I recently came across an interesting article in a medical insurance journal, discussing the responsibilities of a radiologist to ensure communication of important x-ray or other radiology test results. The conclusion of the article was that the radiologist has responsibility for prompt first-hand communication with the referring GP, but the article stopped short of suggesting a need for the radiologist to inform the actual patient of their test result.
The patient is obviously the radiologist’s patient, as well as the GP’s. The patient (or his insurer) pays for the radiologist’s services and a duty to take care is owed by the specialist to the patient. Why then no obligation to tell the patient of the result of their investigation?
This is an issue I have had cause to consider recently, in the context of a delay in diagnosis of breast cancer case. In that case a radiologist’s report indicating likely breast cancer was not acted upon by the GP practice (it appears the report went astray + was not followed up), leading to a delay of several months before the patient, re-attending the GP practice, raised the issue of the earlier test, resulting in (a very unhappy) realisation of the oversight.
Claim was brought against the GP practice + was indefensible. It did however occur to me that quite apart from liability in a medical negligence claim context, the whole problem could have been avoided, had the radiologist conveyed the findings of the scan to the patient.
I have seen several cases in the past in which recommendations for further investigation were made by radiologists in their reports, yet not passed on by the patient’s GP to the GP.
Quite apart from having an obvious opportunity to advise and explain concerning test results, it occurs to me that often such specialist radiologists may be in a better position to put the test results in context and recommend further forms of investigation if warranted (FNA, core biopsy etc), than the GP referrer.
It is accepted that in cases like this, it is important that ‘bad news’ is conveyed in an appropriate setting + with appropriate supports. Nonetheless, it is not easy to see why no responsibility for communication to the patient seems to be accepted as arising on the part of this form of specialist (or other similar areas, pathology etc).