Many hospitals are going through rough times as a result of a faulty economy, and skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs. Some hospitals have been forced to close as a result of economic woes in recent years; therefore, the need for clear medical practice guidelines is greater than ever before. 

If all hospitals set clear medical practice guidelines and management practice techniques, the cost of medical liability insurance would go down enough to lower the total cost of healthcare. The trickle down effect is a proven reality in the hospital industry, given that there is a strong correlation between the cost of consumer health-care insurance, and medical liability insurance for hospitals. 

The American Hospital Association seeks to promote accountability and transparency by using a management practice that holds doctors more accountable if they jeopardize the welfare of a patient. One such hospital management practice designed to benefit the patients is the fact that healthcare providers should be given incentive to adhere to evidence-based care, and to focus on safety and quality. 

Risky and innovative medical procedures that lack scientific evidence to back their practice can jeopardize the health of a patient, and violate practice guidelines. Such care should only be provided only if the patient willfully assents to the procedure. Doctors who suggest radical treatments are taking risks contrary to the aims of many practice guidelines and management practice preferences.  

Another important management practice that members of the American Hospital Association are implementing, is the quest to find sources of more compensation for medical professionals. It is a proven fact that people are less likely to perform their job well if they feel that they are not being paid well. Reasonable compensation for patients would come as a result of better doctor compensation. What is meant by reasonable patient compensation is the fact that doctors are better able to make patients “whole” after sustaining illness or injury.

 In the event of a malpractice suit, reasonable compensation would also help to remedy the non-economic and economic costs of malpractice injury.  Getting medicine right the first time is the priority of most hospitals. However, if a malpractice suit is brought to court, it would serve the entire community better if the claims process was not so adversarial. As a management practice, hospitals are hiring stronger legal teams to protect against malpractice suits.  

Hospital practice guidelines focus on preventing malpractice suits, while management practices focus on mitigating existing malpractice suits. These strategies have been adopted by many hospitals in order to avoid closure as a result of a faulty economy, and the many years it takes to recover from a serious malpractice suit or a series of frivolous malpractice suits. The idea is to make it harder for dissatisfied patients to sue doctors that do their best to provide adequate health care at a reasonable .

The
outcome of medical treatment is not always favorable. Doctors do their best to
treat patients and sometimes, the outcome is less than desirable for both
parties. Doctors must move onto the next patient because their job is to care
for the sick. However, the doctor’s alleged error stays with the patient
forever. Medical malpractice laws provide that those alleging medical
negligence prove several elements of medical malpractice to win a case. 

These
several factors to prove are designed to help courts differentiate a legitimate
suit from a frivolous suit. It is a reality that there are medical procedures
that yield unfavorable results without any evidence of medical negligence in
the case; these cases are not considered malpractice. Every medical procedure
has a possibility of something going wrong. Doctors are obligated to discuss
risk factors of any medical procedures. 

Doctors are required to keep with professional standards
of practice with their patients. This is because they assume the role of
provider of health care. Therefore, it is their responsibility to administer
medical treatment to the best of their ability. The standard to which a doctor
is held depends on several factors. Doctors cannot be held liable for medical
malpractice if the circumstances could not give the doctor the appropriate
resources to perform a medical procedure. For example, a doctor who could not
provide his or her patient’s heart transplant due to the rarity of O negative
organ donors would not be guilty of medical negligence. 

The patient’s inability
to be healed is a matter of providence and not negligence. However, if the doctor
transplanted the wrong heart which resulted in the death of a patient, then the
doctor would be guilty of medical negligence. Patients are entitled to be
informed of the possible consequences of any medical procedure. If the doctor
warned that the chances of recovery for using a slightly different blood type
heart were less than appealing and the patient still insisted, the doctor is
most likely not guilty of medical negligence. This example is complex because
the doctor did not go in line with the hospital’s standard of care; but had the
intent of healing the patient by playing low odds with the patients’ consent.
The extent of the medical negligence, here, is arguable.  

In addition to substandard care and negligence, the
patient must prove that the care that was received did, in fact, harm or injure
the patient. This seems like an obvious prospect; however, it is almost certain
that the patient was not in the best of health before receiving medical care.
Therefore, the exact origin of the current medical condition can sometimes be
more ambiguous. It is also important for the court to consider whether the
disease or injury would have happened without the doctor’s alleged medical
negligence.  

Medical malpractice cases are not as clear-cut as being
in a worse condition than before receiving care from the doctor. It is an
unfortunate fact that many patients do not recover from treatment. Determining
the extent to which the unfortunate outcome is a result of medical malpractice
is an arguable matter of fact that sometimes must be settled in court.  
    

