Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29091522›Full record

ReviewJournal of palliative medicine2018

Achieving Goal-Concordant Care: A Conceptual Model and Approach to Measuring Serious Illness Communication and Its Impact.

Justin J Sanders, J Randall Curtis, James A Tulsky

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of palliative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 151 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
151citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
19.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

151 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 305 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Code Status Orders: Do the Options Matter?Journal of general internal medicine · 2023
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

91 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Justin J Sanders1 Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute , Boston, Massachusetts.
J Randall Curtis4 Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington.
James A Tulsky1 Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute , Boston, Massachusetts.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-quality care for seriously ill patients aligns treatment with their goals and values. Failure to achieve "goal-concordant" care is a medical error that can harm patients and families. Because communication between clinicians and patients enables goal concordance and also affects the illness experience in its own right, healthcare systems should endeavor to measure communication and its outcomes as a quality assessment. Yet, little consensus exists on what should be measured and by which methods.

objectivesTo propose measurement priorities for serious illness communication and its anticipated outcomes, including goal-concordant care.

methodsWe completed a narrative review of the literature to identify links between serious illness communication, goal-concordant care, and other outcomes. We used this review to identify gaps and opportunities for quality measurement in serious illness communication.

resultsOur conceptual model describes the relationship between communication, goal-concordant care, and other relevant outcomes. Implementation-ready measures to assess the quality of serious illness communication and care include (1) the timing and setting of serious illness communication, (2) patient experience of communication and care, and (3) caregiver bereavement surveys that include assessment of perceived goal concordance of care. Future measurement priorities include direct assessment of communication quality, prospective patient or family assessment of care concordance with goals, and assessment of the bereaved caregiver experience.

conclusionImproving serious illness care necessitates ensuring that high-quality communication has occurred and measuring its impact. Measuring patient experience and receipt of goal-concordant care should be our highest priority. We have the tools to measure both.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient Care PlanningPhysician-Patient RelationsChronic DiseaseHumansModels, TheoreticalQuality of Health Caregoal-concordant carequality measurementserious illness communication

Identifiers

PMID29091522
PMCPMC5756461
OpenAlexW2766040004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.