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.
156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2136667)
1. Assessing peer review in the quest for improved medical services: Part III. Hershey N Qual Assur Util Rev; 1990 May; 5(2):63-8. PubMed ID: 2136667 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer review/hospital privileges/credentialing. Springer EW Leg Med; 1994; ():57-81. PubMed ID: 7830486 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessing peer review in the quest for improved medical services: Part II. Hershey N; Bontempo LC Qual Assur Util Rev; 1990 Feb; 5(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 2136661 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Federal District Court rejects all claims by aggrieved physician. Stitzell v. York Memorial Osteopathic Hospital. Hershey N Hosp Law Newsl; 1992 Sep; 9(11):1-7. PubMed ID: 10183725 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
7. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986: an overview of its immunity provisions. Miles JJ Med Staff Couns; 1987; 1(2):1-9. PubMed ID: 10284641 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Implementing the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. Pugsley SC J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Feb; 23(2):42-52. PubMed ID: 10106379 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Legal immunity for medical peer-review programs. New policies explored. Curran WJ N Engl J Med; 1989 Jan; 320(4):233-5. PubMed ID: 2783210 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
13. Peer review in the wake of Patrick. McCormick B Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):17. PubMed ID: 10288090 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The peer review privilege: a dying cause? McKinney P J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jul; 25(7):201-11, 215. PubMed ID: 10123592 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Peer review after Patrick case is alive and well. Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Oct; 62(20):34. PubMed ID: 3169708 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The Patrick case: will it hinder peer review? Holthaus D Hospitals; 1988 Jun; 62(12):56. PubMed ID: 3378770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Are hospital peer review committees immune from federal antitrust liability? FitzGerald RM; Howarth BM Med Group Manage J; 1989; 36(1):14. PubMed ID: 10291907 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Peer review immunity after Patrick v. Burget. Kelly JP Healthspan; 1988 Jun; 5(6):2-5. PubMed ID: 10288658 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]