Using patient-reported performance status to guide management of advanced cancer: A quality improvement initiative.

379 Background: Performance status is a key prognostic factor among patients with advanced cancer and can inform the need for supportive care services. However, assessment and documentation of performance status is inconsistently integrated into standard oncology care. Patient-reported performance status (PRPS) is a surrogate for clinician-assessed performance status and has the potential to address this challenge. We piloted a decision support tool in our electronic health record (EHR) that uses PRPS to prompt clinician assessment of performance status and suggest referrals to supportive care services. Methods: We identified patients with advanced cancer using a pre-built and validated registry driven by ICD codes in our EHR (EPIC). For patients with advanced cancer seen at one of our clinics, a multiple-choice question with options derived from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale in patient-friendly language was added to the pre-visit questionnaire sent electronically prior to oncology visits. For patients with a poor PRPS (2 or greater), a clinical decision support tool alerted providers of the patient’s self-reported performance status, encouraged input of the clinician’s ECOG assessment, and suggested referral orders to supportive care services such as palliative care, nutrition, and social work. We are currently evaluating how our PRPS-driven decision support tool impacts the rate of clinician-assessed ECOG documentation, referral rates, and clinical outcomes. Results: Between 3/13/24 and 5/13/24, of 336 patients identified by the advanced cancer registry, 70% (235) of patients completed the PRPS questionnaire. Among patients with an available PRPS score, 18% (42) of patients reported a poor performance status (2 or greater) at least once, triggering the decision support tool. Providers entered ECOG assessments for 93% (39) of patients and sent referrals to supportive care services for 10% (4) of the patients. Three patients died during this time period, and all three of them reported a poor performance status of 3 or 4. Oncologists at the clinic reported no significant disruption to routine workflow. Conclusions: Preliminary results suggest feasibility of a PRPS-driven decision support tool to flag patients with advanced cancer and declining function and improve discrete documentation of clinician-assessed performance status. Notably, the rate of referrals to supportive care services remains low. Next steps include obtaining longitudinal data from this pilot, assessing the impact of the pilot on goals of care documentation, and validating the concordance of PRPS and ECOG and their effect on clinical outcomes. Ultimately, we aim to use the resulting data and harness our dashboard of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status to develop innovative, automated, and targeted quality improvement interventions.