Regulatory and medico-legal barriers to interprofessional practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike the other contributions to this issue, this paper is concerned with the prospects and potential ramifications of implementing interprofessional practice from the legal standpoint. The authors focus on the two forums where the major legal issues are likely to be played out: the laws under which health care professionals are regulated; and the law of professional malpractice as applied by the courts under the tort of negligence. The goal is to examine the regulatory and medico-legal barriers that might prevent or inhibit health care professionals from working together on an interprofessional basis, and to forecast the kinds of changes within legal systems which will be necessary to accommodate the change. The first part of the paper focuses on the legal regimes which govern the Canadian health care system, and argues that the essential integrity of the system of professional self-regulation must be protected in programs of reform that seek to create space for interprofessional practice. The authors also propose a number of specific initiatives of review and legislative change as examples of the role that legal reform can play in the shift to a culture of interprofessional regulation. The second part of the paper focuses on malpractice law and suggests that, while in the long term the superior quality of care brought about by interprofessional practice should produce less liability, in the short term interprofessional practice may fit uneasily within the legal constructs traditionally employed by the courts to evaluate malpractice claims. The authors propose three strategies designed to minimize this risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".