Reducing Unwarranted Oncology Care Variation Across a Clinically Integrated Network: A Collaborative Physician Engagement Strategy.

PURPOSE Addressing unwarranted clinical variation in oncology is a high priority for health systems that aspire to ensure consistent levels of high-quality and cost-effective care. Efforts to improve clinical practice and standardize care have proven challenging. Advocate Physician Partners undertook a patient simulation-based practice measurement and feedback project that was focused on breast and lung cancer to engage oncologists in the care standardization process. METHODS One hundred three medical oncologists cared for online simulated patients using the Clinical Performance and Value platform, receiving feedback on how their care decisions compared with evidence-based guidelines and their peers. We repeated this process every 4 months over six rounds, measuring changes in quality-of-care scores. We then compared simulated patient results with available patient-level claims data. RESULTS Over the course of the project, overall quality-of-care scores improved 11.9% (P < .001). Diagnostic accuracy increased 6.7% (P < .001) and correlated with improved treatment scores, including a nearly 10-percentage point increase in evidence-based chemotherapy regimens (P = .009) and a 56% increase in addressing palliative needs for patients with late-stage disease (P < .001). Unnecessary test ordering declined 25% (P < .001). We compared these results with available patient data and observed concordance with the metastatic imaging workup order rate for early-stage breast cancer. As unnecessary workups declined in the simulations and became more closely aligned with evidence-based guidelines, we saw similar rates of decline in the patient-level data. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that an oncology care standardization system that combines simulated patients with serial feedback increases evidence-based and cost-effective clinical decisions in patient simulations and patient-level data.