The impact of best practice meetings on clinical outcomes in surgical and oncological care: a scoping review

Abstract

Background: Best practice meetings (BPMs) serve as collaborative forums where peer clinicians systematically review inter-institutional data, including treatment characteristics, clinical processes, and survival outcomes. The goal is to identify inter-hospital variation and facilitate mutual learning to improve the quality of care. Despite centralization of surgical and oncological care and implementation of volume thresholds, inter-hospital outcome variation persists. Additional instruments, such as BPMs, are necessary to help drive quality improvement (QI), but the effectiveness remains uncertain. This scoping review aims to evaluate the effect of BPMs on clinical outcomes. Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for articles published before January 1st, 2026. Eligible studies described meetings involving surgical or oncological healthcare professionals (HCPs) from ≥3 centers, with comparison of hospital data, and discussion of inter-hospital variation in outcomes. Reviews were excluded. Results: A total of 2,208 articles were identified through the search, of which 27 were included. Two articles described the structure of BPMs. The remaining articles reported formulated best practices or evaluated the effect on clinical outcomes. Positive trends were observed in clinical processes (83.3%), morbidity (29.2%), and/or mortality rates (8.3%). A statistically significant improvement in at least one quality indicator following BPMs, either alone or within broader QI initiatives, was observed in 87.5% of the included outcome studies. Patient and participant experience had a high satisfaction rate. In 8 out of 27 articles, data were compared with a control group, and in 14 out of 27 articles, no control group was included. Conclusions: Most included articles reported predominantly positive effects following BPMs. However, the level of evidence is low (Level 4) due to risk of bias and the study designs of the articles; the majority were uncontrolled time-series, making them susceptible to secular trends. In the future, high-quality studies, e.g., with a stepped-wedge design, are needed to establish a causal relationship between BPMs and improved clinical outcomes.