25 hours ago Minnesota law has for several years acknowledged the spirit of Recommendation No. 12 in two respects. First, Section 146.091, subd. 1 of Minnesota statutes provides several grounds for concluding that sexual misconduct by a physician is a violation of the Minnesota Medical Practice Act. Subsection (g) prohibits a physician from engaging in any unethical conduct; conduct … >> Go To The Portal
Persons licensed by any Minnesota health regulatory board including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, nursing home administrators, psychologists, social workers, dentists, marriage and family therapists, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists and dietitians are required to report:
However, the employer may report to both entities. Persons licensed by any Minnesota health regulatory board including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, nursing home administrators, psychologists, social workers, dentists, marriage and family therapists, optometrists, chiropractors, podiatrists and dietitians are required to report:
Laws and regulations related to patient safety, which may vary based on the legislation system of each country, should encourage the disclosure of medical errors while supporting the implementation of the ethical imperatives of patient safety.
Other states’ physician reporting laws are more permissive. Montana’s statute says that a “physician who diagnoses a physical or mental condition that, in the physician’s judgment, will significantly impair a person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle may voluntarily report [italics added]” the patient [11].
The Report of the Consultation Group on the Disposition of Sexual Misconduct Complaints was submitted to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice at the Board's July 1995 meeting. The group was established by the Board to make recommendations to all state Medical Boards regarding proper disposition of complaints of physician sexual misconduct. The group heard testimony and reviewed evidence from 11 different experts from the U.S. and Canada and was assisted by several Minnesota physicians and representatives of the Board. This was apparently the first occasion any state medical licensing board had undertaken such a process.
The only exception to this reporting requirement is, If the information was obtained in the course of a physician-patient relationship if the patient is another physician and the treating physician successfully counsels the other physician to limit or withdraw from practice to the extent required by the impairment.
Minnesota law has for several years acknowledged the spirit of Recommendation No. 12 in two respects. First, Section 146.091, subd. 1 of Minnesota statutes provides several grounds for concluding that sexual misconduct by a physician is a violation of the Minnesota Medical Practice Act. Subsection (g) prohibits a physician from engaging in any ...
According to the non-maleficence principle of medical ethics, ensuring patients’ safety and preventing any injury or damage to them is a major priority for healthcare providers (1). Thus, it has been the most emphasized component of the quality of health care services all around the world.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report in 1999 entitled "Man is fallible: create a safe health system" in relation to the incidence of medical errors in United States, and consequently, initiated widespread international change in the field of patient safety (2).
Despite increased attention toward the quality of health care services, there are still numerous threats to patient safety in healthcare settings. Since patient safety is multidimensional and grounded in ethical and legal imperatives, both ethical and legal challenges should be taken into account.
It should be considered that knowing the truth is one of the basic rights of patients and their family members. According to similar studies, explaining the error to the patients could be a stressful situation combined with intense emotional reactions from patient/family members or the care team.
Disciplinary action taken by the institution or organization if action pertains to the Board's grounds for disciplinary action (see related content below) Minnesota Statutes Section 148.261 . Resignation of a nurse before conclusion of any disciplinary proceeding or in lieu of discipline.
chemically dependent, a person dangerous to the public, guilty of a felony or gross misdemeanor, guilty of a violation of federal or state narcotics laws or a controlled substances act, guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or.
Court Administrators of district, county, and state courts are required to report: guilty of a violation of federal or state narcotics laws or a controlled substances act, guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or.
Any person who has knowledge of any conduct by a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse which may violate a nursing law or rule or related state or federal law may report, but is not required to report, the alleged violation to the Board of Nursing.
Laws Concerning Disclosure of Impaired Drivers. Many states have enacted laws to address the problem of impaired drivers. Some of these laws mandate disclosure to motor vehicle authorities, while, in others, disclosure is voluntary. Some states require reporting for specific conditions but not for others [4].
Oregon, for example, has broad regulations. Its laws require physicians ( especially primary care physicians) to report conditions that impair sensory, motor, and cognitive functioning to state authorities [5], and they provide comprehensive standards for determining when a driver is impaired.
In other words, if informing driver’s licensing agencies (i.e., the Department of Motor Vehicles) about potentially dangerous drivers is not a legally sanctioned reason for breaching confidentiality, physicians may be unable to disclose.
Other states’ physician reporting laws are more permissive. Montana’s statute says that a “physician who diagnoses a physical or mental condition that, in the physician’s judgment, will significantly impair a person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle may voluntarily report [italics added]” the patient [11].
Sometimes drivers act voluntarily in ways that make them unsafe, such as driving while intoxicated or exhausted. In these circumstances, we rightfully hold them responsible for injury or damage caused by their choices.
Lee Black, JD, LLM is a senior research associate for the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs at the American Medical Association in Chicago. Prior to joining the AMA, he was a staff attorney with the Legislative Reference Bureau in Springfield, where he drafted legislation for the Illinois General Assembly.
The court in Forcelli reasoned that, given the now-widespread use of email in personal and business affairs, it would be “unreasonable” to conclude that email messages are incapable of conforming to CPLR 2104 criteria “simply because they cannot be physically signed in a traditional fashion.”.
The first determines whether a hospital, via its emergency room personnel, has a duty to retain intoxicated or compromised patients who wish to leave. The second answers whether a litigation settlement is binding when an email containing the material terms lacks a signature by the party to be charged (or his agent) but does furnish the sender’s name at the end of the message.
He is seen by an emergency room doctor and admitted to the hospital’s detox program. Four hours after arriving and while awaiting transport to the detox, the patient removes his IV and tells a nurse he plans to go home in a taxi.
How should psychologists respond if they have a patient who has been drinking and who intends to drive home after a therapy appointment? After reasonable efforts to dissuade the patient from driving have failed, does the psychologist have an obligation to warn the police about the potential danger? Alternatively, does confidentiality prevent the psychologist from doing so?.
How should psychologists respond if they have a patient who has been drinking and who intends to drive home after a therapy appointment? After reasonable efforts to dissuade the patient from driving have failed, does the psychologist have an obligation to warn the police about the potential danger? Alternatively, does confidentiality prevent the psychologist from doing so?.