ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
How Internal Medicine Physicians Learn to Conduct Goals-of-Care Discussions: A Qualitative Study Across the Training Continuum.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscussing goals of care (GOC) is an important component of patient-centered care. However, leading a GOC discussion requires honed communication skills and clinical judgment. Many practicing clinicians are not fully competent in discussing GOC, even in internal medicine (IM) where GOC discussions are frequently required in clinical work.
objectiveWe aimed to understand the experiences of IM trainees and physicians navigating GOC discussions as a basis for insights into potential learning needs.
designThis was a qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews. Interview data were interpreted using applied thematic analysis.
participantsThirty-four clinicians, including medical students, postgraduate year (PGY) 1-5 trainees in IM, and attending physicians in IM and critical care medicine at McGill University-affiliated academic hospitals. KEY
resultsDifferences in conceptualizations and approaches to GOC discussions were distinguished by experience and seniority across four main themes: from concrete to abstract conceptualizations, from performative to organic approaches, from follower to leader in shared decision-making, and scaffolding learning between formal and informal development. Novices often conflated GOC with code status and were less comfortable providing guidance. Experienced clinicians showed a more nuanced understanding, greater flexibility, and willingness to make recommendations. Participants agreed that GOC skills develop as a career-long endeavor and called for a structured longitudinal curriculum to address limited formal training and early independent practice.
conclusionsThe way clinicians in IM understand and discuss GOC evolves substantially over the course of their careers. A structured, stage-specific curriculum is required to better facilitate this process and equip trainees with the necessary knowledge and skills in a timely fashion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42773399What 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.