Page 24 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

that a particular defendant radiologist failed to meet his or her

obligation. As will be discussed in greater detail later in this
section, the ACR Guidelines do not establish the standard of

care; however, they are frequently used by plaintiffs’ attorneys
to cross-examine radiologists in malpractice cases about their

care.

The ACR published Parameters for communicating the
10
diagnostic imaging finding recommend that radiologists:

• Prepare a formal, written report for all studies that includes
review of previous reports and comparison of previous

images when possible.

• Transmit the report to the referring physician or healthcare

provider, who provides clinical follow-up care.

The ACR explains that routine reporting can be handled through
the usual channels established by the practice or facility.

However, the communication of a diagnostic imaging report
should be expedited in emergent or other nonroutine clinical

situations. There should be efforts made to ensure timely receipt
of findings when: there is evidence of something that would

require an immediate or urgent intervention (e.g. pneumothorax,
pneumoperitoneum, or a significantly misplaced line or tube); a

final interpretation differs from the preliminary report (this can
be a particular issue with images interpreted by emergency

department personnel); a subsequent review of a final report
that has been submitted reveals discrepancies; or the radiologist

believes there are findings that would seriously impact the
patient’s health and are unexpected by the treating or referring

physician. The ACR also recommends that the interpreting

10 https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CommunicationDiag.pdf

Page 24