PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Piccirillo

Publications and source records attributed to M Piccirillo.

22 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Medical malpractice: a case study in medical and legal decision making.

The conference was organized in part to dispel some of the misinformation that interferes with cooperative efforts of attorneys and physicians to redress the malpractice situation. During discussion of the hypothetical case, participants identified how medical decision-making responsibilities were allocated among health care providers caring for the patient. Panel members suggested ways in which medical decision making might be affected by non-medical factors such as third-party reimbursement (e.g., selection of inpatient or outpatient setting, the opportunity to discuss issues related to informed consent prior to the day of a procedure) and potential malpractice litigation (e.g., documentation in charts, use of diagnostic procedures). The characterization of decision-making roles and responsibilities differed somewhat for purposes of malpractice litigation; that is, which caregivers might be named as defendants. Panel members reconstructed the development of the medical incident into a legal case. Plaintiff's attorney commented that it is often a hospital employee who advises the family to consult an attorney and described some of the constraints on information gathering (e.g., the rule of "discovery" requiring that suit be filed before defendants can be forced to give statements about what happened, insurance contract provisions prohibiting physicians from talking without legal counsel present to persons who indicate that they plan to file suit). He also briefly explained the rationale for the contingency fee arrangement in these cases. Describing the role of the medical expert witness and the need to review the medical record, he outlined the process of deciding whether to pursue a malpractice case. In making this decision, plaintiff's attorney evaluates the facts to identify issues in the case, to determine if there are deviations from the standard of care, and to try to predict jury reaction. If a suit is filed, defense attorneys employed by the hospital, insurance company, or individual defendants will decide, based on facts including coverage limits, possible publicity, and likelihood of successful prosecution, whether the case should be settled and for what amount. Interests represented by the defense attorneys differ and may affect settlement strategies. Physician feelings of concern for the patient/family or desire for vindication will, to varying degrees, be factors in the decision to try or settle a case. Panel members explored several important policy issues. Among these were the effect of malpractice cases on doctor-patient communications and ethical issues concerning expert witnesses.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Decision Making↗

[Modifications in diagnosis and therapy of osteoporosis after bone densitometry].

The cost-benefit ratio of diagnostic procedures has become a major problem: in particular, the expense of computerized bone mineral densitometry for osteoporosis diagnosis has brought this issue to public attention. To avoid a procedure considered costly, non-specialists often rely on standard radiography alone for diagnosis. In this study, we evaluated the percent of cases in which densitometry modified diagnosis and therapy based solely on radiographic findings. Over a 10-month period, we recruited 133 consecutive post-menopausal patients (average age 58.3 years, average time since menopause 12 years) who had never undergone densitometry. Bone density at the lumbar (L1-L4) or femoral (non-dominant) level was measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. The average time between densitometry and the last radiographic examination was 13.6 months. Ninety-one patients (68.4%) had a change in diagnosis following densitometry. In 42 cases (31.6%), the previous diagnosis remained unchanged (prevalence ratio 2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.7). Therapy was changed in 75.2% of the cases (100 patients) and remained the same in 24.8% (33 patients; prevalence ratio 3.0; 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 3.7). Our data underscore the importance of densitometry in yielding quantitative data that are utilizable during follow-up and able to support osteoporosis diagnosis and therapy.

Absorptiometry, Photon↗