Rajan Agarwal MD, Presenter: Nothing to Disclose

R. Nick Bryan MD, PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Michael H. Bleshman MD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Seema Sonnad PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Meredith Bergey BSC, MPH, Abstract Co-Author: Nothing to Disclose

Curtis P. Langlotz MD, PhD, Abstract Co-Author: Advisory Board, Reed Elsevier Advisory Board, General Electric Company

To determine the effect of a patient notification letter that thanks a patient for utilizing imaging services and includes the name of the interpreting radiologist on customer satisfaction and imaging utilization.

This study was an IRB-approved 18 week cross-over trial conducted between October 2007 and February 2008. All outpatients who underwent a chest x-ray, chest CT, or MRI of the brain during that period were included in the study. On alternating weeks, patients received either a satisfaction survey or both a letter and a survey. Customer satisfaction survey results and imaging utilization over the year following the date of letter generation were compared between patients who received a notification letter and those who did not receive a letter.

4716 patients received a letter plus a survey and 4741 patients received just a survey. The response rate was 22.7% for the “letter” cohort and 28.8% for the “no-letter” cohort (p<0.0001). Patients receiving a letter were more inclined to recommend our institution to family and friends (p=0.04). However, when given 10 options of what they liked best about our facilities, patients who did not receive a letter were more likely to choose physician as the thing they liked best (p=0.0001). On average, patients who received a letter had 6.1 imaging exams performed during the year post inclusion in the study as compared to 5.3 patients who did not received a letter (p=0.09). This translated to an average total RVU generation of 53.2 for patients who received a letter compared to 45.2 for “no-letter” patients (p=0.07). However, the significance of this difference in utilization between the two groups is uncertain as a significant difference in utilization existed during the year prior to inclusion in the study (p=0.001 for imaging exams and p = 0.005 for total RVU). Further analysis indicated that there was not a significant difference in either exam or RVU values by group when compared over time (pre- vs. post study inclusion).

Providing patients with a simple notification letter can affect customer satisfaction. The impact of the letter on imaging utilization is less clear and requires additional research.

Patient notification letters may serve as a method of increasing customer satisfaction thereby improving the "Face of Radiology", and may have secondary effects on imaging utilization.

Agarwal, R, Bryan, R, Bleshman, M, Sonnad, S, Bergey, M, Langlotz, C, Impact of Patient Notification Letters on Customer Satisfaction and Imaging Utilization.  Radiological Society of North America 2009 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, November 29 - December 4, 2009 ,Chicago IL. http://archive.rsna.org/2009/8001752.html