Literature DB >> 31215827

Do We Know What We Mean? An Examination of the Use of the Phrase "Goals of Care" in the Literature.

Kyle P Edmonds1, Toluwalase A Ajayi2,3,4.   

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus approach to describe the process or components of goals of care (GOC) conversations. Objective: The objective was to review the utilization of the phrase "GOC" in PubMed-indexed literature to contextualize the use of the phrase. Secondary aim was to describe the use of this phrase within journals focused on palliative care.
Methods: A review of articles in the PubMed-indexed literature published during a single year utilizing the phrase "goals of care."
Results: A total of 191 articles were reviewed after exclusions. Few articles included an operant definition for GOC (n = 27, 14%). It was often used to describe conversations focused on determining intent for treatment (n = 57, 30%), talks about death or dying (n = 52, 27%), or simply vague discussions (n = 39, 20%). The agenda was focused on the outcomes of the conversation (n = 169, 88%) compared with factors such as hopes, worries, values, and personhood (n = 22, 12%). The majority did not utilize the phrase "palliative care" (n = 77, 40%); those who did frequently used "palliative care" incorrectly (n = 72, 38%). Conclusions: The definition of the phrase GOC is most often assumed with its context centered on the needs of the health care system and linked to a specific medical topic. It is most commonly used to describe determinations of the patient's therapy intent, second most commonly to describe end-of-life conversations. The use of the phrase GOC within the palliative literature does not differ notably from its use in the broader literature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; goals of care; palliative; shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31215827     DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Palliat Med        ISSN: 1557-7740            Impact factor:   2.947


  4 in total

1.  Effect of the STAMP (Sharing and Talking About My Preferences) Intervention on Completing Multiple Advance Care Planning Activities in Ambulatory Care : A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Terri R Fried; Andrea L Paiva; Colleen A Redding; Lynne Iannone; John R O'Leary; Maria Zenoni; Megan M Risi; Slawomir Mejnartowicz; Joseph S Rossi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Evaluation of a program using a physician assistant and an electronic patient-provider communication tool to facilitate discussions about goals of care in older adults in hospital: a pilot study.

Authors:  Monica Monchis; Chris Martin; Giulio DiDiodato
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2020-09-14

3.  How Well Does the Surprise Question Predict 1-year Mortality for Patients Admitted with COPD?

Authors:  Dana Tripp; Jaclyn Janis; Benjamin Jarrett; F Lee Lucas; Tania D Strout; Paul K J Han; Isabella Stumpf; Rebecca N Hutchinson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 6.473

4.  Patients' and caregivers' experiences of hospitalization under COVID-19 visitation restrictions.

Authors:  Anny Fenton; Sandra Stevens; Zachary Cost; Jaime Bickford; Michael Kohut; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Rebecca N Hutchinson
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 2.899

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.