These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Medical malpractice involving radiologic colon examinations: a review of 38 recent cases.
    Author: Barloon TJ, Shumway J.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):343-6. PubMed ID: 7618553.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Our purposes were to determine the causes of malpractice claims against radiologists performing contrast examinations of the colon and to design strategies to reduce litigation and diminish patient morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reports of malpractice claims were collected from legal journals and databases between 1985 and 1994. For this period, 38 plaintiffs raised 52 allegations of malpractice that involved radiologists performing barium or Hypaque (meglumine diatrizoate; Winthrop Pharmaceuticals, New York, NY) colon examinations. For the 38 cases, 18 plaintiffs for decedents alleged that failure to diagnose colorectal cancer by barium enema examination caused delay in treatment and the patient's death. Eighteen plaintiffs alleged that improper performance of barium (17 cases) or meglumine diatrizoate (one case) colon examinations caused perforation of the colon, resulting in significant morbidity (15 cases) or death (three cases). Miscellaneous causes for malpractice claims were recorded in two cases. RESULTS: In 18 cases of failure to diagnose colorectal cancer, the initial radiographs were interpreted as follows: normal findings in 14 cases, diverticulosis in one case, and spastic bowel in two cases; in the remaining case, colon cancer was missed because of nonopacification of the cecum. In retrospect, 17 of 18 colorectal cancers were visualized. The delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer ranged from 5 to 72 months. Missed colorectal cancers occurred in the cecum (two cases), transverse colon (two cases), rectosigmoid area (nine cases), or unspecified area (five cases). In 18 cases of colon perforation, the site was the cecum (one case), transverse colon (one case), extraperitoneal rectum (seven cases), rectosigmoid area (one case), colostomy stoma (two cases), or unspecified area (six cases). One patient experienced anaphylactic shock that required hospitalization. One underwent unnecessary surgery because barium enema films showing colon cancer were mislabeled with her name. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our analyses of malpractice claims, we suggest strategies to prevent medicolegal litigation. Strategies include communicating with the patient about the type and indications of the barium enema examination, performing digital rectal examinations on all patients to detect distal rectal lesions or strictures, recognizing colon perforation, and obtaining immediate surgical consultation if colon perforation occurs. The number of missed colon cancers may be reduced by reading twice or reviewing at a later time all barium enema examinations.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]