National standard of care from a legal perspective definition is a parameter utilized as a benchmark for evaluating a doctor’s real work. This illustration is considered in a case concerning a medical malpractice. The doctor’s lawyer would insist on proof that activities by the doctor conformed to the expected standard of care. On the other end, it is expected that the complainant’s lawyers reveal what violation of the standard of care or the extent of negligence was committed by a doctor. From a legal perspective, the standard of care definition is based on the concept of “custom” in legal terms. National standards on a clinical perspective mean a formal process of diagnosing and treatment by a doctor, which usually follows. This particularly applies for a sick individual with a specified disease or exhibiting certain patterns of symptoms. The standards of care thus have to be in line with the guidelines that are considered by experts as most appropriate (Grol, 1990).
Licensing of institutions, providers, and accreditation play an important role in quality control of healthcare. Licensing is regarded as a non-voluntary process whereby an agency or department in the government regulates the practices in a certain profession. Giving licenses to individuals in healthcare practice provides them with permission to participate in activities associated with healthcare. Licensing of nurses means that practicing nurses qualify with a given degree of competency that is expected of the nurses in their duty of ensuring that welfare, health status and safety of the patients are appropriately protected. Licensing is usually based on actions by legislative bodies that qualify individuals to practice nursing within a given local state or federal level. A licensing law legitimizes healthcare actions performed by individuals in engaging in the occupation depending on possession of a license in the healthcare profession. Nurses are usually licensed within the state so that they may work as registered nurses (RN) or Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Licensing usually aims at eliminating unqualified people to reduce unsafe performance. In licensing, tests are undertaken to gauge performance (Varkey et al., 2007).
Accreditation, on the other hand, is different from the licensed RN/LPN testing in certification. This process usually judges and evaluates institutions, which offer healthcare instead of individuals. Many accreditation programs reveal a merit of institutions as opposed to only providing a guarantee regarding an individual’s safety. The process of nurses’ accreditation can be performed voluntary just like certification but in some cases it is not. Hence, accreditation is needed for such a healthcare institution that presupposes collecting Medicaid bills. Thus, as a process, accreditation evaluates the merits of agencies and institutions, as well as programs meant for educating people on health. In this case, accreditation of healthcare institutions ensures that they are granted with certificates. The licensing and certification engages individual practitioners (Varkey et al., 2007).
The tort law will assist in avoiding errors and, at the same time, promote the quality of higher healthcare. The legal system tries to offer health in a safe manner, with the highest quality and incentives on delivery of healthcare through the tort law. The law moderates specific medical malpractices by the negligence rule (Kessler & McClellan, 2002). Individuals are held liable by the rule, which ensures that ethics of personal acts are adopted to minimize any impending harm and thus foster responsibility of individuals. Such an ethic is appropriate especially when healthcare professionals gain access to treatments and examinations. The tort law ensures accountability of healthcare providers to patients with the public exerting concerns in the jurisdiction of the law that uses different means in addressing healthcare issues.
References
Grol, R. (1990). National standard setting for quality of care in general practice: attitudes of general practitioners and response to a set of standards. The British Journal of General Practice, 40(338), 361.
Kessler, D., & McClellan, M. (2002). Malpractice law and health care reform: optimal liability policy in an era of managed care. Journal of Public Economics, 84(2), 175-197.
Varkey, P., Reller, M.K., & Resar, R.K. (2007). Basics of quality improvement in health care. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 82(6), 735-739.