ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2020
[Legal aspects of quality assurance : Example of operative intravitreal injection therapy].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Value and formats of quality assurance : Ophthalmology and intravitreal therapy between reality and wishful thinking].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the legal evaluation of medical treatments it is important to know which legal and contractual regulations apply.
objectiveThis article discusses in which context treatment errors play a role and are identified as such. MATERIAL AND
methodsRelevant German legal framework conditions are discussed and examples with reference to intravitreal injection therapy are given.
resultsThe civil law treatment contract between physician and patient results in the medical obligations of a service contract. As a consequence, the physician is obliged to provide the patient with treatment according to the current generally accepted professional standard, including information obligations, the certainty of a diagnosis, the execution of treatment and aftercare. Before claims for compensation and damages for pain and suffering can be enforced, proof of a treatment error and the causal connection must be provided. In court, mostly expert opinions are used to assess what the professional standard is and whether the physician was sufficiently qualified, whether informed consent and documentation met the legal requirements and whether a (gross) treatment error must be assumed. The Patients' Rights Act emphasizes the importance of an open error culture by requiring a practitioner to inform patients of third party/own treatment errors on request or in order to avert health risks, if circumstances are discernible to the practitioner that justify the assumption of a treatment error.
conclusionAlthough ophthalmologists cannot guarantee healing or success but only the treatment, there are many medical obligations for intravitreal therapy. Increased standards of quality assurance can be implemented within the framework of selective contracts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32215676What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.