Page 33 - 2022 Risk Basics - Radiology
P. 33
SVMIC Risk Basics: Radiology
In today’s electronic age, timely communication is facilitated by the
availability of several commercial products that transmit communication
electronically and document acknowledgment by the referring provider.
Nevertheless, these products are rarely as valuable as an actual
conversation with the patient’s healthcare provider. Such a conversation
not only helps maintain a good relationship with the referring provider but
may also be useful in providing the radiologist with additional information
for guidance.
Pitfalls in Reporting
In this section , we discuss a variety of possible reporting
14
pitfalls, including definitive versus inclusive language, follow-up
recommendations, use of disclaimers, suboptimal studies, addenda,
missed diagnoses at prior companion studies, interpretation of old
studies, and consultations and sources.
Definitive vs. Inclusive Language
The fine line between complete certainty and overconfidence is difficult
to tread. A generally accepted solution is to list the top differential
diagnoses and favor the one that is most likely, given the constellation
of findings; for example, in this descriptive text taken from an actual
radiology report: “Multiple cavitary lesions in the lungs. Given the
patient’s past medical history of head and neck cancer, this is most likely
metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. Other etiologies like Wegener’s
disease, septic emboli, and cavitating pneumonia are less likely.” In
doing so, the radiologist can avoid equivocality without sacrificing
thoroughness. In the advent of a lawsuit, he or she has addressed the
pertinent medicolegal issues while still producing a clinically meaningful
report.
14 Excerpts of this section are taken from The Malpractice Liability of Radiology Reports: Minimizing the Risk,
Babu AS, Brooks ML. Radio Graphics 2015; 35; 547-554. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/rg.352140046.
Used with permission from the Radiological Society of North America.
Page 33

