The implications of Montgomery vs. Lanarkshire Health Board for NHS patient information services.
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 38, doi. 10.1177/1356262216672615
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
Works matching IS 13562622 AND DT 2016 AND VI 22 AND IP 1/2
Results: 10
1
2
Midwifery perspectives: The consent process in the context of patient safety and medico-legal issues.
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 25, doi. 10.1177/1356262216672614
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
3
Montgomery and informed choice: Not yet uhuru.
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 1, doi. 10.1177/1356262216671472
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
4
Progress towards a decision record is lamentable.
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 16, doi. 10.1177/1356262216667164
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
5
Patient power: The duty to explain post Montgomery and the statutory duty of candour.
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 6, doi. 10.1177/1356262216654039
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
6
Consent after Montgomery: What next for healthcare professionals?
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 33, doi. 10.1177/1356262216665489
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
7
Montgomery and patient consent: perceived problems addressed.
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 12, doi. 10.1177/1356262216664442
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
8
Consent.
- Published in:
- 2016
- By:
- Publication type:
- Editorial
9
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: Implications of the Supreme Court ruling for psychiatry.
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 30, doi. 10.1177/1356262216666982
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
10
Consent in surgery: Is there a Montgomery effect?
- Published in:
- Clinical Risk, 2016, v. 22, n. 1/2, p. 21, doi. 10.1177/1356262216664854
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article