Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bettmann, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Trombly, S. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bettmann, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Trombly, S. T.

Radiology, Vol 175, 629-631, Copyright © 1990 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Risk management issues related to the use of contrast agents

MA Bettmann, JF Holzer and ST Trombly
Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine/University Hospital, MA 02118.

The authors reviewed retrospectively 2,100 claims filed over an 11-year period in 12 hospitals in a large metropolitan area covered by a single insurance carrier. One hundred cases (5%) involved radiologists, and 10 of these were related to the use of contrast media. Four of the cases reached financial settlement before trial, three were dropped with no financial settlement before tribunal or trial, one was dropped after a tribunal finding for the defendants, and two were decided in favor of the defendants at trial. Multiple issues were raised by the plaintiffs in all 10 cases. The questions of quality of care and of informed consent were raised in 10 and nine cases, respectively. In the four cases that reached a financial settlement, quality of care was thought to be an important issue in three, whereas informed consent was not a key issue in any. Conversely, adequate informed consent was an important consideration in three of the six cases that were dropped. Screening of patients and documentation of risk factors, adverse events, treatment, and follow-up were also important factors in determining outcome. The authors conclude that legal claims relating to use of contrast agents are unusual, most often involve non-life- threatening outcomes, and in most cases do not result in trial or a financial settlement.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Nucl. Med. Technol.Home page
J. Singh and A. Daftary
Iodinated Contrast Media and Their Adverse Reactions
J. Nucl. Med. Technol., June 1, 2008; 36(2): 69 - 74.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
P. D. Jacobson and C. J. Rosenquist
The Use of Low-Osmolar Contrast Agents: Technological Change and Defensive Medicine
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, June 1, 1996; 21(2): 243 - 266.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1990 by the Radiological Society of North America.