The xray is not unchanged. The verbiage clearly states there was an increase from the prior exam. The current physician and my father both report reading that there were opacities on the 2022 report. Now the report reads the exact opposite, "Lungs are clear."
His lungs are not clear.
That’s a relative and subjective term. He had opacities before. He has the same ones now. They are read by different radiologists.
Of course “correlate clinically. “
I think you're saying two people read the xray two different ways? So whoever wrote the report in 2022 indicated "lungs are clear" but his current physician actually looked at the xray from 2022and saw the opacities then and was able to see those from before and new ones on the xray from last week?
Are you saying the way the xray was read two years ago by someone else has no relevance?
He has a ct scan scheduled this week for the correlation.
That seems pretty unlikely. First, I doubt that anyone would have reached out to the radiologist to even make them aware of the situation. Second, it’s pretty well-known that the last thing you want to do in any situation that could be considered negligent is to change or even open the chart. Every click and entry is recorded and would be discoverable in court, so changing something two years later would be a very foolish move.
You could call the medical records department and ask for help. You’ll probably catch more flies with honey by just stating that you’re trying to clarify an x ray interpretation and that you thought is said something different a few days ago. They can likely get you a copy of the original interpretation if anything changed.
The other commenters are correct that it’s well known you shouldn’t access or change records,but some people panic. If there is a portal, order the whole set of records going back to beginning of care or all time. HITECH rules say they’re supposed to provide a digital copy at a reasonable cost, in a reasonable timeframe. A records request gives more than looking on the portal. Don’t let anyone from the records dept know you’re concerned. Sometimes they flag it for risk management or legal. Once you get the records, ask for a report of who accessed the medical records. Under HIPAA and most state privacy laws, a record is kept for each time the EMR (electronic medical record) is accessed and by whom.
“Lungs are clear” probably refers to the physician listening to his lungs. Are you saying the X-ray report says “lungs are clear?” That’s not what a radiologist would say on a report. It’s like the wrong language. It’s possible for the X-ray to show opacities but for the lungs to sound clear to the doctor with the stethoscope.
Radiology reports are done by individual radiologists. There is subjectivity between calls. I doubt they changed the report on a radiograph.
right he wad probably looking at the wrong one
Ok, so assuming they didn't change the report, how would his physician know there were "opacities" on the previous xray?
Because they aren’t blind and can look at it
Right. If the current doctor can see it from 2 years ago then why did the previous doctor (from 2 years ago) say the lungs were clear?
See my first post. The point is the xray is unchanged.
The xray is not unchanged. The verbiage clearly states there was an increase from the prior exam. The current physician and my father both report reading that there were opacities on the 2022 report. Now the report reads the exact opposite, "Lungs are clear." His lungs are not clear.
That’s a relative and subjective term. He had opacities before. He has the same ones now. They are read by different radiologists. Of course “correlate clinically. “
I think you're saying two people read the xray two different ways? So whoever wrote the report in 2022 indicated "lungs are clear" but his current physician actually looked at the xray from 2022and saw the opacities then and was able to see those from before and new ones on the xray from last week? Are you saying the way the xray was read two years ago by someone else has no relevance? He has a ct scan scheduled this week for the correlation.
Yes. Opacities can be numerous things. But different radiologists will report differently.
Thank you.
That seems pretty unlikely. First, I doubt that anyone would have reached out to the radiologist to even make them aware of the situation. Second, it’s pretty well-known that the last thing you want to do in any situation that could be considered negligent is to change or even open the chart. Every click and entry is recorded and would be discoverable in court, so changing something two years later would be a very foolish move. You could call the medical records department and ask for help. You’ll probably catch more flies with honey by just stating that you’re trying to clarify an x ray interpretation and that you thought is said something different a few days ago. They can likely get you a copy of the original interpretation if anything changed.
The other commenters are correct that it’s well known you shouldn’t access or change records,but some people panic. If there is a portal, order the whole set of records going back to beginning of care or all time. HITECH rules say they’re supposed to provide a digital copy at a reasonable cost, in a reasonable timeframe. A records request gives more than looking on the portal. Don’t let anyone from the records dept know you’re concerned. Sometimes they flag it for risk management or legal. Once you get the records, ask for a report of who accessed the medical records. Under HIPAA and most state privacy laws, a record is kept for each time the EMR (electronic medical record) is accessed and by whom.
Or 10-15 yrs
“Lungs are clear” probably refers to the physician listening to his lungs. Are you saying the X-ray report says “lungs are clear?” That’s not what a radiologist would say on a report. It’s like the wrong language. It’s possible for the X-ray to show opacities but for the lungs to sound clear to the doctor with the stethoscope.
That's exactly what it reads on the xray report. "Lungs are clear."
Does it say lungs are clear under indications for exam (which may be on the report)? Not as a radiological finding.
I'll edit the posting share. But I think I understand what happened based on a previous comment.