ArticleJAMA network open2025
Measuring Goal-Concordant Care Using Electronic Clinical Notes.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The PALLI-AI Framework: An Evidence-Informed Checklist for Designing and Reporting Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Tools in Palliative and End-of-Life Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Values elicitation among surgical oncologists: Findings from an international survey.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Goal-concordant care (GCC) is recognized as the highest quality of care and most important outcome measure for serious illness research, yet practical methods for measuring it are lacking. Objective: To measure GCC using clinical notes in patients' medical records. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal cohort study involved a retrospective medical record review in 3 urban hospitals in a single health system. Participants included adults with a hospital encounter of 3 or more days between April 1 and July 31, 2019, and 50% or higher predicted 6-month mortality risk. Data abstraction occurred from July 2021 through June 2022. Exposure: Acute care hospitalization and a 50% or higher predicted 6-month mortality risk. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pairs of clinicians independently reviewed clinical notes from admission through 6 months or death to classify the care received during each epoch between patients' documented goals of care (GOC) discussions, into 1 of 4 categories: (1) comfort focused, (2) maintain or improve function, (3) life extension, or (4) unclear. The GOC discussions had been previously classified using the same 4 categories. The primary study outcome was GCC, defined as the alignment of classification of care received and GOC. Secondary outcomes included goal-discordant care, if GOC and care-received classifications were misaligned, and uncertain concordance, if either care received or GOC was classified as unclear or GOC were not documented. Interrater reliability for classification of care received was assessed using Cohen κ statistics. Results: Among 109 patients (53 female [49%]), the median (IQR) age was 70 (63-79) years. The most common serious illnesses were cardiac disease (76 patients [70%]), metastatic cancer (50 patients [45%]), and chronic kidney disease (42 patients [39%]). Interrater reliability for care-received classification was almost perfect (95% interrater agreement, Cohen κ = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99). A total of 398 epochs of care were identified, 198 (50%) of which were classified as goal concordant. Of the remaining 200 epochs, 74 (19%) were classified as goal discordant and 126 (32%) of uncertain concordance. During at least 1 epoch of care over the 6-month follow-up, 85 patients (78%) received care of uncertain concordance and 43 (39%) received goal-discordant care. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of seriously ill adults, GCC was measured using clinical notes alone. These findings can inform automated text-based classification methods to improve the efficiency and scalability of this method and facilitate pragmatic and reliable measurement of GCC in serious illness research and quality improvement efforts.
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.