Page 16 - 2022 Risk Basics - Radiology

SVMIC Risk Basics: Radiology

Some courts have gone so far as to hold that the duty of the radiologist

is not limited to detecting and reporting pertinent findings following a
radiologic study, but that the radiologist’s duty extends to ensuring that

the report was received, understood, and acted upon, as well as ensuring
6
that active communication and information is exchanged between the

healthcare providers. This is a heavy burden.

The manner by which medical information is transmitted is conducive
to communication breakdowns between the referring provider and the

radiologist. Communication errors may give rise to claims of malpractice
when information that was delayed or not received could have been used

to benefit the health of the patient. Of particular concern are abnormal
findings in radiology reports. Examples of common communication

problems include findings that are delayed or not received by the
referring provider, failure to personally notify a referring physician of an

unexpected finding, failure to mention an inclusive or incidental finding
to the treating provider, and failure to notify a self-referred patient of an

abnormal result.

What, specifically, is the radiologist required (duty) to communicate and

when? The legal duty as enunciated by a myriad of state appellate courts
generally holds that a physician has a duty to disclose what he or she

has found and to warn the referring provider or patient of any finding
that would indicate that the patient is in danger and should seek further

medical evaluation and treatment. The radiologist breaches this duty
(standard of care) when he or she fails to notify the referring provider/

patient of an abnormal x-ray.

Thus, a key responsibility of radiologists in their capacity as consultants
is to promptly and clearly communicate the results of their interpretations

to referring healthcare personnel and, especially for mammography, to

6 Evan W. Montgomery and Judith A. Montgomery v. South County Radiologists, Inc., Edward Szoko, M.D., et
al., 49 S.W. 3d 191 (Mo. S. Ct. 2001).

Page 16