Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2002
The role of the autopsy in medical malpractice cases, II: controversy related to autopsy performance and reporting.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bove Kevin E, Iery Clare, Autopsy Committee, College of American Pathologists
Аннотация
CONTEXT: We studied 99 appellate court records in cases of alleged medical malpractice and found no relationship between discrepant clinical and autopsy findings and outcome of litigation. Standard-of-care issues and not diagnostic accuracy were at the heart of every case.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize and discuss issues related to the autopsy and/or pathologist behavior that were raised in court records of medical malpractice litigation.
DESIGN: In 18 appellate court records, issues were raised about quality of autopsy performance and reporting or about death certification. The details of these controversies are succinctly reported here in a manner intended to be instructive to pathologists who perform autopsies in a hospital setting or on a private fee-for-service basis.
CONCLUSION: Autopsy reports are intended to provide objective medical information in a coherent format to the patient's medical record, to the attending physician and other concerned staff physicians, to other health care professionals, and to the families of the deceased. Inevitably, occasions arise that require legal counsel to be added to this list of parties with a legitimate interest. Our findings emphasize that incomplete, incoherent, obfuscated, or delayed reporting of autopsy findings do not meet professional standards, are unethical if intentional, and may be counterproductive.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize and discuss issues related to the autopsy and/or pathologist behavior that were raised in court records of medical malpractice litigation.
DESIGN: In 18 appellate court records, issues were raised about quality of autopsy performance and reporting or about death certification. The details of these controversies are succinctly reported here in a manner intended to be instructive to pathologists who perform autopsies in a hospital setting or on a private fee-for-service basis.
CONCLUSION: Autopsy reports are intended to provide objective medical information in a coherent format to the patient's medical record, to the attending physician and other concerned staff physicians, to other health care professionals, and to the families of the deceased. Inevitably, occasions arise that require legal counsel to be added to this list of parties with a legitimate interest. Our findings emphasize that incomplete, incoherent, obfuscated, or delayed reporting of autopsy findings do not meet professional standards, are unethical if intentional, and may be counterproductive.