In short
Attribution to the consultant physician is read from which signature the written consultation answer stands on. The physician who wrote the answer and the physician who admitted the patient are a separate line. The request paper, the answer note, and the ward record are three separate places. The claim that the call was never written is not the subject of this note. If the answer is not on the file, this note stops there.
Against whom an action is brought sits on the record of a malpractice action. The discussion of the act as medical practice sits on the record of medical malpractice. How the fault sentence in the report is built with the patient's objection sits on the record of the expert report. This page does not copy that building onto the consultation note. There is no promise of treating the report as absent either.
The request paper and the answer note
The request is which ward wrote which question at which hour. The answer is the view written to that question and the signature under it. If there is a name in the request, that name is the side that wrote the invitation. The name in the answer is the side that wrote the view. If the two are the same person, the file already shows this. If they are not the same, they are not joined.
The Regulation on the Operation of Inpatient Treatment Institutions speaks, at an institution within its own scope, of the ward chief and the specialist accepting a consultation invitation that comes from another branch and notifying their view. The view that was notified, if it was written, is the answer note. The attribution of the view is from the signature on that note. The sentence of the Regulation does not build the story of a physician who was not called. If the institution is not within the scope, the article is not itself pasted onto a private-hospital or university file.
Which authority a patient's complaint goes to sits on the record of the physician complaint process. This note does not turn that application into a petition of a missing call.
The hour of the request paper and the hour of the answer note stand apart. If the answer appears to have been written before the request, the appearance is left. The appearance that is left is not corrected to an hour on this page. The correction is in the papers themselves. The question asked in the request and the view written in the answer may not be the same sentence. The difference is read. The difference is not turned into the claim that the call was never made. If the call was not written, it is not this section that applies, but the later section.
If the request carries the name of one specialty and the answer is on the paper of another specialty, the two names are left in place. One is not put in place of the other. A name that is not put does not erase the signature of the answer either. Whichever paper the signature is on, the attribution looks there.
The signature that wrote the answer
If the name and the signature of the consultant physician are on the answer note, the sentence of the view is tied to that signature. A transaction that is not written in the sentence is not added beside the signature. If the note says "recommendation", the recommendation is read. If the note says "it was applied by me", that act is read separately. The two are not joined by assumption.
If a resident physician signed the answer, the attribution looks to the name in that signature. If the specialist has separate initials or a second note, that is a separate line too. If there are no initials, the specialist is not treated as having seen it. Not treating them as having seen it does not build an automatic judgment from the absence of the initials either. This note does not build a judgment. It separates the two lines. That the resident is in training does not erase the signature on the answer paper. A signature that is not erased is not turned into the sentence "only the resident is responsible" either.
The sentence "the consultant said this" in the ward note does not stand in for the answer paper. The sentence is the admitting physician's own record. If the answer paper stands, the two are read side by side. If they conflict, the conflict is left. One does not erase the other.
If the answer says "it is recommended", the recommendation is read. If the answer says "it was done by me" or "I applied it", that act is read separately. The recommendation sentence is not treated as an application having been made while there is no application sentence. If there is an application sentence, it is not melted inside the recommendation. The two sentences that are not melted do not make the consultant the author of the admitting physician's whole treatment chart either. The chart is the line of the admitting physician, or of the physician who wrote the order. If the order is separate, it stays separate.
If the signature cannot be read, it is left as unreadable. The blank that is left is not filled with the name in the ward note. The blank that is not filled does not mean the answer was never written either. If the answer paper stands, the paper stands. It cannot be treated as absent because it stands. There is no promise of treating it as absent in this note.
The ward note of the admitting physician
The physician who admitted the patient is the side that keeps the observation and the treatment chart of the ward. The Regulation says that, at an institution within its scope, the chief and the specialist are responsible for these papers being written regularly. This responsibility does not make the admitting physician the author of the consultation answer. The admitting physician's note shows whether they saw the answer, and what they themselves wrote. The medical sentence of the answer stays on the answer paper.
