Seems crazy that the ENT should be on the hook for this. If she can’t trust the radiology report and needs to interpret the images herself, what’s the point of the radiologists existence? The ENT should get to bill the insurance for interpreting the study herself if that were the case
Yeah, I myself in the beginning of my practice believe and relies on radiology reporting until I myself found that radiologist made mistakes too, they missed a C2 fracture and reported as normal, another time they missed a renal mass but we found it because we review them , since then we tends to review the ct , at least a glance
Do you feel that physicians (non-radiologists) who perform “independent interpretations” of films per new coding guidelines open themselves up to more legal risk if both they and the radiologist miss a subtle finding (vs simply using the report)? Any tips for approaching the situation?
Yes, I think there is some risk here but it's probably small. If the radiologist misses it and you only read the written report, you're both getting sued. If both you and the radiologist looked at the pictures and miss it, you're still both getting sued. FWIW I am documenting my own independent interpretations now, but I keep them very simple. I also usually defer to interpreting an EKG rather than imaging if possible since either one satisfies this requirement.
It does sound like the abnormality is quite subtle on imaging if it is being described mainly as an "asymmetry", and no one is even able to give a size measurement of the asymmetry.
Agreed, seems like it was very subtle. I wish attorneys would include actual images in their lawsuits but its incredibly rare. And the few cases I've seen with images, its usually just a scanned copy of one slice from a CT. Not very helpful!
I am in shock. So if I understand this correctly, I the Pulmonologist, am on the hook for any mis-read CT chests? Eg. missed 7mm RLL nodule? They can be subtle and sometimes hard to see.
Yes I review imaging, but I am really quite dependent on the Radiologist who reads them. Often when they call something, I review it myself, but I would often have never seen it if the Radiologist never pointed it out.
Is reviewing images after a concern you noted on a CT was refuted by the radiologist not part of the standard of care? The ENT expert claims the answer is yes.
Liability for bad AI reads is going to be a very interesting topic. I'm curious if there will be a push to set up a system similar to the way vaccine injuries are handled.
Seems crazy that the ENT should be on the hook for this. If she can’t trust the radiology report and needs to interpret the images herself, what’s the point of the radiologists existence? The ENT should get to bill the insurance for interpreting the study herself if that were the case
Yeah, I myself in the beginning of my practice believe and relies on radiology reporting until I myself found that radiologist made mistakes too, they missed a C2 fracture and reported as normal, another time they missed a renal mass but we found it because we review them , since then we tends to review the ct , at least a glance
Do you feel that physicians (non-radiologists) who perform “independent interpretations” of films per new coding guidelines open themselves up to more legal risk if both they and the radiologist miss a subtle finding (vs simply using the report)? Any tips for approaching the situation?
Yes, I think there is some risk here but it's probably small. If the radiologist misses it and you only read the written report, you're both getting sued. If both you and the radiologist looked at the pictures and miss it, you're still both getting sued. FWIW I am documenting my own independent interpretations now, but I keep them very simple. I also usually defer to interpreting an EKG rather than imaging if possible since either one satisfies this requirement.
It does sound like the abnormality is quite subtle on imaging if it is being described mainly as an "asymmetry", and no one is even able to give a size measurement of the asymmetry.
Agreed, seems like it was very subtle. I wish attorneys would include actual images in their lawsuits but its incredibly rare. And the few cases I've seen with images, its usually just a scanned copy of one slice from a CT. Not very helpful!
I am in shock. So if I understand this correctly, I the Pulmonologist, am on the hook for any mis-read CT chests? Eg. missed 7mm RLL nodule? They can be subtle and sometimes hard to see.
Yes I review imaging, but I am really quite dependent on the Radiologist who reads them. Often when they call something, I review it myself, but I would often have never seen it if the Radiologist never pointed it out.
"on the hook" is a bit ambiguous, but yes, you can be sued for something like that. there's a good chance you'd win a jury trial but its not 100%.
Is reviewing images after a concern you noted on a CT was refuted by the radiologist not part of the standard of care? The ENT expert claims the answer is yes.
A scary thought. I have a large panel of patients and many of them get yearly CT scans for nodules.
I am curious on how AI could be used to help reduce errors in radiology for things like nodules.
Liability for bad AI reads is going to be a very interesting topic. I'm curious if there will be a push to set up a system similar to the way vaccine injuries are handled.