JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Graber, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Green, M. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Graber, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Green, M. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 18:453-458 (2005)
© 2005 American Board of Family Practice

Original Research

An Alternative Method of Determining Standard of Care in Alleged Cases of Malpractice

Mark A. Graber, MD, Arthur Hartz, PhD, MD, Paul James, MD, Andrew Nugent, MD and Michael D. Green, JD

Department of Family Medicine (MAG, AH, PJ), University of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
Department of Emergency Medicine (MAG, AN), University of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA
Wake Forest University School of Law (MG), Winston-Salem, NC

Correspondence: Corresponding author: Arthur Hartz, MD, Department of Family Medicine, University of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Drive, 01292-D PFP, Iowa City, IA 52242 (e-mail: arthur-hartz{at}uiowa.edu)

Background: Physician experts hired and prepared by litigants provide most information on standard of care for medical malpractice cases. Because this information may not be objective or accurate, we examined the feasibility and potential value of surveying peer physicians to assess standard of care.

Methods: The survey method was evaluated for a medical malpractice case involving a patient hospitalized with abdominal pain. An abstract of the medical record was created that included the patient characteristics and physician decisions most likely to influence patient outcome. The abstract and questionnaire were sent to 16 academic family physicians and to 20 randomly chosen primary care physicians in Iowa who practiced in communities of similar size to the defendant’s community.

Results: All 16 academic and 18 (90%) community physicians completed the survey. All respondents judged the patient as presenting with an acute abdomen, and 89% of the community physicians and 100% of the academic physicians judged the care as below standard. More than half the physicians surveyed listed the autopsy diagnosis (perforated ulcer) in their differential.

Conclusion: Surveys of randomly selected physicians are feasible to perform for medical malpractice cases. A pro-physician bias has little if any influence on the results.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Board of Family Medicine.