Added value of radiologist consultation to family practitioners in the outpatient setting

Delayed Diagnosis Is the Primary Cause of Sarcoma Litigation: Analysis of Malpractice Claims in the United States

BACKGROUND

Sarcoma care is highly litigated in medical malpractice claims. Understanding the reasons for litigation and legal outcomes in sarcoma care may help physicians deliver more effective and satisfying care to patients while limiting their legal exposure. However, few studies have described malpractice litigation in sarcoma care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What percentage of sarcoma malpractice cases result in a defendant verdict? (2) What is the median indemnity payment for cases that result in a plaintiff verdict or settlement? (3) What are the most common reasons for litigation, injuries sustained, and medical specialties of the defendant physicians? (4) What are the factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments?

METHODS

The national medicolegal database Westlaw was queried for medical malpractice cases pertaining to sarcomas that reached verdicts or settlements. Cases from 1982 to 2018 in the United States were included in the study to evaluate for trends in sarcoma litigation. Demographic and clinical data, tumor characteristics, reasons for litigation, injuries, and legal outcomes were recorded for each case. A univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments, such as tumor characteristics, defendant's medical or surgical specialty, reason for litigation, and injuries sustained. A total of 92 cases related to sarcomas were included in the study, of which 40 were related to bone sarcomas and 52 were related to soft-tissue sarcomas. Eighty-five percent (78 of 92) of cases involved adult patients (mean age ± SD: 40 ± 15 years) while 15% (14 of 92) of cases involved pediatric patients (mean age ± SD: 12.5 ± 5 years).

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent (35 of 92) of the included cases resulted in a defendant verdict, 30% (28 of 92) resulted in a plaintiff verdict, and 32% (29 of 92) resulted in a settlement. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) indemnity payment for plaintiff verdicts and settlements was USD 1.9 million (USD 0.5 to USD 3.5 million). Median (IQR) indemnity payments were higher for cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict than for cases that resulted in a settlement (USD 3.3 million [1.1 to 5.7 million] versus USD 1.2 million [0.4 to 2.4 million]; difference of medians = USD 2.2 million; p = 0.008). The most common reason for litigation was delayed diagnosis of sarcoma (91%; 84 of 92) while the most common injuries cited were progression to metastatic disease (51%; 47 of 92) and wrongful death (41%; 38 of 92). Malpractice claims were most commonly filed against primary care physicians (26%; 28 of 109 defendants), nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons (23%; 25 of 109), and radiologists (15%; 16 of 109). Cases were more likely to result in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff or settlement if a delay in diagnosis occurred despite suspicious findings on imaging or pathologic findings (80% versus 51%; odds ratio 3.84 [95% CI 1.34 to 11.03]; p = 0.02). There were no differences in indemnity payments with the numbers available in terms of tumor type, tumor location, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, and resulting injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Many lawsuits were made against primary care physicians, nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons, or radiologists for a delayed diagnosis of sarcoma despite the presence of imaging or histologic findings suspicious for malignancy. Although previous studies of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas have not shown a consistent association between time to diagnosis and decreased survival, our study suggests that physicians are still likely to lose these lawsuits because of the perceived benefits of an early diagnosis.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Physicians can mitigate their malpractice risk while reducing delays in diagnosis of sarcomas by carefully reviewing all existing diagnostic studies, establishing closed-loop communication protocols to communicate critical findings from diagnostic studies, and developing policies to facilitate second-opinion consultation, particularly for imaging studies, with an experienced sarcoma specialist. Musculoskeletal oncologists may be able to help further reduce the rates of malpractice litigation in sarcoma care by helping patients understand that delays in diagnosis do not necessarily constitute medical malpractice.

Who should be reading chest radiographs in the pediatric emergency department?

BACKGROUND

Pediatric emergency department chest radiographs are frequently interpreted by the pediatrician, and patient management is based on this interpretation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the chest radiograph interpretation discordance rate between pediatricians and pediatric radiologists and determine its clinical significance.

METHODS

This study included 1196 patients admitted off-hours to the pediatric emergency department who had chest radiographs as part of the clinical evaluation. The pediatricians' interpretations of the chest radiographs as appeared in the discharge reports were reviewed and compared with the specialist radiologist's ultimate report.

