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.
127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11188176)
1. Physicians denied access to credentialing file data. Amaral v. St. Cloud Hospital. Hosp Law Newsl; 2000 Dec; 18(2):1-5. PubMed ID: 11188176 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Courts examine use of peer review documents. Young v. Saldanha; Ashokan v. Nevada. Hosp Law Newsl; 1994 Jun; 11(8):5-8. PubMed ID: 10184108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The confidentiality of peer review records: Adams vs St. Francis Hospital. Reid DL Kans Nurse; 1998 Apr; 73(4):6. PubMed ID: 10603829 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Courts beginning to address confidentiality of physicians' credentialing records. Dawson JS Healthspan; 1994 Jun; 11(6):3-5. PubMed ID: 10135152 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Promoting better health care: policy arguments for concurrent quality assurance and attorney-client hospital incident report privileges. Dollar CJ Health Matrix Clevel; 1993; 3(1):259-308. PubMed ID: 10138438 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Legal review: a case study from California--the sharing of peer review information between hospitals and nonhospital providers. Brown LC Top Health Inf Manage; 1994 May; 14(4):68-73. PubMed ID: 10134763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Incident reports protected from discovery and in camera review. Carr v. Howard. West JC J Healthc Risk Manag; 1998; 18(3):63-4. PubMed ID: 10184976 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Medical staff records exempt from discovery. Regan WA Hosp Prog; 1982 Apr; 63(4):72-3. PubMed ID: 10254841 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Protecting hospital records from discovery. Ropiequet JL Physician Exec; 1993; 19(2):35-8. PubMed ID: 10129389 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Kansas ruling threatens peer review. Adams v. St. Francis Medical Center. DeWitt AL Cost Qual Q J; 1999 Jun; 5(2):7-9. PubMed ID: 10539013 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Important hospital confidentiality interests are strengthened through Illinois court's denial of staff privileges material discovery in malpractice action. O'Brien JP Health Law Vigil; 1982 Feb; 5(4):5-6. PubMed ID: 10254162 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Facing the limits on uses of medical and peer review information: are high technology and confidentiality on a collision course? Brown LC; Stanton WC; Paye W Whittier Law Rev; 1997; 19(1):97-118. PubMed ID: 12071205 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review: a secret affair? Dunn LJ Trustee; 1978 Apr; 31(4):9-11, 13. PubMed ID: 10307158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Special report on health care delivery systems and medical staff relationships. Peer review in the era of integrated delivery systems: it's time for some massive paradigm shifts. Brown LC Health Care Law Newsl; 1994 Jun; 9(6):16-21. PubMed ID: 10134404 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]