Literature DB >> 25763738

The malpractice liability of radiology reports: minimizing the risk.

Aparna Srinivasa Babu1, Michael L Brooks.   

Abstract

The art and science of interpreting radiologic examinations, an ability that is acquired over years of training, is on display in every radiology report. It is vital that these reports be crafted so as to both reflect the radiologist's expertise and capability and eliminate any factors that might result in unintended harm to the patient. Unfortunately, a deficient report may result in legal action against the radiologist; thus, a thorough understanding of the litigious potential of the language used in radiology reports is crucial. It is important that ambiguous vocabulary, undefined modifiers, double negatives, and generalizations be avoided. Errors in radiology reports may result from inappropriate terminology, transcription mistakes, or deficient or inadequately documented communication. Critical findings that may have an immediate impact on patient management must be promptly communicated to the referring physician and such communication fully documented. A meticulous and well-written report is the best way for radiologists to care for their patients. In addition, a well-worded report can be the deciding factor in a successful defense against a malpractice claim. Understanding the legal implications of radiology reports will enable radiologists to develop strategies for avoiding malpractice suits. (©)RSNA, 2015.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25763738     DOI: 10.1148/rg.352140046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  6 in total

1.  Detecting Technical Image Quality in Radiology Reports.

Authors:  Thusitha Mabotuwana; Varun S Bhandarkar; Christopher S Hall; Martin L Gunn
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

2.  The need for standardization of nuclear cardiology reporting and data system (NCAD-RADS): Learning from coronary artery disease (CAD), breast imaging (BI), liver imaging (LI), and prostate imaging (PI) RADS.

Authors:  Majid Assadi; Erik Velez; Mohammad Hosein Najafi; Ali Gholamrezanezhad
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  What does the orthopaedic surgeon want in the radiology report?

Authors:  Karthikeyan P Iyengar; Vivien Qi Jun Ngo; Vijay Kumar Jain; Neeraj Ahuja; Zuned Hakim; Chetan Sangani
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-07-24

4.  Between Always and Never: Evaluating Uncertainty in Radiology Reports Using Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  Andrew L Callen; Sara M Dupont; Adi Price; Ben Laguna; David McCoy; Bao Do; Jason Talbott; Marc Kohli; Jared Narvid
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-08-19       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 5.  An Evolution of Reporting: Identifying the Missing Link.

Authors:  Sara Harsini; Salar Tofighi; Liesl Eibschutz; Brian Quinn; Ali Gholamrezanezhad
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-21

6.  Structured reporting has the potential to reduce reporting times of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams.

Authors:  Su Hwan Kim; Lara M Sobez; Judith E Spiro; Adrian Curta; Felix Ceelen; Eric Kampmann; Martin Goepfert; Raphael Bodensohn; Felix G Meinel; Wieland H Sommer; Nora N Sommer; Franziska Galiè
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.