Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Medical Errors

Authors: Angela Roddey, Holder;
Abstract

AbstractFollowing the 2000 report of the Institute of Medicine, To Err Is Human, which documented that as many as 98,000 people in this country die of medical errors every year, medical, hospital, and governmental agencies began to consider changes in hospital systems. The report had found that errors were much more likely to result from systemic problems than from inept health care providers. Progress in reinventing hospital systems has been very slow, although some institutions have made great gains.“Medical errors” may be of several types. Some lead to malpractice claims, many do not. Many people who have been severely injured by errors never file claims. Making a medical mistake is not necessarily “malpractice.”There are six elements a patient must prove in order to win a malpractice case: a physician-patient relationship must exist, the care provider must owe the patient a duty of care, evidence (usually expert testimony) must be presented that there was a failure in some part of the duty of care, there must proof that the lack of care was the proximate cause of harm, and proof of evidence that harm occurred. The patient must also prove his or her assessment of damages.Solutions to the problem of patient injuries are suggested.

Related Organizations
Keywords

National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, U.S., Health and Medicine Division, Social Responsibility, Medical Errors, Physicians, Malpractice, Humans, Hematology, Delivery of Health Care, United States

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    10
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
10
Average
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!