Dear AuntMinnie Member,
Radiologists have long looked askance at their brethren who provide expert witness testimony for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases. Now, a new study indicates that there may be some reason for their suspicion.
Researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) in Chapel Hill wanted to see whether staff radiologists at their academic center could identify pathology found on radiology reports by radiologists hired by plaintiff's attorneys in a medical malpractice case.
The researchers found that of the 31 UNC radiologists who reviewed images from the case, none identified the key finding that was central to the litigation (the UNC radiologists didn't know they were reviewing malpractice images). The study's authors believe this indicates the need for reform of the expert witness system.
Do you agree? Check out the article by clicking here, and when you've finished, post your comments in our Forums.
NY Times reporter on radiation crisis
In other news, 2010 may be seen as the year that concerns over radiation dose from medical procedures came to a head. To some extent, the concern has been driven by multiple articles on errors in radiation therapy published in the New York Times by investigative journalist Walter Bogdanich.
This week, Mr. Bogdanich appeared before a packed audience at the American Association of Physicists in Medicine meeting in Philadelphia, where he was an invited guest speaker at a symposium on preventing errors in radiation therapy.
Mr. Bogdanich explained to the crowd his motivation in pursuing the topic -- namely, his surprise at how little medical radiation is understood, both among patients and healthcare providers. He believes that members of the radiology and radiation therapy community have the responsibility to ensure that patients are better informed regarding medical radiation.
To learn more, click here for an article graciously provided to us by our content partner medicalphysicsweb.
