Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 38, Supplement 4, pp 639–644 | Cite as

Standards for radiology interpretation and reporting in the emergency setting

  • Leonard BerlinEmail author
ALARA: Building Bridges Between Radiology and Emergency Medicine

Abstract

The radiologist plays a pivotal role in the medical management of injury and illness in both adults and children in the emergency setting. Although the primary role of the radiologist is to assist in establishing a correct diagnosis, the radiologist’s responsibility goes well beyond simple detection and documentation. Communication is fundamental in assuring delivery of quality and safe health care. Lines of communication are most easily recognized between the radiologist and the patient’s health-care provider (e.g., emergency department physician), but they are also becoming increasingly important between the radiologist and the patient. Radiologists must be familiar with both local and national practice guidelines related to the care of the patient in the emergency setting, in relation to both construction of the radiology report and appropriate communication of the results of radiologic studies. Familiarity with these aspects of the radiologists’ responsibilities maximizes the chance of successful outcomes and minimizes the frequency of (and liability for) malpractice.

Keywords

Communication Emergency department Safety 

References

  1. 1.
    Physician Insurers Association of America and American College of Radiology (1997) Practice standards claims survey. Physician Insurers Association of America, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernald DH, Pace WD, Harris DM et al (2004) Event reporting to a primary care patient safety reporting system: a report from the ASIPS collaborative. Ann Fam Med 2:327–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh H, Arora HS, Vij MS et al (2007) Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 14:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kushner DC, Lucey LL (2005) Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR guideline. J Am Coll Radiol 2:15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenoff vs. Gleason, 521 A2d 1323 (NJ Super Ct App Div 1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phillips vs. Good Samaritan Hospital, 416 NE2d 646 (Ohio App 1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corteau vs. Dodd, 773 SW2d 436 (Ark App 1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Avincula vs. United Blood, 678 NE2d 1009 (IL Sup Ct 1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stanley vs. McCarver, 92 P3d 849 (Ariz Sup Ct 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    American College of Radiology (2007) ACR practice guideline for radiologist coverage of imaging performed in hospital emergency departments. In: Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards 2007. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, pp 13–15Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Radiology (2007) ACR practice guideline for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. In: Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards 2007. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schloendorff vs. The Society of New York Hospital, 105 NE92 (NY App 1914)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daly vs. United States of America, 946 F2d 1467 (9th Cir 1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M (2000) Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think. Pediatr Radiol 30:307–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reed vs. Weber, 615 NE2d 253 (Ohio App 1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Current concepts: computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ginsberg MD (2002) Beyond the viewbox: the radiologist’s duty to communicate findings. John Marshall Law Review 35:359–389Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venieris PY, Chan TC, Killeen J (2006) Multicenter trial assessing the impact of an overnight international “nighthawk” teleradiology system on CT radiology re-interpretation rates. Ann Emerg Med 48:S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyRush North Shore Medical CenterSkokieUSA

Personalised recommendations