Page 23 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

communication and information is exchanged between the

healthcare providers. This is a heavy burden.

The manner by which medical information is transmitted is
conducive to communication breakdown between the referring

provider and the radiologist. Communication errors may give
rise to claims of malpractice when information that was delayed

or not received could have been used to benefit the health
of the patient. Of particular concern are abnormal findings

in radiology reports. Examples of common communication
problems include: findings that are delayed or not received

by the referring provider, failure to mention an inclusive or
incidental finding to the treating provider, and failure to notify a

self-referred patient of an abnormal result.

What, specifically, is the radiologist required (duty) to

communicate and when? The legal duty as enunciated by a
myriad of state appellate courts generally holds that a physician

has a duty to disclose what he or she has found and to warn the
referring provider or patient of any finding that would indicate

that the patient is in danger and should seek further medical
evaluation and treatment. The radiologist breaches this duty

(standard of care) when he or she fails to notify the referring
provider/patient of an abnormal x-ray.

Thus, a key responsibility of radiologists in their capacity

as consultants is to promptly and clearly communicate the
results of their interpretations to referring healthcare personnel

and, especially for mammography, to patients as well. This
commitment to timely notification is emphasized by the

American College of Radiology (ACR) in its “Practice Guidelines
for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging Findings”, which is

often invoked by the plaintiffs’ lawyers as they make the case

Page 23