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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [No improvement of disciplinary jurisprudence since the implementation of the Individual Health Care Professions Act (IHCP Act)].
    Author: Hout FA, Cuperus-Bosma JM, de Peuter OR, Hubben JH, van der Wal G.
    Journal: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2004 Jan 17; 148(3):135-9. PubMed ID: 14964025.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the number and nature of the complaints, the complainants, the accused health professionals and the sanctions imposed by the disciplinary boards before and after the Individual Health Care Professions Act (IHCP Act) came into effect at the end of 1997. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective. METHOD: The authors examined all 4980 verdicts pronounced by the disciplinary boards in the first instance during the period 1995-1997 (before the IHCP Act) and then during the period 1999-2001 (after the IHCP Act), together with the resulting appeal procedures involving physicians, dentists, pharmacists and midwives. The following were noted: the year of the verdict, the number and nature of the complaints, the types of complainants, the categories of professionals accused, the nature of the verdicts, and the number of appeal procedures. RESULTS: During the first period, 2453 complaints were brought before the disciplinary board, compared to 2527 during the second period. Most of the complaints were made against physicians (92% in both periods). The number of complaints that were declared to be justified fell from 19% to 15% (p < 0.001). In both periods, approximately half of the complaints concerned 'lack of care or inadequate care' or 'incorrect treatment', the most frequent verdict was a warning (67% and 72%, respectively), and appeals were lodged against almost one-third of the verdicts. The number of complaints submitted by the Inspectorate for Health Care decreased from 47 to 19. CONCLUSION: In any important aspects, the IHCP Act did not lead to improvement in the disciplinary jurisprudence. The decrease in the number of complaints that were declared to be justified could be explained by the change in composition of the disciplinary boards prescribed by the IHCP Act (more lawyers and less fellow professionals). Informing citizens about disciplinary jurisprudence and other procedures for lodging complaints may increase the number of justified complaints and hence the number of 'justified' verdicts. There is a need for further clarification of the tasks and responsibility of the Inspectorate for Health Care in case of complaints to the disciplinary boards.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]