Clinical practice guidelines and the legal standard of care: warnings, predictions, and interdisciplinary encounters.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Medical is an increasingly complex area of law, largely due to the intersection of law and science that it demands. There is ongoing debate over the appropriate role that science should play in the legal context, and medical will invariably continue to be at forefront of such discussions. In order to integrate scientific information appropriately into the legal context, various tools have been used to supplement and support the testimony of experts. One of the most prominent of these tools is the clinical practice guideline (CPG). In this article, the role of CPGs in medical litigation will be discussed, and some of the problematic aspects of their use will be highlighted, in an attempt to facilitate prudent integration of medical science into the law. Bridging this interdisciplinary gap is essential in order for both professions to continue to act and evolve in the best interests of the public they serve. This article aims to provide useful insight to both health care and legal professionals. To that end, the article includes basic overviews of the medical system, evidence-based medicine (EBM), and CPGs in order to increase the accessibility of subsequent material for readers from various disciplines. Part I contains brief overview of the medical system, including the elements of medical negligence claim and the major critiques of the system. Part II provides an overview of EBM, CPGs, and their relationship. In Part III, the primary problems, limitations, and biases inherent in CPGs are discussed in relation to their use in the legal context. Finally, Part IV discusses the role of CPGs in determining the standard of care in light of the legal significance of professional custom and recent Canadian case law. PART I: Medical Malpractice Law in Canada The term malpractice is generally used to describe medical negligence actions, although the term's definition has not been clarified by legislation or the courts. (1) For the purposes of this discussion, malpractice will be used to describe negligence, and the terms will be used interchangeably. Plaintiffs in medical negligence actions, as in all negligence cases, must prove several discrete elements in order to succeed. As outlined by Ellen Picard and Gerald Robertson, these elements are: a) the defendant must owe the plaintiff duty of care; b) the defendant must breach the standard of care established by law; c) the plaintiff must suffer an injury or loss; and d) the defendant's conduct must have been the actual and legal cause of the plaintiff's injury. (2) The existence of doctor's duty to patient is not typically an area of serious contention in medical cases, as the duty arises upon formation of the doctor-patient relationship. (3) However, some issues may arise in scenarios where multiple practitioners are involved, and the extent to which individual doctors may rely on the duty of others is unclear. (4) Picard and Robertson explain that the duty placed on doctor is multifaceted and includes attendance, diagnosis, referral, treatment and instruction. (5) The second element that must be proven in successful medical negligence action is breach of the standard of care. A doctor will be liable for damages that result from care that falls below the standard of a medical practitioner considering all the circumstances. (6) This standard of care is modified version of the generic reasonable person negligence standard, recognizing that doctors hold themselves out as possessing specialized skill and expertise, and are expected to conduct themselves with competency in relation to their qualifications. (7) The standard of care is further modified based on an individual doctor's qualifications such that medical specialists must meet higher standard of care than general practitioners. …
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 | 0.050 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".