ArticleBMJ quality & safety2026
Integrating 'what matters' conversations into preoperative care: a qualitative evaluation of surgical team workflows and barriers.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is no low-risk surgery for frail, high-risk patients. Frailty screening helps identify these patients, enabling surgical teams to tailor treatment plans that align with patient values and mitigate risks. However, the way clinicians assess values and counsel older patients about surgical options is unclear. As part of a larger Veterans Administration (VA) quality improvement (QI) initiative to implement Surgical Pause, this pre-implementation qualitative assessment examined how outpatient surgical teams identify and use older adults' goals, values and care preferences in elective surgery decision-making.
methodsWe triangulated pre-implementation interview, observational and focus group data to understand the clinical context, workflows and staff perspectives around preoperative goal clarification conversations. Using thematic analysis, we described clinicians' attitudes towards integrating structured 'What Matters' conversations into routine preoperative care, mapped existing processes and identified barriers and opportunities for quality improvement.
resultsThe final sample included 27 interviews, 75 observations and 7 focus groups across 18 outpatient clinics at four medical centres. Overall, clinicians supported discussing 'What Matters' with high-risk older patients considering elective surgery, but their practices varied. Participants reported inconsistent processes for integrating patient priorities into decisions. Key barriers included reliance on a 'fix it' care model, workflow integration and visibility, and time constraints. Facilitators included leveraging performance metrics, improving documentation and referral systems, and staff training.
conclusionsAlthough surgical clinicians recognise the importance of discussing patient goals, explicit 'What Matters' conversations with patients rarely occurred. In contrast, frequently used implicit strategies include chart reviews, clinical assessment, discussion of treatment options, informed consent and referrals. Future work should enhance strategies to improve goal clarification and promote high-quality decision-making with frail older patients.
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.