Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/40712
Title: Investigating errors in medical imaging: Lessons for practice from medicolegal closed claims.
Authors: Runciman W.;Goergen S.;Schultz T.;Deakin A.
Institution: (Goergen) Monash University, Southern Clinical School, Clayton, VIC, Australia (Goergen) Monash Imaging, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia (Schultz, Deakin, Runciman) Australian Patient Safety Foundation, Adelaide, SA, Australia (Schultz, Runciman) School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Issue Date: 8-Sep-2015
Copyright year: 2015
Publisher: Elsevier
Place of publication: Netherlands
Publication information: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 12 (9) (pp 988-997), 2015. Date of Publication: 01 Sep 2015.
Journal: JACR Journal of the American College of Radiology
Abstract: Purpose Radiology has lagged behind other disciplines in using medicolegal data to improve patient safety. The aim of this study was to characterize a sample of closed claims files to inform radiology practice and identify opportunities for system change. Methods A retrospective analysis of 443 medicolegal closed claims provided to the Radiology Events Register. Data were provided by 2 medical defense organizations that provide medical indemnity insurance to Australian private practitioners. We calculated a procedural risk ratio (prevalence in the closed claims dataset divided by prevalence among all diagnostic imaging procedures reimbursed by the Australian Government over the corresponding timeframe) for each modality (CT, ultrasound, radiography, MRI, nuclear medicine) and some procedures. For each closed claim, the incident type was determined, and a classification of 12 patient safety fields was conducted. Results Misdiagnosis (delay or failure to correctly read imaging) accounted for 62% of error types. Modalities and procedures at higher risk of leading to a claim were: mammography (risk ratio [RR] = 4.0, 95% CI 2.9-5.5); breast ultrasound (RR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.7); total MRI (RR = 3.4, 95% CI 2.0-5.6); total CT (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.5), and obstetrics and gynecology ultrasound (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.4). Lower-risk modalities and procedures were: cardiac ultrasound (RR = 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.8); radiography extremities (RR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9); and total radiography (RR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-0.9). Information to inform patient safety classification was limited, with a mean of 5.8 +/- 1.8 (SD) fields available. Conclusions Despite its limitations, medicolegal data deserve further attention from patient safety analysts.Copyright © 2015 American College of Radiology.
DOI: http://monash.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.03.025
PubMed URL: 26088122 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26088122]
ISSN: 1546-1440
URI: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/40712
Type: Article
Appears in Collections:Articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

38
checked on Jun 5, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Monash Health Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.