Andrew Thurston1, Diane B Wayne1, Joseph Feinglass2, Rashmi K Sharma3. 1. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. Division of Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Electronic address: rasharma@nmh.org.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Accurate documentation of inpatient code status discussions (CSDs) is important because of frequent patient care handoffs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the quality of inpatient CSD documentation and compare documentation quality across physician services. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients hospitalized between January 1 and June 30, 2011 with a new or canceled do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order at least 24 hours after hospital admission. We developed a chart abstraction tool to assess the documentation of five quality elements: 1) who the DNR discussion was held with, 2) patient goals/values, 3) prognosis, 4) treatment options and resuscitation outcomes, and 5) health care power of attorney (HCPOA). RESULTS: We identified 379 patients, of whom 235 (62%) had a note documenting a CSD. After excluding patients lacking a note from their primary service, 227 remained for analysis. Sixty-three percent of notes contained documentation of who the discussion was held with. Patient goals/values were documented in 43%, discussion of prognosis in 14%, treatment options and resuscitation outcomes in 40%, and HCPOA in 29%. Hospitalists were more likely than residents to document who the discussion was held with (P < 0.001) and patient goals/values (P < 0.001), whereas internal medicine residents were more likely to document HCPOA (P = 0.04). The mean number of elements documented for hospitalists was 2.40, followed by internal medicine residents at 2.07, and non-internal medicine trainees at 1.30 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Documentation quality of inpatient CSDs was poor. Our findings highlight the need to improve the quality of resident and attending CSD documentation.
CONTEXT: Accurate documentation of inpatient code status discussions (CSDs) is important because of frequent patient care handoffs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the quality of inpatient CSD documentation and compare documentation quality across physician services. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients hospitalized between January 1 and June 30, 2011 with a new or canceled do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order at least 24 hours after hospital admission. We developed a chart abstraction tool to assess the documentation of five quality elements: 1) who the DNR discussion was held with, 2) patient goals/values, 3) prognosis, 4) treatment options and resuscitation outcomes, and 5) health care power of attorney (HCPOA). RESULTS: We identified 379 patients, of whom 235 (62%) had a note documenting a CSD. After excluding patients lacking a note from their primary service, 227 remained for analysis. Sixty-three percent of notes contained documentation of who the discussion was held with. Patient goals/values were documented in 43%, discussion of prognosis in 14%, treatment options and resuscitation outcomes in 40%, and HCPOA in 29%. Hospitalists were more likely than residents to document who the discussion was held with (P < 0.001) and patient goals/values (P < 0.001), whereas internal medicine residents were more likely to document HCPOA (P = 0.04). The mean number of elements documented for hospitalists was 2.40, followed by internal medicine residents at 2.07, and non-internal medicine trainees at 1.30 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Documentation quality of inpatient CSDs was poor. Our findings highlight the need to improve the quality of resident and attending CSD documentation.
Authors: Eytan Szmuilowicz; Kathy J Neely; Rashmi K Sharma; Elaine R Cohen; William C McGaghie; Diane B Wayne Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Max V Wohlauer; Vineet M Arora; Leora I Horwitz; Ellen J Bass; Sean E Mahar; Ingrid Philibert Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: N S Wenger; R S Phillips; J M Teno; R K Oye; N V Dawson; H Liu; R Califf; P Layde; R Hakim; J Lynn Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: L C Kaldjian; Z D Erekson; T H Haberle; A E Curtis; L A Shinkunas; K T Cannon; V L Forman-Hoffman Journal: J Med Ethics Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Wendy G Anderson; Rebecca Chase; Steven Z Pantilat; James A Tulsky; Andrew D Auerbach Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-11-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alison M Uyeda; J Randall Curtis; Ruth A Engelberg; Lyndia C Brumback; Yue Guo; James Sibley; William B Lober; Trevor Cohen; Janaki Torrence; Joanna Heywood; Sudiptho R Paul; Erin K Kross; Robert Y Lee Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Monica Escher; Stéphane Cullati; Patricia Hudelson; Mathieu Nendaz; Bara Ricou; Thomas Perneger; Pierre Dayer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Marijanne Engel; Annemieke van der Padt-Pruijsten; Auke M T Huijben; T Martijn Kuijper; Maria B L Leys; Annemieke Talsma; Agnes van der Heide Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 2.328