Decoding the meaning of medical guidelines and their medicolegal implications.
Journal
European journal of anaesthesiology
ISSN: 1365-2346
Titre abrégé: Eur J Anaesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8411711
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Oct 2023
20 Oct 2023
Historique:
medline:
24
10
2023
pubmed:
24
10
2023
entrez:
24
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Medical practice guidelines (MPGs) are important in medicine to ensure well tolerated and effective healthcare. They provide evidence-based recommendations for healthcare professionals in daily clinical settings. MPGs help patients and practitioners make informed decisions, ensure quality of care, allocate healthcare resources effectively and reduce legal liability. MPGs have medicolegal implications, as they influence clinical decision-making and patient outcomes, which can impact liability and malpractice cases. They define the standard of care within the healthcare industry and provide best practice recommendations. MPGs are a cornerstone of the informed consent process, as they facilitate a shared decision support system and they provide valuable evidence-based recommendations on various treatments or medical options. Finally, MPGs are also relevant in medical claims; thus, adherence to MPGs is highly encouraged in order to assure the best medical care. Nonetheless, MPGs have limitations and we advocate for wise usage of MPGs combined with the expertise of trained physicians that allows for individualisation and evidence-based recommendations. In this review, we describe the potential legal implications that MPGs may represent for healthcare providers and the role that MPGs have in daily practice at different stages in the doctor--patient relationship.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37872878
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001917
pii: 00003643-990000000-00135
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Références
Ruhl DS, Siegal G. Medical malpractice implications of clinical practice guidelines. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 157:175–177.
Wienke A, Hübner L, Gahn G. Facharztstandard und Leitlinien im Arzthaftungsrecht [Specialist standards and guidelines in medical malpractice law]. DGNeurologie 2020; 3:565–567.
Oza VM, El-Dika S, Adams MA. Reaching safe harbor: legal implications of clinical practice guidelines. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14:172–174.
Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). Stufenklasifikation nach Systematik. https://www.awmf.org/regelwerk/stufenklassifikation-nach-systematik.
Napierala H, Schuster A, Gehrke-Beck S, Heintze C. Transparency of clinical practice guideline funding: a cross-sectional analysis of the German AWMF registry. BMC Med Ethics 2023; 24:32.
Meybohm P, Ghanem A, von Dincklage F, et al. Digitale Leitlinien des 21. Jahrhunderts: Anforderungen an die strukturierte Entwicklung, Anwendung und Evaluation medizinischen Wissens [Digital guidelines of the twenty-first century: Requirements for the structured development, application and evaluation of medical knowledge]. Anaesthesiologie 2023; 72:584–589.