Using an Automated Coding and Review Process to Communicate Critical Radiologic Findings: One Way to Skin a Cat

Abstract

reakdown in communication is a causative factor in up to 80% of all malpractice lawsuits [2]. Malpractice lawsuits that involve failure of communication of radiologic results occur with less frequency but are nonetheless commonplace. Indeed, a report issued jointly by the Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA) and the American College of Radiology (ACR) revealed that the fourth most common primary malpractice allegation lodged against radiologists is failure of communication [3]. The same report also disclosed that in nearly 60% of malpractice lawsuits involving radiologists, the referring physician had never been directly contacted with urgent or significant unexpected findings. Members of an ACR task force appointed to explore liability issues related to radiologic communication reviewed medical malpractice lawsuits resulting in indemnification payment to plaintiffs filed in the United States between 1999 and 2003. The task force found that the number of lawsuits related to communication failures averaged nine per year [4]. The task force also reported that 25% of all ACR members responding to a questionnaire acknowledged being involved in at least one malpractice claim involving allegations of failure to communicate. In 1991, the ACR issued its first Standard for Communication: Diagnostic Radiology [5]. Contained within the standard were the following statements: