Risk Management in Radiology - Essay Example

Risk Management in Radiology Risk Management in Radiology Introduction People have different understanding tothe concept of risk and risk management in medical setting. Risk is considered to be the chance of possibility of something unusual and negative happening that may cause injury to the patient or the medical practitioners. Some risks are unpredictable in the sense that patients may get injured even if they are being treated from the best hospitals where the services and treatment are of high quality. The approaches that the medical practitioners and professionals integrate to reduce the chances of risks from occurring are understood to be risk management (Robinson, Wilson, Coral, Murphy & Verow, 1999: 323-330). It is a proactive technique that involves processes such as identification of risks, quantification and evaluation of risks, and consideration of measures that caton be used to eliminate and control risks in medical setting. It’s considered to be the obligation of the management of the medical centers to provide adequate facilities, resources and financial equipments that can help the professionals and nursing practitioners reduce the chances of risks occurring. This paper aims at investigating the risk management in radiology, and this will be achieved through assessment of the risk control measures that are used in the radiology department of a hospital. It has been observed that the major focus of risk management in such medical setting is to reduce and eliminate harm and injury to the patients through integration of various medical precautions. There are various causes of risks leading to harm and injury in radiology departments, and it is one of the objectives of this paper to investigate some of the causes. This will drive to consideration of some of the approaches that are used in managing risks in radiology. Risk Management in Radiology Risk management in radiology is principally developed and fostered to help in safeguarding the patients, the working personnel and the entire organization where the services are offered. This protection to the organization is in terms of finance management, the potential drawbacks linked to unreliable results and reputation of the organizations (Kundel, 1989: 203-210). Managers and workers in the radiology department focus at improving the general quality of care for the patients and the radiologists. It is evident that the radiologists subject themselves to risks every time when they are in practice and this is to the sense that some of the processes and machinery that they use in scanning and imaging is complex (Chakaverty & Wright, 2001: 1425-1426). It is therefore essential for the players in the healthcare setting to work carefully and diligently to ensure that they minimize health risk to patients and to themselves. It is usually advised that the radiologists identify some of the issues that they find to have trends of causing harm to patients in advance, and work on them accordingly before subjecting the patient to the processes that are faulty (Renfrew, Franken, Berbaum, Weigelt & Abu-Yousef, 1992: 145-150). The process of risk management strategizes on allowing the radiologists focus on issues or measures that can aid in reduction of potential risks that may cause harm or injury to the patients. This ensures that the appropriate and relevant protocols and guidelines are followed to reduce the chances of risks occurring in the radiography departments (Yohann & Haaga, 1999: 1475-1476). The fact that one of the major objectives of the process of risk management in radiology is reduction of litigation and the costs associated are sufficient to argue that avoiding the problems that may cause litigation positively impacts to the patients and radiologists (Berlin, 2000: 597-601). Reduction of risks in radiology department is only achieved if all the parties in the radiology departments are aware of the methods that are appropriate in reduction of risks. The stakeholders and radiologists need to have competent and significant knowledge and skills of working with the procedures and processes integrated in radiology department as a way of reducing the chances of errors within the departments (Wakeley, Jones, Kabala, Prince & Goddard, 1995: 353-360). The radiologists and key players in the department need to understand that their practices and performances significantly contribute to the trust that the patients have on them. Patients need to have trust to the radiologists, and this is possible if the radiologists understand that having value for human life is the pillar to success in the radiology department (Fitzgerald & Mehra, 2000: 637-42). They need to ensure that they make the patients their first concern, and protect and promote the health of patients and the public through the activities and practices that they exercise. Radiologists need to provide a good standard