Avoiding judicial dissatisfaction with, and criticism of, healthcare experts.

Abstract

The sources of judicial dissatisfaction with, and criticism of, expert healthcare evidence are traced to unqualified, careless, overworked and unscrupulous experts and a failure on the part of some experts to work collaboratively with their instructing lawyers during the litigation process. The suggested remedies are: adherence to the clear professional standards that already exist, appropriate training for which the foundations should be laid during undergraduate medical education, continuing professional development, credentialing complemented by instructing solicitors and counsel ensuring that the expert is appropriate for the case and aware of their duties, collaborative working between expert and instructing lawyer, peer and institutional support and quality control including peer review of reports and case-based discussion of reports.