Hurwitz B
The Surgery, London.
Qual Health Care. 1994 Mar;3(1):37-44. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.1.37.
Guidelines seeking to influence and regulate clinical activity are currently gaining a new cultural ascendancy on both sides of the Atlantic. Statutory agencies may be charged with developing clinical guidelines, and civil courts, in deciding actions in negligence, could be influenced by standards of care expressed in guideline statements. Clinical guidelines are not accorded unchallengeable status: they have been subject to careful scrutiny by British and American courts to establish their authenticity and relevance. In the United States, compliance with clinical guidelines cannot be used as a defence against liability if a physician's conduct is held to have been negligent, and third party organisations can be held liable if their clinical guidelines are found to be a contributory cause of patient harm. Guidelines have not usurped the role of the expert witness in court. The importance the law attaches to customary practice means that atypical or bizarre guidelines are unlikely to be accepted as embodying a legally required standard of clinical care.
旨在影响和规范临床活动的指南目前正在大西洋两岸获得新的文化优势。法定机构可能负责制定临床指南,而民事法庭在判定过失行为时,可能会受到指南声明中所表达的护理标准的影响。临床指南并不具有不可挑战的地位:它们已经受到英美法院的仔细审查,以确定其真实性和相关性。在美国,如果医生的行为被认定为疏忽大意,遵守临床指南不能作为免除责任的抗辩理由;如果第三方组织的临床指南被认定为导致患者伤害的一个促成因素,那么该组织可能会被追究责任。指南并没有篡夺专家证人在法庭上的角色。法律对习惯做法的重视意味着非典型或怪异的指南不太可能被接受为体现了法律要求的临床护理标准。