Page 30 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

system (RIS) and the EHR.

Virtually all working radiologists admit that they almost never

re-review studies at the time they sign the reports. Admittedly,
performing this re-review would benefit many patients and

prevent some claims, but the time and costs to perform a re-
review would be immense, and it is simply not done in practice.

Therefore, when the interpreting radiologist signs the report
– no matter how carefully it is read – he or she will seldom be

aware of, let alone correct, transcribing errors.

It must be remembered that in a malpractice trial, the actions of

a radiologist are judged by a jury of lay persons. If a defendant
radiologist looks foolish, careless, or disinterested to his or

her colleagues, he or she surely looks that way to the jurors.
The truth notwithstanding, if jurors perceive that a defendant

radiologist has been careless or disinterested, the jurors may
well render a verdict against the radiologist, even if the objective

medical facts do not support such a verdict.

Another communication issue is the lack of history (medical
and/or family) and other pertinent information that the

radiologist receives from the referring provider. Radiologists
rarely have the opportunity to obtain direct information from

the patient or patient’s family members. They rely solely on the
limited information that is communicated by other providers,

which is often vague and incomplete for the radiologist’s
purposes. Radiologists are often expected to perform their

services in a vacuum. Let’s a take look at a case study involving
inaccurate information that the radiologist was given.

Page 30