5320 WEEK 4 ASSIGNMENT

Annotated Bibliography Name Institution Course Instructor Date Annotated Bibliography Article 1 Samanta, A., Samanta, J., & Beswick, J. (2021). Responsible practice or restricted practice? An empirical study of the use of clinical guidelines in medical negligence litigation. Medical Law Review, 29(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwab004 1. Identification of Empirical Article Despite being centred on clinical guidelines in medical negligence litigation, the provided article can be connected to malpractice liability. 2. Summary This article discusses the clinical guidelines to evaluate the standard of care and its relationship with medical negligence related to malpractice liability (Samanta et al., 2021). 3. Methodology Since it adopts both qualitative and quantitative research, the study employs data collection methods of qualitative and quantitative nature. This is reasonable when shedding light on the relationship between the legal and medical domains and offering a base to explain how clinical guidelines are used in a legal litigation process. 4. Results The article concludes that more and more often, clinical guidelines are used in court to establish a breach of duty but simultaneously avoid excessive reliance of the court on such guidelines and utilize expert testimony. These implications touch on malpractice issues, especially on questions of standard of care as interpreted in the law courts. 5. Significance Consequently, the study is important because it may contribute to the changing approaches to the use of clinical guidelines, ethics, and concepts of negligence in medical negligence cases and, hence, precedent in malpractice liability. One has to do with the highly suggestive, if not prescriptive, change in judicial attitudes toward the manner conducted more systematically to follow the guidelines, which would be tort to duty to warn and confidentiality issues. 6. Application to Topic The results can be adopted within the premise of the malpractice liability, particularly within the duty to warn and confidentiality issues. For example, knowledge about how judiciaries employ guidelines could be useful in comprehending how practitioners in the healthcare profession document and rationalize choices concerning these ethical responsibilities. Article 2 Mello, M. M., Frakes, M. D., Blumenkranz, E., & Studdert, D. M. (2020). Malpractice liability and health care quality: a review. Jama, 323(4), 352-366. 10.1001/jama.2019.21411 1. Identification of Empirical Articles This is a 2020 systematic review of the empirical literature regarding the association between malpractice liability risk and healthcare quality published in JAMA. It critically and systematically reviews 37 studies, which places it as a sound empirical review concerning malpractice liability (Mello et al., 2020). 2. Summary The review seeks to establish if the high malpractice liability risk improves healthcare quality and safety outcomes. It involves a broad spectrum of outcomes such as patient mortality, readmission rates of the hospital, and patient satisfaction level. The conclusions show a low or absent correlation between higher risk capacity and improved care quality. 3. Methodology This article employs a systematic review method that selects data from several databases for the studies done between 1990 and 2019. Since performing a meta-analysis was impossible due to differences in study design, the results were described and analyzed qualitatively. The systematic synthesis of qualitative literature is useful in this approach when one needs an overall approach to synthesize diversified findings to assess overall trends across the literature. 4. Results Significantly, the review observed that nearly all examined studies failed to establish a correlation between malpractice liability risk and healthcare quality performances. Similarly, most works did not establish mediate links in the investigations between obstetrical care and patient mortality. This means the implication of higher liability risk did not result in higher quality care. 5. Significance Analysis This review is important because it questions raising the malpractice liability to guarantee non-negligent behaviour and quality healthcare. It means that existing systems of malpractice liability may not operate in a way that provides the deterrence impacts that policymakers aimed for and that healthcare managers should consider learning. 6. Application to Topic The findings are very important for any discussion on questions of malpractice liability, the duty to warn and confidentiality. The review would help the policymakers understand that the threat of legal repercussions may not always improve the care quality and can be used to reform healthcare policies. Article 3 Tumelty, M. E. (2020). Medical negligence litigation and apologies: An empirical examination. European Journal of Health Law, 27(4), 386-403. https://brill.com/view/journals/ejhl/27/4/article-p386_3.xml 1. Identification of Empirical Articles This paper in the European Journal of Health Law (2020) offers findings of an empirical study on apologies in medical negligence claims. It is an empirical study which is useful when it comes to evaluating the legal and ethical questions concerning malpractice liability and the role of apologies. 2. Summary For this reason, the article examines the contribution and importance of apology in medicine, focusing on empirical investigation in Ireland. It looks into elements of apologies perceived as valuable by patient-plaintiffs and their families. It explains whether improvements in legislation will assist in expanding usage and work as a solid foundation in dispute resolution. 3. Methodology This paper relies on empirical evidence generated by the author through undertaking research in Ireland and targets the writings of patient plaintiffs and their families in...