Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 78
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
2.
Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed) ; 112(2): 127-133, 2021 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês, Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33035496

RESUMO

Teledermatology is now fully incorporated into our clinical practice. However, after reviewing current legislation on the ethical aspects of teledermatology (data confidentiality, quality of care, patient autonomy, and privacy) as well as insurance and professional responsibility, we observed that a specific regulatory framework is still lacking and related legal aspects are still at a preliminary stage of development. Safeguarding confidentiality and patient autonomy and ensuring secure storage and transfer of data are essential aspects of telemedicine. One of the main topics of debate has been the responsibilities of the physicians involved in the process, with the concept of designating a single responsible clinician emerging as a determining factor in the allocation of responsibility in this setting. A specific legal and regulatory framework must be put in place to ensure the safe practice of teledermatology for medical professionals and their patients.


Assuntos
Confidencialidade , Dermatologia , Telemedicina , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Segurança Computacional/ética , Segurança Computacional/legislação & jurisprudência , Confidencialidade/ética , Confidencialidade/legislação & jurisprudência , Dermatologia/ética , Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Emergências , União Europeia , Humanos , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido/legislação & jurisprudência , Seguro de Responsabilidade Civil/legislação & jurisprudência , Pandemias , Autonomia Pessoal , SARS-CoV-2 , Espanha , Telemedicina/ética , Telemedicina/legislação & jurisprudência
6.
Pneumologie ; 74(9): 603-610, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32643765

RESUMO

Occupational diseases are certain diseases designated as such by law. Whereas the medical conditions are described in guidelines, their recognition is based on judicial administrative procedures. Establishing causality is based on requirements of social law. The basic socio-legal concepts are mentioned and the principles of causality in asbestos-related occupational diseases are listed. Exemplary social court judgments are cited. Judgements may not infrequently differ from the medical point of view. The aim of this article is to describe the correct use of social medical understanding in order to carry out adequate assessment of occupational diseases, which implements the legal requirements.


Assuntos
Amianto/efeitos adversos , Asbestose , Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Doenças Profissionais , Medicina do Trabalho/legislação & jurisprudência , Justiça Social/legislação & jurisprudência , Asbestose/diagnóstico , Asbestose/terapia , Humanos , Doenças Profissionais/diagnóstico , Doenças Profissionais/terapia
9.
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 82(4): 1025-1033, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31811880

RESUMO

The regulation of telemedicine in the United States is evolving, with new legislation expanding reimbursement and cross-state licensing capabilities. As telemedicine grows, communities with limited access to traditional dermatologic care may find a solution in teledermatology. A search of the medical literature and online health care law resources published within the past decade was performed to assess the current status of telemedicine availability, health record integration and security, reimbursement policy, and licensure requirements in the United States, with a focus on teledermatology. The majority of states have implemented policies requiring private insurance coverage. Medicaid reimburses some form of telemedicine in all states but restricts which modalities can be used and by which specialties. Medicare places the heaviest limitations on telemedicine coverage. Twenty-four states and Guam are members of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC), and 27 states offer alternative cross-state practice options. With the advent of publicly and privately funded programs, volunteer efforts, and mobile applications, teledermatology is more readily available to rural and underserved communities.


Assuntos
Dermatologia/tendências , Dermatopatias/diagnóstico , Telemedicina/tendências , Populações Vulneráveis , Dermatologia/economia , Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Licenciamento em Medicina/legislação & jurisprudência , Licenciamento em Medicina/tendências , Mecanismo de Reembolso/economia , Mecanismo de Reembolso/legislação & jurisprudência , Mecanismo de Reembolso/tendências , Dermatopatias/economia , Dermatopatias/terapia , Telemedicina/economia , Telemedicina/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos
10.
J Drugs Dermatol ; 18(9): 904-908, 2019 Sep 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31524346

RESUMO

Dermatologists are among the most inventive physicians, trained in the multiple disciplines of medical dermatology, surgical dermatology, and dermatopathology. Many of the advances in dermatology practice have been derived from inventive colleagues who identify opportunities for improvement in practice, develop viable prototypes to address these practice opportunities, and persevere through the hard work of developing new technologies to advance the practice of dermatology. In this article, we will review the basic elements of invention, patents, and the range of outcomes associated with the pursuit of invention. Examples of innovative dermatologic technologies and approaches will be reviewed. Opportunities abound for dermatologists to contribute to the advancement of medical care through invention in our specialty. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(9):904-908.


