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 *

214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15018214)

  • 1. The co-regulation of medical discipline: challenging medical peer review.
    Thomas D
    J Law Med; 2004 Feb; 11(3):382-9. PubMed ID: 15018214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. [Recent disciplinary committee rulings foster defensive medicine].
    van Weel C
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Aug; 142(33):1854-5. PubMed ID: 9856164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The fox guarding the henhouse: how the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and State peer review protection statutes have helped protect bad faith peer review in the medical community.
    van Geertruyden YH
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 2001; 18(1):239-71. PubMed ID: 15255061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Health Care Quality Improvement Act and NPDB: where are we now?
    Brennan ED
    QRC Advis; 1999 Nov; 16(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 10622805
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Time to reconsider "without cause" provisions in employment contracts.
    Isackson C; Meinhardt R
    J Med Pract Manage; 1999; 15(2):105-8. PubMed ID: 15318440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The future for peer review. Florida's constitutional amendment chills quality community.
    Glabman M
    Trustee; 2005 Apr; 58(4):6-10, 12, 1. PubMed ID: 15881498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. New Zealand doctors' attitudes towards the complaints and disciplinary process.
    Cunningham W
    N Z Med J; 2004 Jul; 117(1198):U973. PubMed ID: 15326496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review immunity: history, operation, and recent decisions--has HCQIA accomplished its goals?
    Cassidy MA
    Health Care Law Mon; 2002 May; ():3-9. PubMed ID: 12436737
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Health Care Complaints Commission and nurses.
    Cohen S
    Lamp; 1998 Mar; 55(2):30-1. PubMed ID: 10025314
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Antitrust law: a remedy for poor peer review.
    Peacock EE
    Bull Am Coll Surg; 1996 Mar; 81(3):35-40. PubMed ID: 10156758
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Views of physicians, disciplinary board members and practicing lawyers on the new statutory disciplinary system for health care in The Netherlands.
    Cuperus-Bosma JM; Hout FA; Hubben JH; van der Wal G
    Health Policy; 2006 Jul; 77(2):202-11. PubMed ID: 16125274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Professional medical discipline: an overview.
    Vacanti CJ
    N Y State J Med; 1989 Apr; 89(4):216-8. PubMed ID: 2733874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. MMA peer review program to monitor quality of care.
    Hanson PC
    Minn Med; 1993 Apr; 76(4):31-3. PubMed ID: 8515734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [A lack of understanding of the rulings by disciplinary committees].
    Hubben JH
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Aug; 142(33):1851-3. PubMed ID: 9856163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [8 years of peer review in the context of accreditation].
    Mortelmans E
    Rev Belge Med Dent (1984); 2007; 62(2):93-103. PubMed ID: 18506958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The ultimate litmus test.
    Moran T
    Tex Med; 1998 Sep; 94(9):41-3. PubMed ID: 9747143
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer reviews. Expert opinions and unsatisfactory professional conduct.
    Taylor K
    Lamp; 1998 Aug; 55(7):19. PubMed ID: 10025358
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preserve immunity with proper peer review procedures.
    Regan J; Hadley E; Pursell R
    Tenn Med; 2010 Jan; 103(1):41-3. PubMed ID: 20108867
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.