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.
132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2535582)
21. Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank. Snelson E Qual Assur Util Rev; 1992; 7(1):2-11. PubMed ID: 1603858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Civil liability of peer review participants: Patrick v. Burget and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. Ronai SE; Meng ME Conn Med; 1988 Sep; 52(9):537-40. PubMed ID: 3180804 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. What competition can do to peer review. Holoweiko M Med Econ; 1985 Aug; 62(17):122-7, 131-9. PubMed ID: 10278339 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. After Patrick, don't forget the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. King MM Trustee; 1988 Nov; 41(11):16, 22. PubMed ID: 10290280 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Courts and Congress shield peer review process from antitrust liability. Halper HR Bus Health; 1987 Jan; 4(3):59. PubMed ID: 10280004 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Oregon case raises questions about peer review. Davis CD Healthtexas; 1989 Jan; 44(7):7. PubMed ID: 10313055 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
29. Peer review after Patrick. Gebhard PG; Polk DJ Bull Am Coll Surg; 1988 Oct; 73(10):4-7. PubMed ID: 10289975 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Antitrust law and the medical staff. Holthaus D Trustee; 1988 Jul; 41(7):23. PubMed ID: 10288093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Implementation of "Health Care Quality Improvement Act" delayed; Supreme Court grants Certiorari in Patrick v. Burget. Rothschild IS Health Law Vigil; 1987 Nov; 10(23):1-3. PubMed ID: 10284536 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Eleventh Circuit allows state action defense in medical staff antitrust case. Miller RD Hosp Law Newsl; 1989 Jan; 6(3):1-5. PubMed ID: 10292016 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Pitfalls of peer review: lesson from the Patrick case. Vander Veer JB Physicians Manage; 1985 Oct; 25(10):162-3, 166-9. PubMed ID: 10278364 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Peer review: Patrick redux. Cohen HH Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 10104770 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Informal peer review actions: can they survive the Health Care Quality Improvement Act? Gleitz HG; Strickland NE Med Staff Couns; 1989; 3(3):25-31. PubMed ID: 10293721 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Some practical questions regarding the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. Gleitz HG Med Staff Couns; 1987; 1(2):24-34. PubMed ID: 10284644 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Legal aspects of the medical staff peer review process. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986--boon or bane? Couch JB Qual Assur Util Rev; 1988 Feb; 3(1):24-6. PubMed ID: 2980922 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Implementing the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. Pugsley SC Leg Med; 1990; ():217-42. PubMed ID: 2130197 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986--what it means to the physician. Curtis T Med Staff Couns; 1987; 1(2):19-23. PubMed ID: 10284643 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]