228 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. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.