Special report on medical staff relationships. Handling "impaired" health care professionals.
Applying the doctrine of corporate negligence, courts will, in appropriate circumstances, deem hospitals and other institutional health care providers responsible for the quality of patient care in their institutions and for the consequences of negligent physician performance that could have been discovered and prevented. See, e.g., Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hosp., 33 Ill. 2d 326 (1965), cert, denied, 383 U.S. 946 (1966); Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hosp., 99 Wis. 2d 709 (1981); Elam v. College Park Hosp., 132 Cal. App. 3d 332 (1982). In such a climate, and with Data Bank reporting now a reality, neither institutional providers nor health care professionals on their medical staffs can afford to ignore problems of practitioner impairment. Recognizing this reality, some state laws now mandate an organized approach--such as the establishment of an impaired practitioners committee--to problems of professional impairment. However, whether state-mandated or not, providers must have policies and procedures in place to insure not only that impaired professionals are referred to available treatment programs, but that they fully participate in and complete such programs, and achieve rehabilitation, before they return to practice at the institution. The earlier detection and treatment are initiated, preferably before peer review action becomes necessary, the better for patients, institutions, and practitioners themselves.
Paine
S J
SJ
D016365:Liability, Legal; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010815:Physician Impairment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010934:Planning Techniques; D011367:Professional Staff Committees / Q000458:organization & administration; D012308:Risk Management / Q000379:methods*; D014481:United States