A description of the free text word choices physicians use to describe prognosis in over 50,000 electronic treatment plans.

Authors

Lalan S. Wilfong

Lalan S. Wilfong

Texas Oncology, Dallas, TX

Lalan S. Wilfong, Mark Ferencik, Marcus A. Neubauer

Organizations

Texas Oncology, Dallas, TX, McKesson, Durham, NC, The US Oncology Network, McKesson Specialty Health, Seattle, WA

Research Funding

Other

Background: Fourteen practices within the US Oncology Network are participating in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s (CMMI) Oncology Care Model. To meet the requirement of documenting a care plan that contains the 13 components in the Institute of Medicine Care Management Plan, an electronic treatment plan was developed which incorporates core elements from our EMR, IKnowMed, supplemented by additional physician documentation. Physicians must document in their own words the prognosis section of the care plan. Methods: To better understand the word choices physicians use for prognosis, we evaluated the word choices used in over 50,000 treatment plans. Using an excel based word count macro, all contents of the free text entry “prognosis” field were sorted based on frequency of the same answer and were then ranked from most common use to least common. A word count method was applied to determine and rank the most commonly used words across all answers. The “current status of disease” field in the treatment plan was used to divide the prognosis answers into those that mentioned “Metastatic” and “Not Metastatic” so that prognosis wording trends could be compared using pivot tables and data filters. Results: 70% of prognosis word choices were single words: “excellent, good, fair, poor, or guarded” were the most common. 20% of phrases were multi-word that appeared repeatedly such as “will depend on the response to therapy.” Only 10% of answers were uniquely worded per treatment plan and felt to be personal to the patient’s situation. Additionally, the number of words did not differ between metastatic and non-metastatic disease. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort of treatment plans where the word choices used by physicians are described to document prognosis to patients. The results indicate that single words or short phrases are commonly used to describe prognosis when the treatment plan is shared with patients. The data set has high potential for further study to better understand the role and impact of written treatment plans (including downstream events) to help physicians refine this documentation for better patient understanding of this important topic.

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

2018 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Projects Relating to Patient Experience; Projects Relating to Safety; Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care

Track

Projects Relating to Patient Experience,Projects Relating to Safety,Technology and Innovation in Quality of Care

Sub Track

Shared Decision Making and Patient Engagement

Citation

J Clin Oncol 36, 2018 (suppl 30; abstr 219)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2018.36.30_suppl.219

Abstract #

219

Poster Bd #

F10

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

Abstract

2024 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Decoding prognosis: Unraveling physicians' responses in electronic treatment plans.

First Author: Puneeth Indurlal

First Author: Edward Christopher Dee

First Author: Ellen Miller-Sonet

Abstract

2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Improving documentation of zoledronic acid interval in ambulatory oncology patients.

First Author: Tanvi Dandawate