Medicolegally safe skin cancer care requires improvement of referral mechanisms.
Caring for a skin cancer patient is often highly collaborative, with a diverse team that can involve the following: general practice, dermatology, surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, or medical oncology. These clinicians use “referrals” to communicate details of the patient and lesion(s); unfortunately, they are generally not standardised between services. Lesion identification can vary from highly detailed clinical photography to ambiguous written descriptions and patient memory alone cannot be relied upon.1 This is relevant not only to patients referred from one clinician to another, but also for those seen over time at the same practice. For referrals regarding urgent lesions (melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, or poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma, etc.) clinicians must balance risk for wrong-site surgery (WSS) against disease progression if delay is required for lesion-site confirmation. Harm occurring due to a poor-quality referral could result in civil litigation, notifications to regulators or coronial investigations. Pursuit of a negligence claim in this context is a difficult legal question. Courts, in reviewing other fields of medicine, have confirmed that an action in negligence will lie against a clinician who fails to take reasonable care, resulting in a missed diagnosis; where there is either no or poor subsequent prospects of efficacious treatment being undertaken: Woods v QML2; Flinders Medical Centre and Anor v Waller and Anor.3 Furthermore, all clinicians have legal and professional obligations to ensure their records (including referrals) are accurate, adequate, and contemporaneous.4 Guidelines for the referral of skin cancer patients are essentially nonexistent, compounded by a paucity of explicit or standardised training from medical schools and specialty organisations. Thus, variability abounds in the quality and make up of these referrals. Underpinning these issues is the burden of regulatory and malpractice complaints: 2% of American Mohs fellows have been involved in a WSS lawsuit.5 Foremost we should empower patients to engage in the referral process. Patients identifying their own lesion location adds another layer of safety and is likely to improve their satisfaction with health care. This should include the patient retaining a copy of lesion-identifying photographs. Phone applications, that could securely store images in a readily accessible manner, would both significantly abrogate medicolegal risk and involve the patient in their care. Teledermatology plays an increasing role in skin cancer referrals though integration into referral systems moves slowly. Many clinicians are still unable to transmit imagery without significant loss of quality, epitomised by the ongoing use of the “fax machine.” Total body photography with digital dermoscopy would be the gold standard but only poses more questions for incorporation into referral pathways. Regardless, images in referrals should be accompanied by a description of their location with standardised nomenclature.6 Improvements to health systems need not only be digital in nature, and many clinicians create their own analogue solutions that assist the less technologically adept patients. For example, Rajput (2021)7 and Veitch et al.8 suggest a transparent grid positioning system that could be easily replicated by any clinic. Even more simply, if the lesion cannot be adequately identified then the patient can be referred back to the original clinician for re-identification and even repeated marking of the lesion. This is not an exhaustive exploration of possible improvements to referral pathways but underlines the necessity for standardisation of lesion identification, especially if there are several lesions within a specific anatomic location. Particularly, we would implore specialty training organisations and medical schools to review their curricula for more formal education of this vital piece of medical communication. Finally, for any concerns regarding medicolegal risk in patient care, clinicians should not hesitate to reach out to their medical defence organisation. None. HPS is a shareholder of MoleMap NZ LTD and e-Derm Consult GmbH and undertake regular teledermatological reporting for both companies, they are a Medical Consultant for Canfield Scientific Inc. and a Medical Advisor for First Derm. OB is the chief medical officer of the Medical Indemnity Protection Society. The remaining authors declare that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Not applicable. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Read more