ArticleFrontiers in systems biology2026
Duty of Care Governance: a conceptual framework for aligning health system scale with the clinician-patient relationship.
Article in Frontiers in systems biology, 2026. 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.
- Integrating clinical knowledge to preserve clinical coherence in health systems.Frontiers in systems biology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern health systems possess advanced scientific and technological capabilities, yet they often struggle to preserve the ethical basis of clinical care: the clinician's primary obligation to the patient. When systems prioritize efficiency and large-scale growth, centralized authority can create structural tensions that may weaken the patient-clinician relationship, widening the gap between decision-making and patient outcomes. Duty of Care Governance is proposed as a conceptual structural model intended to re-anchor institutional design around this obligation. The framework organizes health systems around the clinician-patient relationship as the primary site of accountability. System integrity is conceptualized as being maintained through four interrelated governance functions: Sensing (interpretation of Clinical Signals), Responsibility (identifiable clinician accountability), Escalation (access to additional expertise without transfer of decision authority), and Feedback (longitudinal reassessment of outcomes). The system operates as a coordinated governance structure linking Clinical Signals with institutional guidance. Legitimacy depends on collaborative design, in which patients and clinicians co-author governing structures such as an organizational charter. This approach is intended to reduce relational displacement and organizational inertia. The manuscript introduces a financial perspective: the requirements of Duty of Care Governance can be understood not as administrative overhead, but as strategic investments that mitigate long-term liabilities such as clinician burnout, system failure, and patient burden. By contrast, evidence suggests systems that preserve relational continuity generate measurable value through improved outcomes and sustained trust. By maintaining structural discipline and anchoring authority at the site of care, the model is designed to preserve alignment between clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.
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.