ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To (1) measure hospitalist care for sepsis and heart failure patients using online simulated patients, (2) improve quality and reduce cost through customized feedback, and (3) compare patient-level outcomes between project participants and nonparticipants. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-controlled cohort study of hospitalists in eight hospitals matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. We provided measurement and feedback to participants using Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes to measure and track quality improvement. We then compared length of stay (LOS) and cost results between the two groups. RESULTS: 107 providers participated in the study. Over two years, participants improved CPV scores by nearly 8% (P < .001), with improvements in utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle (46.0% vs 57.7%; P = .034) and ordering essential medical treatment elements for heart failure (58.2% vs 72.1%; P = .038). In study year one, average LOS observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participants, compared to 2.5% in the comparator group, equating to an additional 570 hospital days saved among project participants. In study year two, cost O/E rates improved from 1.16 to 0.98 for participants versus 1.14 to 1.01 in the comparator group. Based on these improvements, we calculated total cost savings of $6.2 million among study participants, with $3.8 million linked to system-wide improvements and an additional $2.4 million in savings attributable to this project. CONCLUSIONS: CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care that translated into lower costs and LOS, above-and-beyond other improvements at AdventHealth.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs, physician shortages, and an aging patient population have increased the demand and utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs). Despite their expanding role in care delivery, little research has evaluated the care delivered by APPs compared with physicians. METHODS: We used clinical patient simulations to measure and compare the clinical care offered by APPs and physicians, collecting data from 4 distinct health care systems/hospitals in the United States between 2013 and 2017. Specialties ranged from primary care to hospital medicine and oncology. Primary study outcomes were to 1) measure any differences in practice patterns between APPs and physicians, and 2) determine whether the use of serial measurement and feedback could mitigate any such differences. RESULTS: At baseline, we found no major differences in overall performance of APPs compared with physicians (P = .337). APPs performed 3.2% better in history taking (P = .013) and made 10.5% fewer unnecessary referrals (P = .025), whereas physicians ordered 17.6% fewer low-value tests per case (P = .042). Regardless of specialty or site, after 4 rounds of serial measurement and provider-specific feedback, APPs and physicians had similar increases in average overall scores-7.4% and 7.6%, respectively (P < .001 for both). Not only did both groups improve, but practice differences between the groups disappeared, leading to a 9.1% decrease in overall practice variation. CONCLUSIONS: We found only modest differences in quality of care provided by APPs and physicians. Importantly, both groups improved their performance with serial measurement and feedback so that after 4 rounds, the original differences were mitigated entirely and overall variation significantly reduced. Our data suggest that APPs can provide high quality care in multiple clinical settings.
