Do goals of care documentation reflect the conversation?: Evaluating conversation‐documentation accuracy

Author:

Ma Jessica E.12ORCID,Schlichte Lindsay3ORCID,Haverfield Marie4,Gambino Julia5,Lange Allison6,Blanchard Kelly7,Morgan Brianne7,Bekelman David B.78

Affiliation:

1. Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center Durham VA Health System Durham North Carolina USA

2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine Duke University School of Medicine Durham North Carolina USA

3. Duke University School of Medicine Durham North Carolina USA

4. Department of Communication Studies San José State University San Jose California USA

5. Duke University Durham North Carolina USA

6. Department of Medicine University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus Aurora Colorado USA

7. VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System Aurora Colorado USA

8. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus Aurora Colorado USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundDocumenting goals of care in the electronic health record is meant to relay patient preferences to other clinicians. Evaluating the content and documentation of nurse and social worker led goals of care conversations can inform future goals of care initiative efforts.MethodsAs part of the ADvancing symptom Alleviation with Palliative Treatment trial, this study analyzed goals of care conversations led by nurses and social workers and documented in the electronic health record. Informed by a goals of care communication guide, we identified five goals of care components: illness understanding, goals and values, end of life planning, surrogate, and advance directives. Forty conversation transcripts underwent content analysis. Through an iterative team process, we defined documentation accuracy as four categories: (1) Complete—comprehensive accurate documentation of the conversation, (2) Incomplete—partial documentation of the conversation, (3) Missing—discussed and not documented, and (4) Incorrect—misrepresented in documentation. We also defined—Not Discussed—for communication guide questions that were not discussed nor documented. A constant comparative approach was used to determine the presence or absence of conversation content in the documentation.ResultsAll five goals of care components were discussed in 67% (27/40) of conversation transcripts. Compared to the transcripts, surrogate (37/40, 93%) and advance directives (36/40, 90%) were often documented completely. Almost 40% of goals and values (15/40, 38%) and half of end of life planning (19/40, 48%) were incomplete. Illness understanding was missing (13/40, 33%), not discussed (13/40, 33%), or incorrect (2/40, 5%).ConclusionNurse and social worker led goals of care conversations discussed and documented most components of the goals of care communication guide. Further research may guide how best to determine the relative importance of accuracy, especially in the broad setting of incomplete, missing, and incorrect EHR documentation.

Funder

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

Health Services Research and Development

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

National Institute on Aging

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3