober 2004. p. 50.
Žvipelj M. Element protipravnosti pri presoji odškodninske odgovornosti zdravnikov. Pravnik 57; 11–12: 713–34.
The Author transfers to the Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) all economic copyrights following form Article 22 of the Slovene Copyright and Related Rights Act (ZASP), including the right of reproduction, the right of distribution, the rental right, the right of public performance, the right of public transmission, the right of public communication by means of phonograms and videograms, the right of public presentation, the right of broadcasting, the right of rebroadcasting, the right of secondary broadcasting, the right of communication to the public, the right of transformation, the right of audiovisual adaptation and all other rights of the author according to ZASP.
The aforementioned rights are transferred non-exclusively, for an unlimited number of editions, for the term of the statutory
The Author can make use of his work himself or transfer subjective rights to others only after 3 months from date of first publishing in the journal Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal.
The Publisher (Zdravniški vestnik/Slovenian Medical Journal) has the right to transfer the rights, acquired parties without explicit consent of the Author.
The Author consents that the Article be published under the Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 (attribution-non-commercial) or comparable licence.
