A medico-legal review of some current UK guidelines in orthodontics: a personal view.

J W Jones
{"title":"A medico-legal review of some current UK guidelines in orthodontics: a personal view.","authors":"J W Jones","doi":"10.1093/ortho/26.4.307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article is a critical analysis from a medico-legal perspective of some current authoritative UK clinical guidelines in orthodontics. Two clinical guidelines have been produced by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and four by the British Orthodontic Society. Each guideline is published with the analysis immediately following it. Following recent UK case law (Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority, 1997) which allows the courts to choose between two bodies of responsible expert medical opinion where they feel one opinion is not 'logical', it is likely that the UK courts will increasingly turn to authoritative clinical guidelines to assist them in judging whether or not an appropriate standard of care has been achieved in medical negligence cases. It is thus important for clinicians to be aware of the recommendations of such guidelines, and if these are not followed the reasons should be discussed with the patient and recorded in the clinical case notes. This article attempts to highlight aspects of the guidelines that have medico-legal implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":75621,"journal":{"name":"British journal of orthodontics","volume":"26 4","pages":"307-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ortho/26.4.307","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/26.4.307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

This article is a critical analysis from a medico-legal perspective of some current authoritative UK clinical guidelines in orthodontics. Two clinical guidelines have been produced by the Royal College of Surgeons of England and four by the British Orthodontic Society. Each guideline is published with the analysis immediately following it. Following recent UK case law (Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority, 1997) which allows the courts to choose between two bodies of responsible expert medical opinion where they feel one opinion is not 'logical', it is likely that the UK courts will increasingly turn to authoritative clinical guidelines to assist them in judging whether or not an appropriate standard of care has been achieved in medical negligence cases. It is thus important for clinicians to be aware of the recommendations of such guidelines, and if these are not followed the reasons should be discussed with the patient and recorded in the clinical case notes. This article attempts to highlight aspects of the guidelines that have medico-legal implications.

对一些目前英国正畸指南的医学法律审查:个人观点。
本文从医学法律的角度对目前英国一些权威的正畸临床指南进行了批判性的分析。英国皇家外科医师学会制定了两份临床指南,英国正畸学会制定了四份。每条指导方针的发布都附有紧随其后的分析。最近的英国判例法(Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority, 1997年)允许法院在两个负责任的专家医学意见机构之间进行选择,如果他们认为其中一个意见不符合“逻辑”,那么英国法院很可能会越来越多地转向权威的临床指导方针,以帮助他们判断在医疗疏忽案件中是否达到了适当的护理标准。因此,对于临床医生来说,了解这些指南的建议是很重要的,如果没有遵循这些建议,应与患者讨论原因并记录在临床病例笔记中。本文试图强调具有医学法律意义的指导方针的各个方面。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信