324 Background: Delivering goal-concordant care to patients with advanced cancer requires identifying eligible patients who would benefit from goals of care (GOC) conversations; training clinicians how to have these conversations; conducting conversations in a timely manner; and documenting GOC conversations that can be readily accessed by care teams. We used an existing, locally developed electronic cancer care clinical pathways system to guide oncologists toward these conversations. Methods: To identify eligible patients, pathways directors from 12 oncology disease centers identified therapeutic decision nodes for each pathway that corresponded to a predicted life expectancy of ≤1 year. When oncologists selected one of these pre-identified pathways nodes, the decision was captured in a relational database. From these patients, we sought evidence of GOC documentation within the electronic health record by extracting coded data from the advance care planning (ACP) module—a designated area within the electronic health record for clinicians to document GOC conversations. We also used rule-based natural language processing (NLP) to capture free text GOC documentation within these same patients’ progress notes. A domain expert reviewed all progress notes identified by NLP to confirm the presence of GOC documentation. Results: In a pilot sample obtained between March 20 and September 25, 2020, we identified a total of 21 pathway nodes conveying a poor prognosis, which represented 91 unique patients with advanced cancer. Among these patients, the mean age was 62 (SD 13.8) years old; 55 (60.4%) patients were female, and 69 (75.8%) were non-Hispanic White. The cancers most represented were thoracic (32 [35.2%]), breast (31 [34.1%]), and head and neck (13 [14.3%]). Within the 3 months leading up to the pathways decision date, a total 62 (68.1%) patients had any GOC documentation. Twenty-one (23.1%) patients had documentation in both the ACP module and NLP-identified progress notes; 5 (5.5%) had documentation in the ACP module only; and 36 (39.6%) had documentation in progress notes only. Twenty-two unique clinicians utilized the ACP module, of which 1 (4.5%) was an oncologist and 21 (95.5%) were palliative care clinicians. Conclusions: Approximately two thirds of patients had any GOC documentation. A total of 26 (28.6%) patients had any GOC documentation in the ACP module, and only 1 oncologist documented using the ACP module, where care teams can most easily retrieve GOC information. These findings provide an important baseline for future quality improvement efforts (e.g., implementing serious illness communications training, increasing support around ACP module utilization, and incorporating behavioral nudges) to enhance oncologists’ ability to conduct and to document timely, high quality GOC conversations.
Evolution of Semantic Similarity—A Survey
