I contacted the doctor of the inhabitants of the faculty hospital and asked if I am interested in becoming a primary care physician (PCP). My memo briefly explained two backgrounds of health outcome research and my prescription medicine. He admired that he was his own PCP and wrote that he met himself as a professional, humble and sincere. A new doctor-patient relationship is formed and I should contact my existing doctor's office to arrange for my medical records to be relocated and I should go to a new doctor with discontent I immediately notified. I also shared a copy of my professional presentation with the resident doctor at confidential information and medical conference from medical records.
After that, the manager of the department contacted me, saying that the doctor inhabited can not use it every week for the clinic and says it is not here when ICU rotates. Also, in the protocol of the Internal Medicine Department, a resident doctor can not have me write a drug prescription for off-label. Finally, she ordered my own blood test in the past and worried about correct interpretation. The attitude of the administrator reflects one of the major complaints the Americans are attached to the health system. The system has come to that system and you need to receive health services with a specific structure where the facility is certified. Individual treatment needs according to individual patients.
Most administrators did not do enough "careful consideration" enough to straighten her facts. You do not need to see PCP every day or every month. According to my achievement, I see my existing doctor once a calendar year, the previous doctor saw once every fifteen months. Therefore, the manager informed the fact based on his judgment.
She also misunderstood the facts about drug offline labeling by resident doctors. One of the medicines we are talking about is clomiphene. Resident doctors and professors' hospital doctors both doctors said they wanted me to write down the prescription of this medicine. The doctor in charge asked me to actually call the prescription of the medicine at my request. Likewise, the Department of Obstetrics (OB-GYN) advised me that both resident and attending physicians prescribed Climiphene to patients. Thus, residents of family medicine and OB-GYN (both primary care departments) can write prescriptions of clomiphene, but the "protocol" prevents physicians (primary care) from writing off-label prescriptions. What kind of rules does Karakama have? Residents of physicians are too stupid and not too pure so they can not understand the benefits of medicine.
Finally, the resident PCP planned to order and interpret blood tests every time I visit. The administrator was able to learn the fact if I was careful to call or write before I concluded or interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. I strongly refuse the director's paternal view of medicine promising to protect doctors who reside from patients who ordered or interpreted their blood tests. These resident doctors are young experts who have completed a medical degree. They can not tell who they are patients, no paternal supervision from the department manager is necessary.
In most cases, the overwhelming majority of patients visiting doctors at this educational hospital wants to know what to do and how to feel. I am quite the opposite. I take personal responsibility and manage my health. This is strongly insisted under medical reform. A more equitable and cooperative relationship with my PCP is working for me. That is the real reason for administrator interference. According to the survey, the rate of medical malpractice has been shown to decline in a non-paternal medical service model. The fact that it reduces litigation risk promotes moving more healthcare systems nationwide to a non-paternal model.
Legal analysis
I. Formation of physician-patient relationship
The first question is whether based on this fact pattern, the doctor-patient relationship was formed. If I have the confidential information on the two topical medications I am taking to the physician of the resident of the physician, the act is to have the lawyer contact this lawyer to see if the lawyer will assist him Even if you contact as a lawyer - customer relationship will not be created. However, lawyers have an ethical duty to protect the confidentiality of information shared by future clients. Likewise, the resident doctor assumed an ethical obligation to keep the information I shared with him confidential.
When the attorney responds to a future client, if the words "I agree to take your case" or "I will become a lawyer of you", or words to that effect, a lawyer - customer relationship is created , A constitutionally protected lawyer - information will increase to the level of customer privilege. In this case, when we respond that resident doctor is honored to be PCP, we are offering and accepting and signing a contract. It can be interpreted that offer acceptance is his proposal that he is accepted or is my PCP I accepted.
However, offers and acceptance are only two of the three elements needed to sign a contract. The third important factor is exchange of consideration in Latin. In this case, several separate consideration exchanges were made that completed the formation of the contract, thereby enabling it in the court. Review is defined as the transfer of some acts or some of the items from one party to another. Receiving parties have no legal right to separately obtain the consideration. There is no requirement that value is worth the consideration. For example, transporting paper out can create effective consideration that makes the contract binding and executable.
