Code Status Documentation Research Articles

Racial disparities in the frequency and timing of code status orders among women with breast cancer

BackgroundBlack/African American women with breast cancer have a disproportionately higher risk of mortality compared to other race groups, although their overall incidence of disease is lower. Despite this, advance care planning (ACP) and consequent code status documentation remain low in this vulnerable patient population. Code status orders (i.e., Full code, Do Not Attempt Resuscitation [DNAR], Do Not Intubate [DNI]) allow consideration of patient preferences regarding the use of aggressive treatments, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intubation. The aim of this study is to characterize presence of code status orders and determine whether race affects code status documentation after the first encounter for breast cancer.MethodsData were derived from 7524 women with breast cancer from the University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) between 2016 and 2021. Cox regression was used to estimate the effects of race and adjusted for age, ethnicity, inpatient stays, metastatic breast cancer, marital status, and body mass index.ResultsThe sample included 60.5% White, 3.6% Asian/Mideast Indian, 28.9% Black/African American, and 7.0% other or unknown race. Results indicate that code status orders after the first breast cancer encounter were uncommon (7.2%). Black/African American race (HR = 2.74; 95% CI: 1.75, 4.28) emerged as a significant factor associated with any code status orders compared to other race groups even when adjusting for covariates.ConclusionsCode status documentation in this sample of women with breast cancer was low overall, yet rates were higher among Black/African American patients compared to other race groups. In fact, race remains a significant predictor of code status documentation even when accounting for indirect measures of cancer severity. This could be denoting the racial disparities (e.g., higher cancer malignancy such as triple negative breast cancer) in breast cancer mortality risk. Future research is needed to identify factors unique to Black/African American women that would increase code status documentation so that goal concordant care can be prioritized among patients with breast cancer.

Physicians’ training and patient education initiative to improve quality of care decision communication at the emergency department

BackgroundDiscussions about care decisions, including code status documentation and advance care planning, are crucial components of patient-centred care. However, due to numerous barriers, these discussions are often avoided by both...

A Daily Checklist Method Increases Documentation of Code Status in Trauma Patients.

While insufficient code status documentation (CSD) is a longstanding challenge, all patients deserve the opportunity to participate in decision-making regarding code status, especially trauma patients with an unpredictable course. Prior interventions to increase CSD relied on reminder systems. We hypothesize that introducing a daily checklist will increase CSD for patients in the trauma ICU. This quality improvement study examined the efficacy of a twice-daily checklist for improving CSD in trauma patients at a level I trauma center. A pre-intervention (PRE) and post-intervention (POST) daily census characterized the percentage of patients with CSD (primary outcome), time-to-code status (TTCS, secondary outcome) documentation, and information about patients who were discharged with no code status (DNCS, secondary outcome). Of 213 PRE and 207 POST, daily census CSD for all patients increased from a median of 50.0% PRE to 64.4% POST (P < .05). Time-to-code status was halved (PRE: 25.30h, POST: 12.71h, P < .05). Code status documentation within 12h increased from 41.8% PRE to 60.9% POST (P < .05). Overall, the percentage of patients with CSD during their hospitalization increased 20% (PRE: 63.8%, POST: 83.6%, P < .05). Discharged with no code status patients decreased 20% (PRE: 35.2%, POST: 15.5%, P < .05). Including code status in a daily checklist involving key aspects of care for trauma patients is an effective method for improving code status documentation. Capturing code status for more patients in trauma allows us to provide patient-centered, goal-concordant care.

Improving the Accuracy of Code Status Documentation in Home Care.

Advance care planning discussions require specialized skills to elicit goals and preferences from patients contending with life-limiting illness. Documentation forms which include Health Care Proxies, Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatments, or Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatments are meant to accompany patients through every transition of care. However, they are often forgotten between the hospital and the home setting. Home care clinicians have the obligation to ensure all providers involved in the patient's care are made aware of their code status and goals of care. Consequently, home care clinicians need education about advance care planning to support patients in achieving their care goals as they transition from hospital to home. This quality improvement project implemented three consecutive interventions including reminding clinicians to review code status orders, applying short educational interventions at daily nursing huddles via email, and finally, administering primary palliative education classes for home care clinicians. The purpose was to guide home care nurses in reviewing and reaffirming code status orders and advance care documentation at the initiation of the home care episode and to improve the consistency and accuracy of code status documentation at the transition of care. After implementing the interventions to improve code status documentation, compliance improved from 8% to 100% in a 10-month period.

In-Hospital Code Status Updates: Trends Over Time and the Impact of COVID-19.

The primary objective was to evaluate if the percentage of patients with missing or inaccurate code status documentation at a Trauma Level 1 hospital could be reduced through daily updates. The secondary objective was to examine if patient preferences for DNR changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This retrospective study, spanning March 2019 to December 2022, compared the code status in ICU and ED patients drawn from two data sets. The first was based on historical electronic medical records (EHR), and the second involved daily updates of code status following patient admission. Implementing daily updates upon admission was more effective in ICUs than in the ED in reducing missing code status documentation. Around 20% of patients without a specific code status chose DNR under the new system. During COVID-19, a decrease in ICU patients choosing DNR and an increase in full code (FC) choices were observed. This study highlights the importance of regular updates and discussions regarding code status to enhance patient care and resource allocation in ICU and ED settings. The COVID-19 pandemic's influence on shifting patient preferences towards full code status underscores the need for adaptable documentation practices. Emphasizing patient education about DNR implications and benefits is key to supporting informed decisions that reflect individual health contexts and values. This approach will help balance the considerations for DNR and full code choices, especially during health care crises.

Preoperative Code Status Discussion Workflows: Targets for Improvement in Multidisciplinary Pathways.

Discussion of perioperative code status is an important element of preoperative care and a component of the American College of Surgeons' Geriatric Surgery Verification (GSV) program. Evidence suggests code status discussions (CSDs) are not routinely performed and are inconsistently documented. Because preoperative decision making is a complex process spanning multiple providers, this study aims to utilize process mapping to highlight challenges associated with CSDs and inform efforts to improve workflows and implement elements of the GSV program. Using process mapping, we detailed workflows relating to (CSDs) for patients undergoing thoracic surgery and a possible workflow for implementing GSV standards for goals and decision-making. We generated process maps for outpatient and day-of-surgery workflows relating to CSDs. In addition, we generated a process map for a potential workflow to address limitations and integrate GSV Standards for Goals and Decision Making. Process mapping highlighted challenges associated with the implementation of multidisciplinary care pathways and indicated a need for centralization and consolidation of perioperative code status documentation.

The Association of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations With Healthcare Utilization in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Analysis.

Background: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) conducted during hospitalization can lead to meaningful patient participation in the decision-making process affecting medical management. The aim of this study is to determine if standardized documentation of a SIC within an institutionally approved EHR module during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, hospice enrollment prior to discharge, and 90-day readmissions. Methods: We conducted retrospective analyses of hospital encounters of general medicine patients at a community teaching hospital affiliated with an academic medical center from October 2018 to August 2019. Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC were identified and matched by propensity score to control encounters without a SIC in a ratio of 1:3. We used multivariable, paired logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards modeling to assess key outcomes. Results: Of 6853 encounters (5143 patients), 59 (.86%) encounters (59 patients) had standardized documentation of a SIC, and 58 (.85%) were matched to 167 control encounters (167 patients). Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC had greater odds of palliative care consultation (odds ratio [OR] 60.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.45-290.08, P < .01), a documented code status change (OR 8.04, 95% CI 1.54-42.05, P = .01), and discharge with hospice services (OR 35.07, 95% CI 5.80-212.08, P < .01) compared to matched controls. There was no significant association with 90-day readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] .88, standard error [SE] .37, P = .73). Conclusions: Standardized documentation of a SIC during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, and hospice enrollment.

Change in Code Status Orders of Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Throughout the Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Aim: Our aim was to examine how code status orders for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 changed over time as the pandemic progressed and outcomes improved. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single academic center in the United States. Adults admitted between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, who tested positive for COVID-19, were included. The study period included four institutional hospitalization surges. Demographic and outcome data were collected and code status orders during admission were trended. Data were analyzed with multivariable analysis to identify predictors of code status. Results: A total of 3615 patients were included with full code (62.7%) being the most common final code status order followed by do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) (18.1%). Time of admission (per every six months) was an independent predictor of final full compared to DNAR/partial code status (p = 0.04). Limited resuscitation preference (DNAR or partial) decreased from over 20% in the first two surges to 10.8% and 15.6% of patients in the last two surges. Other independent predictors of final code status included body mass index (p < 0.05), Black versus White race (0.64, p = 0.01), time spent in the intensive care unit (4.28, p = <0.001), age (2.11, p = <0.001), and Charlson comorbidity index (1.05, p = <0.001). Conclusions: Over time, adults admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 were less likely to have a DNAR or partial code status order with persistent decrease occurring after March 2021. A trend toward decreased code status documentation as the pandemic progressed was observed.

IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS WITH IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATORS: DOCUMENTED CODE STATUS DISCUSSIONS INFREQUENTLY REFERENCE THE IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR (ICD) DEVICE

IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS WITH IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER DEFIBRILLATORS: DOCUMENTED CODE STATUS DISCUSSIONS INFREQUENTLY REFERENCE THE IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR (ICD) DEVICE

Suspending Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate Orders for Image-Guided Procedures.

Interventional radiologists (IRs) often care for critically ill patients, providing both treatment and palliation. For example, a recent study found that patients died within 30 days of 9% of inpatient image-guided procedures and within 6 months of 7% of outpatient image-guided procedures.[1] It is also not uncommon for these patients to have do not resuscitate and/or do not intubate (DNR/DNI) orders or other advance directives expressing patients' wishes to refuse resuscitation and/or intubation in the event of a cardiac arrest or the loss of a protected airway.[2] When asked to perform a procedure for these patients, IRs can face a few different ethical dilemmas: the patient may want to keep the DNR/DNI order in place for their procedure, the documented code status may conflict with patient or family preferences, or respecting such preferences in the face of a code can be disturbing for the IR and/or members of their team. This article considers each of these issues with suggestions of how to best navigate them.

Code status discussions in outpatient setting.

e13539 Background: In the face of the COVID 19 pandemic, goal-concordant care has been gaining further significance. Discussions about the care goals are best when they are exploratory, conversational, and longitudinal. Complex information processing is best done outside of a crisis. Ideally, these conversations should start with the primary care clinician who has a longitudinal clinical relationship with the patient. Methods: A quality initiative project was conducted at the Internal Medicine Residency Clinic located in Northwestern Medicine Woodstock Hospital. Review of order entry in electronic medical records and charts for code status was assessed for data gathering. Patients above the age of 65 years presenting for their annual physical visit were included in the study. Various interventions were done, including educating residents through didactic lectures, sending electronic reminders to the residents and formatting a template note including code status documentation. Pre and post-intervention data was gathered. Results: A total of 104 patients were in the pre-intervention group and 94 patients in the post-intervention group. Pre-intervention, code status was addressed in 33% of total patients interviewed during their annual physical visit. Post intervention, code status was addressed in 48% of the patients. Conclusions: This project was undertaken to increase awareness on a crucial aspect of the addressing code status in outpatient setting. Post intervention studies showed that addressing code status significantly increased. In order to fill the gap, we propose that addressing code status be a mandatory process or a reminder be generated in electronic health records.

A Customized Electronic Health Record-Based Tool Highlights and Addresses Gaps in Patient Safety.

The authors present a tool to improve gaps in patient safety using the electronic health record. The tool integrates gap identification, passive alerts, and actions into a single interface embedded within clinicians' workflow. The tool was developed to address venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, prevention of hypo- and hyperglycemia, code status documentation, bowel movement frequency, and skilled nursing facility transitions. Alerts and actions during silent and live periods were retrospectively analyzed. The most prevalent safety gaps were lack of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (40.4% of alerts), constipation (19.3%), and lack of code status (18.4%). Disparities in safety gaps were present by patient race, sex, and socioeconomic status. Usability testing showed positive feedback without significant alert burden. Thus, a safety gap tool was successfully built to study and address patient safety issues. The tool's strengths are its integration within the electronic health record, ease of use, customizability, and scalability.

Improving Code Status Documentation Rates Using Communication Skills Training in Vascular Surgery: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

Introduction: Code status discussions are poorly understood by patients and variably performed by admitting providers, yet they are used as a quality metric. Surgical specialties, such as Vascular Surgery, admit patients with urgent and life-threatening illness. Surgical trainees are less likely to receive communication skills interventions when compared with nonsurgical specialties. Without a documented code status, nurses and physicians lack guidance on patient preference in the case of cardiopulmonary arrest and may deliver unwanted measures, which may also result in poor outcomes. Methods: We conducted a before-after Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement project between May 2018 and May 2019. A needs assessment included baseline code status documentation rates for the Vascular Surgery department admissions. A communication skills training (CST) and documentation intervention was provided to all Vascular Surgery trainees and advance practice providers (APPs). Departmental e-mails were sent over the 12-month intervention period, which demonstrated the code status documentation rates and served as reminders to document code status. Results: A total of 29 vascular surgery trainees and APPs received the intervention. At completion of the intervention, learners reported increased comfort initiating a code status discussion, making a recommendation for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) status, and having a strategy to discuss code status. A total of 2762 patient admissions were reviewed, with 1562 patient admissions occurring during the 12-month intervention period. The average code status documentation rate for the three months before the intervention was 7.8%. At the end of the 12-month intervention, documentation rates were 44.9% and 6 months after completion of the study period, average rates remained 45.2%. There was no change in admission rates during the study period. Discussion: CST and regular reminders increased vascular surgery residents' and APPs' comfort in engaging in code status discussions. After intervention, documentation of code status discussions increased with persistence up to six months after the intervention.

If Your Heart Were to Stop: Characterization and Comparison of Code Status Orders in Adult Patients Admitted with COVID-19.

Aim: Our aim is to characterize code status documentation for patients hospitalized with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) during the first peak of the pandemic, when prognosis, resource availability, and provider safety were uncertain. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single tertiary academic medical center. Adult patients admitted between March 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020 who tested positive for COVID-19 were included. Demographic and hospital outcome data were collected. Code status orders during this admission and prior admissions were trended. Data were analyzed with multivariable analysis to identify predictors of code status choice. Results: A total of 720 patients were included. The majority (70%) were full code and 12% were in do-not-attempt resuscitation (DNAR) status on admission; by discharge, 20% were DNAR. Age (p < 0.001), time in the intensive care unit (ICU) (p < 0.001), and having Medicaid (p = 0.04) compared to private insurance were predictors of DNAR. Fourteen percent had no code status order. Older age (p < 0.001), time in the ICU (p = 0.01), and admission to a teaching service (p < 0.001) were associated with having an order. Of patients with a prior admission (n = 227), 33.5% previously had no code status order and 44.5% had a different code status for their COVID-19 admission. Of those with a change, most transitioned to less aggressive resuscitation preferences. Conclusions: Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our study elected to be full code. Almost half of patients with prepandemic admissions had a different code status during their COVID-19 admission, with a trend toward less aggressive resuscitation preference.

Code status documentation at admission in COVID-19 patients: a descriptive cohort study

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic pressurised healthcare with increased shortage of care. This resulted in an increase of awareness for code status documentation (ie, whether limitations to specific life-sustaining treatments are in...

Supportive care services and goals of care in early phase clinical trials (EP-CTs).

26 Background: EP-CTs investigate novel therapeutic approaches for patients with cancer, but little is known about the use of supportive care services and timing of goals of care (GOC) discussions in EP-CTs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients with cancer enrolled on EP-CTs at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2017-2019. We collected information about patients’ demographic/clinical characteristics, use of supportive care services (palliative care [PC], social work [SW], physical therapy [PT], and nutrition), as well as documentation of GOC discussions and code status (before/during EP-CT vs after/never) via chart review. We examined patient characteristics associated with earlier receipt of supportive care services (before/during EP-CT vs after/never) and compared differences in the timing of GOC discussions and code status documented based on the receipt of supportive care services. Results: Among 425 patients enrolled on EP-CTs (median age 63.0; 56.0% female; 97.4% metastatic cancer; 22.1% gastrointestinal cancer), under half received supportive care services before/during trial (PC: 33.2% before/during, 66.8% post/never; SW: 41.9% before/during, 58.1% post/never; PT: 38.4% before/during, 61.6% post/never; and Nutrition: 33.2% before/during, 62.1% post/never). We identified the most common reasons for consulting each of the supportive care services (PC: 82.4% symptom management and 12.4% GOC; SW: 65.3% adjustment to illness and 23.8% referral for resources; PT: 44.8% safety/discharge planning and 24.6% mobility concerns; Nutrition: 73.2% for symptoms of anorexia/poor appetite and 21.5% nutrition assessment). Patients with GI cancer were more likely than those with other cancers to receive PC and SW before/during EP-CT (PC: 29.8% v 18.3%, p =.009; SW: 27.5% v 18.2%, p =.025). Earlier PC was associated with earlier hospice referral (HR = 1.95, p =.014) and shorter survival (HR = 1.54, p &lt;.001). Patients receiving earlier supportive care services were more likely to have GOC discussions documented earlier (PC: 65.2% v 13.0%, p &lt;.001; SW: 41.0% v 22.7%, p &lt;.001; PT: 38.7% v 25.2%, p =.005; Nutrition: 39.1% v 25.0%, p =.002). Patients with earlier PC were more likely to have earlier documented code status (46.8% v 24.3%, p &lt;.001), but not for any other service. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with advanced cancer, under half received supportive care services before/during their participation in EP-CTs. We found that symptom management represented a common reason for referral to supportive care, highlighting the needs of this population. Patients who received earlier supportive care services were more likely to have earlier documentation of GOC discussions, with those receiving earlier PC having code status documented earlier and also experiencing earlier hospice use and shorter survival. These findings underscore the utility of supportive care services in EP-CTs.

Back to the Basics-Is Comfort Care the Same as Do Not Resuscitate? How Misinterpreting Code Status May Lead to Potential Patient Harm.

Several research studies have shown that code status documentation is misinterpreted or incorrectly defined by a significant number of medical professionals. This misinterpretation among the medical team (i.e. equating Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) with comfort care measures only) may lead to false reporting, poor symptom management, and potentially adverse clinical outcomes. Most Hospice and Palliative Care providers are aware of these distinctions, however a shortage (and continued foreseen shortage) of Hospice and Palliative Care providers may mean these conversations and distinctions will fall to non-subspecialists, or providers of other medical specialties or degrees. The literature has demonstrated that these shortfalls and misinterpretations are present and constitute potential harm to our patients.

Mortality After Elective Surgery: The Potential Role for Preoperative Palliative Care

BackgroundPreoperative optimization is increasingly emphasized for high-risk surgical patients. One critical component of this includes preoperative advanced care planning to promote goal-concordant care. We aimed to define a subset of patients that might benefit from preoperative palliative care consult for advanced care planning. Materials and methodsWe examined adult patients admitted from January 2016 to December 2018 to a university health system for elective surgery. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with death within 1 y, and presence of palliative care consults preoperatively. Chi-square analysis evaluated the impact of a palliative care consult on advanced care planning variables. ResultsOf the 29,132 inpatient elective procedures performed, there was a 2.0% mortality rate at 6 mo and 3.5% at 1 y. Those who died were more likely to be older, male, underweight (BMI <18), or have undergone an otolaryngology, neurosurgery or thoracic procedure type (all P-values < 0.05). At the time of admission, 29% had an advance directive, 90% had a documented code status, and 0.3% had a preoperative palliative care consult. Patients were more likely to have an advanced directive, a power of attorney, a documented code status, and have a do not resuscitate order if they had a palliative care consult (all P-values <0.05). The mortality rates and preoperative palliative care rates per procedure type did not follow similar trends. ConclusionsPreoperative palliative care consultation before elective admissions for surgery had a significant impact on advanced care planning.

Code Status Documentation Availability and Accuracy Among Emergency Patients with End-stage Disease.

IntroductionSome patients with end-stage disease who may neither want nor benefit from aggressive resuscitation receive such treatment if they cannot communicate in an emergency. Timely access to patients’ current resuscitation wishes, or “code status,” should be a key metric of electronic health records (EHR). We sought to determine what percentage of a cohort of patients with end-stage disease who present to the emergency department (ED) have accessible, code status documents, and for those who do, how quickly can this documentation be retrieved.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study of ED patients with end-stage disease (eg, palliative care, metastatic malignancy, home oxygen, dialysis) conducted during purposefully sampled random accrual times we performed a standardized, timed review of available health records, including accompanying transfer documents. We also interviewed consenting patients and substitute decision makers to compare available code status documents to their current wishes.ResultsCode status documentation was unavailable within 15 minutes of ED arrival in most cases (54/85, or 63%). Retrieval time was under five minutes in the rest, especially when “one click deep” in the EHR. When interviewed, 20/32 (63%) expressed “do not resuscitate” wishes, 10 of whom had no supporting documentation. Patients from assisted-living (odds ratio [OR] 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7–26) and long-term care facilities (OR 13; 95% CI, 2.5–65) were more likely to have a documented code status available compared to those living in the community.ConclusionThe majority of patients with end-stage disease, including half of those who would not wish resuscitation from cardiorespiratory arrest, did not have code status documents readily available upon arrival to our tertiary care ED. Patients living in the community with advanced disease may be at higher risk for unwanted resuscitative efforts should they present to hospital in extremis. While easily retrievable code status documentation within the EHR shows promise, its accuracy and validity remain important considerations.

Impact of an internal medicine nocturnist service on care of patients with cancer at a large Canadian teaching hospital: a quality-improvement study.

Background:Nocturnists (overnight hospitalists) are commonly implemented in US teaching hospitals to adhere to per-resident patient caps and improve care but are rare in Canada, where patient caps and duty hours are comparatively flexible. Our objective was to assess the impact of a newly implemented nocturnist program on perceived quality of care, code status documentation and patient outcomes.Methods:Nocturnists were phased in between June 2018 and December 2019 at Toronto General Hospital, a large academic teaching hospital in Toronto, Ontario. We performed a quality-improvement study comparing rates of code status entry into the electronic health record at admission, in-hospital mortality, the 30-day readmission rate and hospital length of stay for patients with cancer admitted by nocturnists and by residents. Surveys were administered in June 2019 to general internal medicine faculty and residents to assess their perceptions of the impact of the nocturnist program.Results:From July 2018 to June 2019, 30 nocturnists were on duty for 241/364 nights (66.5%), reducing the mean maximum overnight per-resident patient census from 40 (standard deviation [SD] 4) to 25 (SD 5) (p < 0.001). The rate of admission code status entry was 35.3% among patients admitted by residents (n = 133) and 54.9% among those admitted by nocturnists (n = 339) (p < 0.001). The mortality rate was 10.5% among patients admitted by residents and 5.6% among those admitted by nocturnists (p = 0.06), the 30-day readmission rate was 8.3% and 5.9%, respectively (p = 0.4), and the mean acute length of stay was 7.2 (SD 7.0) days and 6.4 (SD 7.8) days, respectively (p = 0.3). Surveys were completed by 15/24 faculty (response rate 62%), who perceived improvements in patient safety, efficiency and trainee education; however, only 30/102 residents (response rate 29.4%) completed the survey.Interpretation:Although implementation of a nocturnist program did not affect patient outcomes, it reduced residents’ overnight patient census, and improved faculty perceptions of quality of care and education, as well as documentation of code status. Our results support nocturnist implementation in Canadian teaching hospitals.