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

Journal Abstract Search

82 related items for PubMed ID: 6564654

  • 1. Brain damage in SICU: nurses' responsibilities. Case in point: Johnson v. Hermann Hospital (659 S.W.2d 124--TX).
    Tammelleo AD.
    Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1984 Jun; 25(1):4. PubMed ID: 6564654
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Legal issues in nursing.
    Dean KA.
    Focus AACN; 1982 Jun; 9(4):17-8. PubMed ID: 6922050
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Legal basis of decision-making in critical care.
    Cornock M.
    Nurs Crit Care; 2002 Jun; 7(5):235-40. PubMed ID: 12448505
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. The legal liabilities of critical care. A case of negligence?
    Bennett HM.
    Crit Care Nurse; 1984 Jun; 4(6):18. PubMed ID: 6568960
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. X-ray machine falls on patient: nurses' liability issue. Case in point: Carter v. Anderson Memorial Hosp. (325 S.E. 2d 78--SC).
    Tammelleo AD.
    Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1985 Apr; 25(11):2. PubMed ID: 3846311
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Nurse-expert's testimony held admissible. Case in point: Wickliffe v. Sunrise Hosp., Inc. (766 P. 2d 1322--NV (1988)).
    Tammelleo AD.
    Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1989 Mar; 29(10):2. PubMed ID: 2704834
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Nurse "log rolls" solo: adverse effects. Case in point: Routh v. St. John's Mercy Med. Center (785 S.W. 2d 744--MO (1990)).
    Tammelleo AD.
    Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1990 Jul; 31(2):4. PubMed ID: 2377732
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 'Excited utterance' exception to hearsay rule. Case on point: Montanez v. State, 2003WL 1856529 S.W.3d--TX.
    Nurs Law Regan Rep; 2003 Apr; 43(11):2. PubMed ID: 12764978
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. TX: expert reports of RN & MD amended: court upheld admission of amended reports. HealthSouth Corp. v. Searcy, 2007 TXCA 05-06-01537 (06/29/2007) S.W.3d -TX.
    Nurs Law Regan Rep; 2007 Oct; 48(5):3. PubMed ID: 17992821
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. The dilemma of the disobedient nurse.
    Wahn EV.
    Health Care Can; 1979 Feb; 21(2):43, 45-6. PubMed ID: 10240558
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. [Monitoring labor from the forensic viewpoint].
    Schneider KT.
    Gynakologe; 1994 Aug; 27(4):212-21. PubMed ID: 7959307
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Nurses qualify as expert witnesses. Case in point: Page v. Wilson et als (272 S.E.2d 8 - N.C.).
    Regan WA.
    Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1981 Mar; 21(10):2. PubMed ID: 6908092
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Nurses' "sudden death" testimony inadmissible. Case in point: Perez v. Hartmann (543 N.E. 2d 1023--IL (1989)).
    Tammelleo AD.
    Regan Rep Nurs Law; 1990 Jan; 30(8):2. PubMed ID: 2305102
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 5.