Cited by 46Medical Malpractice and Liability IssuesRadiology practices and educationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Communication Errors in Radiology: A Liability Cost Analysis

Brenner, R. James, Bartholomew, Lori·2005·Journal of the American College of Radiology

Abstract

Purpose We evaluated the economic effect on radiologists involved in litigation of failures in communication of results.Method We examined claims data from the Physicians Insurers Association of America 2002 report on breast cancer and identified malpractice cases in which miscommunication, rather than misdiagnosis, was the primary cause for litigation.Results The average indemnity payment for primary errors in communication by radiologists was between $228,000 and $236,000, or twice as high as when appropriate communication occurred. As a percentage of total indemnity payments to plaintiffs, such awards were 15 times higher than when communication was effective.Conclusions Notwithstanding diagnostic accuracy, errors attributable to ineffective communication of results account for high indemnity awards. These errors can be easily resolved in clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.08.009

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.

    “Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps, and emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.21,25–32”
  • Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps.

    “Communication breakdowns are an increasingly recognized preventable factor in medical mishaps, and emerging data suggest a high prevalence of communication breakdowns among physicians, patients, and important members of the health care team who assist with the diagnostic process.21,25–32”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brenner, R. J., & Bartholomew, L.
Affiliations
Saint John's Health Center (US)
Corresponding author
Brenner, R. James
Venue
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
2
Issue
5
Pages
428-431
ISSN
1546-1440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155453174
Cited by
46
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
communication errors, medical liability, breast cancer
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude of Health Personnel, Biopsy, Needle, Breast Neoplasms, Communication, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Insurance, Liability, Mammography, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Radiology, Risk Management, Time Factors, United States, Liability, Legal, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review