Malpractice Case: The One Key Factor Missing From Follow-up

Gordon T. Ownby


October 17, 2018

Medscape Editor's Key Points:

  • The main follow-up action by clinicians following an abnormal test must be to tell the patient the details.

  • Understanding the urgency of follow-up care can help patients make sure to get additional tests.

  • Knowing about the importance of test results can encourage the care team to track the results of those appointments.

Keep Information Flowing to All Parties

An abnormal test result typically sets in motion a number of follow-up actions by a patient's treaters. While many of those actions will depend on the particular situation, one of them should be a constant: telling the patient.

A 51-year-old woman visited Dr. GS, a general surgeon, on a referral after an abnormal mammogram. The patient reported that her mother had a lumpectomy for breast cancer at age 65, and other family members experienced leukemia and bone, colon, and lung cancer. Dr. GS viewed the recent screening and diagnostic mammograms and noted marked density in both breasts with a particular 3-cm density on the lower right breast. An in-office ultrasound revealed a large dilated duct in the same area as the 3-cm density as well as multiple images consistent with cystic lesions. Dr. GS ordered an MRI and a colonoscopy and provided the patient with education and a care plan.

The patient returned 3 days later with a fever and right breast pain with streaking and redness. Dr. GS noted a swollen right breast with blotchy erythema and a hardened quadrant from 6 to 9 o'clock. Dr. GS's working diagnosis was mastitis. Dr. GS started the patient on Keflex and dicloxacillin. The patient returned 3 days later, feeling better. Another ultrasound showed increased fluid collection. Dr. GS recommended that the patient return in 3-4 days, at which time they would consider the previously recommended MRI.

When the patient returned 2 weeks later, Dr. GS's nurse practitioner noted quadrants of mass-like hardening of the right breast and instructed the patient to now have her MRI, as the mastitis had improved.

The radiologist noted the MRI showed "multiple concerning lobulated enhancing masses localized in the lower inner quadrant . . . suspicious . . . directed ultrasound of area is needed. Ultrasound-guided biopsy will be needed if lesions are identifiable. If not, MRI-guided biopsy will be recommended." The radiology office sent the report to Dr. GS, but only told the patient of the need for follow-up studies.

Several days later, Dr. GS's physician assistant sent an internal memo to the front office staff asking if the patient had yet had the recommended biopsy. The front office told the physician assistant that according to the radiology facility's portal, the patient had an appointment for an ultrasound coming up. On the day after that scheduled (but failed) appointment, Dr. GS's physician assistant initialed the original MRI report as read. No follow-up was scheduled. The radiology facility did not advise Dr. GS's office of the failed appointment.

Approximately 30 months later, the patient had a new screening mammogram that revealed a new mass. An MRI and biopsy confirmed a malignancy in the right breast. The patient returned to Dr. GS, who noted a large palpable mass on the right breast but no enlargement in the nearby lymph nodes. Dr. GS recommended a mastectomy and ordered a PET scan to rule out metastasis. After the scan came back as negative, Dr. GS discussed several treatment options and ultimately scheduled the patient for a bilateral mastectomy. Dissection during the procedure found three positive lymph nodes out of 34.

Postoperatively, the patient complained of arm numbness, lymphedema, and decreased mobility in her arm. She had to stop chemotherapy because of severe side effects but was able to undergo external beam radiation therapy. The patient's suit against Dr. GS for medical negligence was resolved informally prior to a trial.

Dr. GS's office's attempt to track the patient's pursuit of the recommended biopsy was likely handicapped by the patient's ignorance of the matter's urgency. The best "tickler" trails will be those that include telling a patient of an abnormal finding and explaining why further care is needed.

This case comes from Medicine on Trial, originally published by Cooperative of American Physicians, Inc., to provide risk management lessons from litigated case histories. The article was originally titled "Put the Patient in the Information Loop."


Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.