Whenever multiple doctors become involved in the treatment of a patient it might be critical for them to communicate urgent diagnostic results as well as follow-up and treatment suggestions to the patient and to the other physicians. People likely think that the doctor will call them if there are any serious results from testing ordered by the doctor. When people do not receive a follow up communication from a doctor many see that as a sign that everything is fine and that there is no need for them to follow up with the doctor. It becomes more complicated, however, if the one physician who is on the right track does not communicate his or her suspicions and the other physicians are missing the signs and not ordering the correct tests.

Consider the following reported medical malpractice claim. Several doctors had an opportunity to diagnose the male patient’s prostate cancer before it spread A male patient visited his family physician and reported having urinary problems. He was 56 at the time. The family physician thought that the man's problems were not a result of cancer. Thus, the family doctor failed to order any diagnostic testing, like a biopsy and failed to refer the man to a urologist.

The man, on his own, visited a urologist 10 months later. The urologist carried out a physical examination of the prostate and ordered a PSA blood test. As it turned out this urologist did not practice in the patient's insurance network and so the patient went to a second urologist. The PSA test by the first urologist came back and that urologist advised a biopsy. However, that recommendation apparently did not get communicated to the PCP or the urologist approved by the insurance company. The approved urologist did not order a PSA blood test. The approved urologist also conducted a physical examination of the prostate but did not find any abnormalities and so concluded that the patient did not have cancer.

It took another 2 years when the patient’s prostate cancer was at long last diagnosed. The physicians treating the patient’s cancer came to the conclusion that he probably had only 1 to 5 years to live due to the cancer’s spread. The law firm that handled this case documented that they were able to obtain a settlement during jury selection at trial for $2,500,000 on behalf of the patient.

This claim therefore shows 2 main types of failures. There was the failure on the part of the PCP and the second urologist to not follow the proper screening guidelines. The other mistake was one in communication. This happened when there was a miscommunication of the findings, suspicions, and recommendations of the urologist who was outside the insurance network and the other doctors. Although there is no way to know whether the PCP or the second urologist would have followed up on results of the PSA test from the first urologist or on that urologist’s suspicion and recommendation they at a minimum would have had information and perspective they were missing.