Page 27 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

Clearly, the radiologist must meet the standard of care in the

accuracy of his or her report.

In a court of law, the referring provider’s failure to obtain or
review the report may not necessarily absolve the radiologist of

the duty to communicate an important finding. The answers to
the questions of whether the referring physician (or patient) was

negligent, whether that negligence is equal to or greater than
that of the radiologist’s, and whether it exonerates the radiologist

from his or her own negligence are ultimately answers for
the jury to decide. Moreover, during the litigation, that type of

blame-shifting or finger-pointing among the parties generally
does not benefit any of the defendant healthcare providers.

As one author has noted, “Almost all malpractice cases were
decided not on the basis of fact but on the perception of what a

jury was likely to think was fact.”
13

Knowing that many referring providers never read radiology

reports may encourage radiologists to be more proactive in
verbally communicating non-emergent, but important, clinical

findings. Even with today’s advanced electronic communication,
this is often easier said than done. It can be extremely difficult,

if not impossible, to personally speak to all clinical colleagues
about meaningful abnormal findings on studies that the

colleagues have ordered. Often, phone numbers are not
available, and even when they are, referring physicians may

not be. Most radiologists practice in an environment that is
extremely hectic and becoming even more so. The radiologist

and/or their staff typically spend hours every day in a vain
attempt to contact the referring provider in a busy hospital or

clinic who may have already left for the day; or, often even more

13 Damages,” Barry Werth (Berkley Trade 1999).

Page 27