Page 18 - 2022 Risk Basics - Radiology

SVMIC Risk Basics: Radiology

personnel); a subsequent review of a final report that has been submitted
reveals discrepancies; or the radiologist believes there are findings

that would seriously impact the patient’s health and are unexpected by
the treating or referring physician. The ACR also recommends that the

interpreting physician document all non-routine communications and
include the time and method of communication, as well as the name of

the person to whom the communication was made.

Method of communication may vary, and when using some methods of

communication that may not assure receipt of communication (e.g., text,
voice message, etc.), it would be appropriate to request confirmation of

receipt of the report by the receiving clinician.

From a practitioner’s “real-world” standpoint, the ACR Guidelines are
often viewed as only workable in the abstract and too cumbersome

to be implemented. Radiologists frequently report cases long after the
referring provider has left his or her office. What if the radiologist calls

and, after multiple attempts, is still unable to reach the referring provider
or appropriate staff member?

Can radiologists fulfill every aspect of the ACR communication standard
all the time? As noted radiologist, expert, and author, Dr. Leonard Berlin,

answered the question, “Of course not…Let us keep in mind that the law
requires us to make reasonable attempts to fulfill our duty, not be perfect.”

The problem of communicating results goes beyond the daily difficulties

of trying to contact the referring provider regarding a critical result. Most
radiologists see the radiology report as instrumental in the imaging

value chain, providing an essential communication link between
radiologists and other healthcare providers. Yet, radiologists frequently

voice complaints that the referring providers do not review the reports
transmitted by the radiologist.

Page 18