Code Status Reconciliation to Improve Identification and Documentation of Code Status in Electronic Health Records

Summary

Background: Code status (CS) of a patient (part of their end-of-life wishes) can be critical information in healthcare delivery, which can change over time, especially at transitions of care. Although electronic health record (EHR) tools exist for medication reconciliation across transitions of care, much less attention is given to CS, and standard EHR tools have not been implemented for CS reconciliation (CSR). Lack of CSR creates significant potential patient safety and quality of life issues. Objective: To study the tools, workflow, and impact of clinical decision support (CDS) for CSR. Methods: We established rules for CS implementation in our EHR. At admission, a CS is required as part of a patient’s admission order set. Using standard CDS tools in our EHR, we built an interruptive alert for CSR at discharge if a patient did not have the same inpatient (current) CS at discharge as that prior to admission CS.

Results: Of 80,587 admissions over a four year period (2 years prior to and post CSR implementation), CS discordance was seen in 3.5% of encounters which had full code status prior to admission, but Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) CS at discharge. In addition, 1.4% of the encounters had a different variant of the DNR CS at discharge when compared with CS prior to admission. On pre-post CSR implementation analysis, DNR CS per 1000 admissions per month increased significantly among patients discharged and in patients being admitted (mean ± SD: 85.36 ± 13.69 to 399.85 ± 182.86, p<0.001; and 1.99 ± 1.37 vs 16.70 ± 4.51, p<0.001, respectively).

Conclusion: EHR enabled CSR is effective and represents a significant informatics opportunity to help honor patients’ end-of-life wishes. CSR represents one example of non-medication reconciliation at transitions of care that should be considered in all EHRs to improve care quality and patient safety.

Keywords

Code status - advance directive - meaningful use - reconciliation - medication - DNR

• References

• 1 Temel JS, Greer JA, Admane S, Solis J, Cashavelly BJ, Doherty S, Heist R, Pirl WF. Code status documentation in the outpatient electronic medical records of patients with metastatic cancer. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25 (Suppl. 02) 150-153.
• 2 Collier KS, Kimbrel JM, Protus BM. Medication appropriateness at end of life: a new tool for balancing medicine and communication for optimal outcomes--the BUILD model. Home Healthc Nurse 2013; 31 (Suppl. 09) 518-524.
• 3 Bates D. Draft Recommendations Meaningful Use Stage 3. 2013 [Accessed 10/18/16]; Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/FACAS/sites/faca/files/muwg_stage3_draft_rec_07_aug_13_.v3.pdf
• 4 Weinerman AS, Dhalla IA, Kiss A, Etchells EE, Wu RC, Wong BM. Frequency and clinical relevance of inconsistent code status documentation. J Hosp Med 2015; 10 (Suppl. 08) 491-496.
• 5 Bhatia HL, Patel NR, Choma NN, Grande J, Giuse DA, Lehmann CU. Code status and resuscitation options in the electronic health record. Resuscitation 2015; 87: 14-20.
• 6 Neubauer MA, Taniguchi CB, Hoverman JR. Improving incidence of code status documentation through process and discipline. J Oncol Pract 2015; 11 (Suppl. 02) e263-e266.
• 7 Schiebel N, Henrickson Parker S, Bessette RR, Cleveland EJ, Neeley JP, Warfield KT, Barth MM, Gaines KA, Naessens JM. Honouring patient’s resuscitation wishes: a multiphased effort to improve identification and documentation. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22 (Suppl. 01) 85-92.
• 8 EMRAM Stage Criteria.. 2015 [Accessed 10/15/16]; Available from: http://www.himssanalytics.org/research/emram-stage-criteria
• 9 Campbell R. The five ,,rights“ of clinical decision support. J AHIMA 2013; 84 (Suppl. 10) 42-47 quiz 48.
• 10 Heffner JE, Barbieri C. Compliance with do-not-resuscitate orders for hospitalized patients transported to radiology departments. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129 (Suppl. 10) 801-805.
• 11 Sehgal NL, Wachter RM. Identification of inpatient DNR status: a safety hazard begging for standardization. J Hosp Med 2007; 2 (Suppl. 06) 366-371.
• 12 Ardagh M. Futility has no utility in resuscitation medicine. J Med Ethics 2000; 26 (Suppl. 05) 396-399.
• 13 Kumar P, Temel JS. End-of-life care discussions in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (Suppl. 27) 3315-3319.
• 14 Kernerman P, Cook DJ, Griffith LE. Documenting life-support preferences in hospitalized patients. J Crit Care 1997; 12 (Suppl. 04) 155-160.
• 15 Mack JW, Cronin A, Taback N, Huskamp HA, Keating NL, Malin JL, Earle CC, Weeks JC. End-of-life care discussions among patients with advanced cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156 (Suppl. 03) 204-210.
• 16 Greenwald JL, Halasyamani L, Greene J, LaCivita C, Stucky E, Benjamin B, Reid W, Griffin FA, Vaida AJ, Williams MV. Making inpatient medication reconciliation patient centered, clinically relevant and implementable: a consensus statement on key principles and necessary first steps. J Hosp Med 2010; 5 (Suppl. 08) 477-485.