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.
107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23638515)
1. PEER REVIEW: statements made during peer review activity may not be defamatory. Davis v. Hildyard. West JC J Healthc Risk Manag; 2005; 25(3):41-2. PubMed ID: 23638515 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
4. 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]
5. Immunity provisions: they must be read carefully. Ironside v. Simi Valley Hospital. Hosp Law Newsl; 2001 Feb; 18(4):6-8. PubMed ID: 11213496 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Kentucky statute does not protect peer review information. Sisters of Charity Health Systems, Inc. v. Raikes. West JC J Healthc Risk Manag; 1999; 19(2):50-1. PubMed ID: 10538018 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Nurse peer review records not totally privileged. Case on point: Adams v. St. Francis Regional Med. Ctr., 955 P.2d 1169-KS (1998). Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1998 Jul; 39(2):4. PubMed ID: 10067615 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A reevaluation of physician recredentialing. Farnsworth PB N Y State J Med; 1990 Nov; 90(11):531-2. PubMed ID: 2287494 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Arnett v. Dal Cielo: peer review confidentiality threatened by medical board investigational subpoenas. Isackson C; McCahill M Health Care Law Newsl; 1995 Nov; 10(11):3-5. PubMed ID: 10184475 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
17. New Jersey appellate court rules on hospital's internal procedures. Ende v. Cohen. Hosp Law Newsl; 1998 Jan; 15(3):5-8. PubMed ID: 10176087 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Maryland Court rejects challenge to peer review processes. Sadler v. Dimensions Health Corporation. Hosp Law Newsl; 2002 Nov; 20(1):5-7. PubMed ID: 12412313 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The 2007 session of the General Assembly with a compendium of Maryland insurance law. Littman B Md Med; 2007; 8(2):18-30. PubMed ID: 17695367 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]