eISSN: 2449-8580
ISSN: 1734-3402
Family Medicine & Primary Care Review
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

 
2/2020
vol. 22
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Family physicians' professional standards in the decisions of medical disciplinary boards and of the Supreme Court

Iwona Wrześniewska-Wal
1

1.
Department of Law, Economics, and Management of the Public Healthcare School at the Centre for Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland
Fam Med Prim Care Rev 2020; 22(2): 166–170
Online publish date: 2020/07/02
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
This article provides an analysis of the decisions of medical disciplinary boards (Polish “medical courts”) and cassation decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to physicians’ professional responsibility, focusing on family physicians and physicians employed in primary healthcare. Those rulings from which a standard can be distilled for the practice of the medical profession were selected for more detailed discussion. Such rulings are discussed in their medical and legal aspects in order to highlight the characteristics of physicians’ professional responsibility. The examples discussed in this article highlight a medical practitioner’s fundamental rights in proceedings before medical disciplinary boards—the right to conduct a defense—and the sentencing guidelines, including the possibility of publishing the decision in the regional disciplinary board’s bulletin. The aim of this article is to provide valuable guidelines for the formation of a professional working standard for family doctors and those employed in primary healthcare.

Material and methods
It consists of an analysis of OSL, NSL, and SC judgments.

Results
In terms of OSL cases in Warsaw in 2016, 71%; in 2017 it was 65.4%, and in 2018 65% of cases. When it comes to NSL cases in 2016, 83% involved a failure in due diligence; in 2017 it was 72%. For SC cases, there were 7 in 2015, 18 in 2016, 25 in 2017, and 37 in 2018.

Conclusions
Judgments of medical courts create the standards for the medical profession.

keywords:

family physician, medical disciplinary board, medical court, Supreme Court, due diligence, penalties

 
Quick links
© 2020 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe