{"title":"What are the causes and outcomes of malpractice litigation in medical imaging technologists and sonographers? A scoping review","authors":"C. Ling, E. Arruzza, A. Chau, N. Parange","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2025.102922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Medical imaging examinations are performed by radiographers, nuclear medicine technologists (NMT) and sonographers. Radiology litigation has been extensively studied, however, litigation involving imaging professionals is not. This scoping review aims to identify the causes and outcomes of malpractice litigation among medical imaging technologists and sonographers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – Scoping Review checklist was performed using five databases and five grey literature sources. Australian professional bodies, insurance companies and coronial services were contacted. Literature published between 2018-2023 were included. No exclusions were placed on the practitioner’s age, sex, or levels of clinical experience.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-five cases and one study were included. Of the 35 cases, 26 were radiographer cases (X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging), one was a NMT case and eight were sonographer cases. The main categories that led to litigation for radiographers were unprofessional behaviour (16.87%), lack of competency and/or misconduct (13.25%) and errors in imaging technique (9.64%). Lack of competency and/or misconduct (17.02%), operator-dependent errors (12.77%) and incorrect reporting and/or documentation issues (10.64%) were the main categories for sonographer litigation. Being struck off from a professional register was the most common case outcome (22.64%) for radiographers, while conditions of practice (20.00%), voluntary removal (20.00%) and suspension (20.00%) were equally tied for sonographer case outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Categories of malpractice litigation and discipline-specific technical errors leading to litigation were identified for MITs and sonographers. Lack of studies in this area suggest further research is required to confirm our findings.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>Identifying the common causes of malpractice litigation can reveal strategies to mitigate litigation risks and improve patient safety. Our findings can educate students, practitioners and promote best practice policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"31 3","pages":"Article 102922"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107881742500063X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Medical imaging examinations are performed by radiographers, nuclear medicine technologists (NMT) and sonographers. Radiology litigation has been extensively studied, however, litigation involving imaging professionals is not. This scoping review aims to identify the causes and outcomes of malpractice litigation among medical imaging technologists and sonographers.
Methods
A scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – Scoping Review checklist was performed using five databases and five grey literature sources. Australian professional bodies, insurance companies and coronial services were contacted. Literature published between 2018-2023 were included. No exclusions were placed on the practitioner’s age, sex, or levels of clinical experience.
Results
Thirty-five cases and one study were included. Of the 35 cases, 26 were radiographer cases (X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging), one was a NMT case and eight were sonographer cases. The main categories that led to litigation for radiographers were unprofessional behaviour (16.87%), lack of competency and/or misconduct (13.25%) and errors in imaging technique (9.64%). Lack of competency and/or misconduct (17.02%), operator-dependent errors (12.77%) and incorrect reporting and/or documentation issues (10.64%) were the main categories for sonographer litigation. Being struck off from a professional register was the most common case outcome (22.64%) for radiographers, while conditions of practice (20.00%), voluntary removal (20.00%) and suspension (20.00%) were equally tied for sonographer case outcomes.
Conclusion
Categories of malpractice litigation and discipline-specific technical errors leading to litigation were identified for MITs and sonographers. Lack of studies in this area suggest further research is required to confirm our findings.
Implications for practice
Identifying the common causes of malpractice litigation can reveal strategies to mitigate litigation risks and improve patient safety. Our findings can educate students, practitioners and promote best practice policies.
RadiographyRADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
34.60%
发文量
169
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍:
Radiography is an International, English language, peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Radiography is the official professional journal of the College of Radiographers and is published quarterly. Radiography aims to publish the highest quality material, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy and oncology.