IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/rdepol/v5y2000i03p183-202_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of physician risk management: Potential problems for patient safety

Author

Listed:
  • LIANG, BRYAN A.

Abstract

Physician risk management (RM) has been mandated around the world in an effort to reduce pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss associated with avoidable patient injury. However, there has been little empirical RM assessment to determine whether physicians obtain an increased understanding of the law, clinical obligations defined by law, and reduced numbers of injury suits. Here, 210 US primary care physicians were sent a survey requesting demographic information on RM activities, the definition of negligence, and evaluation of ten patient injury jury verdict case scenarios; 138 physicians responded. Although physicians participated in a broad array of RM activities, none were positively associated with overall concordance with case verdicts; indeed, substantive self-study and RM seminar attendance

Suggested Citation

  • Liang, Bryan A., 2000. "The effectiveness of physician risk management: Potential problems for patient safety," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 183-202, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:5:y:2000:i:03:p:183-202_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1357530900000181/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:5:y:2000:i:03:p:183-202_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/rdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.