Literature DB >> 30810337

Duty of candour: implications for radiologists.

Nicola Hilary Strickland1.   

Abstract

This article addresses duty of candour in relation to radiologists. The legislation underpinning duty of candour, definition of terms and the requirements for its application are explained. Consideration is given as to the differences between duty of candour and openness of discussion. The issue of how duty of candour should apply to radiologists (both diagnostic and interventional) is then addressed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30810337      PMCID: PMC6580900          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  13 in total

1.  Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.

Authors:  Laura Esserman; Helen Cowley; Carey Eberle; Alastair Kirkpatrick; Sophia Chang; Kevin Berbaum; Alastair Gale
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-03-06       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Guidelines for radiologically guided lung biopsy.

Authors:  A Manhire; M Charig; C Clelland; F Gleeson; R Miller; H Moss; K Pointon; C Richardson; E Sawicka
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  Studies on the accuracy of diagnostic procedures.

Authors:  L H GARLAND
Journal:  Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med       Date:  1959-07

4.  Objective determination of standard of care: use of blind readings by external radiologists.

Authors:  Richard C Semelka; Andrew F Ryan; Shannon Yonkers; Larissa Braga
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking.

Authors:  Richard FitzGerald
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-23       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Outsourced teleradiology imaging services: an analysis of discordant interpretation in 124,870 cases.

Authors:  Wilson S Wong; Ivan Roubal; David B Jackson; William N Paik; Victor K J Wong
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 7.  Bias in Radiology: The How and Why of Misses and Misinterpretations.

Authors:  Lindsay P Busby; Jesse L Courtier; Christine M Glastonbury
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  Quality outcomes of reinterpretation of brain CT studies by subspecialty experts in stroke imaging.

Authors:  Yusef J Jordan; John E Jordan; Johnson B Lightfoote; Karen D Ragland
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Assessment of radiologist performance in the detection of lung nodules: dependence on the definition of "truth".

Authors:  Samuel G Armato; Rachael Y Roberts; Masha Kocherginsky; Denise R Aberle; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber Macmahon; Edwin J R van Beek; David Yankelevitz; Geoffrey McLennan; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Charles R Meyer; Anthony P Reeves; Philip Caligiuri; Leslie E Quint; Baskaran Sundaram; Barbara Y Croft; Laurence P Clarke
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 10.  Complication rates of CT-guided transthoracic lung biopsy: meta-analysis.

Authors:  W J Heerink; G H de Bock; G J de Jonge; H J M Groen; R Vliegenthart; M Oudkerk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.