In general, who do you think has more liability in a hospital: pathology or radiology? Or are they about the same?

[ThatSerb]

As title states

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted314957]

Just check malpractice rates. Risk varies geographically.

 

[gbwillner]

I would bet Rads. Path only exists (mostly) when there is already suspicion of a disease that warrants an invasive procedure. There will already a high index of suspicion. Rads is often done at the drop of a hat for anything. I think lots more likely unnecessary procedures and missed diagnoses result.

 

[Zarniwoop]

I would also bet rads, but in my experience rads are far more casual/comfortable about mistakes. In my experiences, rads freely fess up to misses and out misses by their colleagues without much worry in their voices. In pathology, I detect a greater sense of shame and fear of repercussion.

 

[deleted314957]

I would also bet rads, but in my experience rads are far more casual/comfortable about mistakes. In my experiences, rads freely fess up to misses and out misses by their colleagues without much worry in their voices. In pathology, I detect a greater sense of shame and fear of repercussion.

That is the difference between shadow and substance. You expect a little more from the latter.

 

[Napoleon1801]

As title states

I'd say favor Radiology based on this Medscape slide. Path isn't mentioned in their top 10 specialties for liability. However, if you are successfully sued in Pathology, the payout will likely be higher than other specialties.

Medscape: Medscape Access

www.medscape.com

A little older, but this NEJM article has more granularity on the subject:

Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty

Data are lacking on the proportion of physicians who face malpractice claims in a year, the size of those claims, and the cumulative career malpractice risk according to specialty.We analyzed malpractice data from 1991 through 2005 for all physicians ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov