Impact of Unannounced Standardized Patient Audit and Feedback on Care, Documentation, and Costs: an Experiment and Claims Analysis.

Schwartz A, Peskin S, Spiro A, Weiner SJ. Impact of Unannounced Standardized Patient Audit and Feedback on Care, Documentation, and Costs: an Experiment and Claims Analysis. Journal of general internal medicine. 2021 Jan 1; 36(1):27-34.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 15-452 – Evaluating Use of Patient-Collected Audio Recorded Encounters for Provider Audit Feedback to Reduce Contextual Errors

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Meaningful variations in physician performance are not always discernible from the medical record. OBJECTIVE: We used unannounced standardized patients to measure and provide feedback on care quality and fidelity of documentation, and examined downstream effects on reimbursement claims. DESIGN: Static group pre-post comparison study conducted between 2017 and 2019. SETTING: Fourteen New Jersey primary care practice groups (22 practices) enrolled in Horizon BCBS's value-based program received the intervention. For claims analyses, we identified 14 additional comparison practice groups matched on county, practice size, and claims activity. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine of 64 providers volunteered to participate. INTERVENTION: Unannounced standardized patients (USPs) made 217 visits portraying patients with 1-2 focal conditions (diabetes, depression, back pain, smoking, or preventive cancer screening). After two baseline visits to a provider, we delivered feedback and conducted two follow-up visits. MEASUREMENTS: USP-completed checklists of guideline-based provider care behaviors, visit audio recordings, and provider notes were used to measure behaviors performed and documentation errors pre- and post-feedback. We also compared changes in 3-month office-based claims by actual patients between the intervention and comparison practice groups before and after feedback. RESULTS: Expected clinical behaviors increased from 46% to 56% (OR? = 1.53, 95% CI 1.29-1.83, p? < 0.0001), with significant improvements in smoking cessation, back pain, and depression screening. Providers were less likely to document unperformed tasks after (16%) than before feedback (18%; OR? = 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90, p? = 0.002). Actual claim costs increased significantly less in the study than comparison group for diabetes and depression but significantly more for smoking cessation, cancer screening, and low back pain. LIMITATIONS: Self-selection of participating practices and lack of access to prescription claims. CONCLUSION: Direct observation of care identifies hidden deficits in practice and documentation, and with feedback can improve both, with concomitant effects on costs.