In this issue:
- Feedback to hospitals on performance fails to improve quality of cardiac care
- Is a physician’s disciplinary history pertinent? Nebraska says “Yes.”
- Killer in your office? So what?
Feedback to hospitals on performance fails to improve quality of cardiac care
The value of hospital incident reports submitted to the State of Washington has been questioned and was reported in the October issue of this newsletter. Now, a study by Tu et al. posted in JAMA November 18 indicates that, on average, 86 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, which received a “public report card” failed to improve areas of cardiac care found to be deficient. The study adds fuel to the fire of the plaintiff attorneys who claim that their approach, i.e. lawsuits, is one, if not the only, way to impact improvements in the quality of patient care. Also, the Connecticut AG is calling for sweeping changes in that state’s “adverse event” reporting law. Presently, reports of errors are most often simply filed and closed without an investigation or report, according to an article in the Hartford Courant. AG Blumenthal stated, “We now have a culture of secrecy and concealment that is completely unjustified.” Key question: What good are error reports if no one learns anything from them, possibly not even the hospital filing the report?
Is a physician’s disciplinary history pertinent? Nebraska says “Yes.”
A physician’s disciplinary history may have no direct link to a medical liability lawsuit. But plaintiffs can still delve into such discipline to develop their cases, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled this summer. In Washington State, anyone can access a physician’s disciplinary history at a DOL website.
Killer in your office? So what?
Despite homicidal threats, psychiatrists owe no duty to their patients’ potential victims
Key question: Is this the ruling you would want if you were the potential victim?