Assessing peer review in the quest for improved medical services: Part III.
Part I of this article explored flaws in the operation of peer review in the selection of articles for journal publication and decision-making in the award of research grants, and Part II described medical peer review, its practitioners, and the distinctions between medical peer review and other activities and processes aimed at improving the quality of medical performance in hospitals. This part of the article directs attention to how the courts respond when a physician, aggrieved by an adverse determination with regard to appointment, reappointment, or clinical privileges (credentialing) by the hospital based on medical peer review, seeks redress in the courts.
Hershey
N
N
University of Pittsburgh, PA 15261.
D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003406:Credentialing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D008504:Medical Staff Privileges / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010380:Peer Review / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States