A single-center, retrospective chart review evaluating outpatient code status documentation in the EPIC electronic medical record for patients with advanced solid tumor cancer.

Authors

null

John M. Horton

University of California, San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA

John M. Horton, Michael Hwang, Joseph D. Ma, Eric Roeland

Organizations

University of California, San Diego, Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA, University of California, San Diego, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, La Jolla, CA

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: A desired code status is a critical element of advance care planning ideally outlined in an advance directive. Preferably, advance care planning occurs in the non-emergent, outpatient setting. In the absence of a documented code status, full resuscitation is the default, which is not desired by all patients. Currently, unlike the inpatient setting, there is no single, convenient location for code status documentation in the outpatient EPIC electronic medical record (EMR). In order to propose a system-wide solution, a retrospective chart review was completed to assess the scope of the problem. Methods: 160 charts were randomly selected of advanced solid tumor cancer patients (stage III-IV) who received care by a medical oncologist at the UCSD Moores Cancer Center from 2008-2011. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of code status documentation. Secondary objectives included determining the clinical role of the documenter and the code status documentation location within the EMR. Results: 57 advanced cancer patients (36%) had code status documented in 9 different locations in the EMR. Of the 57 patients, only 4 (7%) had a code status documented in the outpatient setting. When documented, code status was located in the progress note (5%), demographics tab (26%), problem list (2%), and scanned media section (14%). Out of the 160 charts, the outpatient oncologist documented the code status in 1 chart. Inpatient EMR locations of the code status included the discharge summary (33%), history and physical (11%), and progress note (9%). Conclusions: In the absence of a standard EPIC outpatient code status documentation procedure, code status was infrequently and inconsistently documented. Consequently, a readily available and accurate code status is not present for emergencies in the outpatient setting. With this information, we will focus future efforts on a clearly defined, standard, and convenient location for outpatient code status documentation in the EPIC EMR.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2013 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

General Poster Session B: Practice of Quality and Health Reform

Track

Practice of Quality,Health Reform: Implications for Costs and Quality

Sub Track

Use of IT to Improve Quality

Citation

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl 31; abstr 242)

Abstract #

242

Poster Bd #

F2

Abstract Disclosures