These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10115949)

  • 1. Medical staff peer review.
    Andresen DC
    QA Rev; 1991 Oct; 3(7):1, 8. PubMed ID: 10115949
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Medical peer review: the need to organize a protective approach.
    Mills DH
    Health Matrix Clevel; 1991; 1(1):67-76. PubMed ID: 10121880
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review/hospital privileges/credentialing.
    Springer EW
    Leg Med; 1994; ():57-81. PubMed ID: 7830486
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. They just don't get it.
    Hackney VH; Le Grand AC
    Hosp Law Newsl; 1992 Dec; 10(2):1-6. PubMed ID: 10122732
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Medical peer review under legal knife.
    Kosterlitz J
    Natl J (Wash); 1988 Mar; 20(13):820. PubMed ID: 10286588
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer review gets a big legal push.
    Riffer J
    Hospitals; 1986 Nov; 60(22):78. PubMed ID: 3770707
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Medical staff peer review and federal antitrust scrutiny.
    LaCava FW
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1985 Aug; 70(8):40-1. PubMed ID: 10272117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Courts and Congress shield peer review process from antitrust liability.
    Halper HR
    Bus Health; 1987 Jan; 4(3):59. PubMed ID: 10280004
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review complements QI efforts.
    O'Leary DS
    Jt Comm Perspect; 1991; 11(4):2-3, 5. PubMed ID: 10120864
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The legal perspective. How much process is due?
    Johnson RL
    Trustee; 1979 Oct; 32(10):12-4, 16, 19-20. PubMed ID: 10289216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review in the wake of Patrick.
    McCormick B
    Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recent legal developments affecting the medical staff.
    Weissburg C; Miller P
    Rev Fed Am Health Syst; 1989; 22(4):38, 40. PubMed ID: 10295739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. If you should lose a peer review suit.
    Holoweiko M
    Med Econ; 1988 Dec; 65(24):140-4, 147-8, 150-1 passim. PubMed ID: 10290905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget.
    Kelly JP
    Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Antitrust law and the medical staff.
    Holthaus D
    Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):23. PubMed ID: 10288093
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. New peer review law provides immunity with obligations.
    Valiant C
    Physician Exec; 1987; 13(3):26-7. PubMed ID: 10312139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Liability for peer review and privilege suspension.
    Davis CD
    Tex Hosp; 1984 Jul; 40(2):42. PubMed ID: 10267575
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The physician's rights and responsibilities in the peer review process.
    Curtis T
    Med Staff Couns; 1987; 1(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 10284317
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review after Patrick.
    Bierig J
    J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Jun; 21(6):135-9. PubMed ID: 10287912
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.