Skip to main content

Radiology Reports

  • Chapter
Radiology and the Law

Abstract

Written interpretations by radiologists of imaging studies are extremely important from both the medical and legal perspectives. They are an integral part of the medical record and an essential link between the diagnosis and treatment of a patient’s illness.1 The radiology report should accurately and concisely describe the positive imaging findings and any relevant negative findings, as well as provide an opinion as to their significance.2 If there is a specific clinical question presented in the request form, the report should attempt to answer it clearly and directly. Whenever possible, there should be a differential diagnosis with relative probabilities. As the American College of Radiology (ACR) Standard for Communication3 notes, when appropriate the radiology report should contain an impression including “a precise diagnosis” and a recommendation for “follow-up or additional diagnostic studies to clarify or confirm the impression.” A rambling description of findings without a reasonable conclusion may only leave the reader confused.4 The length of the body of the report depends on the number of findings, whereas the length of the conclusion reflects the ability of the radiologist to make sense of the findings.5

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Endnotes

  1. Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR 2000; 174: 1511–1518.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: radiology reports. AJR 1997; 169: 943–946.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology,2001:3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spira R. Clinician, reveal thyself. Appl Radiol November 1996; 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rothman M. Malpractice issues in radiology: radiology reports (letter). AJR 1998; 170: 1108–1109.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR 2000; 174: 1511–1518.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Naik SS, HanbidgeA, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinical preferences regarding style and content. AJR 2001; 176: 591–598.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin JL. The radiological report; what is useful for the referring physician? Can Assoc Radiol J 1998;39:140–143.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M. Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think Pediatr Radiol 2000; 30: 307–314.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2001: 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR 2000; 174: 1511–1518.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Berlin L. Relying on the radiologist. AJR 2002; 179: 43–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Medical-Legal Issues for Residents in Radiology. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1994:31–32.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Berlin L. Must new radiographs be compared with all previous radiographs, or only with the most recently obtained radiographs? AJR 2000; 174: 611–615.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: comparing new radiographs with those obtained previously. AJR 1999; 172: 3–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Blankshain v Radiology and Nuclear Consultants Ltd., 95L-4851 (I11 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smith JJ, Berlin L. Signing a colleague’s radiology report. AJR 2001; 176: 27–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jenoff v Gleason, 521 A2d 1323 (NJ Super Ct App Div 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Berlin L. Alteration of medical records. AJR 1997; 168: 1405–1408.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. In Re Jascalevich, 442 A2d 635 (NJ App Ct, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eisenberg, R.L. (2004). Radiology Reports. In: Radiology and the Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2040-4_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2040-4_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-40309-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-2040-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics