Background: Performance status (PS) is used regularly in oncology care to select appropriate cancer treatment, track changes in level of functioning, and determine clinical trial eligibility. In addition, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards requires that on each clinical encounter, staff performs and documents a patient assessment that includes 8 elements; one of which is PS. Currently, little instruction is provided on how to utilize and record a more standardized criteria, such as PS with either ECOG or Karnofsky scores, in the electronic medical record (EMR) which results in suboptimal documentation. We assessed documentation of PS before and after implementation of a tool within the EMR at our outpatient cancer center. Methods: Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) technique, a quality improvement project was developed to determine if our center was consistent with the ASCO/ONS guidelines. An EMR tool was developed that enabled clinicians to standardize PS documentation within an encounter via population of a flowsheet to improve compliance. Clinicians were educated on guidelines and utilization of the PS tool and data was collected pre- and post- implementation. A survey was developed and administered to assess PS tool use and to learn of any barriers to implementation. Based on survey results, we created a reminder tip sheet for clinicians to utilize the PS tool; a subsequent chart review was completed. Results: In a random pre-study 50 chart review, 0% of encounters in our lung and breast clinic had PS documented. At the time of pre-tool implementation, due to the lack of a retrievable flowsheet, we did not obtain a reliable PS documentation percentage. After education and tool implementation, 2481 random encounters were evaluated of which 315 encounters (12.6%) documented PS and used the PS tool. A total of 7 (35%) clinicians completed the survey: 4 physicians and 3 advanced practice registered nurses. Of those who responded, 57% used the PS tool, 71% used a note template with ECOG PS embedded, and 85.7% were willing to alter their note template to incorporate ECOG PS. Barriers identified included: limited time, workflow constraints and redundant documentation. After tip sheet implementation, 66% of encounters documented PS; however, only 6 out of those 33 encounters (18%) documented PS using the PS EMR tool. Conclusions: Documentation support tools help facilitate care and enable measurement of guideline concordance, but once implemented it can be challenging to maintain adherence. Although this study improved overall PS documentation (0 to 66%), we were only able to demonstrate a 6% increase in the use of our PS documentation tool. While PS tool implementation was feasible, adoption of the additional tool was not universal. We aim to gather additional clinician input to improve PS documentation completion and guideline adherence.