Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
[By staff reporters] http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org
The Three Basic Duties
A cash-based medical practice or direct care provider has these basic duties:
- * to comply with statutory duties such as the drug laws
- * to obtain proper consent for medical care
- * to render care that is not substantially inferior to that offered by like providers
A breach of any of these duties that causes harm to a patient can result in a malpractice suit. While the first two duties are important, it is the duty to render good quality medical care that is the basis for most malpractice lawsuits. The breach of this duty is most likely to result in a serious patient injury. The prevention of such negligent injuries is the responsibility of the individual provider, but it also basic to the institution’s quality control program.
From the individual provider’s point of view, quality control involves continuing education, attention to detail, and retrospective review of the course of the provider’s patients. The process is only loosely structured and is usually poorly documented. This lack of formal structure is less important for the individual provider because the provider’s actions are judged only within the context of the injured patient in question (although previous actions may be used to negate claims of accidental injury).
Assessment
And so, the legal questions is whether the care rendered the injured patient was negligent. It is not relevant to the case if the provider carried out an effective personal quality control program.
Conclusion
Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.
Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com
OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:
- PRACTICES: www.BusinessofMedicalPractice.com
- HOSPITALS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466558731
- CLINICS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439879900
- ADVISORS: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org
- FINANCE: Financial Planning for Physicians and Advisors
- INSURANCE: Risk Management and Insurance Strategies for Physicians and Advisors
- Dictionary of Health Economics and Finance
- Dictionary of Health Information Technology and Security
- Dictionary of Health Insurance and Managed Care
Harvard Medical School
Boston Children’s Hospital – Psychiatrist
Yale University
***
Share this:
Filed under: CMP Program, Ethics, Professional Liability, Risk Management | Tagged: CMP Program | 6 Comments »
The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants 