Hiding in the Hedges: Tips to Minimize Your Malpractice Risks as a Radiologist

Mezrich, Jonathan L.

doi:10.2214/ajr.19.21428

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In two cases (cases 6 and 34), the appeal against the initial verdict was granted and the previously imposed disciplinary measures were reversed; these two cases are not included in this table # Largely adopted from references [20] and [21] Third, we did not investigate the amount of time and attorney costs (83.3% used an attorney during the court session) spent by defendants. Fourth, we did not investigate the psychological impact of disciplinary measures on radiologists and whether these disciplinary measures achieved their primary goal: to maintain and improve the quality of healthcare.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Medical disciplinary jurisprudence in alleged malpractice in radiology: 10-year Dutch experience

Kwee

2020

Eur Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To systematically investigate the frequency and types of allegations related to radiology practice handled by the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court in the past 10 years. Methods The Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court database was searched for verdicts concerning radiology practice between 2010 and 2019. The association between the number of verdicts and time (years) was assessed by Spearman's rho. Other data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results There were 48 verdicts (mean 4.8 per year). There was no significant association between the number of verdicts and time (Spearman's rho < 0.001, p = 0.99). Most allegations were in breast imaging and musculoskeletal radiology (each 18.8%), followed by interventional radiology, head and neck imaging, and abdominal imaging (each 12.5%), neuroradiology and vascular imaging (each 10.4%), and chest imaging (4.2%). There were 46 allegations against radiologists (95.8%) and 2 against residents (4.2%). The most common allegation (37.5%) was error in diagnosis. In 20.8% of verdicts, the allegation was judged (partially) founded; disciplinary measures were warnings (n = 8) and reprimands (n = 2). An appeal was submitted by the patient in 11 cases and by the radiologist in 3 cases. All appeals by patients were rejected, whereas 2 of the 3 appeals by radiologists were granted and previously imposed disciplinary measures were reversed. Conclusion Allegations against radiologists at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court are relatively few, their number has remained stable over the past 10 years, and a minority were judged to be (partially) founded. We can learn from the cases presented in this article, which may improve patient care. Key Points • The frequency of allegations against radiologists at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court is relatively low and has not exhibited any temporal change over the past 10 years. • These allegations reflect patient dissatisfaction, but this infrequently equals malpractice. • Knowledge of the circumstances under which these allegations have arisen may improve patient care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other data were summarized using descriptive statistics. In cases in which the allegation was judged (partially) founded, we determined (potential) causes that have led to error/malpractice [20,21].…”

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical disciplinary jurisprudence in alleged malpractice in radiology: 10-year Dutch experience

Kwee

2020

Eur Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, the patient needs to prove damages ─that the patient was actually harmed by the error [14]. The injured patient bears the burden of proof and must prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more probably than not, or a greater than 50% threshold) [15].…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Artificial Intelligence (AI) a Pipe Dream? Why Legal Issues Present Significant Hurdles to AI Autonomy

Mezrich

2022

American Journal of Roentgenology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The publication of this Accepted Manuscript is provided to give early visibility to the contents of the article, which will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting, and review before it is published in its final form. During the production process, errors may be discovered that could affect the content of the Accepted Manuscript. All legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. The reader is cautioned to consult the definitive version of record before relying on the contents of this document.

show abstract

“…The most time-efficient and financially rewarding path for radiologists is often to report a study without struggling to retrieve all relevant clinical information. However, the lack of sufficient clinical information may lead to wrong diagnoses or may stimulate radiologists to introduce hedging language to their report or to recommend additional diagnostic tests to reduce the risk of malpractice [8]. This, in turn, increases costs and reduces value.…”

Section: The Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%