Obstetric litigation: Effects on clinical practice

Gynakologisch-geburtshilfliche Rundschau

Volumn 40, Issue 3-4, 2000, Pages 165-171

  Symon, Andrew ^a  

^a PERTH ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Defensive medicine; Litigation; Malpractice; Risk management

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; LAW SUIT; MATERNAL CARE; MIDWIFE; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE;

CESAREAN SECTION; DEFENSIVE MEDICINE; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MALPRACTICE; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREGNANCY; RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 0034444030     PISSN: 10188843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000053021     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Howie R: The standard of care in medical negligence. Juridical Rev 1983:193.
2. Tharmaratnam S, Gillmer M: The litigation boom in obstetrics. Obstet Gynaecol Today 1995;6:17-20.
3. Easterbrook J: Medical negligence update. Solicitors J 1996;140:381.
4. Aitkenhead D: Sue the doctor, grab it and run. The Guardian, Feb 6, 1998, p 19.
5. Medical Protection Society: Annual Report. London, Medical Protection Society, 1989.
6. Symonds E: Defensive obstetrics. Hosp Undate, Oct 1987, pp 846-847.
7. Dally A: A Doctor's Story. London, Macmillan,
8. Kessel N: No more license to practise. Lancet 1988;330:464-465.
9. Hurwitz B: Clinical Guidelines and the Law Negligence, Discretion and Judgment. Abingdon, Radcliffe Medical Press, 1998.
10. Hyams AL, Brandenburg JA, Lipsitz SR, Shapiro DW, Brennan TA: Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: A two-way street Ann Intern Med 1995;122:450.