Assuntos
Tecnologia Biomédica/métodos , Dermatologia/métodos , Invenções/legislação & jurisprudência , Dermatopatias/terapia , Tecnologia Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Fármacos Dermatológicos/uso terapêutico , Dermatologistas , Dermatologia/instrumentação , Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Desenho de Equipamento , Humanos , Patentes como Assunto , Dermatopatias/diagnóstico
14.
JAMA Dermatol ; 154(2): 160-166, 2018 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29214284

RESUMO

Importance: Recognizing malpractice trends in the field of dermatology is important for establishing safeguards for patient care and minimizing liability. However, there is a lack of published data on malpractice claims against dermatologists. Objective: To determine characteristics of medical professional liability claims in the field of dermatology and to compare these claims with those against all physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: We examined malpractice liability data collected on dermatologists and other physicians insured by companies that report data to the Physician Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Project (PIAA-DSP), a nationally representative liability claims registry. Data analyzed spanned the years 1991 through 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics of dermatologists subject to claims, characteristics of closed claims, medical errors associated with closed claims, and patient outcomes leading to closed claims. Results: Data on a total of 90 743 closed claims were analyzed, 1084 (1.2%) against dermatologists and 89 659 (98.8%) against nondermatologists. More lawsuits were brought against male (n = 753, 69.5%) than female dermatologists (n = 270, 24.9%); 5.6% of claims (n = 61) did not identify the physician's sex. Full-time practitioners (n = 1035, 95.5%) and those in solo practice (n = 600, 55.4%) were more likely to be sued than those in group practices (n = 429, 39.6%) and institutions (n = 31, 2.9%). Most claims against dermatologists were abandoned, withdrawn, or dismissed (n = 735, 67.8%). Between 2006 and 2015, trial verdicts favoring defendants exceeded trial verdicts favoring plaintiffs by a factor of 7. Errors that occurred during a procedure spawned the most claims (n = 305), of which 102 were paid. Misdiagnoses comprised the second-highest number of claims (n = 192), of which 62 were paid. The average recovery per claim was $238 145. The most common procedure leading to claims was skin operations (420 claims, of which 130 were paid). The most common adverse patient outcome associated with claims was dyschromia, resulting in 171 claims, of which 40 were paid. Conclusions and Relevance: Male dermatologists were sued more often than female dermatologists. Overall, alleged errors in procedures and misdiagnosis gave rise to the most lawsuits. Dyschromia was the most common adverse outcome alleged in lawsuits.


Assuntos
Dermatologistas/legislação & jurisprudência , Responsabilidade Legal , Imperícia/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de Prática Médica/legislação & jurisprudência , Competência Clínica , Bases de Dados Factuais , Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Feminino , Humanos , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros , Masculino , Erros Médicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Médicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Estados Unidos
15.
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges ; 15(11): 1103-1109, 2017 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29064628

