Peter Hanisch, a 69-year-old man, died from thoracic aortic aneurysm with dissection on 22 August 2021. He presented to Calvary Hospital on 19 August 2021 with sudden chest discomfort and neurological symptoms. A CT angiogram was performed but the radiologist, Dr CD, failed to identify the aortic dissection, instead reporting only an aneurysm and dilated aortic root. The dissection was clearly observable on the CT images but was misread. Over the subsequent three days, clinicians pursued alternative diagnoses (stroke, sepsis, pulmonary embolism) based on the incorrect CT report. The coroner found that had the dissection been promptly diagnosed and treated surgically on admission, there were very reasonable prospects of saving Peter's life. The key clinical lesson is the critical importance of radiological peer review processes and the need for clinicians to maintain high clinical suspicion for aortic dissection when symptoms are consistent, even when imaging reports appear to exclude it. The case highlights gaps in quality assurance systems for imaging services.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
radiologyemergency medicineneurologycardiologyintensive care
Error types
diagnosticsystem
Clinical conditions
thoracic aortic aneurysmaortic dissectionStanford type A dissectionhypertensionhyperlipidaemiaatrial fibrillationcardiac tamponadeintramural haematoma
pursuit of alternative diagnoses based on incorrect imaging report
failure to include troponin in pathology request on 22 August 2021
absence of formal peer review policy and procedures within health service
single radiologist on-site without backup review mechanisms
non-cardiac gating on CT scanner contributed to image quality but not causative
Coroner's recommendations
CHS should develop and publish guidance as to peer review systems and procedures for imaging services provided within CHS and by private providers providing such services on behalf of CHS
Guidance should apply to all imaging produced within CHS including out of hours imaging and imaging undertaken by private providers at TCH and NCH
Peer review procedures should be designed to generate statistically valid profile of accuracy of image reporting
Formal policies should be established governing when peer review of radiology reports should be undertaken
Consideration should be given to staffing arrangements to avoid single radiologist working independently without peer review backup
Systems should be implemented to enable second review of images by off-site radiologists and enhance peer review capabilities
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. Some material may have been redacted or restricted by court order or privacy requirements. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction — report an inaccuracy here.