Psychiatrists and their patients have a special relationship. It is a relationship based on trust. Psychiatrists are required to keep all information relating to medical records confidential and away from public hands. Any breach of this promise is considered medical malpractice. Newly licensed psychiatrists are required to recite the Hippocratic oath. The oath does not carry legal weight.

However, all patient-psychiatrist privilege laws stem from the line in the Oath, "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning all such should be kept secret."  

The psychiatrist-patient confidentiality is legally rooted in the Hippocratic Oath. Patient-psychiatrist confidentiality stems from the fact that when a prospective patient seeks the advice or care from a psychiatric physician, the patient might not speak freely if such information were to be public. The solemnity of the confidentiality between psychiatrists and patients is a matter of ensuring the best possible care for patients. Patients must communicate truthfully and openly what is wrong for a doctor to be able to administer optimal care.  

It is for this reason that when tacit agreements of confidentiality between psychiatrists and patients are breached, the patient can sue for medical malpractice. The publicity of medical records, and the confidentiality of psychiatric problems becoming jeopardized, is not up to the physician, but the patient. Such a breach of trust would prevent patients from freely speaking with their psychiatrist or other doctor, leaving a potentially serious condition untreated. Breaching the psychiatrist-patient confidentiality agreement is in neither the professional's, nor the patient's interest. Breaches pose a threat to the overall quality of care that patients receive. By virtue of this fact, malpractice suits apply to this breach.  Contact a malpractice lawyer to consult your case.

Doctors do not only treat patients by administering medicine or performing surgery. In fact, the way a psychiatrist treats his or her patient is as crucial as the types of psychoactive drugs they can administer. Divulging sensitive medical information to humiliate the patient, and will prevent that patient and future patients from freely expressing what ails him or her. Trust is part of the medical practice, in fact, it is the way in which all medical care is administered.

Divulging medical secrets is an egregious form of malpractice, which raises questions of the trustworthiness of a doctor's treatment. It shows a lack of respect for the profession and the humanity of the patient. Therefore, such malpractice is worthy of reputation damaging lawsuits and monetary compensation for the offended patient.

To physicians, the standard of care is the diagnostic and treatment process that a doctor should practice for a given illness, patient, and set of circumstances. This is not entirely different from the legal definition of the phrase, "standard of care." In fact, lawyers use this phrase to mean the level of care at which the average care provider gives the patient in a given area of medicine. These two definitions are very similar. The medical definition of the standard of care is more specific and scientific, whereas, the legal definition of the phrase is more oriented towards tradition and medical precedent. 

Many medical malpractice laws are based on medical professional guidelines for the standard of care for common illnesses and certain types of patients. It would not be possible to codify all of the possible variants in determining if the proper standard of care has been administered to the patient. It is for this reason that malpractice lawyers and judges rely on medical associations, doctor's guilds, and other professional community guidelines to litigate disputes over existing malpractice laws.

Many states have adopted malpractice laws that mirror the American Heart Association's guidelines for malpractice suits involving heart patients. Guidelines AHA uses are meant to uphold the standard of care in medical malpractice laws. This is because most lawmakers are not physicians, and are not qualified to set standards of care. Therefore, the standard of care basis of malpractice laws is provided by the medical community itself; namely guidelines AHA has provided.   

The American Hospital Association (AHA) provides more general guidelines for the standard of care in accordance with state and federal malpractice laws. Guidelines AHA provides ensure a standard of care as well as rights to privacy throughout most American hospitals that are part of the AHA. Guidelines AHA sets are critical in malpractice suits because a hospital that cannot live up to its own standards and obligations to patients, should be punished for breach of ethics.

In absence of malpractice laws, the guidelines AHA sets, or other medical associations, are used in malpractice suits as evidence. Businesses, including hospitals, must live up to their claims to avoid deceiving their clients. The standard of care must be the same for all patients. Doctors and hospitals are, for the most part, compliant with the fulfillment of their obligation to the patient. If a doctor makes a negligent error with regard to standard of care, then malpractice laws determine that the patient has a clear civil case against the hospital or the doctor.

The American Heart Association's standard of care is ethically binding to most cardiologists and health care professionals treating a patient's heart or cardiovascular condition. AHA guidelines, as well as the general medical community, requires that indigent patients must be given the same standard of care that paying patients get. Physicians are required to treat patients without discrimination. By law, emergency room doctors may not deny a patient of care.

Indigent patients must receive medical care, and malpractice laws hold doctors accountable for the way they are treated. Contrary to myths, indigent patients do not frequently sue to get out of debt for their medical bills. Doctors are subject to the same medical liability rules.