Display options
Share it on

Diagnosis (Berl). 2014 Dec;1(4):263-268. doi: 10.1515/dx-2014-0034. Epub 2014 Aug 19.

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

Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany)

Leonard Berlin, Daniel R Murphy, Hardeep Singh

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Skokie Hospital, 9600 Gross Point Rd., Skokie, IL 60076, USA, [email protected] ; and Rush University and University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
  2. Houston VA Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA; and Section of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

PMID: 27006891 PMCID: PMC4799785 DOI: 10.1515/dx-2014-0034

Abstract

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

Keywords: case law; communication; disclosure; malpractice; medical ethics; radiology

References

  1. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Apr;172(4):879-84 - PubMed
  2. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Jan;178(1):27-33 - PubMed
  3. N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 12;347(24):1933-40 - PubMed
  4. JAMA. 2003 Feb 26;289(8):1001-7 - PubMed
  5. Radiology. 1992 Dec;185(3):909 - PubMed
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992 Dec;159(6):1335-9 - PubMed
  7. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Mar 16;140(6):409-18 - PubMed
  8. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Sep 12;165(16):1819-24 - PubMed
  9. Pediatrics. 2005 Dec;116(6):1276-86 - PubMed
  10. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Mar;83(3):272-3 - PubMed
  11. JAMA. 1991 Apr 24;265(16):2089-94 - PubMed
  12. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 17;153(4):213-21 - PubMed
  13. Diagnosis (Berl). 2014 Dec;1(4):253-261 - PubMed
  14. Arch Intern Med. 1986 Nov;146(11):2249-52 - PubMed
  15. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Oct;165(4):781-8 - PubMed
  16. Radiology. 1994 Jul;192(1):183-7 - PubMed
  17. Arch Intern Med. 1996 Dec 9-23;156(22):2565-9 - PubMed
  18. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Nov;169(5):1219-23 - PubMed
  19. J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Dec;12(12):770-5 - PubMed
  20. Intensive Care Med. 1998 Dec;24(12):1251-6 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support