Predictors of radiologists' perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 192, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 327-333

  Dick III, John F ^a   Gallagher, Thomas H ^b   Brenner, R James ^c   Yi, Joyce P ^b   Reisch, Lisa M ^b   Abraham, Linn ^d   Miglioretti, Diana L ^d   Carney, Patricia A ^e   Cutter, Gary R ^f   Elmore, Joann G ^b,g  

^a DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Bay Imaging Consultants Inc   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^e OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Mammography; Medical malpractice risk

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EXPERIENCE; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PERCEPTION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; WORKLOAD;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; LINEAR MODELS; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIANS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 59349097210     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3346     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M. A portrait of breast imaging specialists and of the interpretation of mammography in the United States. AJR 2006; 187:1167; [web]W456-W468
2. Physician Insurers Association of America. PIAA 2002 breast cancer study. Rockville, MD: Physician Insurers Association of America, 2002
3. Physician Insurers Association of America. PIAA 2003 breast cancer study. Rockville, MD: Physician Insurers Association of America, 2003
4. Bassett LW, Monsees BS, Smith RA, et al. Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 2003; 227:862-869
5. Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 2005; 104:491-498
6. Elmore JG, Carney PA, Taplin S, D'Orsi CJ, Cutter G, Hendrick E. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists, medical malpractice perceptions, and experience on screening mammography. Radiology 2005; 236:37-46
7. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Mammography: current nationwide capacity is adequate but access problems may exist in certain locations. Publication no. GAO-06-724. Washington, DC: GAO, 2006
8. Carney PA, Elmore JG, Abraham LA, et al. Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening. Med Decis Making 2004; 24:255-264
9. Carney PA, Yi JP, Abraham LA, et al. Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22:234-241
10. Brenner RJ, Ulissey MJ, Wilt RM. Computeraided detection as evidence in the courtroom: potential implications of an appellate court's ruling. AJR 2006; 186:48-51
11. Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Laird NM, Lipsitz S, Herbert L, Brennan TA. Physicians' perceptions of the risk of being sued. J Health Polit Policy Law 1992; 17:463-482
12. Schumacher JE, Ritchey FJ, Nelson LJ, Murray S, Martin J. Malpractice litigation fear and risk management beliefs among teaching hospital physicians. South Med J 1995; 88:1204-1211
13. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR 1997; 169:1001-1008
14. D'Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, et al. Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology 2005; 235:391-395
15. Gerrity MS, White K. Physicians' reactions to uncertainty: refining the constructs and scales. Motiv Emot 1995; 19:175-191
16. Hendrick RE, Cutter GR, Berns EA, et al. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods. AJR 2005; 184:433-438
17. Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, et al. Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs. Am J Epidmiol 2000; 152:371-378
18. Bovbjerg RR, Petronis KR. The relationship between physicians' malpractice claims history and later claims: does the past predict the future? JAMA 1994; 272:1421-1426
19. Brenner RJ. Mammography and malpractice litigation: current status, lessons, and admonitions. AJR 1993; 161:931-935
20. Rowe M. Doctors' responses to medical errors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2004; 52:147-163
21. Christensen JF, Levinson W, Dunn PM. The heart of darkness: the impact of perceived mistakes on physicians. J Gen Intern Med 1992; 7:424-431
22. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Medical malpractice. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:283-292
23. Bovier PA, Perneger TV. Stress from uncertainty from graduation to retirement: a population-based study of Swiss physicians. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22:632-638
24. Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, et al. Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. JAMA 1997; 277:997-1003
25. Berlin L. Breast cancer, mammography, and malpractice litigation: the controversies continue. AJR 2003; 180:1229-1237
26. Mello MM, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. The new medical malpractice crisis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2281-2284
27. Brennan TA, Sox CM, Burstin HR. Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:1963-1967
28. Brennan TA, Mello MM. Patient safety and medical malpractice: a case study. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139:267-273
29. Sage WM. The forgotten third: liability insurance and the medical malpractice crisis. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23:10-21
30. Mello MM, Studdert DM, DesRoches CM, et al. Caring for patients in a malpractice crisis: physician satisfaction and quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23:42-53
31. Studdert DM, Thomas EJ, Burstin HR, Zbar BI, Orav EJ, Brennan TA. Negligent care and malpractice claiming behavior in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000; 38:250-260
32. Gromet M. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms. AJR 2008; 190:854-859
33. Greenberg JS. An appellate court ruling and potential implications for CAD technology in the courtroom. AJR 2006; 186:52-53
34. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1840-1850