| Title |
Juristische Relevanz von Leitlinien
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Die Chirurgie, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00104-018-0671-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. Weyhe, V. N. Uslar, C. Mählmeyer, H. Oehlers |
| Abstract |
Guidelines aim to standardize treatment concepts based on evidence from the literature and may thus be viewed as collegial support; however, there is a lack of clarity about the legal relevance and legal validity of international guidelines compared to the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) recommendations. A literature search was conducted on German AWMF guidelines and on international guidelines for inguinal hernia in adults. Differences in the structure of the guidelines were analyzed and legal terms, such as the medical standard, the Patients' Rights Act and the current legal literature are defined and commented on with respect to guideline-compliant treatment. Since 2003 a total of 15 guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia have been published. There are no AWMF guidelines on one of the procedures most frequently performed in Germany. Among the relevant judgments and laws passed from 1994 onwards, § 630 of the German Civil Code (BGB) passed in 2013 seems to be particularly significant, since it standardizes the term "medical standard" and explicitly allows values falling short of the standard after clarification. From a legal point of view, the basic prerequisites for medical treatment are patient consent and intervention education. In principle, a non-guideline-compliant treatment procedure can be agreed. The patient must be informed about the treatment options that are relevant to the medical standard, the procedure must be indicated according to the medical standard and the operation must be performed in accordance with the national medical specialist standard. Thus, international guidelines cannot a priori claim to be followed unobserved and are therefore not legally comparable to the German S3 guidelines of the AWMF. It is strongly advised to expressly point out and explicitly explain anything falling short of the standard, individual healing attempts and so-called outsider methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 25% |
| Researcher | 1 | 25% |
| Other | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 50% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Die Chirurgie
#293
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,480
of 341,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Chirurgie
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.