321 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10114742)
1. Hospital liability for defamation of character during the peer review process: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words may cost me my job.
Oliverio J
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon); 1991 Sep; (151):7-28. PubMed ID: 10114742
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The National Practitioner Data Bank: the first 18 months.
Puryear MA; Politzer RM; Anderson J; Mullan F
Physician Exec; 1993; 19(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 10125933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Implementing the Health Care Quality Improvement Act.
Pugsley SC
Leg Med; 1990; ():217-42. PubMed ID: 2130197
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Data bank reporting requirements pose vexing issues.
Tapay N
Physician Exec; 1992; 18(1):53-4. PubMed ID: 10116425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act in the courts: fast-acting cure for physician peer review headaches?
Donovan RE
J Health Hosp Law; 1995; 28(5):257-68, 312. PubMed ID: 10156292
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Legal aspects of the medical staff peer review process. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986--boon or bane?
Couch JB
Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 Feb; 3(1):24-6. PubMed ID: 2980922
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Strategies for eliminating unfairness in peer review.
Rozovsky FA; Rozovsky LE
Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 10115449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The antitrust laws and the medical peer review process.
Hammack JM
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1993; 9():419-50. PubMed ID: 10126945
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. State medical peer review: high cost but no benefit--is it time for a change?
Scheutzow SO
Am J Law Med; 1999; 25(1):7-60. PubMed ID: 10207570
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Court cases testing scope of federal law's peer review immunity.
Burda D
Mod Healthc; 1992 Aug; 22(34):80. PubMed ID: 10119842
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The National Practitioner Data Bank: coping with the uncertainties.
Lovitky JA
J Health Law; 2000; 33(2):355-79. PubMed ID: 11010448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Adapting to the National Practitioner Data Bank: perspectives for physicians.
Gagliano RD; Butler DL
Med Staff Couns; 1991; 5(4):1-9. PubMed ID: 10114111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Data bank has operational impact. Proper peer review can protect hospitals from antitrust and defamation suits.
Purtell DL
Health Prog; 1990 Nov; 71(9):66-71. PubMed ID: 10107457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Operation of the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Rothschild IS
J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Aug; 25(8):225-31, 241. PubMed ID: 10123438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Is HCQIA (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) protecting peer review from antitrust claims?
Cross LL
Healthspan; 1993 Jun; 10(6):11-3. PubMed ID: 10127301
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply?
Meghrigian AG
Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):9-16. PubMed ID: 10116795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review/hospital privileges/credentialing.
Springer EW
Leg Med; 1994; ():57-81. PubMed ID: 7830486
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Should due process be part of hospital peer review?
Segall SE; Pearl W
South Med J; 1993 Mar; 86(3):368-9. PubMed ID: 8451682
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The peer review privilege: a dying cause?
McKinney P
J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jul; 25(7):201-11, 215. PubMed ID: 10123592
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Antitrust. Is quality review in jeopardy?
Pollner F
Med World News; 1988 Jun; 29(12):34-6, 38, 43-7. PubMed ID: 10287973
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
