Background: Mock jurors were more likely to side with the physician-defendant if he recommended an operation when there were many symptoms and refrained when there were few symptoms compared with a physician who did the converse. The use of a decision aid had no influence on this binary standard-of-care decision. Among those physicians deemed liable by the jurors, defying the aid resulted in heightened punishment compared with heeding it.
Conclusion: . Contrary to many physicians' fears, use of a diagnostic decision aid did not influence the likelihood of an adverse malpractice verdict. Complying with the aid's recommendation provided a measure of protection against jurors' punitiveness for those physicians deemed liable for malpractice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07313280 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!