English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

In 1999 the Institute of Medicine reported that most medical injuries relate to unavoidable human error in a context of system failure. Patient safety improves when healthcare providers facilitate blame-free reporting and organisational learning. This is at odds with fault-based civil liability law, which discourages a more open (doctor-patient) communication on medical injuries. The absence of a clear-cut definition of ‘medical error’ complicates litigation and hence swift, appropriate patient compensation. No-fault systems perform better in this respect. A dual track liability system for medical malpractice is challenging to implement and operate, yet may be the only option for Pan-European harmonisation of medical liability.

Patients’ Rights, Medical Error and Harmonisation of Compensation Mechanisms in Europe