ArticleThe American journal of medicine2025
Implementing Goals of Care Notes in a Statewide Health System: A Quality Improvement Initiative.
Article in The American journal of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGoals of care (GOC) documentation for seriously ill patients is integral to patient-centered care but not standardized. Collaborative efforts within the health system to improve the frequency and documentation of GOC to communicate patient preferences and values are essential to ensure both quality of life and quality of death. MEASURES: We created a standard GOC note type and location in the electronic medical record for a large, statewide health system in the Midwest. Utilization and note content for all unique GOC note types documented in the first year were reviewed. A framework of GOC topics including treatment plan, prognosis, patient preferences and values, and quality of life was used to review the note content. Demographic data and outcomes including death during the observation period and hospice enrollment were also collected. OUTCOMES: In the first year, 934 GOC notes were documented. Palliative care (PC) clinicians addressed more GOC fields compared to other clinicians (70% vs 31%, P < .0001) and had earlier discussions (median 19 days before death vs 4 days, P < .0001). Hospice was discussed more by PC (50% vs 27%, P = .0001) and PC discussions were followed by higher hospice enrollments before death (50% vs 35% P = .0166).
conclusionsWe successfully implemented a standard electronic medical record location for GOC notes which improved GOC documentation across a state healthcare system and found variations and gaps in fields addressed by all clinicians as well as key differences between PC clinicians vs other clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.