A New Legal Standard for Medical Malpractice.

Daniel G Aaron, Christopher T Robertson, Louise P King, William M Sage
{"title":"A New Legal Standard for Medical Malpractice.","authors":"Daniel G Aaron, Christopher T Robertson, Louise P King, William M Sage","doi":"10.1001/jama.2025.0097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Patients in the US have persistent needs for safe, evidence-based care. Physicians in the US report fear of liability risk and the need to practice \"defensive medicine.\" In 2024, the American Law Institute revised the legal standard for assessing medical negligence. Understanding the implications of this change is crucial for balancing patient safety, physician autonomy, and the legal system's role in health care.</p><p><strong>Observations: </strong>The updated standard from the American Law Institute shifts away from the traditional reliance on customary practice toward a more patient-centered concept of reasonable medical care. Although this revised standard still includes elements of prevailing medical practice, it defines reasonable care as the skill and knowledge regarded as competent among similar medical clinicians under comparable circumstances and acknowledges that, in some cases, juries can override customary practices if they fall short of contemporary standards. The restatement also embraces evidence-based practice guidelines, while leaving questions open about the variations in the quality of those guidelines. The restatement makes additional recommendations regarding informed consent and other aspects of physician-patient communication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The new standard of care from the American Law Institute represents a shift away from strict reliance on medical custom and invites courts to incorporate evidence-based medicine into malpractice law. Although states may adopt the recommendations from the American Law Institute at different times and to varying degrees, the restatement offers health professionals and the organizations in which they practice an opportunity to reconsider how medical negligence will be assessed, and to focus more directly on promoting patient safety and improving care delivery. Nonetheless, physicians should recognize that, at least for now, many courts will continue to rely significantly on prevailing practice in assessing medical liability.</p>","PeriodicalId":17196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":55.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.0097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Patients in the US have persistent needs for safe, evidence-based care. Physicians in the US report fear of liability risk and the need to practice "defensive medicine." In 2024, the American Law Institute revised the legal standard for assessing medical negligence. Understanding the implications of this change is crucial for balancing patient safety, physician autonomy, and the legal system's role in health care.

Observations: The updated standard from the American Law Institute shifts away from the traditional reliance on customary practice toward a more patient-centered concept of reasonable medical care. Although this revised standard still includes elements of prevailing medical practice, it defines reasonable care as the skill and knowledge regarded as competent among similar medical clinicians under comparable circumstances and acknowledges that, in some cases, juries can override customary practices if they fall short of contemporary standards. The restatement also embraces evidence-based practice guidelines, while leaving questions open about the variations in the quality of those guidelines. The restatement makes additional recommendations regarding informed consent and other aspects of physician-patient communication.

Conclusions and relevance: The new standard of care from the American Law Institute represents a shift away from strict reliance on medical custom and invites courts to incorporate evidence-based medicine into malpractice law. Although states may adopt the recommendations from the American Law Institute at different times and to varying degrees, the restatement offers health professionals and the organizations in which they practice an opportunity to reconsider how medical negligence will be assessed, and to focus more directly on promoting patient safety and improving care delivery. Nonetheless, physicians should recognize that, at least for now, many courts will continue to rely significantly on prevailing practice in assessing medical liability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗事故的新法律标准。
重要性:美国患者持续需要安全的循证护理。美国的医生报告说,他们担心责任风险,需要实行“防御性医疗”。2024年,美国法律协会修订了评估医疗过失的法律标准。理解这一变化的含义对于平衡患者安全、医生自主和法律系统在医疗保健中的作用至关重要。观察结果:美国法律协会的最新标准从传统上对习惯做法的依赖转向了更加以患者为中心的合理医疗保健概念。虽然这一修订标准仍然包括现行医疗实践的要素,但它将合理护理定义为在类似情况下同类临床医生被视为合格的技能和知识,并承认,在某些情况下,如果不符合当代标准,陪审团可以推翻习惯做法。重述还包括基于证据的实践指南,同时对这些指南质量的差异留下了疑问。该重述对知情同意和医患沟通的其他方面提出了额外的建议。结论和相关性:美国法律协会的新护理标准代表了严格依赖医疗习惯的转变,并邀请法院将循证医学纳入医疗事故法。尽管各州可能会在不同时间和不同程度上采纳美国法律研究所的建议,但该重述为卫生专业人员及其执业组织提供了一个重新考虑如何评估医疗过失的机会,并更直接地关注于促进患者安全和改善护理服务。尽管如此,医生应该认识到,至少就目前而言,许多法院在评估医疗责任时将继续严重依赖现行做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
45.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JAMA, published continuously since 1883, is an international peer-reviewed general medical journal. JAMA is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications.
期刊最新文献
FDA Approves Higher-Dose Injectable Semaglutide. Purple Flowers. Drugging in the Dark. Echo. Echoing Medicine in Poetry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1