• J F Holzer.
• Risk Management Foundation, Harvard Medical Institutions, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139.
• QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1990 Feb 1;16(2):71-9.

AbstractThe development of clinically based written standards to reduce the frequency and severity of medical malpractice loss appears to be gaining in popularity among provider specialty groups and professional liability underwriters. To date, such standards have addressed problems in specialties such as obstetrics and anesthesia where dollar losses associated with malpractice claims have been high. Guidelines can be developed and used by providers on a purely voluntary basis or mandated on an involuntary basis by third parties such as malpractice insurance companies or legislators. Because the advent of risk-control standards is a relatively new phenomenon, formal scientific studies on the long-term benefits of such guidelines have not yet been published. However, it appears that sharp reductions of malpractice losses in specialties such as anesthesia have coincided with the implementation of formal written standards specifically designed for liability control. This has led some liability insurance carriers to decrease premiums associated with specialists following such standards. Many providers are understandably concerned about the potential use of written standards by plaintiff attorneys in medical malpractice suits. Although it is possible that such policies and guidelines could be admitted into evidence to show that a provider breached the legal duty or standard of care owed to a patient, it is uncertain whether these risk-control standards could ultimately pass the evidentiary rules of relevancy or materiality in a given lawsuit. It is clear, however, that the consensus-based process of creating clinical standards and guidelines specifically for controlling professional liability losses is itself a powerful and emerging standard for health care risk management programs.

13 keywords...

hide…