Page 26 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One
P. 26
SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks
As outlined in a 2017 Radiological Society of North America
(RSNA) study performed at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore,
an alarming frequency of poor communication occurs when
referring physicians simply do not read the report of studies
they’ve ordered on their patients. During the five-month study,
11
overall, 7,289 of 31,493 (23 percent) of imaging reports were
never viewed by the ordering physician. Specifically, outpatient
providers are more likely (33 percent of the time) to never
view the report. Unfortunately, this is not a new problem. As
far back as 1990, the ACR Bulletin recognized that, “radiologists
frequently cannot depend on the referring physician to read a
written report” and recommended that radiologists make direct
phone contact before sending a written report.
12
Indeed, a question often asked by radiologists is, “why
bother ordering a study if there’s no plan to read the report?”
Obviously, communication is a two-way street. What about
joint responsibility? Shouldn’t the referring physician or the
patient bear all or, at least, some responsibility when there is a
communication breakdown?
The requesting physician has an absolute responsibility
to obtain and review the result of each and every lab test,
study, and consultation that he or she requests. This certainly
includes imaging examination for procedures. However, while
malfeasance and inattentiveness on the part of the referring
physician and/or the patient can be a legal defense that can be
raised in the event of a claim, they do not relieve the radiologist
of his or her legal duty to appropriately communicate findings.
11 Alvin, m. et al., “Clinical Access to Radiology Reports: The Value of the Radiologist,” RSNA,
2017 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Nov. 26-Dec.1, 2017, Chicago, IL, archive.rsna.
org/2017/17006520.html.
12 Merine, D., ”Failing to Communicate,” JACR Blog, March 22, 2018.
Page 26
