eISSN: 2449-8580
ISSN: 1734-3402
Family Medicine & Primary Care Review
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Reviewers Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Publication charge Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Search

Open access

without publication fees
3/2020
vol. 22
 
Share:
Send email
Share:
Review paper

Compensation for medical incidents as a result of out-of-court conciliatory proceedings by voivodship boards

Robert Susło
1
,
Mateusz Paplicki
2
,
Antoni Benedik
3
,
Jarosław Drobnik
1

  1. Gerontology Unit, Public Health Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland
  2. Developmental Age Traumatology and Emergency Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland
  3. WSB University in Wroclaw, Poland
Family Medicine & Primary Care Review 2020; 22(3): 257–262
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/fmpcr.2020.96923
Online publish date: 2020/07/06
Article file
- 15 FM&PCR 3 20 - R - Susło - Compensation - 667.pdf  [0.42 MB]
Get citation
 
PlumX metrics:
 
1. Toraldo D, Vergari U, Toraldo M. Medical malpractice, defensive medicine and role of the media in Italy. Multidiscip Respir Med 2015; 10(1): 12, doi: 10.1186/s40248-015-0006-3.
2. Zwinczewska H, Rozwadowska J, Traczyk A, et al. Knowledge on the subject of human physiology among Polish high school students – a cross-sectional study. Przegl Lek 2014; 71(12): 666–671.
3. Paplicki M, Susło R, Dopierała K, et al. Systemic aspects of securing the health safety of the elderly. Fam Med Prim Care Rev 2018; 20(3): 267–270, doi: 10.5114/fmpcr.2018.78272.
4. Rasanathan K, Posayanonda T, Birmingham M, et al. Innovation and participation for healthy public policy: The first National Health Assembly in Thailand. Health Expect 2012; 15(1): 87–96, doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00656.x.
5. Chuengsatiansup K, Tengrang K, Posayanonda T, et al. Citizens’ jury and elder care: public participation and deliberation in long-term care policy in Thailand. J Aging Soc Policy 2019; 31(4): 378–392, doi: 10.1080/08959420.2018.1442110.
6. Badurek S. Trudno wierzyć rządowi. Gazeta Lekarska 2019; 7–8: 66. Available from URL: https://papier.gazetalekarska.pl/pdf/Gazeta_Lekarska_07-08_2019.pdf (in Polish).
7. Tomczak M. Błędne koło. Gazeta Lekarska 2019; 7–8: 18–21. Available from URL: https://papier.gazetalekarska.pl/pdf/Gazeta_Lekarska_07-08_2019.pdf (in Polish).
8. Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. Kodeks karny (Dz.U. 1997 nr 88 poz. 553 with amendments) (in Polish).
9. Ustawa z dnia 13 czerwca 2019 r. o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw [cited 20.08.2019]. Available from URL: https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/proc8.nsf/ustawy/3451_u.htm (in Polish).
10. Autopoprawka do projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy Kodeks karny (druk nr 3386) Premier.gov.pl 18.06.2019 [cited 20.08.2019]. Available from URL: https://www.premier.gov.pl/wydarzenia/decyzje-rzadu/autopoprawka-do-projektu-ustawy-o-zmianie-ustawy-kodeks-karny-druk-nr-3386.html.
11. Weisman C, Morlock L, Teitelbaum M, et al. Practice changes in response to the malpractice litigation climate: results of a maryland physician survey. Medical Care 1989; 27(1): 16–24, doi: 10.1097/00005650-198901000-00002.
12. Tancredi L, Barondess J. The problem of defensive medicine. Science 1978; 200(4344): 879–882, doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.644329.
13. Brennan T. Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: Collision or cohesion? J Health Polit Policy Law 1991; 16(1): 67–85, doi: 10.1215/03616878-16-1-67.
14. Hermer L, Brody H. Defensive medicine, cost containment, and reform. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25(5): 470–473, doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1259-3.
15. Reschovsky J. Saiontz-Martinez C. Malpractice claim fears and the costs of treating medicare patients: a new approach to estimating the costs of defensive medicine. Health Serv Res 2018; 53(3): 1498–1516, doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12660.
16. Summerton N. Positive and negative factors in defensive medicine: a questionnaire study of general practitioners. BMJ 1995; 310(6971): 27, doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6971.27.
17. Studdert D, Mello M, Sage W, et al. Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA 2005; 293(21): 2609–2617, doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.21.2609.
18. Fiscella K, Franks P, Zwanziger J. et al. Risk aversion and costs: a comparison of family physicians and general internists. J Fam Pract 2000; 49(1): 12–18.
19. Localio A, Lawthers A, Bengtson J, et al. Relationship between malpractice claims and cesarean delivery. JAMA 1993; 269(3): 366–373, doi: 10.1001/jama.1993.03500030064034.
