Page Section: Centre Content Column
Inadequate radiology report and insufficient information given to patient (03HDC08493)
Download Inadequate radiology report and insufficient information given to patient (03HDC08493) (PDF 15Kb)
(03HDC08493, 31 August 2004)
Radiologists ~ Otolaryngology ~ Reporting of CT scan ~
Differential diagnoses ~ Standard of care ~ Sufficient information
~ Rights 4(1), 6(1)(a), 6(1)(f), 6(3)
A 63-year-old woman presented with a
one- to two-month history of hoarse voice, significant weight loss
and left vocal-cord palsy. She had been a heavy smoker, and 29
years previously had had cancer of the left breast, which had been
treated by mastectomy and radiotherapy, resulting in significant
post-radiation injury requiring surgical repair.
The woman was referred for an urgent CT scan of the chest and
abdomen, because of a possible underlying mediastinal malignancy.
The scan was read by a radiology registrar who, after discussion
with his supervising consultant, dictated the report. As was
standard hospital practice at the time, the radiologist signed out
the report without it being seen by the supervising
The registrar reported fibrotic changes in the vicinity of the
descending thoracic aorta and branch of the left main bronchus. He
noted that the previous radiotherapy for the breast cancer may have
caused the fibrotic changes; however, the possibility of malignancy
could not be ruled out.
As the position of the growth meant that biopsy would be extremely
difficult, the decision was made to follow up the vocal-cord damage
and conduct another CT scan of the torso and abdomen in three
months' time. The team felt that the cause was unlikely to be a
malignancy but that a watching brief should be kept.
The otolaryngology registrar and surgeon referred the woman to a
speech therapist and arranged for an appointment to have her vocal
cords stripped. The woman said that the registrar told her the CT
scan was normal.
A month later, a laser laryngoscopy was carried out, and
histological examination of the material removed from the vocal
cords showed no evidence of dysplasia or malignancy. In a letter to
the woman's GP, the surgeon wrote that, while there was no evidence
of malignant change in the material removed from the vocal cords,
the presence of a 3cm lesion on the CT scan meant a repeat scan
would be arranged as recommended. However, at a follow-up
appointment, he told the woman there was no sign of cancer, as he
did not wish to cause her "speculative alarm".
Effectively, the reading of these results meant that the scan was
deferred two months from its original scheduling. By that time, the
woman's left vocal-cord paralysis had increased and she was
experiencing haemoptysis. An urgent scan revealed the mass detected
five months earlier, and subsequent bronchoscopy and fine needle
aspiration revealed adenocarcinoma of the upper lobe of the left
lung. Her extensive prior radiation therapy made her a poor
candidate for radiation therapy, and aortic stenosis compromised
the efficacy of chemotherapy. The woman was referred for palliative
therapy and died eight months later.
It was held that both the otolaryngology registrar and surgeon
formed adequate management plans for the woman and arranged or
undertook the necessary investigative procedures consistent with
those plans, and did not breach Right 4(1). However, the
otolaryngology registrar was found in breach of Rights 6(1)(a) and
6(1)(f) in not providing the woman with information about a
possible malignancy after the first CT scan, and inappropriately
informing her GP that it was normal. The surgeon was held not to
have breached Right 6(3) in initially telling the woman that he
thought she did not have cancer. Although he conveyed information
that subsequently turned out to be inaccurate, he took reasonable
steps to answer the woman's questions honestly and accurately.
However, in not giving the woman sufficient information about the
possibility of malignancy and the need for a repeat CT scan, he was
found in breach of Rights 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(f).
The radiology registrar and consultant radiologist were held not
to have breached Right 4(1), in that their observations and
findings with regard to the first CT scan were reasonable, and the
recommendation for a repeat scan appropriate.
However, the radiology registrar was held in breach of Right 4(1),
as his report on the scan was not of a satisfactory standard; the
consultant radiologist also breached Right 4(1) in not ensuring
that the report was satisfactory. At the time, the radiology
reporting system in place at the hospital did not mandate
consultant review of registrars' reports, and it was held that the
hospital was therefore also in breach of Right 4(1). The consultant
radiologist advised that he now routinely checks registrars'
reports, and the hospital has reviewed its procedures and
instigated changes to ensure that such checks are made.