医疗纠纷第三方调解机制实证研究  

Empirical research on the third-party mediation mechanism in medical dispute

作　　者：李昌超[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《中国卫生事业管理》2014年第2期125-127,143,共4页Chinese Health Service Management

基　　金：中国法学会部级课题"仲裁案外人权利救济制度研究"(编号:CLS(2013)D202);国家社科基金项目"合作主义视野中城镇基层纠纷解决实证研究"(编号:13XFX015);西南政法大学重点项目"社区调解与基层政权合法性再生产"(编号:2012-XZZD06)

摘　　要：由于自身的高度专业性和高度风险性,医疗行业中的医疗纠纷事件层出不穷。而随着公民维权意识的加强,而相关的制度建设的滞后,医疗纠纷呈现出增长速度快、处理难度大、赔偿金额高、冲突程度剧烈、伤医弑医事件频发等问题,传统的医疗纠纷解决模式存在缺乏中立性、成本高、周期长等不足,无法满足新时期的医疗纠纷处理要求,而第三方调解具有中立性强、专业性高、调解成本低等方优点,我国的一些省市开始在一些医疗机构内实施医疗纠纷第三方调解的试点,并逐步形成了医疗纠纷调解的北京模式、天津模式、上海模式、南京模式、宁波模式等较具有代表性的创新。这些创新取得不同程度的效果,同时也存在着法律地位不明确、中立性仍受质疑、赔付标准不一、缺乏有效的保险机制配套等问题。Because of its specialization and high-risk, medical disputes kept increasing with the people＇s consciousness of right-protection and insufficient management system. Traditional mode to solve the medical disputes can＇t meet the requirement in the new period. Due to the advantages of neutrality, professionalization and low cost, the third-party mediation mechanism has pilo- ted on medical disputes in some cities, from which some innovative mode has been developed, such as Beijing mode, Tianjin mode, Shanghai mode, Nanjing mode and Ningbo mode. These modes has obtained some effects, while some problems still existed, mainly as undefined legal position, doubtful neutrality ,inconsistent compensation standard and insufficient insurances.

关 键 词：医疗纠纷 医患冲突 第三方调解 

分 类 号：R-051[医药卫生]