If the physician’s behavior during a medical procedure is to the detriment of the accepted abstract pattern of the physician’s behavior, this indicates his guilt in the event of damage. The model is built according to the objective criteria of the level of professionalism, under which the behavior of a certain doctor should be evaluated negatively.
The appropriate level of professionalism is determined by qualifications (specialization or academic degree), general experience and experience in performing specific medical procedures, the nature and amount of training to expand medical knowledge and learn new treatments. The fault of the doctor can be established not only by accusing him of insufficient knowledge and practical skills, corresponding to the approved model of due diligence, but also of inconvenience and inattention to the procedure performed, if, according to an objective assessment, they should not occur in specific circumstances. .
The care required by a doctor is not above average, but a high level of average diligence on the part of each doctor as a professional diligence; according to this environment, a certain behavior is evaluated. It was also noted that in the provision of medical services it is necessary to exclude the use of old methods and means that do not predict efficacy or have a worse prognosis if they are usually replaced by new methods of treatment.
It is the responsibility of doctors and healthcare professionals to carry out such a procedure (treatment), which should ensure, while maintaining the current level of knowledge and due diligence, a predictable effect in the form of a cure and, above all, to does not expose patients to a deteriorating condition. health (Supreme Court decision of 10 February 2010, V CSK 287/09, with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court of 1 December 1998, III CKN 741/98, OSNC 1999, No 6, paragraphs 112, LEX No 35 751, judgment Lublin Court of Appeal of 29 September 2005, I ACa 510/05, LEX No. 193938, see also the judgment of the Szczecin Court of Appeal of 25 November 2019, I ACa 197/18, LEX No. 2 877 562) .