Connect
MJA
MJA

Risky radiology: not so black and white

Nicholas I Brown and Lawrence B Josey
Med J Aust 2011; 194 (8): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03045.x
Published online: 18 April 2011

To the Editor: Two key paradigm shifts are occurring with regard to diagnostic imaging services in Australia that may have far-reaching medicolegal and professional consequences for all doctors, have an impact on patient care and, ironically, increase costs to the health budget.


  • Department of Medical Imaging, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.


Correspondence: nibrown@tpg.com.au

  • 1. Australian Government. Budget Paper No. 2. Part 2: expense measures. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. http://www.aph.gov.au/budget/2009-10/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-16.htm (accessed Mar 2011).
  • 2. Donovan T, Manning DJ. Successful reporting by non-medical practitioners, such as radiographers, will always be task specific and limited in scope. Radiography 2006; 12: 7-12.
  • 3. Hardy M, Culpan G. Accident and emergency radiography: a comparison of radiographer commenting and “red dotting”. Radiography 2007; 13: 65-71.
  • 4. Halpin SFS. Medico-legal claims against English radiologists: 1995–2006. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 982-988.
  • 5. Levin D, Rao VM. The quality of interpretations of imaging studies by nonradiologist physicians — a patient safety issue? J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1: 506-509.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.