If the admitting physician wrote their own order after the answer, that order is a third line. If the name of the order and the name of the answer note differ, the difference is read. The difference is not turned into the claim that the call was never made. If the call was not written, it is not this section that applies, but the later section. The technique of the medicine in the order is not told on this page. What is told is on whose signature the order stands.
The address of the office in Çankaya does not determine at which clinic the answer was signed. The clinic is read from the letterhead of the request and of the answer paper. If the letterheads show different hospitals, the difference is left. A consultant who came from outside and the institution of the admitting physician do not have to be the same. If they are not the same, they are not joined. Institutions that are not joined do not put the signature in place of each other either.
Whether the admitting physician's sentence "the recommendation was followed" is the same as the recommendation on the answer paper is read too. If what was written as followed is not in the answer, the absence is not added from the ward note onto the answer. A recommendation that is in the answer and is not mentioned in the ward note is not treated as erased either. The two sentences stand. The sentences that stand do not make the consultant the sole author of the admitting physician's act. The admitting physician's own note stands too.
If the call was not written, this note stops
If there is no consultation answer on the file, the attribution cannot be tied to a written view. The absence is not the counterpart, in this note, of the sentence "they should have been called". A period, which specialty should have come, and the damage of not coming are not in this note. An answer that does not exist is not produced from the ward note.
If there is an answer, the reading ends here: the request, the signature, the ward note. If there is no answer, the reading ends too. A reading that has ended does not turn into the petition of a missing call. The record is not used to write later an answer that does not exist either. This note does not show a path of adding a record.
If the expert report mentions an unwritten consultation as fault, this mention does not bring into existence an answer paper that does not exist. The mention does not change the subject of this note either. The subject is the signature of the written answer. If there is no written answer, that sentence of the report is not turned, on this page, into an attribution to a consultant. A sentence that is not turned does not have the report treated as absent. The report stands on its own file. The patient's objection petition is not put in place of this absence either.
If the answer stands and the report mentions the signature of that answer, the name that was mentioned is placed side by side with the signature on the answer paper. If the name in the report and the name on the paper differ, the difference is left. The difference does not erase one of the two names. A name that is not erased is not itself pasted onto the admitting physician's ward note either. A note that is not pasted does not stand in for the answer. The three papers stay in three places.
More than one answer in the same patient
If two answers from two specialties stand in the same admission, each answer is in its own signature. One does not take on the view of the other. A view that is not taken on is not erased under a shared heading of "the consultants". If the attribution shows only one specialty, the signature of the answer that was not shown is not added to that attribution. A signature that is not added stands on its paper. The paper that stands does not build the story of a third physician who was not called either.
If the ward note says "it was discussed by telephone", this sentence is the admitting physician's record. If there is no answer paper written separately, the telephone sentence is not turned into an answer paper. If there is an answer paper, the telephone sentence is not put in its place. If both stand, both are read. If their hours differ, the difference is left. The difference is not turned into which specialty should have come in how many hours. There is no period in this note. A period that does not exist does not erase the signature of the written answer either.
If the attribution wrote a recommendation in the answer onto the consultant as an act the admitting physician applied, the two lines are separated. The recommendation is on the answer paper. If the application stands separately in the order or in the ward note, it stands there. If it does not stand separately, the application is not produced from the recommendation. An application that is not produced does not have the recommendation treated as absent either. The recommendation is read. This reading does not make the consultant an automatic defendant. It does not leave them automatically outside either. Against whom an action is brought stands on a separate record. This record separates to whom the written answer belongs.
Conclusion
Attribution to the consultant physician is looked for on the signature of the written answer. The ward note of the admitting physician does not stand in for that signature. Not having been called is not told in this note. The frame sits on the health law page. Which note belongs to whom can be asked, through contact, with the answer on the file.
The basis, for the institutions within its scope, is Article 114 of the Regulation on the Operation of Inpatient Treatment Institutions.