Page 25 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

physician document all non-routine communications and

include the time and method of communication, as well as the
name of the person to whom the communication was made.

Method of communication may vary, and when using some

methods of communication that may not assure receipt of
communication (e.g. text paper, facsimile, voice message, etc.),

it would be appropriate to request confirmation of receipt of the
report by the receiving clinician.

From a practitioner’s “real-world” standpoint, the ACR
Guidelines are often viewed as only workable in the abstract

and too cumbersome to be implemented. Radiologists
frequently report cases long after the referring provider has left

his or her office. What if the radiologist calls and, after multiple
attempts, is still unable to reach the referring provider or

appropriate staff member?

Can radiologists fulfill every aspect of the ACR communication
standard all the time? As noted radiologist, expert, and author,

Dr. Leonard Berlin, answered the question, “Of course not…Let
us keep in mind that the law requires us to make reasonable

attempts to fulfill our duty, not be perfect.”

The problem of communicating results goes beyond the daily

difficulties of trying to contact the referring provider regarding
a critical result. Most radiologists see the radiology report as

instrumental in the imaging value chain, providing an essential
communication link between radiologists and other healthcare

providers. Yet, radiologists frequently voice complaints that the
referring providers do not review the reports transmitted by the

radiologist.

Page 25