A 71-year-old woman presented to hospital with pericardial effusion causing cardiac tamponade, successfully treated by pericardiocentesis. The underlying cause was a Stanford Type A aortic dissection, which was not identified during life despite a CT angiogram being performed. The CT images were suboptimal due to poor cardiac output and could not adequately exclude dissection, but this critical limitation was not clearly communicated from radiology to cardiology. A consultant radiologist's amendment recommending repeat CT imaging with ECG gating was apparently not acted upon. The treating team did not fully reconsider aortic dissection as a cause of the haemopericardium on 21 July. The coroner found inadequate communication between specialties meant a diagnostic opportunity was missed, though acknowledged that even with earlier diagnosis, surgical outcome would have been uncertain given the patient's age and risk profile.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes. Report an inaccuracy.
Specialties
cardiologyradiologyemergency medicineintensive carecardiothoracic surgery
inadequate communication of imaging limitations from radiology to cardiology
lack of clarity in radiology registrar's report conclusion regarding exclusion of aortic dissection
failure to act on consultant radiologist's amendment recommending repeat CT with ECG gating
cardiology team did not fully review the complete radiology report or images
insufficient reconsideration of aortic dissection as cause of haemopericardium on 21 July
Coroner's recommendations
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists should utilise this case in education regarding report writing, inclusion of all important information in report conclusions, and communication with treating doctors
Western Health should conduct a review of its 'Provision of Medical Imaging Reports' procedure to ensure clarity about the need to include references to further imaging or investigations in the conclusion of diagnostic imaging reports
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.