Page 48 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part One

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

CASE STUDY

continued
the radiologist’s review of the CT scan was inadequate

in describing the nodule in the left-upper lobe, which at
that time, was 1 cm in size and was a “red flag”, and the

clinician should have been alerted with a phone call to that
effect.

The description of “either short-term follow-up or further

evaluation with PET/CT” is somewhat misleading in that
the radiologist did not specifically state that this was a

worrisome lesion for primary lung cancer. The patient
himself should have been informed of the pulmonary

nodule during his hospitalization. This was the
type of “unexpected” finding that should have

also merited a telephone call to the clinician.
The case ultimately settled prior to trial.

In the real world, however, when there has been no claim

threatened or asserted, most referring providers do not have
the time or patience to speak on the phone with the radiologist
about every finding or concern. Further, if a radiologist makes

it a practice to call or contact a referring provider too often, a

phenomenon akin to “alert fatigue” occurs. And, the radiologist
runs the risk of being labeled an alarmist.

The radiologist must perform a constant balancing act of
knowing when to contact the referring provider by phone or

when to allow the radiology report to speak for itself. Usually,
through experience and interaction with the various referring

Page 48