Malpractice issues in radiology. Admitting mistakes

Application of electronic trigger tools to identify targets for improving diagnostic safety

Progress in reducing diagnostic errors remains slow partly due to poorly defined methods to identify errors, high-risk situations, and adverse events. Electronic trigger (e-trigger) tools, which mine vast amounts of patient data to identify signals indicative of a likely error or adverse event, offer a promising method to efficiently identify errors. The increasing amounts of longitudinal electronic data and maturing data warehousing techniques and infrastructure offer an unprecedented opportunity to implement new types of e-trigger tools that use algorithms to identify risks and events related to the diagnostic process. We present a knowledge discovery framework, the Safer Dx Trigger Tools Framework, that enables health systems to develop and implement e-trigger tools to identify and measure diagnostic errors using comprehensive electronic health record (EHR) data. Safer Dx e-trigger tools detect potential diagnostic events, allowing health systems to monitor event rates, study contributory factors and identify targets for improving diagnostic safety. In addition to promoting organisational learning, some e-triggers can monitor data prospectively and help identify patients at high-risk for a future adverse event, enabling clinicians, patients or safety personnel to take preventive actions proactively. Successful application of electronic algorithms requires health systems to invest in clinical informaticists, information technology professionals, patient safety professionals and clinicians, all of who work closely together to overcome development and implementation challenges. We outline key future research, including advances in natural language processing and machine learning, needed to improve effectiveness of e-triggers. Integrating diagnostic safety e-triggers in institutional patient safety strategies can accelerate progress in reducing preventable harm from diagnostic errors.

Breakdowns in communication of radiological findings: an ethical and medico-legal conundrum

Communication problems in diagnostic testing have increased in both number and importance in recent years. The medical and legal impact of failure of communication is dramatic. Over the past decades, the courts have expanded and strengthened the duty imposed on radiologists to timely communicate radiologic abnormalities to referring physicians and perhaps the patients themselves in certain situations. The need to communicate these findings goes beyond strict legal requirements: there is a moral imperative as well. The Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association points out that "Ethical values and legal principles are usually closely related, but ethical obligations typically exceed legal duties." Thus, from the perspective of the law, radiologists are required to communicate important unexpected findings to referring physicians in a timely fashion, or alternatively to the patients themselves. From a moral perspective, radiologists should want to effect such communications. Practice standards, moral values, and ethical statements from professional medical societies call for full disclosure of medical errors to patients affected by them. Surveys of radiologists and non-radiologic physicians reveal that only few would divulge all aspects of the error to the patient. In order to encourage physicians to disclose errors to patients and assist in protecting them in some manner if malpractice litigation follows, more than 35 states have passed laws that do not allow a physician's admission of an error and apologetic statements to be revealed in the courtroom. Whether such disclosure increases or decreases the likelihood of a medical malpractice lawsuit is unclear, but ethical and moral considerations enjoin physicians to disclose errors and offer apologies.

Image perception and interpretation of abnormalities; can we believe our eyes? Can we do something about it?

The radiologist’s visual impression of images is transmitted, via non-visual means (the report), to the clinician. There are several complex steps from the perception of the images by the radiologist to the understanding of the impression by the clinician. With a process as complex as this, it is no wonder that errors in perception, cognition, interpretation, transmission and understanding are very common. This paper reviews the processes of perception and error generation and possible strategies for minimising them.

Ethical problems in radiology: medical error and disclosure

In radiological practice, as in any medical activity, errors are inevitable despite being foreseeable and preventable. The approach to managing medical error and relations with patients prompt the need for resolving the ethical dilemma arising from conflicting legitimate interests. The solution to this dilemma is particularly complex in an environment in which the tendency to sue physicians for civil liability or incriminate them for criminal liability appears to be particularly high. The disclosure of error is undeniably useful in raising patient awareness, reducing their suffering, improving the quality of care and limiting the consequences of the damage. There does not appear to be any evidence to suggest disclosure modifies the probability of litigation against the physician.

Does full disclosure of medical errors affect malpractice liability? The jury is still out

BACKGROUND

Mandatory disclosure of medical errors has been advocated to improve patient safety. Many resist mandatory disclosure policies because of concerns about increasing malpractice exposure. It has been countered that malpractice liability actually decreases when there is full disclosure of medical errors. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to determine what is known about the impact of full disclosure on malpractice liability.

METHODS

Electronic searches of multiple databases were supplemented with hand searches of bibliographies and communication with recognized experts in the field.

RESULTS

Screening the titles, abstracts, and, in many cases, the full articles from more than an estimated 5,200 citations resulted in identification of one published study directly examining malpractice liability when a policy of full disclosure was implemented.

DISCUSSION

Despite extensive literature on the impact of disclosure on malpractice liability, few well-designed studies have focused on the real-world impact on the volume and cost of suits following implementation of a full disclosure policy. Many articles examine why patients sue their doctors, suggesting that some lawsuits may be averted by disclosure, but the articles do not allow us to estimate the additional suits that would be created by disclosure. Additional studies addressing the effect of disclosure on malpractice liability are needed.