Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pediatric radiology malpractice claims — characteristics and comparison to adult radiology claims

  • Minisymposium: Quality and clinical practice management
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medical malpractice is the primary method by which people who believe they have suffered an injury in the course of medical care seek compensation in the United States and Canada. An increasing body of research demonstrates that failure to correctly diagnose is the most common allegation made in malpractice claims against radiologists. Since the 1994 survey by the Society of Chairmen of Radiology in Children’s Hospitals (SCORCH), no other published studies have specifically examined the frequency or clinical context of malpractice claims against pediatric radiologists or arising from pediatric imaging interpretation. We hypothesize that the frequency, character and outcome of malpractice claims made against pediatric radiologists differ from those seen in general radiology practice. We searched the Controlled Risk Insurance Co. (CRICO) Strategies’ Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a private repository of approximately 350,000 open and closed medical malpractice claims in the United States, for claims related to pediatric radiology. We further queried these cases for the major allegation, the clinical environment in which the claim arose, the clinical severity of the alleged injury, indemnity paid (if payment was made), primary imaging modality involved (if applicable) and primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) diagnosis underlying the claim. There were a total of 27,056 fully coded claims of medical malpractice in the CBS database in the 5-year period between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2014. Of these, 1,472 cases (5.4%) involved patients younger than 18 years. Radiology was the primary service responsible for 71/1,472 (4.8%) pediatric cases. There were statistically significant differences in average payout for pediatric radiology claims ($314,671) compared to adult radiology claims ($174,033). The allegations were primarily diagnosis-related in 70% of pediatric radiology claims. The most common imaging modality implicated in pediatric radiology claims was radiography. The highest payouts in pediatric radiology pertained to missed congenital and developmental anomalies (average $1,222,932) such as developmental dysplasia of the hip and congenital central nervous system anomalies. More than half of pediatric radiology claims arose in the ambulatory setting. Pediatric radiology is not immune from claims of medical malpractice and these claims result in high monetary payouts, particularly for missed diagnoses of congenital and developmental anomalies. Our data suggest that efforts to reduce diagnostic error in the outpatient radiology setting, in the interpretation of radiographs, and in the improved diagnosis of fractures and congenital and developmental anomalies would be of particular benefit to the pediatric radiology community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harvey HB, Tomov E, Babayan A et al (2016) Radiology malpractice claims in the United States from 2008 to 2012: characteristics and implications. J Am Coll Radiol 13:124–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bal BS (2009) An introduction to medical malpractice in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:339–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berlin L (2007) Radiologic errors and malpractice: a blurry distinction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:517–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker SR, Whang JS, Luk L et al (2013) The demography of medical malpractice suits against radiologists. Radiology 266:539–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Whang JS, Baker SR, Patel R et al (2013) The causes of medical malpractice suits against radiologists in the United States. Radiology 266:548–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Royal SA, Cloud GA, Atchison WM (1994) Malpractice in pediatric radiology: a survey in the United States and Canada. Pediatr Radiol 24:519–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor GA, Voss SD, Melvin PR et al (2011) Diagnostic errors in pediatric radiology. Pediatr Radiol 41:327–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fuentealba I, Taylor GA (2012) Diagnostic errors with inserted tubes, lines and catheters in children. Pediatr Radiol 42:1305–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sowka M (1980) Malpractice claims: final compilation. National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Brookfield

  10. Loy CT, Irwig L (2004) Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. JAMA 292:1602–1609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leslie A, Jones AJ, Goddard PR (2000) The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Radiol 73:1052–1055

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Berbaum KS, El-Khoury GY, Franken EA Jr et al (1988) Impact of clinical history on fracture detection with radiography. Radiology 168:507–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Micheál A. Breen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None

Appendix

Appendix

Table 9 50 cases of pediatric radiology diagnosis-related claims listed by ICD-9 code

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Breen, M.A., Dwyer, K., Yu-Moe, W. et al. Pediatric radiology malpractice claims — characteristics and comparison to adult radiology claims. Pediatr Radiol 47, 808–816 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3873-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3873-2

Keywords

Navigation