Page 17 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One
P. 17
SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks
2015 where a loss was paid on behalf of an insured, the most
frequently identified factor was error in medical judgment, which
contributed to the indefensibility of 76 percent of the claims. Of
3
these, misreads occurred in 74 percent, which led to a failure or
delay in diagnosis. A few examples of misreads from the SVMIC
files include:
• CT Scans: Failure to diagnose pulmonary embolism, aortic
aneurysm, hemopericardium, mandibular fracture, and
vertebral subluxation.
• Mammograms: Failure to identify suspicious micro-
calcifications associated with abnormal density that later
were diagnosed as Stage 4 carcinoma.
• MRI: Missed spinal tumor.
• Chest X-rays: Missed lung masses.
The failure to recommend proper follow-up imaging was
likewise frequently asserted as negligent medical judgment in
the reviewed cases.
Claims analysis also revealed two additional risk areas that
merit discussion: documentation errors and communication
breakdowns. If you have ever attended any of our live risk
prevention seminars, taken one of our online courses, or
read any of our Risk Education materials, you are aware that
documentation and communication errors and omissions are
the two contributing factors that make claims “indefensible”
or, certainly, more difficult to defend. While this is true for all
medical specialties, it probably has no greater significance
3 SVMIC Sentinel October, 2016, Specialty Spotlight – Radiology.
Page 17
