Background: ECOG-PS is a widely implemented scale in oncology to assess performance status (PS). Higher scores are associated with poorer tolerance to higher-intensity chemotherapy (Ct). While professional societies recommend limiting Ct in patients with solid tumors and poor PS, the practice remains pervasive. To reduce this practice, in 2014 the Cedars-Sinai (CS) cancer quality committee developed a quality initiative (QI) requiring oncologists to indicate ECOG-PS on IV chemotherapy orders, with a structured hard-stop to evaluate patients with ECOG-PS≥3. Previously ECOG-PS was not required. Ct nurses also scored ECOG-PS, though their evaluation was not reported back to oncologists, and did not affect Ct decisions. Earlier studies have suggested a bias for oncologists to rate the ECOG-PS more positively than nurses when evaluating the same patient. Methods: 1084 of the total 12,259 Ct orders activated from 3/1/14-2/28/15 in a CS infusion center were randomly audited for ECOG-PS scoring by MD and RN for quality assurance. Completion and concordance rates for ECOG-PS were determined. Results: 93% and 83% of charts documented MD and RN ECOG-PS, respectively. 827 charts had both MD and RN ECOG-PS scores. Concordance rates, and discordance directionality are described in the Table. Conclusions: This QI achieved high rates of ECOG-PS documentation by oncologists, and low rates of Ct administration to patients with ECOG-PS≥3. MD/RN concordance rates were similar to those described in the literature. Interestingly, and in stark contrast to previous studies, MDs were more likely to score ECOG-PS as poorer compared to RNs in solid tumor discordant cases.