Streptococcal meningitis as a complication of diagnostic myelography

Medicolegal aspects

Michael Gelfand, David M. Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Infections and their management are frequently the object of medicolegal proceedings. During their professional lifetime, most doctors will seek legal advice because of patients' concerns that their treatment has led to an undesired outcome (which is not, by any means, equivalent to negligence). In addition, doctors may appear as expert witnesses on behalf of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Although over the years many doctors have altered their practice to meet criteria for 'defensive medicine,' this concept is often not well understood, and the expectations of patients with regard to outcome of our intervention are uncertain. As well, our colleagues in both the health and legal professions often have varying expectations of our professional performance as providers of care. What are the legal responsibilities with regard to preventing infection and ensuring limits within which doctors practice 'usual care and diligence?' When does a doctor step outside these bounds and become culpable for injury to the patient? Gelfand and Cook begin the first of what we hope will be a series of case studies that address some of these questions. In the two cases reported by Gelfand and Cook, it was determined that there was no medical negligence Both of the individuals who had acquired streptococcal meningitis in association with a myelographic procedure recovered completely. However, Gelfand and Cook suggest that patients should be informed of this rare but serious complication of myelography before undergoing the procedure. Clinical Infectious Diseases would like readers to submit manuscripts that address medicolegal issues. Each submitted article will usually be reviewed by at least one lawyer and one physician with expertise in the area of infectious diseases. These articles will provide both interesting reviews of actual medicolegal procedure and 'case precedents' that will be useful for infectious disease specialists and attorneys. We invite your comments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)130-132
Number of pages3
JournalClinical Infectious Diseases
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Myelography
Meningitis
Communicable Diseases
Lawyers
Malpractice
Defensive Medicine
Health Occupations
Manuscripts
Expert Testimony
Infection
Physicians
Wounds and Injuries
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Streptococcal meningitis as a complication of diagnostic myelography : Medicolegal aspects. / Gelfand, Michael; Cook, David M.

In: Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 22, No. 1, 01.01.1996, p. 130-132.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{091974e5229747cb90e6b764f86655e0,
title = "Streptococcal meningitis as a complication of diagnostic myelography: Medicolegal aspects",
abstract = "Infections and their management are frequently the object of medicolegal proceedings. During their professional lifetime, most doctors will seek legal advice because of patients' concerns that their treatment has led to an undesired outcome (which is not, by any means, equivalent to negligence). In addition, doctors may appear as expert witnesses on behalf of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Although over the years many doctors have altered their practice to meet criteria for 'defensive medicine,' this concept is often not well understood, and the expectations of patients with regard to outcome of our intervention are uncertain. As well, our colleagues in both the health and legal professions often have varying expectations of our professional performance as providers of care. What are the legal responsibilities with regard to preventing infection and ensuring limits within which doctors practice 'usual care and diligence?' When does a doctor step outside these bounds and become culpable for injury to the patient? Gelfand and Cook begin the first of what we hope will be a series of case studies that address some of these questions. In the two cases reported by Gelfand and Cook, it was determined that there was no medical negligence Both of the individuals who had acquired streptococcal meningitis in association with a myelographic procedure recovered completely. However, Gelfand and Cook suggest that patients should be informed of this rare but serious complication of myelography before undergoing the procedure. Clinical Infectious Diseases would like readers to submit manuscripts that address medicolegal issues. Each submitted article will usually be reviewed by at least one lawyer and one physician with expertise in the area of infectious diseases. These articles will provide both interesting reviews of actual medicolegal procedure and 'case precedents' that will be useful for infectious disease specialists and attorneys. We invite your comments.",
author = "Michael Gelfand and Cook, {David M.}",
year = "1996",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/clinids/22.1.130",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "130--132",
journal = "Clinical Infectious Diseases",
issn = "1058-4838",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Streptococcal meningitis as a complication of diagnostic myelography

T2 - Medicolegal aspects

AU - Gelfand, Michael

AU - Cook, David M.

PY - 1996/1/1

Y1 - 1996/1/1

N2 - Infections and their management are frequently the object of medicolegal proceedings. During their professional lifetime, most doctors will seek legal advice because of patients' concerns that their treatment has led to an undesired outcome (which is not, by any means, equivalent to negligence). In addition, doctors may appear as expert witnesses on behalf of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Although over the years many doctors have altered their practice to meet criteria for 'defensive medicine,' this concept is often not well understood, and the expectations of patients with regard to outcome of our intervention are uncertain. As well, our colleagues in both the health and legal professions often have varying expectations of our professional performance as providers of care. What are the legal responsibilities with regard to preventing infection and ensuring limits within which doctors practice 'usual care and diligence?' When does a doctor step outside these bounds and become culpable for injury to the patient? Gelfand and Cook begin the first of what we hope will be a series of case studies that address some of these questions. In the two cases reported by Gelfand and Cook, it was determined that there was no medical negligence Both of the individuals who had acquired streptococcal meningitis in association with a myelographic procedure recovered completely. However, Gelfand and Cook suggest that patients should be informed of this rare but serious complication of myelography before undergoing the procedure. Clinical Infectious Diseases would like readers to submit manuscripts that address medicolegal issues. Each submitted article will usually be reviewed by at least one lawyer and one physician with expertise in the area of infectious diseases. These articles will provide both interesting reviews of actual medicolegal procedure and 'case precedents' that will be useful for infectious disease specialists and attorneys. We invite your comments.

AB - Infections and their management are frequently the object of medicolegal proceedings. During their professional lifetime, most doctors will seek legal advice because of patients' concerns that their treatment has led to an undesired outcome (which is not, by any means, equivalent to negligence). In addition, doctors may appear as expert witnesses on behalf of either the plaintiff or the defendant. Although over the years many doctors have altered their practice to meet criteria for 'defensive medicine,' this concept is often not well understood, and the expectations of patients with regard to outcome of our intervention are uncertain. As well, our colleagues in both the health and legal professions often have varying expectations of our professional performance as providers of care. What are the legal responsibilities with regard to preventing infection and ensuring limits within which doctors practice 'usual care and diligence?' When does a doctor step outside these bounds and become culpable for injury to the patient? Gelfand and Cook begin the first of what we hope will be a series of case studies that address some of these questions. In the two cases reported by Gelfand and Cook, it was determined that there was no medical negligence Both of the individuals who had acquired streptococcal meningitis in association with a myelographic procedure recovered completely. However, Gelfand and Cook suggest that patients should be informed of this rare but serious complication of myelography before undergoing the procedure. Clinical Infectious Diseases would like readers to submit manuscripts that address medicolegal issues. Each submitted article will usually be reviewed by at least one lawyer and one physician with expertise in the area of infectious diseases. These articles will provide both interesting reviews of actual medicolegal procedure and 'case precedents' that will be useful for infectious disease specialists and attorneys. We invite your comments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030068474&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030068474&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/clinids/22.1.130

DO - 10.1093/clinids/22.1.130

M3 - Review article

VL - 22

SP - 130

EP - 132

JO - Clinical Infectious Diseases

JF - Clinical Infectious Diseases

SN - 1058-4838

IS - 1

ER -