Page 22 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

Key Challenge #1: Communication

A study conducted in 1985 indicated that as much as 80 percent
of malpractice suits included a component or allegation of

communication error in all specialties including radiology.
7
Most studies since that time have consistently recognized that

communication error is a frequent subsidiary contributing factor
in most radiology claims.
8

Although many radiologists would prefer that his or her duty
ends once a radiographic interpretation is dictated, such is

not the case. Courts have extended the radiologist’s duty to
communicate far beyond the rendering of their written report.

The courts have consistently ruled that the communication of
radiologic results to the referring provider and/or patient is just

as important as identifying the abnormal findings.

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 that active
9

7 Levinson, W. “Physician-patient Communication: a Key to Malpractice Prevention, JAMA
1994;272(20):1619-1620.
8 In a recent study conducted by Jeremy S. Whang, MD, et al, approved by the Institutional Review
Board of New Jersey Medical School, a total of 8,401 radiologists in 47 states were examined.**
Contrary to prior studies, the Whang study seemed to indicate that communication errors are
not a common cause of malpractice actions. However, the Whang study conceded that, “the
information provided allowed (the researchers) only to assess the primary allegation of the claim,
not subsidiary issues, which may have included the alleged failure of a radiologist to timely notify
a referring physician” and “information on this matter is very limited in the literature”. The low rate
of communication errors identified by Dr. Whang’s study is inconsistent with the data compiled by
professional liability carriers whose data is typically more comprehensive. Specifically, the data of
medical malpractice insurance carriers typically identifies each and every contributing factor in a
malpractice claim including subsidiary issues.
** Whang, J. et al, “The Causes of Medical Malpractice Suits against 994;272(20) Radiologists in the
United States,” Radiology: Volume 266: Number 2 – February 2013.
9 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 22