Did I mention that I’m doing a webinar for the Tribal Forensic Healthcare project November 3rd? It’s going to be on the health consequences of IPV, and it’ll be held from 3-4:30pm ET. As with all offerings from this project, CEUs and CMEs are available. Click through for details about the webinar and our live 3-day IPV course for clinicians:
I frequently get asked about setting fees for expert consultation and testimony. Particularly with nurses, I find that people are unsure of how to determine appropriate rates and are prone to undervaluing their worth. So I figured I’d write something up for those of you needing some guidance. These are absolutely my opinions, not hard and fast rules. When I looked to see what had been written on fees for experts there was very little out there relevant to nursing specifically, and where it involved criminal (vs. malpractice) trials, there was even less. We don’t talk about it much (people are squeamish about things involving money), and really, we should. So I’ll kick off the conversation…
Yesterday, NSVRC tweeted this infographic, and it pretty much made my morning (which may be a sad statement to make, I don’t know). I have added it to the Evaluating Research clinical guide; the PDF would make an excellent handout for a burgeoning journal club or staff meeting on currency of practice or testimony. Bonus: it’s also available in Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian.
I am on my way to Argentina, but wanted to leave you with a new full-text post before I jet off. This week’s offering is actually a law review article, and I post it because it’s an important perspective from the legal profession about a conversation we should be having more of (or really, just having since I don’t know that I’ve ever heard the topic mentioned in any formal way). Click through for details:
We’ve been talking this week about testimony and about research, so let’s end the week with the interface of the two. Our selection for this week’s Full-Text Friday is an oldy, and perhaps not really that much of a goody. The reason I include it then? Because it exists in the peer-reviewed literature, and as such, means that it cannot be ignored, even if it’s not particularly great science, and even if the results don’t appear to have been reproduced anywhere else. Click through for all of the details.
I spent a lot of time in trial in 2013. Probably more than any other year, in fact. In doing so, there are some issues I have noticed that come up repeatedly. I figured I’d share some of those today, particularly because it’s one of those things I’m asked to discuss pretty frequently when talking with medical folks about testimony. So for your reading pleasure, a new 10 Things list: Observations from Court: