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.
93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2726142)
1. The medical board investigation process. Athy D Ohio Med; 1989 May; 85(5):379-83. PubMed ID: 2726142 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Medical malpractice panel. How has it worked? Flynn JT N Y State J Med; 1981 Jun; 81(7):1112-5. PubMed ID: 6942259 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Reallocating liability to medical staff review committee members: a response to the hospital corporate liability doctrine. Peters GG Am J Law Med; 1984; 10(1):115-38. PubMed ID: 6391158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Medical review organizations: a model state immunity statute. Kopit WG; Shapiro LE; Eaton KB Group Pract; 1980 Apr; 29(4):17-20. PubMed ID: 10273186 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Medical malpractice: thinking about the federal role. Blumstein JF J Health Hum Resour Adm; 1989; 12(1):149-65. PubMed ID: 10296434 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. PRO release of medical information. Implications for Missouri physicians and hospitals. Akhter MN Mo Med; 1985 Nov; 82(11):695-7. PubMed ID: 4069102 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Statutory protection for peer review committees--can it be waived? Berg RN J Med Assoc Ga; 1988 Jul; 77(7):586-7. PubMed ID: 3171431 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Here's what you should know about the Michigan Peer Review Organization. Williams T Mich Med; 1987 Dec; 86(12):792-7. PubMed ID: 3696003 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The defensive effect of medical practice policies in malpractice litigation. Hall MA Law Contemp Probl; 1991; 54(1-2):Spring 119-45. PubMed ID: 10114970 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. HMO industry voices concern about PRO review. Interview by Cathy Tokarski. Doherty JF Hospitals; 1987 Apr; 61(7):72-3. PubMed ID: 3549522 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Misunderstanding possible in scope of work. Harrop DE Pa Med; 1989 Jan; 92(1):26. PubMed ID: 2922197 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Healthcare law firms find malpractice verdict 'chilling'. Burda D Mod Healthc; 1991 Jan; 21(2):39. PubMed ID: 10108473 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The peer review process: new focus, new directions. Sweet D Ohio Med; 1987 Jul; 83(7):464, 467-71, 485. PubMed ID: 3627684 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A 20-year experience with malpractice screening panels. Kridelbaugh WW; Palmisano DJ Bull Am Coll Surg; 1997 May; 82(5):21-3. PubMed ID: 10167808 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A guide to MPRO. White TE Mich Med; 1987 Dec; 86(12):801-4. PubMed ID: 3696005 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Complaint review procedures of state licensing boards. Eckstein EC Gen Dent; 1997; 45(3):294-7. PubMed ID: 9515434 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Illinois Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of state peer review act. Peterson RN Health Law Vigil; 1984 Jun; 7(13):3-4. PubMed ID: 10273522 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Areawide medical care evaluation. Reeder MP Med Rec News; 1979 Feb; 50(1):20-2, 24-5, 28 passim. PubMed ID: 10273121 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]