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 *

228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10252366)

  • 1. Peer group committee tackles physician behavior problems.
    Skillicorn SA
    Hosp Med Staff; 1981 Jul; 10(7):2-6. PubMed ID: 10252366
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A process for objective review of physician performance.
    Haun JP
    Physician Exec; 1992; 18(3):51-5. PubMed ID: 10118411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Joint Commission's medical staff standards for 2001.
    Barratt KB
    Health Care Law Mon; 2001 Jan; ():7-10. PubMed ID: 11246836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. MD defames colleague in staff committee meeting.
    Regan WA
    Hosp Prog; 1979 Sep; 60(9):96,98. PubMed ID: 468199
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comment: Peer review privilege established by Illinois Medical Studies Act does not extend to investigations undertaken by hospital administrations.
    Mustes JJ; Popovits RM
    J Health Hosp Law; 1988 Aug; 21(8):191-4. PubMed ID: 10288421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The impaired physician.
    Davis RP
    Case Stud Health Adm; 1980; 2():184-9. PubMed ID: 10250494
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Audit system upgrades performance, downplays discipline.
    Waters JH
    Hosp Med Staff; 1979 Jun; 8(6):2-6. PubMed ID: 10242197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer review splits Calif. medical community.
    Burda D
    Mod Healthc; 1988 Oct; 18(44):98. PubMed ID: 10290221
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 10. Physician challenged closed staff in hemodialysis unit.
    Regan WA
    Hosp Prog; 1978 Dec; 59(12):70. PubMed ID: 711209
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An approach to the impaired physician.
    Mandell WJ
    Physician Exec; 1994 May; 20(5):7-14. PubMed ID: 10171850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. MDs hit ceiling on ground rules for nondoctors.
    Med World News; 1979 Nov; 20(23):40-1. PubMed ID: 10314492
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. California court clarifies medical staff hearing procedures.
    Christensen JD
    Health Law Vigil; 1988 Apr; 11(9):7-8. PubMed ID: 10286816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Idaho Court: peer review immunity statute valid.
    Hattis PA; McCullum JD
    Health Law Vigil; 1987 Nov; 10(24):1-3. PubMed ID: 10284895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Is this peer review or revenge?
    Cassidy R
    Med Econ; 1981 Mar; 58(6):80-3, 87, 89-91. PubMed ID: 10250276
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Court upholds law's immunities in peer review cases.
    Kadzielski MA
    Health Prog; 1990; 71(6):21, 31. PubMed ID: 10105569
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is there a proctor in the house?
    Koska MT
    Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):65. PubMed ID: 3378774
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 19. The surgeon addict.
    Marek-Johnson RM
    Case Stud Health Adm; 1980; 2():190-3. PubMed ID: 10317074
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Staff privileges--$2 million antitrust judgment reversed.
    Carlson DR
    Health Law Vigil; 1986 Oct; 9(21):1-4. PubMed ID: 10284024
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.