Search

The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence, causes, and outcomes of GI malpractice suits in a survey of 8,401 radiologists. The malpractice histories of 8,401 radiologists from 47 states were evaluated from credentialing data of all radiologists participating in the network of One Call Medical Inc. Thirty-two percent of radiologists were defendants in at least one malpractice suit. Of the 4,073 total claims, 346 (8.49 %) were related to the gastrointestinal system. The most frequent primary allegations were failure to diagnose, 65.9 %, and procedural complications, 17.1 %. The commonest missed diagnoses were malignancy, 31.6 %; pneumoperitoneum, 19.3 %; and appendicitis, 14.5 %. Payment to the plaintiff occurred in 75.8 % of claims pertinent to cancer, 73.2 % for missed pneumoperitoneum, and 62.5 % related to appendicitis. Of cases in which a ruling was made in favor of the plaintiff, median payments for pneumoperitoneum was $215,000, for primary cancer $200,000, and for appendicitis $60,000. Among procedurally related errors resulting in judgment against a defending radiologist, 78.6 % of claims regarding retained foreign body, 75 % of barium enema cases, and 62.5 % of liver biopsy resulted in a payment to the plaintiff. Among all resolved cases, the median award was $30,000 for unrecognized foreign body retention, $100,000 for barium enema complications, and $400,000 for liver biopsy complication. Of all GI malpractice claims, failure to diagnose was the most prevalent. Among them, approximately three fourths of claims related to either the diagnosis of primary cancer or for detection of a pneumoperitoneum.

The objective of this study was to present the characteristics of non-spinal musculoskeletal malpractice suits with attention to rates, anatomic location, and payments in a survey of 8,265 radiologists. The malpractice histories of 8,265 radiologists from 36 states were evaluated from credentialing data required of all radiologists participating in the network of One Call Medical, Inc., a broker for imaging tests in workmen's compensation cases. Twenty six hundred of the 8,265 radiologists (31.5 %) had at least one suit. Of the 4,741 total claims, 627 (13.2 %) were related to the bones and soft tissues. Four hundred seventeen (66.1 %) of them involved the musculoskeletal system other than the spine. A cause was known for 400. Of these, 91.8 % (367/400) resulted from an alleged failure to diagnose. The foot was the most common site with a rate 6.00 cases/1,000 radiologist's person years (95 % confidence interval (CI), 4.68-7.68), and the hip was second with a rate of 5.30 cases/1,000 person years (95 % CI, 4.15-6.76). The highest median payment related to ankle injuries with a median settlement of $72,500 (interquartile range (IQR), $40,000-$161,250). The state in which the highest median settlement occurred was Maryland ($125,000; IQR, $95,000-$230,000)) whereas Utah had the highest rate of suits (5.24 cases per 1,000 person years; CI, 3.03-9.04). Claims regarding foot and hip injury were the most common, but ankle settlements incurred the highest awards.

To present overall rates, anatomic location, percent of adverse settlements to the radiologists, and average payments to the plaintiff in spinal-related malpractice suits in a survey of 8,265 radiologists. The malpractice histories of 8,265 radiologists from 36 states were evaluated from credentialing data required of all radiologists participating in the network of One Call Medical Incorporated, a broker for CT/MR in workmen's compensation cases. Two hundred twenty-six of the 8,265 radiologists (31.5 %) had at least one suit. Of the 4,741 total claims, 627 (13.2 %) were related to the bones and adjacent soft tissue. Two hundred and ten (32.9 %) involved the spine. Of these, 70.2 % (134/191) were settled in favor of the plaintiff. One hundred and sixteen (68.2 %) involved the cervical spine with an average settlement of $483,156. Lumbar cases accounted for 28 (16.5 %) of spinal suits, with an average settlement of $119,272. Thoracic cases (26) accounted for only 15.3 % of spinal cases and had an average settlement of $481,608. An allegation of spinal malpractice resulting in a settlement or judgment against the radiologist occurred at a rate of 29.5 cases per 1,000 radiologists' person years. Of the three spinal regions, the cervical spine was the most frequent anatomic site of a malpractice suit and among all those cases settled incurred the highest payment in judgment to the plaintiff.

