Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 28;12(1):86.
doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-01011-8.

Investigating errors in medical imaging: medical malpractice cases in Finland

Affiliations

Investigating errors in medical imaging: medical malpractice cases in Finland

Tarja Tarkiainen et al. Insights Imaging. .

Abstract

Objective: The objectives of the study were to survey patient injury claims concerning medical imaging in Finland in 1991-2017, and to investigate the nature of the incidents, the number of claims, the reasons for the claims, and the decisions made concerning the claims.

Materials and methods: The research material consisted of patient claims concerning imaging, sent to the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre (PVK). The data contained information on injury dates, the examination code, the decision code, the description of the injury, and the medical grounds for decisions.

Results: The number of claims included in the study was 1054, and the average number per year was 87. The most common cause was delayed diagnosis (404 claims, 38.3%). Most of the claims concerned mammography (314, 29.8%), radiography (170, 16.1%), and MRI (162, 15.4%). According to the decisions made by the PVK, there were no delays in 54.6% of the examinations for which claims were made. About 30% of all patient claims received compensation, the most typical reason being medical malpractice (27.7%), followed by excessive injuries and injuries caused by infections, accidents and equipment (2.7%).

Conclusion: Patient injury in imaging examinations and interventions cannot be completely prevented. However, injury data are an important source of information for health care. By analysing claims, we can prevent harm, increase the quality of care, and improve patient safety in medical imaging.

Keywords: Adverse events; Incident reporting; Patient injury claim; Safety error.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of patient injury data collection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of patient injury reports in 1991–2017 in Finland
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Medical grounds for compensation criteria by PVK
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison of compensation payments related to different imaging modalities

References

    1. Ravikanth R. Effective radiological imaging for the good of patients: weighing benefits and risks. World J Nucl Med. 2017;16:85–87. doi: 10.4103/wjnm.WJNM_105_16. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care. 2000;38:261–271. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200003000-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ. 2001;322:517–519. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7285.517. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Soop M, Fryksmark U, Köster M, Haglund B. The incidence of adverse events in Swedish hospitals: a retrospective medical record review study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21:285–291. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzp025. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim YW, Mansfield LT. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:465–470. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11493. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources