Oncologic Errors in Diagnostic Radiology: A 10-Year Analysis Based on Medical Malpractice Claims
Journal of the American College of Radiology, ISSN: 1546-1440, Vol: 18, Issue: 9, Page: 1310-1316
2021
- 6Citations
- 30Captures
- 3Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- CrossRef2
- Captures30
- Readers30
- 30
- Mentions3
- News Mentions3
- 3
Most Recent News
Opportunistic CTs | AI Shortcuts | POCUS EI
“47 times over the last year you ordered a CT scan with an indication that just said ‘pain'” Some feedback for surgery during Dr. Glaucomflecken’s
Article Description
To retrospectively analyze the nature and extent of oncology-related errors accounting for malpractice allegations in diagnostic radiology. The Comparative Benchmarking System of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company, a database containing roughly 30% of medical malpractice claims in the United States, was searched retrospectively for the period 2008 to 2017. Claims naming radiology as a primary service were identified and were stratified and compared by oncologic versus nononcologic status, allegation type (diagnostic versus nondiagnostic), and imaging modality. Over the 10-year period, radiology was the primary responsible service for 3.9% of all malpractice claims (2,582 of 66,061) and 12.8% of claims with diagnostic allegations (1,756 of 13,695). Oncology (neoplasms) accounted for 44.0% of radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, a larger share than any other category of medical condition. Among radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, high-severity harm occurred in 79% of oncologic but just 42% of nononcologic cases. Of all oncologic radiology cases, 97.4% had diagnostic allegations, and just 55.0% of nononcologic radiology cases had diagnostic allegations. Imaging misinterpretation was a contributing factor for a large majority (80.7% [623 of 772]) of oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations. The modalities most commonly used in oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations involving misinterpretation were mammography and CT. Oncology represents the largest source of radiology malpractice cases with diagnostic allegations. Oncologic radiology malpractice cases are more likely than nononcologic radiology cases to be due to diagnostic errors. Furthermore, compared with those that are nononcologic, oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations are more likely to be associated with high-severity harm. Efforts are warranted to reduce misinterpretations of oncologic imaging.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144021003847; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.05.001; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85108275920&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34058137; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1546144021003847; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.05.001
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know