The objective of this study was to compare through questionnaires the test-ordering behavior of college health professionals and emergency physicians with respect to the choosing of computed tomography scans under two clinical scenarios-suspicion of appendicitis and nondescript abdominal pain. Surveys were sent to physician members of both the American College Health Association and the American College of Emergency Physicians. The recipients were asked if their initial workup would include a computed tomography (CT) scan for either clinical scenario. They were queried on their estimation of the importance of physical examination findings, practice standards, economic considerations, and interpersonal factors on the decision to obtain a CT. They were also asked if their decision to order a CT was related to physical exam findings, parental influence, established protocol, costs to student, insurance considerations, medical literature recommendations, and relationship with radiologist. For the first presentation, a clinical suspicion of appendicitis, there was little difference between the choices of the two groups. Seventy seven percent of the college health professionals would obtain one and 76% of the ER physicians would do the same. However, for the workup of nondescript pain, three times as many ER physicians as college health professionals would obtain a CT scan (34% vs 11%). Of the seven factors, the most important determinant for both groups of physicians was the results of physical exam and least important by far was the relationship to the radiologist.

We report an unusual manifestation of penetrating facial trauma. It was suffered by a recreational fly fisherman who was hiking away from a casting spot when he fell and was impaled by a section of his graphite flyrod. The circumstances of his injury, its clinical manifestations, and its imaging findings are discussed. Emergency physicians and radiologists should be aware of the computed tomography appearance of impaled foreign bodies and their capability to penetrate deeply to reach critical vascular and neurologic structures. The role of imaging in penetrating trauma to the face and skull base for guiding appropriate intervention is emphasized.

Radiographic series of the foot are often obtained in conjunction with ankle X-rays when the clinical presentation is limited to trauma to the ankle. The Ottawa Ankle and Foot Rules were established in 1992 and serve as reliable guidelines to determine when an ankle or foot series is warranted in patients who have sustained minor ankle and/or foot injury. We retrospectively reviewed radiographic studies of all patients over a period of 18 months who simultaneously had ankle and foot plain radiographs performed for acute complaints limited to the ankle alone. Of the 243 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 55 patients had fractures, 46 in or near the ankle joint, and nine which were located at the base of the fifth metatarsal bone. No fractures or dislocations were noted elsewhere in the foot. All of the fifth metatarsal fractures were evident on adequately performed ankle series. Our findings suggest that films of the foot are not necessary when trauma is limited to the ankle and when an appropriately performed ankle series has been completed.

Given the well-recognized association of radiation and thyroid cancer, the objective of this study was to assess the frequency of radiation overlap at the level of the thyroid gland as part of standard protocols for computed tomography (CT) assessment of trauma, incorporating both cervical spine and chest images. A survey was sent to physician members of the American Society of Emergency Radiology. Among other questions, the respondents were asked to indicate their CT protocol with respect to the lower boundary of their cervical spine series and the upper boundary of their chest CT series. Forty-one surveys were returned. Of these, 83% reported overlap of the contiguous margins of the two CT studies resulting in partial or total double radiation deposition to the thyroid gland, which typically extends from vertebral levels C5 to T1. Sixty-one percent reported overlapping at T1 only, 15% at C7 to T1, 4.9% at C6 to T1, and 2.4% at C5 to T1. These data reveal that the predominant practice among the respondents is to include the thyroid gland in coincident CT studies of the cervical spine and chest in trauma protocols.

We report the case of a male patient who presented to the Emergency Department with urinary retention secondary to a suspected foreign object in his urethra. We review the diagnosis and management of self-inserted urethral foreign objects in men. Emergent treatment is necessary in patients with urethral foreign objects. Prompt radiologic studies should be obtained because immediate bladder access and drainage is mandatory, especially in patients presenting with urosepsis or urinary retention. Endoscopic removal is the management of choice.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the operation of the portable X-ray machine in relation to examinations ordered by the Emergency Department at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, as well as to identify any bottlenecks hindering the performance of the aforementioned system. To do so, the activity of the portable X-ray was monitored in the period from 8 June 2004 to 24 June 2004, as well as from 6 July 2004 to 12 July 2004, yielding 11 days of data and 116 individual X-ray examinations. During observation times was noted for various checkpoints in the procedure. Using the data gathered, the average input, output, processing times, and variance were calculated. In turn, these values were used to calculate the response times for the Ordering Phase (5.502 min), traveling (2.483 min), Examination Phase (4.453 min), returning (3.855 min), Order Processing Phase (2.962 min), and the Development Phase (3.437 min). These phases were combined for a total of 22.721 min from the time the examination was placed to the time the X-ray films were uploaded to the PACS computer network. Based on these calculations, the Ordering Phase was determined to be the single largest bottleneck in the portable X-ray system. The Examination Phase also represented the second largest bottleneck for a combined total of 44% of the total response time.