03.08.2013 Views

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5 - Medical and Public Health Law Site

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

equires that all tests done in the hospital be done through the group. Patients<br />

eventually receive a bill from the radiology group.<br />

One source of liability for radiologists is improper supervision of nonphysician<br />

technical personnel <strong>and</strong> equipment. Physicians are responsible for ensuring that the<br />

personnel are adequately trained <strong>and</strong> doing their jobs properly. Patients must be<br />

protected from falls <strong>and</strong> other simple injuries. The radiologists must ensure that all<br />

equipment is functioning, that the tests are technically adequate, <strong>and</strong> that patients<br />

are not exposed to excessive doses of radiation.<br />

Radiologists must carry out special tests <strong>and</strong> invasive procedures safely <strong>and</strong><br />

accurately. Whenever there are invasive procedures, the radiologist should review<br />

the patient’s history, do a physical examination as necessary to verify critical<br />

information, <strong>and</strong> obtain informed consent for the procedure. For example, if the<br />

attending physician has ordered an IVP <strong>and</strong> the patient is dehydrated, the<br />

radiologist has a duty to cancel or postpone the test until the patient is able to<br />

tolerate it. If the IVP was done by a technician without the radiologist’s evaluating<br />

the patient, the radiologist is responsible, not the attending physician. The attending<br />

physician would argue that determining the patient’s fitness for the test at the<br />

scheduled time is the radiologist’s responsibility.<br />

Radiologists should interpret tests as completely as possible. There is an<br />

unfortunate tendency to equivocate on reports as a way of avoiding responsibility.<br />

Giving a report of “possible pneumonitis” instead of “right lower lobe infiltrates<br />

consistent with bacterial pneumonia” does not provide the attending physician with<br />

the benefit of the expert opinion that a radiologist is expected to provide. Vague<br />

readings increase the consultant’s liability when they mask serious conditions or<br />

substitute for an in-depth review of the film.<br />

Radiologists have a duty to make sure attending physicians are informed quickly of<br />

any serious or life-threatening conditions found on a test. Technicians should<br />

routinely inform their supervising radiologists about any serious results or results<br />

that are strange or unusual. Radiologists also must ensure that the patient is<br />

informed of test results <strong>and</strong> their significance. Usually this is done by alerting the<br />

attending physician, who in turn informs the patient <strong>and</strong> recommends any<br />

necessary care. This generally discharges the radiologist’s duty to inform the<br />

patient personally.<br />

b) Pathologists<br />

Pathologists’ liability stems primarily from quality control <strong>and</strong> communication<br />

problems. Pathologists depend on the attending physician for the collection of<br />

samples to be analyzed. When mistakes in labeling result in a patient with a benign<br />

condition being subjected to a mutilating surgical procedure, or a serious condition<br />

being misdiagnosed, lawsuits are inevitable. Pathologists should ensure that<br />

samples are unambiguously labeled upon receipt, when it may still be possible to<br />

correct mistakes. If there is any question about the origin of a sample, the attending<br />

239

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!