RESULTS

Discordant chest radiograph interpretations were found in 332 (28%) of 1196 patients. Of these, 76 (6.3%) were clinically significant. These included 59 initial diagnoses of normal or viral patterns subsequently interpreted as bacterial pattern by the radiologist and 17 radiographs with findings such as chronic lung disease or abnormal heart shadow overlooked or misinterpreted by the pediatrician.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the clinically significant discordant rate was relatively low, daily chest radiograph reassessment by pediatric radiologists in a joint meeting with pediatricians has an added value for patient safety, quality assurance, and mutual training.

Economic impact of real-time teleradiology in thoracic CT examinations

Conventional teleradiology is a useful tool, but sometimes we have found it to be an insufficient means of investigation because the radiological specialists cannot indicate the imaging protocol during the investigation. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of real-time teleradiology, which will improve the quality of medical management. Ten radiologists evaluated thoracic CT scans of 50 patients transmitted through teleradiology retrospectively. We evaluated whether or not the contrast enhancement study was performed effectively on the basis of the clinical data and after interpretation of the pre-contrast scans. The clinical data showed that 47.6% of the CT contrast enhancement examinations were not necessary. After interpretation of the pre-contrast CT scans, 66.6% of the contrast-enhanced scans were considered unnecessary. Real-time teleradiology will improve the quality of medical management providing the virtual presence of radiologists, and will save medical costs.

Telemedicine in practice

Telemedicine is defined as the "delivery of health care and sharing of medical knowledge over a distance using telecommunication systems." The concept of telemedicine is not new. Beyond the use of the telephone, there were numerous attempts to develop telemedicine programs in the 1960s mostly based on interactive television. The early experience was conceptionally encouraging but suffered inadequate technology. With a few notable exceptions such as the telemetry of medical data in the space program, there was very little advancement of telemedicine in the 1970s and 1980s. Interest in telemedicine has exploded in the 1990s with the development of medical devices suited to capturing images and other data in digital electronic form and the development and installation of high speed, high bandwidth telecommunication systems around the world. Clinical applications of telemedicine are now found in virtually every specialty. Teleradiology is the most common application followed by cardiology, dermatology, psychiatry, emergency medicine, home health care, pathology, and oncology. The technological basis and the practical issues are highly variable from one clinical application to another. Teleradiology, including telenuclear medicine, is one of the more well-defined telemedicine services. Techniques have been developed for the acquisition and digitization of images, image compression, image transmission, and image interpretation. The American College of Radiology has promulgated standards for teleradiology, including the requirement for the use of high resolution 2000 x 2000 pixel workstations for the interpretation of plain films. Other elements of the standard address image annotation, patient confidentiality, workstation functionality, cathode ray tube brightness, and image compression. Teleradiology systems are now widely deployed in clinical practice. Applications include providing service from larger to smaller institutions, coverage of outpatient clinics, imaging centers, and nursing homes. Teleradiology is also being used in international applications. Unresolved issues in telemedicine include licensure, the development of standards, reimbursement for services, patient confidentiality, and telecommunications infrastructure and cost. A number of states and medical boards have instituted policies and regulations to prevent physicians who are not licensed in the respective state to provide telemedicine services. This is a major impediment to the delivery of telemedicine between states. Telemedicine, including teleradiology, is here to stay and is changing the practice of medicine dramatically. National and international communications networks are being created that enable the sharing of information and knowledge at a distance. Technological barriers are being overcome leaving organizational, legal, financial, and special interest issues as the major impediments to the further development of telemedicine and realization of its benefits.

Teleradiology consultation for a rural hospital: patterns of use

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The authors documented quantitatively how teleradiology was used for contemporaneous consultation with a radiologist by physicians at a small rural hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors collected 31/2 years worth of data at a small hospital on all patients (n = 327) for whom a radiologist's consultation by teleradiology was requested and compared the data with those from a control group of 309 patients whose studies were interpreted at the same hospital.

RESULTS

Teleradiology consultation was requested by the attending physician in 3.6% (519 of 14,586) of all examinations performed during the study period. Physicians requested teleradiology consultation most often for patients with multiple examinations (average 1.59 vs 1.35 for controls). Examinations of infants were 10 times more prevalent in the teleradiology group than in the control group. The indication for most (52%) teleradiology consultations was trauma. Requests for interpretation of spine and abdominal radiographs were relatively more frequent than were those of other studies.

CONCLUSION

Physicians in this rural practice used contemporaneous radiologic consultation for selected specific examinations, with emphasis on examinations for trauma, spine, abdomen, and the infant age group.