Abstracts

RETURN TO ABSTRACT LISTING


1498. Patient Notification Rates and Study Characteristics Under PA Act 112: A One-Year Experience at a Large Health System
Authors * Denotes Presenting Author
  1. Gregory Mittl *; Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
  2. Suehyb Alkhatib; Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
  3. Govind Mattay; Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania
  4. Tessa Cook; Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
  5. Hanna Zafar; Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
  6. Charles Kahn; Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Objective:
In October 2018, the Patient Test Result Information Act, or Act 112, was passed in Pennsylvania. This law requires diagnostic imaging services to notify outpatients directly for imaging findings that merit medical care within 3 months. We analyzed the first 12 months of Act 112 data from our health system to understand volumes and variations of flagged exams.

Materials and Methods:
We identified all Act 112 eligible studies between 2/12/2019 and 2/11/2020 from our large health system with academic and community practices. We analyzed counts of exams flagged for patient notification by imaging modality, ordering provider, and interpreting radiologist.

Results:
Overall, 12,422 of 408,051 eligible studies (3.0%) were flagged by the interpreting radiologist; given that we perform 1.3 million exams per year, this is approximately 240 notifications per week. CT, MRI, and US examinations were flagged at 4.3%, 3.9%, and 2.8%, respectively, accounting for 35.8%, 32.3%, and 28.1% of all flagged studies. Studies ordered by internal medicine, hematology/oncology and family medicine were flagged at the highest rate (13.4%, 12.9%, and 12.8%, respectively). Inter-radiologist rates of flagged studies varied widely in the 4th quarter of 2019 from 0% to 25.8% for CT, 0% to 24.0% for MRI, and 0% to 12.8% for US. English was the most common patient-preferred language among eligible studies (97.4%); however, 102 languages were represented in total.

Conclusion:
At a large health system in PA, Act 112 notification rates were neither negligible nor overly burdensome, with a rate of approximately 240 patient notifications per week. Rates of patient notification varied by modality, ordering provider, and radiologist, with the latter likely reflecting variation in radiologist case mix. These rates may inform expectations of similar practices across PA regarding the administrative burden of Act 112 compliance.