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
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Endnotes
Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR 2000; 174: 1511–1518.
Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: radiology reports. AJR 1997; 169: 943–946.
American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology,2001:3–5.
Spira R. Clinician, reveal thyself. Appl Radiol November 1996; 5–13.
Rothman M. Malpractice issues in radiology: radiology reports (letter). AJR 1998; 170: 1108–1109.
Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR 2000; 174: 1511–1518.
Naik SS, HanbidgeA, Wilson SR. Radiology reports: examining radiologist and clinical preferences regarding style and content. AJR 2001; 176: 591–598.
Lafortune M, Breton G, Baudouin JL. The radiological report; what is useful for the referring physician? Can Assoc Radiol J 1998;39:140–143.
Gunderman R, Ambrosius WT, Cohen M. Radiology reporting in an academic children’s hospital: what referring physicians think Pediatr Radiol 2000; 30: 307–314.
American College of Radiology. ACR standard for communication: diagnostic radiology. In: Standards 2000–2001. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2001: 3–5.
Berlin L. Pitfalls of the vague radiology report. AJR 2000; 174: 1511–1518.
Berlin L. Relying on the radiologist. AJR 2002; 179: 43–46.
Medical-Legal Issues for Residents in Radiology. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1994:31–32.
Ibid.
Berlin L. Must new radiographs be compared with all previous radiographs, or only with the most recently obtained radiographs? AJR 2000; 174: 611–615.
Berlin L. Malpractice issues in radiology: comparing new radiographs with those obtained previously. AJR 1999; 172: 3–6.
Blankshain v Radiology and Nuclear Consultants Ltd., 95L-4851 (I11 1997).
Smith JJ, Berlin L. Signing a colleague’s radiology report. AJR 2001; 176: 27–30.
Jenoff v Gleason, 521 A2d 1323 (NJ Super Ct App Div 1987).
Berlin L. Alteration of medical records. AJR 1997; 168: 1405–1408.
In Re Jascalevich, 442 A2d 635 (NJ App Ct, 1982).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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