Peer review committees and state licensing boards: responding to allegations of physician misconduct.
Although physicians tend to be more concerned about malpractice actions, adjudication of complaints of alleged physician misconduct by peer review organizations and state licensing authorities can have equally serious consequences. Unlike medical malpractice, no patient injury is necessary to support the claim of alleged misconduct. Unlike malpractice, in which a plaintiff must be the injured party, in administrative peer review, colleagues, family members, and patients may all qualify as potential complainants. Unlike malpractice, where the standard of care is what the average prudent practitioner would be expected to do in similar circumstances, in peer review, the standard of care is the code that the organization has endorsed and to which the individual practitioner has agreed by choosing to join the organization. Forensic psychiatrists who may serve either as experts for a peer review or state board investigation or as peer review committee members must understand the legal foundation of the process and the attendant psychological and sociopolitical forces affecting the different parties.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. donald_meyer@hms.harvard.edu
Donald J
DJ
Meyer
Marilyn
M
Price
D026683:Advisory Committees; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D006801:Humans; D008004:Licensure; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D010380:Peer Review; D028743:Professional Misconduct / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D013219:State Government; D014481:United States