Re: [討論] 到底所謂熱門科為何?
※ 引述《YANGGUOl (文籍雖滿腹)》之銘言：
: 大師一言有如醍醐灌頂 短短數謁實乃集NEJM之精華
: 本周之資料指出: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1114805
: 大師之順位 基本上照著下圖的順位
: http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMc1114805&iid=f01
: 可以看到最下面那幾根短短的
: 都是菁英中的菁英
: 像末學這種不學無術,不思進取,不知所謂的人
: 就只能選最上面那幾根很長的棒子
你引這篇 correspondence，當然要講他是回覆哪篇文章的阿
Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1012370
Conclusion 重點 quote:
1. Specialties in which the largest proportion of physicians faced a claim were
not necessarily those with the highest average payment size.
For example, physicians in obstetrics and general surgery
(按: 台灣就是被告率跟賠償金額度幾乎成比例的高阿)
2. Annual rates of claims leading to indemnity payments ranged from 1% to 5%
across specialties, whereas rates of all claims ranged from 5% to 22%.
(按: 台灣不用說判賠率了，光形事定罪率就比這個數字高了，還用比嗎?)
3. all physicians in high-risk specialties will face at least one claim during
their career . Although these annual rates of paid claims are low,
the annual and career risks of any malpractice claim are high
(人家是生涯至少一次被告，我們是每隔三五年至少被告一次吧!)
4. The perceived threat of malpractice among physicians may boil down to three
factors: the risk of a claim, the probability of a claim leading to a
payment, and the size of payment.
5. physicians can insure against indemnity payments through malpractice
insurance, but they cannot insure against the indirect costs of litigation,
such as time, stress, added work, and reputational damage
(就說保險沒啥用了，雖然美國人判賠金挺高，但其實間接傷害更大。
尤其美國不是用健保，傷害會更大，因為名譽傷害差很多)
6. a Harvard study of medical malpractice suggested that nearly 40% of claims
were not associated with medical errors and that although a low percentage of
such claims led to payment of compensation
(訴訟無法正確反映醫療過失，早就被證明了)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.37.37.127
※ 編輯: yamatai 來自: 114.37.37.127 (04/08 14:04)
※ 編輯: yamatai 來自: 114.37.37.127 (04/08 14:04)
※ 編輯: yamatai 來自: 114.37.37.127 (04/08 14:17)
※ 編輯: yamatai 來自: 114.37.37.127 (04/08 14:18)
→
04/08 15:42, , 1F
04/08 15:42, 1F
→
04/08 16:36, , 2F
04/08 16:36, 2F
→
04/09 10:38, , 3F
04/09 10:38, 3F
推
04/09 10:40, , 4F
04/09 10:40, 4F
討論串 (同標題文章)