-
Depends on how you define an error. At face value, it implies for every case there is only 1 correct diagnosis (which the radiologist did not provide). But of course, there are many situations where there is legitimate potential for differences in interpretation. Many disease processes manifest radiologically with non-specific or common features. So often it’s a matter of giving an opinion, which is influenced by individual factors like subconscious biases etc – rather than a definitive diagnosis. To move closer to the ‘truth’, aside from obtaining more clinical/lab evidence, clinicians can also gather more opinions by discussing the case at an MDT, usually with a subspecialty consultant.
Then you have other errors, like missed findings. Where the diagnosis is evident in retrospect, sometimes subtly… sometimes obviously. It happens. In this case, the original report author should be first approached to allow them to review the case and make an addendum as they see fit. Side note: all addendums should be notified to the referrer and communication of such should be documented on the report (definitely something worth mentioning in the interview especially because so many court cases arise due to failure of communication)
The interview scenario can get tricky, for example, the original report author is away and non-contactable. What do you do? It’s a case-by-case assessment. The original report author should still have the right to addendum their report first, so the referrers might need to wait for this with the caveat being that this doesn’t immediately impact patient care. In real life, this is usually the case. It is not common practice for consultants to give 2nd opinions on reports they didn’t report themselves (in an unofficial, undocumented manner, outside of an MDT) as it can add confusion and possibly even further discrepancy. Think about the legal ramifications too.
If the scenario is such that it is a clinically urgent circumstance such as a sudden change in the patient condition, well the patient should probably be re-imaged, rather than have an old scan with a potential error re-looked at. Things could’ve changed over the interval. The original report author should still be notified.
How does the registrar get caught in the middle of this? Fair question. I guess they’re usually the most accessible staff member in the department and so, therefore, the first point of call.