The role of radiology in diagnostic error: a medical malpractice claims review

Abstract

Abstract:Just as radiologic studies allow us to see past the surface to the vulnerable and broken parts of the human body, medical malpractice claims help us see past the surface of medical errors to the deeper vulnerabilities and potentially broken aspects of our healthcare delivery system. And just as the insights we gain through radiologic studies provide focus for a treatment plan for healing, so too can the analysis of malpractice claims provide insights to improve the delivery of safe patient care. We review 1325 coded claims where Radiology was the primary service provider to better understand the problems leading to patient harm, and the opportunities most likely to improve diagnostic care in the future.Keywords: diagnostic error; malpractice claims; radiology. OverviewThe medical diagnostic process involves a complex network of interactions between the patient and the healthcare system. This process is also dynamic, requiring one or more cycles of patient interaction, informationgathering and data synthesis in order to understand the intricacies of each patient's clinical picture and pathology. Failures can occur at any point along the continuum of care, each of which has the potential to result in inaccurate or delayed diagnosis as well as inappropriate treatment. While radiology typically does not play the initial role in the diagnostic process, misinterpretation or delayed communication of imaging findings can certainly lead to a breakdown in the progression towards clarity of diagnosis and appropriate patient care.Analysis of the CRICO Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) determined that 29,777 medical malpractice cases, asserted between 2010 and 2014, had completed an in-depth review by CRICO's team of Clinical Taxonomy Specialists. Reviewing the medical and legal files of each of these cases, an experienced clinician used CRICO's propriety coding taxonomy to capture and code multiple case attributes including allegation, patient demographics, diagnosis and injury, location, tests and services, and the key causation factors contributing to the clinical error or failure.Of the 29,777 medical malpractice cases available for analysis, 1325 cases named Radiology as the Primary Responsible Service -42% resulted in high severity (based on National Associationn of Insurance Commissioners clinical injury severity score) clinical injuries including 235 deaths (Figure 1). Diagnostic related events represent nearly 60% of the 1325 radiology claims, followed by procedural issues (22%), equipment issues, (7%) and falls and safety issues (6%). In those cases involving diagnostic radiology, nearly 50% of the cases involved one of these four modalities: computed tomography (CT) scans (20%), mammography (11%), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (10%) and diagnostic ultrasound (4%). Cases occurred in a variety of settings though ambulatory cases were the most common at 63% followed by inpatient (26%) and emergency department (11%).In many cases, Radiology is not the only clinical service identified as "responsible" o...

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

“…Error in diagnosis was the most common allegation (39.6%) filed at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court and most allegations were in the subspecialties breast imaging and musculoskeletal radiology. These findings are in accordance with previous studies on medical malpractice suits in the USA [1,34], the UK [6], and Italy [7]. Errors are common, with an estimated day-to-day rate of 3-5% of radiology studies reported [35].…”

Diagnostic Errors in Initial Misdiagnosis of Optic Nerve Sheath Meningiomas

“…Five of these MRIs were misread by radiologists who were not trained in neuroradiology and 6 were misread because the test was ordered incorrectly (not including orbital images and contrast adminis- (Figure 2). 22,23 For many neuro-ophthalmological diseases, neuroimaging is mandatory to accurately diagnose and manage the problem. Most radiological centers are equipped with advanced MRI devices; however, a lack of neuroradiology training among the interpreting radiologists may lead to devastating diagnostic errors.…”

Closing the loop on test results to reduce communication failures: a rapid review of evidence, practice and patient perspectives

“…Eighty-three percent of clinicians working within a practice-based research network reported delays in receipt of test results, and only 41% indicated that they were satisfied with how test results are managed [ 4 ]. In a US study analysing 1325 medical malpractice claims, communication failures were noted in 23% of the radiology cases [ 5 ]. In some instances, direct verbal discussion of findings will take place, but in the vast majority of cases, the written radiology report offers the only opportunity for a radiologist to convey their interpretation, conclusions and advice to the ordering clinician.…”

“…When unexpected findings are encountered by the radiologist, amended reports may not reach the treating clinicians which means that diagnoses are not subsequently updated as required [ 6 ]. These discrepancies in reported imaging findings can pose a challenge if treatment has been implemented based upon an initial radiologic interpretation that is later revised [ 5 ]. In cases where the ordering clinician may not provide long-term patient care, particularly in the Emergency Department (ED) setting, this underlines the importance of follow-up of discordant imaging findings [ 5 ].…”