2018
DOI: 10.1097/pts.0000000000000460
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Perspectives on Patient Safety and Medical Malpractice: A Comparison of Medical and Legal Systems in Italy and the United States

Abstract: Based on our findings, we propose that the Italian system might benefit from assertively adopting some concepts from the U.S. system. In particular, we consider the role of the law and Italian medicolegal experts as key facilitators for the integration of patient safety and risk management units within Italian healthcare facilities.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, this contributes exclusively to shift the focus from the health professional -the last causal link in a complex organizational process -to the institutionally delegated person in charge of the management choices capable of directing and guiding the organization of activities within the structures 12 . Following this path, the common law systems of the UK/ USA 18 and Italian legislators have developed liability reforms in an attempt to divert the claims of harmed patients from the liability of the professional to the liability of the healthcare facility 19 . In the UK, the system has been in place since 1995 following the institution of the National Health Service Litigation Authority to administer the fund established by the National Health Service to assist Health Service organizations and bodies sharing costs arising from negligence, health care, and professional liability in general.…”
Section: Inapplicability Of the Team Responsibility Scheme To The "Board" Responsibility Model: Towards The End Of The "Team Responsibilimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, this contributes exclusively to shift the focus from the health professional -the last causal link in a complex organizational process -to the institutionally delegated person in charge of the management choices capable of directing and guiding the organization of activities within the structures 12 . Following this path, the common law systems of the UK/ USA 18 and Italian legislators have developed liability reforms in an attempt to divert the claims of harmed patients from the liability of the professional to the liability of the healthcare facility 19 . In the UK, the system has been in place since 1995 following the institution of the National Health Service Litigation Authority to administer the fund established by the National Health Service to assist Health Service organizations and bodies sharing costs arising from negligence, health care, and professional liability in general.…”
Section: Inapplicability Of the Team Responsibility Scheme To The "Board" Responsibility Model: Towards The End Of The "Team Responsibilimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, according to the "no-fault system" the extent of compensation is generally lower than that concerning the tort system, and therefore with budgets similar to the costs of the tort system more patients would be compensated. Finally, it is crucial to bear in mind that, contrary to the negligence-based system that "objectifies" medical liability and according to the "no-fault system", physicians might be unpunished, and hence would be strongly discouraged from practicing "defensive medicine" 17 , which represents a huge cost for Public Health 24 . The "no-fault system" benefits both physicians and patients, and fosters a good relationship between them 21 .…”
Section: The No-fault Compensation Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is a deep interrelation between patient safety and risk management (di Luca et al, 2019). However, conflict and misunderstanding emerge when the communication between surgeons and their patients is not transparent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%