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: "Off-label use" is defined as the prescription of pharmaceutical products outside their approved indications. Rare diseases frequently lack "on-label" treatment options. In order to avoid reimbursement claims following the prescription of off-label drugs, physicians in Germany can - on a case-by-case basis - file an application for cost coverage with the competent health insurance prior to treatment initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a chart review for cost coverage requests submitted by two outpatient clinics at a university-affiliated dermatology department between 2010 and 2012 (clinic for autoimmune diseases and urticaria clinic). Insurance providers, acceptance rates, reasons for rejection, and processing times were analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis showed that 56.8 % of applications for off-label use (n = 44) were approved during the first round. The rate increased to 75.0 % when including approvals granted after up to two rejections. The time between initial application and the response of health insurers was 49 days (median). In case of cost coverage approval, treatments were initiated 92 days (median) after the initial request. CONCLUSIONS: The present case series shows that, in the majority of cases, health insurers in Germany have agreed to reimburse the costs of proposed off-label therapies. A prospective study is required in order to evaluate whether current changes to legal regulations (GKV-Versorgungsstrukturgesetz, Patientenrechtegesetz) adequately address the problems identified.


Assuntos
Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Uso Off-Label/legislação & jurisprudência , Mecanismo de Reembolso/legislação & jurisprudência , Dermatologia/economia , Alemanha , Humanos , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/economia , Revisão da Utilização de Seguros/legislação & jurisprudência , Cobertura do Seguro/economia , Cobertura do Seguro/legislação & jurisprudência , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/economia , Uso Off-Label/economia , Mecanismo de Reembolso/economia , Estudos Retrospectivos
17.
Am J Clin Dermatol ; 17(6): 601-607, 2016 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27785707

RESUMO

Facing a malpractice lawsuit can be a daunting and traumatic experience for healthcare practitioners, with most clinicians naïve to the legal landscape. It is crucial for physicians to know and understand the malpractice system and his or her role once challenged with litigation. We present part II of a two-part series addressing the most common medicolegal questions that cause a great deal of anxiety. Part I focused upon risk-management strategies and prevention of malpractice lawsuits, whereas part II provides helpful suggestions and guidance for the physician who has been served with a lawsuit complaint. Herein, we address the best approach concerning what to do and what not to do after receipt of a legal claim, during the deposition, and during the trial phases. We also discuss routine concerns that may arise during the development of the case, including the personal, financial, and career implications of a malpractice lawsuit and how these can be best managed. The defense strategies discussed in this paper are not a guide separate from legal representation to winning a lawsuit, but may help physicians prepare for and cope with a medical malpractice lawsuit. This article is written from a US perspective, and therefore not all of the statements made herein will be applicable in other countries. Within the USA, medical practitioners must be familiar with their own state and local laws and should consult with their own legal counsel to obtain advice about specific questions.


Assuntos
Dermatologistas/psicologia , Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Seguro de Responsabilidade Civil , Imperícia/legislação & jurisprudência , Relações Médico-Paciente , Dermatologistas/economia , Dermatologistas/legislação & jurisprudência , Documentação , Humanos , Relações Interprofissionais , National Practitioner Data Bank , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Relações Profissional-Família , Estados Unidos
18.
Am J Clin Dermatol ; 17(6): 593-600, 2016 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27734331

RESUMO

Malpractice risk is a common source of concern for the practicing physician. Dermatologists experience fewer lawsuits than most other specialists in medicine, but the risk is not negligible. All physicians should familiarize themselves with areas of potential risk and avoid medico-legal pitfalls. We present Part I of a two-part series addressing medico-legal questions common to most practitioners that cause a great deal of anxiety. Part I will focus upon risk management and prevention of future malpractice lawsuits, and Part II deals with suggestions and guidance once a lawsuit occurs. Herein, we discuss the primary sources of malpractice lawsuits delivered against healthcare practitioners including issues with informed consent, patient noncompliance, medical negligence, and inappropriate documentation, including use of electronic medical records. The overall goal is to effectively avoid these common sources of litigation. The risk management strategies discussed in this paper are relevant to the everyday practitioner and may offer physicians some degree of protection from potential liability.


Assuntos
Dermatologia/organização & administração , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido/legislação & jurisprudência , Imperícia/legislação & jurisprudência , Erros Médicos/legislação & jurisprudência , Cooperação do Paciente , Gestão de Riscos/métodos , Dermatologia/legislação & jurisprudência , Documentação , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Telemedicina/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA