Preferences in Oncology History Documentation Styles Among Clinical Practitioners. Issue 1 (January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Martin, Daniel B.; Stetson, Peter D.; Gilcrease, G. Weldon; Stillman, Robert C.; Sugalski, Jessica M.; Skinner, Jack; Levy, Mia
• Is Part Of: JCO oncology practice. Volume 18:Issue 1(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-01
• Subjects: Oncology -- Periodicals; Medical Oncology; Neoplasms; Oncology; Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1200/OP.20.00756
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2688-1527

Abstract

Abstract : PURPOSE: Clinical notes function as the de facto handoff between providers and assume great importance during unplanned medical encounters. An organized and thorough oncology history is essential in care coordination. We sought to understand reader preferences for oncology history organization by comparing between chronologic and narrative formats. METHODS: A convenience sample of 562 clinicians from 19 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions responded to a survey comparing two formats of oncology histories, narrative and chronologic, for the same patient. Both histories were consensus-derived real-world examples. Each history was evaluated using semantic differential attributes ( thorough, useful, organized, comprehensible, and succinct ). Respondents choose a preference between the two styles for history gathering and as the basis of a new note. Open-ended responses were also solicited. RESULTS: Respondents preferred the chronologic over the narrative history to prepare for a visit with an unknown patient (66% preference) and as a basis for their own note preparation (77% preference) ( P < .01). The chronologic summary was preferred in four of the five measured attributes ( useful, organized, comprehensible, and succinct ); the narrative summary was favored for thoroughness ( P < .01). Open-ended responses reflected the attribute scoring and noted the utility of content describing social determinants of health in the narrative history. CONCLUSION: Respondents of this convenience sample preferred a chronologic oncology history to a concise narrative history. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal structure and content of chronologic documentation for oncology patients and the provider effort to use this format.