of practice and care, and also treat the patients as human beings by showing respect of their dignity (Remy-Jardin, Remy, Giraud & Marquette, 1993: 513-520). In order to reduce the risks associated with practice, the radiologist need to work closely with the patients, and this is possible if there is honesty and openness between the radiologists and the patients. It is the obligation of the medical practitioners in the radiology departments to ensure that they keep their professional knowledge, skills and experiences updated. In order to achieve competence and proficiency in their service and areas of expertise, the radiologists need to recognize and perform their duties within the limits of their understanding and competence (Fitzgerald, 2001: 938-46). This allows them to do what they understand most, thus reducing the chances of causing danger, harm or injury to the patients. The requirement is closely related to the recommendation that the radiologists need to maintain high trust and confidentiality with their clients through establishment of professional relationship. Competence in the medical setting is attained if the workers comprehend and appreciate the benefits associated with working closely and together with other professionals in their field of specialization (Katz, Jorgensen, Rubin, 1999: 294-300). This implies that in order to reduce risks in the radiology departments, radiologists need to work as a team, combine their knowledge and skills, and more importantly share their experiences as a way of promoting proficiency in their field. Teamwork among the radiologists is a solution to reduction of risks that may cause harm or injury to the patients through poor reporting resulting from poor and unreliable results (Gore, Miller, Pereles, Yagmai, & Berlin, 2000: 901-913). The professionals are required to ensure that maintain high standards of practice while they introduce skills mix that enhances access to radiological services by the patients. In attempt to attain completeness in their practice as radiologists, they need to be personally accountable for their activities and practices. They need to have justification to their individual decisions and actions that they integrate in the radiology departments (Chandy, Goodfellow & Vohrah, 2000: 326-329). Modern radiology is greatly reliant on the application of state-of-the-act diagnostic and therapeutic devices, and there are various risks that are linked to these devices. It has been confirmed that the effectiveness and efficiency of these devices is not 100% guaranteed, and indication that some of the results that are obtained from the use of some machinery are not reliable (Ashman, Yu & Wolfman, 2000: 541-44). In order to avoid the risks that are associated with the use of faulty devices in the radiology sector, it is essential for quality assurance departments to be diligent in ensuring that the devices or machinery used are in good condition and are of high quality. Significantly, the results that are extracted from diagnostic and therapeutic devises that are tested and proven to be accurate are reliable and dependable. Risk management in radiology connected to the use of therapeutic devices requires the professionals to have sufficient knowledge, skills and technical ability to operate the devices, recognize when they are breaking down, and identify the results that are not correct (Berbaum, Franken & Dorfmann, 1991: 640-648). Risk management in radiology department is aimed at reducing and eradicating harm to the patients through recognizing the limits of the radiological diagnosis. It is the obligation of the radiologists to understand the level at which the diagnosis devices can produce variable and reliable results (Bechtold, Chen & Ott, 1997: 681-685). The professionals in the department are obliged to identification and reduction of complications of radiological testing through the use of strong protocols and relevant safety systems. It is through integration of appropriate skills and operational strategies in the radiology that professionals can guarantee highest quality of radiological accuracy (Oestmann, Green, Kushner, Bourgouin, Linetsky & Llewellyn, 1988: 451-53). Attainment of quality results and reporting procedures is a sign of competence in the department, and is an indication that the protocols and guidelines that are used focus at reducing operational and decision risks. To be able to manage risks in the radiology sector, the practitioners need to learn through the previous mistakes, and more importantly scrutinizing the critical clinical situations and the near misses. Human beings are prone to making errors, but it is essential to integrate operational decisions and measures that are positive in reduction of errors and near misses as they are heavy risks to the patient’s health (The Royal College of Radiologists, 1999: 5). The professionals and the management needs to invest