Medico-legal issues in radiological consultation.
Providers increasingly use radiological services for diagnosis and treatment. Both the referring physician and the radiological consultant can contribute to efficient and effective consultation, and direct interaction may facilitate the process further. Furthermore, inadequate communication can influence poor patient outcome. We examine the roles and responsibilities of referring physicians and consultant radiologists, and present a malpractice case, Townsend v. Turk 218 Cal. App. 3d 278 (1990), to identify medico-legal issues in radiological consultation. Important issues are implied by the Townsend case. First, it is the clinician's responsibility to include clinical information that is appropriate and adequate. Further, the radiologist is a valuable resource in the selection of the optimal procedure, provided that he or she is aware of the patient's history. The second issue discussed by the court represents a possibly more pervasive problem. The interaction between a consulting radiologist--indeed any specialist--and a treating physician is subject to difficulties caused by different conceptions of professional boundaries. The position taken by the court in the Townsend case is consistent with the traditional view that a consulting radiologist has an attenuated duty to the patient. It also would seem to receive at least some support from the language contained in the current revision of the ACR Standard for Communication: Diagnostic Radiology, effective Jan. 1, 2002: ...The referring physician or healthcare provider also shares in the responsibility of obtaining results of imaging studies they have ordered. Despite the result of the Townsend case and the current formulation of the ACR Standards, however, radiologists face risks of litigation. Indeed, the emerging trend in radiological consultation is the direct communication of results to the patient. It is clear that improved communication between radiologists and referring physicians is both desirable and imperative. Clinico-radiological encounters yield additional clinical information and guide the decision-making process. In the Townsend case, direct interaction would have resolved ambiguity.
Mozumdar
Biswita C
BC
University of San Diego, California, USA.
Jones
Gary
G
D000060:Accidents, Aviation; D002140:California; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011859:Radiography; D011871:Radiology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D013124:Spinal Injuries / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging