Page 41 - 2022 Risk Basics - Radiology

SVMIC Risk Basics: Radiology

The description of “either short-term follow-up or further evaluation

with PET/CT” is somewhat misleading in that the radiologist did
not specifically state that this was a worrisome lesion for primary

lung cancer. The patient himself should have been informed of the
pulmonary nodule during his hospitalization. This was the type of

“unexpected” finding that should have also merited a telephone
call to the clinician. The case ultimately settled prior to trial.

In the real world, however, when there has been no claim threatened or

asserted, most referring providers do not have the time or patience to
speak on the phone with the radiologist about every finding or concern.

Further, if a radiologist makes it a practice to call or contact a referring
provider too often, a phenomenon akin to “alert fatigue” occurs. And the

radiologist runs the risk of being labeled an alarmist.

The radiologist must perform a constant balancing act of knowing when

to contact the referring provider by phone or when to allow the radiology

report to speak for itself. Usually, through experience and interaction
with the various referring providers, the radiologist will develop a better
sense of rapport and strike the correct balance; but when in doubt, the

radiologist should always default to picking up the phone and contacting

the referring provider. Patient safety should always be a greater concern
than the fear of irritating a colleague or being labeled a nuisance.

The ACR Guidelines: Friend or Foe?

As guidance, the latest 2020 revision of
the ACR Practice Parameter for
Communication of Diagnostic Imaging

Findings contains language that suggests

the communication of a diagnosis is as
important as the diagnosis itself. The

Page 41