Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Expansion of the team approach to diabetes care will most likely have significant ramifications in malpractice liability law as applied to diabetes educators, physicians, treatment teams, and supporting hospitals. This analysis focuses on the nature of the team approach to diabetes care, nationally promulgated standards for its practice, and predictions of the parameters of malpractice law. The estab lishment of a national certifi cation procedure identifies specialists in diabetes education, allowing for the expanded roles of diabetes educators, and promotes a minimum standard of care to which practitioners may be held. Likewise, the criteria for recog nition by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) serve as guide lines for diabetes education programs. Current legal. decisions suggest that these standards may be applied nationally as measures of malpractice liability. Application of certification guidelines may minimize allegations of malpractice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kenny J. , Ratner RE The team approach to diabetes care. In: Becker, KL , ed. Principles and practice of endocrinology and metabolism . Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1990:2013-19.

Herman W. , Teutsch S. , Geiss L. Closing the gap: the problem of diabetes mellitus in the United States . Diabetes Care 1985;8:391-406.

Bouchardat A. De la glucosurie ou diabetes sucre. Paris, 1875.

Joslin, E. Diabetic manual for the use of doctor and patient. New York: Lea & Febiger, 1919 .

Assal J. , Muhlhauser I. , Pernet A. , Gfeller R. , Jorgens V. , Berger, M. Patient education as the basis for diabetes care in clinical practice and research. Diabetologia 1985;28:602-13.

Scheuneman T. , Waltz J. Informed consent to therapy. Northwestern Univ Law Rev 1970;64:628-50.

Frank v South, 175 Ky 416, 194 SW 375 (Ky 1917).

Underwood v Scott, 43 Kan 714, 23 P942, 943 (Kan 1890).

Kabel J. Diabetes self-care—potential liability of the treating physician . J Leg Med 1984;5:253-93.

10.

Ybarra v Spangard, 93 Cal App 2d 43, 25 Cal 2d 486, 154 P2d 687 (Cal 1944).

11.

Sermchief v Gonzales, 660 SW2d 683,684 (Mo banc 21983).

12.

Lunsford v Board of Nurse Examiners, 648 SW2d 391 (Tex Ct App 1983).

13.

Prosser W , Keeton P , eds. Prosser and Keeton on torts. 5th ed. St Paul: West Publications, 1984.

14.

Darling v Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 33 Ill 2d 326, 211 NE2d 253, cert denied 383 US 946 (1965).

Legal Aspects of the Team Approach to Diabetes Treatment

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References