appropriately in machinery that are of high quality to be at a position of reducing errors and poor results resulting from breakdown and ineffectiveness of the devices that are used to image and interpret the images. Unexpected errors that can cause harm to the patients and radiologists can be controlled if necessary and appropriate skills and knowledge is applied in the operations and practices of radiologists (Callum & Whimster, 2000: 9). Inappropriate conduct from the professionals such as unethical handling of patients and intentional carelessness is a contributing factor to risks in radiology, and can be addressed though adherence to the procedures and protocols strategized by the department or entire organization offering the radiological services (Berlin, 2000: 17-22). Conclusion In the main, risk management in radiology is attained in situations where patients are able to access and obtain medical imaging and interpretations at the right time without consideration of external factors such as the income or cultural background. The ability to offer uninterrupted care within the radiology department is crucial in attainment of competence and proficiency in the medical sector, thus minimizing health risks to the patients and radiologists (DeLacey, Godwin & Manhire, 2000: 4). The systems that are used in the facilities need to be sustainable, and the organization needs to establish systems that are able to offer infrastructure. More importantly, the medical organization offering radiology services need to allow innovation and responsive measures that can be used to improve the outcomes from radiology departments. The diagnostic devices need to be efficient, effective and capable to delivering high quality results as a way of helping the clients realize the health disorders affecting them, hence lowering the chances of health harm, injury or death to the patients or clients. Thus, risk management in radiology is essential in protecting the patients, radiologists, and the medical organization in terms of capital and strengthening of the reputation of the medical organization with the customer/patients. References Ashman, C. J., Yu, J. S. & Wolfman, D. 2000. Satisfaction of search in osteo-radiology. Am J Roentgenol, (175): 541-544 Bechtold, R. E., Chen, M. Y. M. & Ott, D. J. 1997. Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomogr, (21): 681-685. Berbaum, K.S., Franken, E. A. & Dorfmann, D. D. 1991. Time course of satisfaction of search. Investigative Radiology (26); 640-648 Berlin, L. 2000. Hindsight bias. Am J. Roentgenol. (175): 597-601 Berlin, L. 2000. Liability of interpreting too many radiographs. Am J Roentgenol, 175: 17-22. Callum, K. G. & Whimster, F. 2000. A report of the National Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Deaths: Interventional Vascular Radiology and Interventional Neurovascular Radiology. London NCEPOD, xi and 9. Chakaverty, S. & Wright, J. 2001. Errors meetings in radiology did not identify errors leading to complaints and litigation. BMJ (322): 1425-1426. Chandy, J, Goodfellow, T. & Vohrah, A. 2000. Clinical governance in action: Radiology. Hosp Med, (61): 326-329. DeLacey, G., Godwin, R. & Manhire, A. 2000. Clinical Governance and Revalidation. London: Royal College of Radiologists, p. 4 Fitzgerald, R. & Mehra, R. 2000. How accurate is cancer scan reporting? Hosp Med; (61): 637-642. Fitzgerald, R. 2001. Error in Radiology. Clin Radiol; (56): 938-946. Gore, R. M., Miller, F. H., Pereles, F. S., Yagmai, V. & Berlin, J. W. 2000. Helical CT in the evaluation of the acute abdomen. Am J Roentgenol, (174): 901-913. Katz, D. S., Jorgensen, M. J., Rubin, G. D.1999. Detection and follow up of important extra-arterial lesions with helical CT angiography. Clin Radiol; (54): 294-300. Kundel, H.L. 1989. Perception errors in chest radiography. Semin. Resp. Med. (10): 203-210 Oestmann, J. W., Green, R., Kushner, D. C., Bourgouin, P. M., Linetsky, L. & Llewellyn, H. J. 1988. Lung lesions: correlation between viewing time and detection. Radiology, (166): 451-453. Remy-Jardin, M., Remy, J., Giraud, F. & Marquette, C. H. 1993. Pulmonary nodules: detection with thick section spiral CT verus conventional CT. Radiology: (187): 513-520. Renfrew, D.L., Franken, E.A., Berbaum, K.S., Weigelt, F.H. & Abu-Yousef, M.M. 1992. Error in Radiology: Classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology (183): 145-150 Robinson, P.J.A, Wilson, D., Coral, A., Murphy, A. & Verow, P. 1999. Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. Brit. J. Radiol. (72). 323-330. The Royal College of Radiologists. 1999. Workload and Manpower in Clinical Radiology; BFCR(99)5 Wakeley, C. J., Jones, A. M., Kabala, J. E., Prince, D. & Goddard, P. R. 1995. Audit of the value of double reading magnetic resonance imaging films. BR J Radiol; (68): 353-360. Yohann, M. M. & Haaga, J. R. 1999. Complications of no biopsy. Am J Roentgenol, (172): 1475-1476. Read More