The initial disclosure of confidential information from my medical history deserves considerable consideration. Secondly, the fact that both me and the doctor began to pursue to schedule for me to meet him is also taken into consideration. Neither of us, either of us, thirdly, continued to respond after the proposal and acceptance, additional information was shared back and forth and further consideration was done. Sending a copy of my professional presentation to the resident doctor was a fourth example of consideration. Finally, my request to transfer my medical record to the resident doctor's clinic made obvious legal dismissal based on the trust that the contract could be enforced.
If a lawsuit is brought against the enforcement of this agreement, I am convinced that plaintiffs will, based on the absence of a contract, invalidate the attempt to resolve the lawsuit by a hospital lawyer. The defendant may argue that a contract can not be formed because the resident doctor is not licensed. According to the website http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/resident+physician, "The resident doctor is usually a graduate and a licensed doctor who is trained in a specialist in a hospital." Residents' licensing status does not preclude the formation of compulsory contracts, as in the case of this fact pattern, for treatment by supervised residents. Clinic.
The court raises a series of questions: 1) Do residents graduate from medical school? Yes! 2) Has our conversation focused on medical procedures? Yes! 3) Do residents see other patients (supervised or not supervised) at the clinic where they live? Yes! 4) Residents' services will be billed to the US government and private insurance companies as a doctor's service (not a student or physician's aide). Yes! 5) Have we both used the term PCP to describe the relationship? Yes. 6) Has the resident promised to help me to get medical booking to see him? Yes! With these answers, the court of law will recognize it as a duck, if it looks like a duck, swim like a duck and pierce like a duck. Therefore, the defendant's discussion on licensing will be considered a baby and will fail. In similar circumstances, the court stated that "the relationship between physicians and patients is easy to exist and existing axioms are restricted by the unique circumstances that exist and are presented in the relocation situation." Sterling v. Johns Hopkins Hosp. , 145 Md. App. 161 (Md.Ct.Spec.App 2002). No matter how long the doctor is examining the patient or how short the contact with the patient is, the relationship between the doctor and the patient will not be formed.
The choice of PCP and other medical decisions is a "core" private decision. As applied to other kinds of personal matters, the fundamental doctrine of privacy law is that the most directly related individuals autonomously carry out protected decisions, and the paternal It can be escaped from invasion by the government. For example, Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2 d, 618, 98 S. Ct. 673 (1978) (decision of marriage); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 US 494, 52 L. Ed. 2 d, 531, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977) (Determination of living with extended family); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 85 S.Ct. 1678 (1965) (reproductive choice). The constitutional privacy right chooses PCP from a wide choice of available physicians, selects the medicine you wish to prescribe and selects what kind of examinations I want to monitor on my own to monitor my health We insist on preserving the autonomy of doing.
In 2005, the Arkansas State Supreme Court issued the best statements in US law on the growing relationship between physicians and patients. The court pointed out that the relationship between the doctor and the patient is unique. "Even if it is temporary, if this relationship is lost, unrecoverable injuries occur in the doctor and the patient, since there is no opportunity once, there is no legally appropriate treatment." Baptist Health versus Murphy, 362 Boxes 506 (Ark 2005)
The court pointed out that the hospital violated the rules and regulations of the Department of Health in the state of Arkansas without complying with the policy of prescribing physician's patient selection and patient's doctor's choice. "This interprets that if both the doctor and the patient wish, it means that other qualified physicians need to access the patient for the purpose of treating the patient.If the patient is already seen by the hospital doctor If you have, the doctor's service selected by the patient Baptist · Health v. Murphy, 362 Ark.510-511 (Ark. 2005)
Based on reading Baptist Health, send a copy of this article to the State Health Department to determine whether the professor hospital is in breach of the Tennessee Authorized Medical Center to comply with policies or bylaws The patient has the right to choose his doctor. If so, the educational hospital is in violation of that rule.
II. Tennessee State Tort Law
Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-50-109 is entitled "Procurement of illegal contract breach - damages". The administrator illegally interfered my doctor-patient relationship and pregnant that the resident doctor would perform the service under contract. She raised the violation of the contract. The administrator would argue that she is performing her duties purely, but that is not an excuse for hampering existing physician-patient relationships.
Although there are no legal problems in Tennessee state, the courts across the country showed ambiguous views and expressed that there is no employer's interference in the relationship between physicians and patients. For example, the Supreme Court stated, "Ethical opposition is interference by employers, making doctor-patient relations a three-way relationship, serving two conflicting masters of interest." States v. Oregon State Medical Soc. , 343 US 326, 329 (US 1952).
EmoticonEmoticon