336 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15881498)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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. 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]
7. 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]
8. Protecting the confidentiality of peer review information.
McCann RW
J AHIMA; 1993 Dec; 64(12):52-6; quiz 57-8. PubMed ID: 10130489
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Protecting hospital records from discovery.
Ropiequet JL
Physician Exec; 1993; 19(2):35-8. PubMed ID: 10129389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. FL: does peer review apply to nurses notes?: defendant dr. attempts to invoke peer privilege.
Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1999 Feb; 39(9):3. PubMed ID: 10223027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Protection of quality assurance and peer review data.
Stevens M
Health Law Can; 1992; 13(2):167-72. PubMed ID: 10126149
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. To review or not to review: antitrust liabilities and peer review protections.
Acevedo LJ
J Health Hosp Law; 1994 Nov; 27(11):321-36, 351-2. PubMed ID: 10138598
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Special report: new paradigms in credentialing. Peer review process called into question.
Hosp Peer Rev; 1999 Aug; 24(8):123-6. PubMed ID: 10621289
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Federal court finds immunity under HCQIA. Rogers v. Columbia/HCA of Central Louisiana.
Hosp Law Newsl; 1998 Oct; 15(12):6-8. PubMed ID: 10186229
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. New ruling in NC affirms peer review privacy.
Hosp Peer Rev; 1999 Oct; 24(10):153-4. PubMed ID: 10621281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A look at Florida's malpractice crisis.
Coleman FC
Pathologist; 1985 Aug; 39(8):26-9. PubMed ID: 10272521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The conditions for state action in Florida's health-care market.
Harkreader S; Imershein AW
J Health Soc Behav; 1999 Jun; 40(2):159-74. PubMed ID: 10467762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Peer review puzzle. Supreme Court sidesteps appeal to keep records closed.
Blesch G
Mod Healthc; 2008 Jan; 38(2):17. PubMed ID: 18260535
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
