Page 7 - Diagnostic Radiology - Interpreting the Risks Part Two_Neat

SVMIC Diagnostic Radiology: Interpreting the Risks

CASE STUDY

continued
She was treated aggressively for metastatic poorly

differential ductile breast carcinoma. The cancer had widely
metastasized to multiple organ systems, and the patient

died less than a year later.

There was more than an eight-month delay in treatment

of this patient from the time of her initial mammogram
until she was biopsied. There’s little doubt that there was
flawed communication between the radiologist’s office and

the PCP’s office. On the radiologist’s part, the conflicting

information that his office sent a copy of the mammogram/
letter to the PCP is important as it would have been
forwarded to a surgeon or, at least, informed the patient

herself of the condition and need for immediate follow-up.

Unfortunately, for the radiologist, the PCP and the patient

maintained that they never received the mammogram or
the report. This created a conflict between the PCP and the

radiologist.

While it was the radiologist’s office’s routine to keep a fax
confirmation, an inspection of the radiologist‘s office could

not find a fax confirmation showing that the report had
been sent to the PCP. Although the radiologist and his staff

were adamant that the information was sent to the PCP,
they had no fax confirmation or log sheets confirming the

transmission, which they should have had. Moreover, the
staff’s stories on what their routine practice

for communicating mammography results
kept changing, which was troublesome for the

defense. The case was eventually settled.

Page 7