Self-assessment of medico-legal risk by doctors: The Know Your Risk Version 1 - Short form

Australian Health Review

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 339-348

  Johnson, Maree ^a   Murphy, Brooke ^b   Payne, Sheryn ^b   Chang, Sungwon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNITED Medical Protection   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; EDUCATION; LEGAL LIABILITY; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICINE; PHYSICIAN; RISK MANAGEMENT; VALIDATION STUDY;

AUSTRALIA; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MEDICINE; PHYSICIANS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SELF-EVALUATION PROGRAMS;

EID: 44449125694     PISSN: 01565788     EISSN: 14498944     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1071/AH080339     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Medical Indemnity Insurers Association of Australia. Medical Indemnity Report Executive Summary. [Confidential report.] 2004.
2. Nisselle P. Managing medical indemnity: must we choose between quality assurance and risk management? Med J Aust 2004; 181: 64-5.
3. Wilson LL, Fulton M. Risk management: how doctors, hospitals and MDOs can limit the costs of malpractice litigation. Med J Aust 2000; 172: 77-80.
4. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and United Medical Protection Limited. Gynaecology. A claims review. RANZCOG/UNITED, 2004.
5. Collins D. Risk management in obstetrics and gynecology. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 2006; 51 (4): 34, 37, 41.
6. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, et al. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 1999; 126: 66-75.
7. Vincent C, Young M, Phillips A. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action. Lancet 1994; 343: 1609-13.
8. Britt H, Miller GC, Steven ID, et al. Collecting data on potentially harmful events: a method for monitoring incidents in general practice. Fam Pract 1997; 14: 101-6.
9. Bhasale A. The wrong diagnosis: identifying causes of potentially adverse events in general practice using incident monitoring. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 308-18.
10. Andrews S, Barrett M. Perceptions of responsibility for clinical risk management: Evidence from orthopaedics practitioners, practice managers and patients in an Australian capital city. JLM 2003; 11: 48-56.
11. (1994) Aust Torts Reports; 81-273.
12. Bird S. A GP's duty to follow up test results. Aust Fam Physician 2003; 32: 45-6.
13. Phillips Jr RL, Bartholomew LA, Dovey SM, et al. Learning from malpractice claims about negligent, adverse events in primary care in the United States. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13: 121-6.
14. Makeham MAB, Dovey SM, County M, et al. An international taxonomy for errors in general practice: a pilot study. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 68-72.
15. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 377-84.
16. Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, et al. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995; 163: 458-71.
17. Dwyer K. Analysis of CRICO surgery-related cases. Forum (Journal of the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions) 2004; 23(4): 5-9.
18. Matsaseng T, Moodley J. Adverse events in gynaecology at King Edward VIII Hospital, Durban, South Africa. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 25: 676-80.
19. Henckels C. Wrong site surgery. A study of medical misadventure claims. Medical Misadventure Unit, New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation, 2003.
20. Goodkin R, Laska L. Wrong disc space level surgery: medicolegal implications. Surg Neurol 2004; 61: 323-41.
21. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organisations. Sentinel event trends in wrong-site surgery. Joint Commission Perspectives [official newsletter of JCAHO] 2000; 20(1): 14.
22. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organisations. Approaches to error reduction and prevention. In: Sentinel events: evaluating cause and planning improvement. The Joint Commission, 1998; p. 113-33.
23. Entman SS, Glass CA, Hickson GB, et al. The relationship between malpractice claims history and subsequent obstetric care. JAMA 1994; 272: 1588-91.
24. Simpson KR, Knox GE. Common areas of litigation related to care during labor and birth. J Perinat Neonat Nurs 2003; 17: 110-27.
25. Garza M. Poor systems create liability for good providers. OB-GYN Malpractice Prevention [newsletter] 2003; 10: 49-56.
26. Miller LA. Safety promotion and error reduction in perinatal care. J Perinat Neonat Nurs 2003; 17: 128-38.
27. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, et al. Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA 1997; 277: 553-9.
28. Lester GW, Smith SG. Listening and talking to patients - a remedy for malpractice suits? West J Med 1993; 158: 268-72.
29. Levinson W, Chaumeton N. Communication between surgeons and patients in routine office visits. Surgery 1999; 125: 127-34.
30. Witman AB, Park DM, Hardin SB. How do patients want physicians to handle mistakes? A survey of internal medicine patients in an academic setting. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2565-9.
31. Berry W. Surgical malpractice: myths and realities. Forum 2004; 23: 10-11.
32. Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, et al. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1365-70.
33. Bird S. When things go wrong. Aust Fam Physician 2003; 32: 348-9.
34. Rogers v Whitaker [1992] 175 CLR 479.
35. Chappel v Hart [1998] 195 CLR 232.
36. National Health and Medical Research Council. General guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2004: 11.