Unintentional Misconduct (Negligence)
Whenever a radiographer unintentionally causes injury to a patient, it may be determined that a negligent act has been committed. Negligence refers to the neglect or omission of reasonable care or caution. The standard of reasonable care is based upon the " Doctrine of the Reasonably Prudent Man ". This standard requires that a person perform as any reasonable man of ordinary prudence, with comparable education and skills, would perform under similar circumstances. In the relationship between a professional person and a patient or client, there is an implied contract to provide reasonable care. An act of negligence in the context of such a relationship is defined as malpractice. Negligence, as used in malpractice law, is not necessarily the same as carelessness. A person's conduct can be held to be negligent, in the legal sense, if a person acts carefully. For example, if a radiographer attempts a procedure for which he/she has had no prior training or experience and does it carefully, the conduct, nevertheless, can be deemed negligent if harm results to the patient.
For a radiographer to be found negligent in a court and be held liable for damages, the civil proceedings must establish the following elements:
1. Duty expected of the radiographer (standard of care)
2. Breach of duty by the radiographer
3. Cause of injury due to the radiographer's negligence
4. Injury to the patient actually occurred
The courts will interview experts in the field or workers within the occupation to determine if the proper standard of care has been followed.
DUTY (Standard of Care)
The radiographer has the duty to perform radiographic procedures acting as any reasonable and prudent radiographer would have acted under similar circumstances. He /she is bound to perform the procedure following accepted protocols and policies and following the "routine" for the department. A radiographer would not leave an infant unattended.
BREACH of CARE
The radiographer has a duty to provide radiographs that are of optimum quality for the physician's diagnosis. If the patient's condition deteriorates due to the radiographer's failure to provide optimum quality radiographs or images for the physician to interpret, there is a breach of Standard Care. This would be resolved in court with the assistance of expert witnesses.
CAUSE
A patient's injury must be the direct result of a radiographer's negligence. The radiographer has the duty to ensure that a dizzy or semiconscious patient does not fall from an x-ray table. It would be a breach of duty if the radiographer left the patient unattended in the x-ray room. There would be a direct connection between the patient falling and the radiographer leaving the room.
INJURY
If a patient falls from an x-ray table because the radiographer leaves the room, but the patient is not injured, the patient cannot expect to receive compensation for nonexistent injuries. A personal injury or tort will not be successful in establishing liability if there are no damages. To determine if negligence exists, the court will determine if a "reasonable man" could have anticipated the harmful results. Once again, the court will interview experts or workers in an occupation to determine if the proper standard of care has been followed. Proximate or legal cause must show a connection between the act and the resultant injury or harm. A cause-effect relationship must exist, and the cause must be substantial enough to lead reasonable men to conclude that it is indeed the cause of harm. To establish a claim of Malpractice then, a claimant must prove the satisfaction of the court that three things are true:
1. The patient has sustained some loss, damage, or injury
2. The person or institution being sued is the party at fault or responsible for the loss
3. The loss is attributable to negligence or improper practice