20. Charles S, Wilbert J, Franke K. Sued and nonsued physicians' self-reported reactions to malpractice litigation. Am J Psychiatry 1985; 142(4): 437–440, doi: 10.1176/ajp.142.4.437.
21. Antoci A, Maccioni A, Galeotti M, et al. Defensive medicine, liability insurance and malpractice litigation in an evolutionary model. Nonlinear Anal-Real 2019; 47: 414–435, doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2018.08.012.
22. Antoci A, Fiori Maccioni A, Russu P. Medical practice and malpractice litigation in an evolutionary context. J Evol Econ 2018; 28(4): 915–928, doi: 10.1007/s00191-018-0578-0.
23. Antoci A, Maccioni A, Russu P. The ecology of defensive medicine and malpractice litigation. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(3): e0150523, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150523.
24. Passmore K, Leung W. Defensive practice among psychiatrists: a questionnaire survey. Postgrad Med J 2002; 78(925): 671–673, doi: 10.1136/pmj.78.925.671.
25. Grol R, Whitfield M, De Maeseneer J, et al. Attitudes to risk taking in medical decision making among British, Dutch and Belgian general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1990; 40(333): 134–136.
26. Shapiro R, Simpson D, Lawrence S, et al. A survey of sued and nonsued physicians and suing patients. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149(10): 2190–2196, doi: 10.1001/archinte.1989.00390100028008.
27. Lilleyman J. A blame-free culture in the NHS: quixotic notion or achievable ambition? Perfusion 2005; 20(4): 233, doi: 10.1191/0267659105pf812oa.
28. Reason J. Managing the risks of organisational accidents. MIASTO: Ashgate Publishing; 1997.
29. Walton M. Creating a "no blame" culture: Have we got the balance right? Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13(3): 163–164, doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.010959.
30. Bismark M, Paterson R. No-fault compensation in New Zealand: harmonizing injury compensation, provider accountability, and patient safety. Health Affairs 2006; 25(1): 278–283, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.1.278.
31. Paterson R. The patients' complaints system in New Zealand. Health Affairs 2002; 21(3): 70–79, doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.3.70.
32. Ustawa z dnia 6 listopada 2008 r. o prawach pacjenta i Rzeczniku Praw Pacjenta (Dz.U. 2009 nr 52 poz. 417, ze zm.) (in Polish).
33. Ustawa z dnia 28 kwietnia 2011 r. o zmianie ustawy o prawach pacjenta i Rzeczniku Praw Pacjenta oraz ustawy o ubezpieczeniach obowiązkowych, Ubezpieczeniowym Funduszu Gwarancyjnym i Polskim Biurze Ubezpieczycieli Komunikacyjnych (Dz.U. 2011 nr 113 poz. 860) (in Polish).
34. Stefanek K. Komisje wojewódzkie do spraw orzekania o zdarzeniach medycznych. Państ Społecz 2015; 15(1): 97–109 (in Polish).
35. Sadowska J. Status prawny wojewódzkich komisji do spraw orzekania o zdarzeniach medycznych. Przegląd Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Społeczny 2014; 2: 84–93 (in Polish).
36. Jacek A, Ożóg K. Ochrona administracyjna praw pacjenta. Prz Med Uniw Rzesz Inst Leków 2015; 13(3): 306–317 (in Polish).
37. Haczkowska A. Sprawozdanie z działalności Wojewódzkiej Komisji do Spraw Orzekania o Zdarzeniach Medycznych we Wrocławiu za okres 2012–2017 [cited 23.08.2019]. Available from URL: http://duw.pl/download/1/27616/SprawozdaniezdzialalanosciKomisjiwlatach2012-201754.doc (in Polish).
38. Gładysz S. Podsumowanie sześciomiesięcznej działalności Wojewódzkiej Komisji ds. Orzekania o Zdarzeniach Medycznych we Wrocławiu. Wady i zalety nowej procedury orzekania o błędach medycznych [cited 23.08.2019]. Available from URL: https://www.i-kancelaria.pl/publikacje/podsumowanie-szesciomiesiecznej-dzialalnosci-wojewodzkiej-komisji-ds-orzekania-o-zdarzeniach-medycznych-we-wroclawiu-wady-i-zalety-nowej-procedury-orzekania-o-bledach-medycznych/.
39. 828 wniosków do wojewódzkich komisji ds. orzekania o zdarzeniach medycznych. Polityka Zdrowotna 18.08.2018 [cited 23.08.2019]. Available from URL: https://www.politykazdrowotna.com/35451,828-wnioskow-do-wojewodzkich-komisji-ds-orzekania-o-zdarzeniach-medycznych (in Polish).
40. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli. Informacja o wynikach kontroli: pozasądowe dochodzenie roszczeń przez pacjentów. KZD.430.005.2018. NIK 31.10.2018 [cited 23.08.2019]. Available from URL: https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,18515,vp,21114.pdf (in Polish).
41. Babcock R, Gillett G. Error and accountability in a no-fault system: maintaining professionalism. J Law Med 2016; 24(2): 303–313.
Copyright: © 2020 Family Medicine & Primary Care Review. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
  
Termedia
About us Contact
Copyright notice Privacy policy Advertising policy Contact us
Quick links
Journals Books eBooks Events
© 2024 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.