Medical disciplinary jurisprudence in alleged malpractice in radiology: 10-year Dutch experience

Robert M. Kwee, Thomas C. Kwee*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
89 Downloads (Pure)


Purpose To systematically investigate the frequency and types of allegations related to radiology practice handled by the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court in the past 10 years. Methods The Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court database was searched for verdicts concerning radiology practice between 2010 and 2019. The association between the number of verdicts and time (years) was assessed by Spearman's rho. Other data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results There were 48 verdicts (mean 4.8 per year). There was no significant association between the number of verdicts and time (Spearman's rho <0.001, p = 0.99). Most allegations were in breast imaging and musculoskeletal radiology (each 18.8%), followed by interventional radiology, head and neck imaging, and abdominal imaging (each 12.5%), neuroradiology and vascular imaging (each 10.4%), and chest imaging (4.2%). There were 46 allegations against radiologists (95.8%) and 2 against residents (4.2%). The most common allegation (37.5%) was error in diagnosis. In 20.8% of verdicts, the allegation was judged (partially) founded; disciplinary measures were warnings (n = 8) and reprimands (n = 2). An appeal was submitted by the patient in 11 cases and by the radiologist in 3 cases. All appeals by patients were rejected, whereas 2 of the 3 appeals by radiologists were granted and previously imposed disciplinary measures were reversed. Conclusion Allegations against radiologists at the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court are relatively few, their number has remained stable over the past 10 years, and a minority were judged to be (partially) founded. We can learn from the cases presented in this article, which may improve patient care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3507-3515
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Radiology
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Jun-2020


  • Medical errors
  • Diagnostic errors
  • Malpractice
  • Radiology
  • Jurisprudence
  • RISK

Cite this