Oncology provider perceptions about quality care.

Abstract

e18697 Background: The Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center (SKCC), an NCI-designated cancer center, is committed to improving care delivery and quality through engagement in programs such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Oncology Care Model and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Oncology Medical Home. To raise awareness among providers, strategies were developed to communicate priorities. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate provider perceptions of SKCC’s quality programs, the potential for impact on patient care and the tools needed to drive behavior. Methods: A survey was emailed to approximately 80 physicians at the Sidney Kidney Cancer Center. Providers’ responses were anonymous. The survey included open-ended and ranking based questions to assess provider perceptions about quality programs and patient care. A subset of items was assigned only to providers who received a monthly scorecard containing data on their individual performance. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: Sixty-six physicians (77% medical oncology, 18% radiation oncology, 5% surgical oncology) responded to the survey. Almost two-thirds (62%) of respondents had more than 10 years of experience. When asked if they value access to data, 45% of respondents stated they strongly agreed, 38% agreed, and 5% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Seventy-four percent were aware of the SKCC quality metrics. In order to better impact the quality of care, oncologists stated that they would need more data (43.9%), staff/resources (19.7%), or tools (3%). Of the 43 number of oncologists who received scorecards, 63% stated they review their results. There were mixed results about whether they felt that scorecards impacted their practice: 28% strongly agreed or agreed while 37% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Additionally. 42% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion of quality metrics in provider incentives has increased focus on quality metrics; 19% disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement. However, only half (54%) of respondents felt that the SKCC priority metrics would impact patient care. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that there is room for improvement in increasing provider knowledge of quality programs and initiatives and utility of the scorecard. Oncologists need better access to data, in order to better impact the quality of care provided to patients. A reassessment will be conducted to understand how improving access to direct provider feedback from scorecards impacts perceptions. Further evaluation is needed in order to identify additional areas of growth and to improve overall provider perceptions.