Although expert witnesses explain the standard of care to the jury and assist them in relating these standards to the actual care rendered, juries find this process confusing. The testimony of the plaintiff's expert regarding the standard of care often is diametrically opposed to the testimony of the standard by the defendant's expert. Paths often present a clear, orderly format that the jury can easily understand and use to analyze the standard of care. In addition to the clinical path, charting by exception can further expedite the court's understanding of what actually occurred. Using the clinical path and recorded deviations is a more jury-friendly expedient than reading through volumes of medical records and hours of expert testimony.
Clinical paths can be a powerful mechanism to prevent malpractice litigation.
They provide a means to analyze and report variations, monitor a patient's progress, identify problem areas and expedite corrective measures, thus reducing errors and improving clinical outcomes. In addition, paths can influence patient satisfaction, improve communication and provide a format that endorses patients as partners in their own care. By clearly highlighting health care providers' responsibilities and accountabilities as well as expected length of time for outcomes, clinical paths can prevent malpractice. Careful variance documentation further enhances clinical path utility and can deter, avoid, or deflect frivolous malpractice suits. Paths are only as sound as their design and the judgment of the providers who use them.