Literature DB >> 19444589

Analysis of malpractice claims in mammography: a complex issue.

A Fileni1, N Magnavita, L Pescarini.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse malpractice claims in mammography, estimate the specific risk of future claims and assess their impact on radiologists and society.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study considered insurance claims filed by radiologists of the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) over a 12.5-year period between 1 January 1993 and 30 June 2005. We isolated claims related to presumed diagnostic errors in mammography. We then estimated the number of claims arising from events in the study period that are expected to be filed over the next few years, before the expiration of the prescriptive period of 10 years.
RESULTS: The total number of claims was 1,088. Of these, 302 were caused by alleged diagnostic errors in cases of cancer; 189 (62%) concerned breast cancers and mammographic technique. Assuming a constant frequency of claims filed by radiologists, we expect a further 637 claims relating to the study period, for a total of 1,725 claims, with 178 claims being related to breast imaging. The predicted rate therefore increases to 10.5 per thousand, equal to a risk of one litigation per radiologist per 10 years of work.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis uncovered a complex problem: although radiologists save many lives through the radiographic diagnosis of breast cancer and consequently contribute to the welfare of society, in practice, they can face real or alleged errors, with serious judicial consequences. Awareness of professional risk in current society may represent a valuable reference for choosing and planning to work in radiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19444589     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-009-0394-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  16 in total

1.  Fear of cancer.

Authors:  Leonard Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  When careful medicine becomes defensive medicine.

Authors:  J F A Murphy
Journal:  Ir Med J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec

3.  Systematic approach to human error in radiology.

Authors:  L Pescarini; I Inches
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Analysis of the results of a proficiency test in screening mammography at the CSPO of Florence: review of 705 tests.

Authors:  S Ciatto; D Ambrogetti; D Morrone; M Rosselli Del Turco
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2006-08-11       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  A portrait of breast imaging specialists and of the interpretation of mammography in the United States.

Authors:  Rebecca S Lewis; Jonathan H Sunshine; Mythreyi Bhargavan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Screening mammography interpretation test: more frequent mistakes.

Authors:  Gino Gozzi; Carlo Martinoli; Giovanni Maria Conti; Alessandra Ganzetti; Maria Bodini; Carla Fiorentino; Ugo Paolo Marini; Dolores Santini; Lorenzo Bacigalupo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 7.  Physicians' liability in obstetric and gynecology practice.

Authors:  Anna Mavroforou; Evgenios Koumantakis; Emmanuel Michalodimitrakis
Journal:  Med Law       Date:  2005-03

8.  [Risk management in health care systems: the new legislative orientations in medical civil responsibility].

Authors:  A Tomassini; C Signorelli; E Colzani
Journal:  Ann Ig       Date:  2004 Jan-Apr

9.  Breast Cancer Litigation: An Update with Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Troy H. Guthrie
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  4 in total

1.  Work stress and metabolic syndrome in radiologists: first evidence.

Authors:  Nicola Magnavita; Adriano Fileni
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Ethical problems in radiology: medical error and disclosure.

Authors:  N Magnavita; G Magnavita; A Fileni; A Bergamaschi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 3.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Malpractice claims in interventional radiology: frequency, characteristics and protective measures.

Authors:  N Magnavita; A Fileni; P Mirk; G Magnavita; S Ricci; A R Cotroneo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 3.469

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.