Technology may help prevent diagnostic errors by flagging findings a busy clinician could miss, tracking test results so they are not lost, and prompting doctors to consider conditions they had not yet ruled out. It can also create new problems, from alert fatigue to overreliance on an algorithm, and it does not change the basic rule that the treating provider is responsible for reaching a reasonable diagnosis.
At Davis & Davis, our Houston attorneys represent patients harmed by missed and delayed diagnoses, including cases where technology was available but was not used well. This post focuses on tools aimed at diagnostic accuracy, such as image analysis, decision support, and result tracking. Problems with the medical record itself are covered in our article on electronic health record errors and patient harm, and medication safety systems are covered separately.
Why Medical Errors Remain a Problem
More than two decades after the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 report To Err Is Human, medical errors continue to happen. That report estimated that at least 44,000 and perhaps as many as 98,000 people die in U.S. hospitals each year because of preventable medical errors, and later studies have suggested the toll may be higher. Patients in Texas and throughout the country may also be permanently disabled as a result.
Diagnostic errors are one of the most serious categories. In a 2023 study, researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that about 795,000 Americans die or are permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error, a modeled national estimate, with most of the serious harm involving vascular events, infections, and cancers.
How Workload Pressures Contribute to Diagnostic Mistakes
New technology has not solved the problem on its own, and in some ways it has added pressure. Doctors spend significant time working in electronic records, which has been linked to burnout. Advances in imaging also produce far more data for each exam.
A Mayo Clinic study published in Academic Radiology in 2015 found that the number of images in CT and MRI exams grew sharply between 1999 and 2010. Based on an eight-hour workday, the authors estimated that an average radiologist would need to interpret an image every three to four seconds to keep pace with that volume. That kind of workload is one reason hospitals have looked to software to help prioritize and double-check what clinicians see. Our radiology errors page explains how imaging mistakes are evaluated.
Technologies Designed to Catch Diagnostic Errors
Technology could also be part of the solution. The tools most often discussed for improving diagnosis include:
- AI image analysis: Algorithms that flag possible abnormalities on X-rays, CT scans, and other images. Most of the devices on the FDA’s public list of AI-enabled medical devices are radiology tools, and they must be authorized by the FDA before clinical use.
- Clinical decision support: Software that suggests possible diagnoses or recommended tests based on a patient’s symptoms and data, which can prompt a broader differential.
- Test result tracking: Systems that confirm abnormal results reach the ordering clinician and that recommended follow-up, such as repeat imaging, is actually scheduled.
- Early warning tools: Programs that monitor vital signs and lab values for patterns suggesting a patient is getting worse, such as developing sepsis.
Each of these tools depends on how it is built, configured, and used. A tool that is never turned on, is set up poorly, or is routinely ignored offers patients little protection.
The Limits of Diagnostic Technology
Technology can fail in predictable ways. Early warning systems can miss cases, as discussed in our article on a report finding that a sepsis prediction tool missed many cases. Alerts that fire too often can lead staff to override them without reading. Algorithms trained on limited data may perform worse for some patient groups.
The opposite risk is automation bias, where a clinician trusts the software over the clinical picture. A negative AI read does not rule out a condition any more than a single normal lab test does. A careful differential diagnosis still depends on the clinician considering what else the symptoms could mean.
Who Is Responsible When Technology Is Involved
A misdiagnosis that compromises a person’s treatment and leads to illness or death could be considered medical malpractice. In determining whether malpractice occurred, the legal system considers whether the error was the result of medical negligence. That involves identifying the normal standard of care and whether there was a deviation from it.
Technology does not shift that responsibility away from the treating provider. A physician who ignores a flagged finding, or who relies on software instead of examining the patient, may still fall below the standard of care. A hospital may bear its own responsibility if it failed to maintain systems, train staff, or follow up on known problems. Our article on liability when AI gets the diagnosis wrong looks at these questions in more depth. Texas claims are governed by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which generally requires filing within two years.
Talk With Davis & Davis About a Diagnostic Error
Our firm focuses on medical malpractice, and we work with qualified medical professionals to examine what a provider saw, what the available tools showed, and whether the diagnosis met the standard of care. Every case is different, and we cannot promise a particular result.
If you believe that you or a family member was harmed by a missed or delayed diagnosis, contact Davis & Davis to request a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions About Technology and Medical Errors
Can AI read medical images as well as a doctor?
Some AI tools perform well at specific, narrow tasks, such as flagging a possible abnormality on a certain type of scan. They are generally designed to assist clinicians rather than replace them, and a physician remains responsible for interpreting the images and the patient’s overall condition.
How can I find out whether a hospital used diagnostic software in my care?
Your medical records may show alerts, flags, or software-generated reports, and imaging reports sometimes note whether a computer-aided tool was used. In litigation, attorneys can request system logs and other records through discovery to show what the technology displayed and when.
Is a doctor responsible if the software missed my condition?
Often, the doctor’s own judgment is still the central issue. If a reasonably careful physician would have recognized the condition from the symptoms, history, or images, the fact that software also missed it may not excuse the error. Responsibility depends on the facts of each case.
Can a hospital be liable for failing to use available technology?
Possibly, though not every hospital is required to use every new tool. A hospital may face liability if it failed to maintain systems it relied on, ignored known safety problems, or did not follow its own procedures, and that failure contributed to a patient’s harm.
What should I do if I think a test result was lost or ignored?
Request copies of your test results and the related clinical notes, write down when you were told about each result, and seek prompt medical follow-up. If a delay caused harm, an attorney can review whether the result was communicated and acted on within a reasonable time.
