PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to reduce and monitor litigation due to failure to diagnose a fracture, to evaluate whether the cases were due to radiological error or other problems in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients and to identify organisational, technical or functional changes or guidelines to improve the management of patients with suspected fracture and their expectations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the litigation database for the period 2004-2006 and extracted all episodes indicating failure to diagnose a fracture at the accident and emergency radiology department of our centre. The radiographs underwent blinded review by two experts, and each case was jointly analysed by a radiologist and a forensic physician to see what led to the compensation claim. RESULTS: We identified 22 events (2004 seven cases; 2005 eight cases; 2006 seven cases). Six cases were unrelated to radiological error. Six were due to imperceptible fractures at the time of the examination. These were accounted for by the presence of a major lesion distracting the examiner's attention from a less important associated lesion in one case, a false negative result in a patient examined on a incompletely radiolucent spinal board and underexposure of the coccyx region in an obese patient. Six cases were related to an interpretation error by the radiologist. In the remaining cases, the lesion being referred to in the compensation claim could either not be established or the case was closed by the insurance company without compensation. Corrective measures were adopted. These included planning the purchase of a higher performance device, drawing up a protocol for imaging patients on spinal boards, reminding radiologists of the need to carefully scrutinise the entire radiogram even after having identified a lesion, and producing an information sheet explaining to patients the possibility of false negative results in cases of imperceptible lesions and inviting them to return to the department if symptoms persist. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the clinical and administrative analysis we performed is useful. It reviewed some administrative practices and identified critical features. We identified tools that we trust will reduce litigation.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to reduce and monitor litigation due to failure to diagnose a fracture, to evaluate whether the cases were due to radiological error or other problems in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients and to identify organisational, technical or functional changes or guidelines to improve the management of patients with suspected fracture and their expectations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the litigation database for the period 2004-2006 and extracted all episodes indicating failure to diagnose a fracture at the accident and emergency radiology department of our centre. The radiographs underwent blinded review by two experts, and each case was jointly analysed by a radiologist and a forensic physician to see what led to the compensation claim. RESULTS: We identified 22 events (2004 seven cases; 2005 eight cases; 2006 seven cases). Six cases were unrelated to radiological error. Six were due to imperceptible fractures at the time of the examination. These were accounted for by the presence of a major lesion distracting the examiner's attention from a less important associated lesion in one case, a false negative result in a patient examined on a incompletely radiolucent spinal board and underexposure of the coccyx region in an obesepatient. Six cases were related to an interpretation error by the radiologist. In the remaining cases, the lesion being referred to in the compensation claim could either not be established or the case was closed by the insurance company without compensation. Corrective measures were adopted. These included planning the purchase of a higher performance device, drawing up a protocol for imaging patients on spinal boards, reminding radiologists of the need to carefully scrutinise the entire radiogram even after having identified a lesion, and producing an information sheet explaining to patients the possibility of false negative results in cases of imperceptible lesions and inviting them to return to the department if symptoms persist. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the clinical and administrative analysis we performed is useful. It reviewed some administrative practices and identified critical features. We identified tools that we trust will reduce litigation.