A Scoping Review on Goals of Care Discussions in Surgery: How Are We Doing and How Can We Do Better?

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
World Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-23 DOI:10.1002/wjs.70070
Amanda Mac, Yerin Lee, Selena Zhang, Abu Sadat Mohammad Nurunnabi, Marina Englesakis, Karen Devon
{"title":"A Scoping Review on Goals of Care Discussions in Surgery: How Are We Doing and How Can We Do Better?","authors":"Amanda Mac, Yerin Lee, Selena Zhang, Abu Sadat Mohammad Nurunnabi, Marina Englesakis, Karen Devon","doi":"10.1002/wjs.70070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Discussing GOC is essential to ensuring that patients' treatment recommendations and care plans are aligned with their preferences, priorities, and values. This review aims to characterize the existing literature on the quality, practices, and frameworks of goals of care (GOC) discussions in surgery to identify gaps and propose strategies for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.Gov were searched using terms related to GOC, surgery, and best practices or education. The search strategy was run from inception to July 29, 2022. Studies regarding the quality of GOC discussions in surgery were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 14,254 articles from which 37 were included for review. Key findings included (1) the reactive nature of GOC discussions and initiating conversations in response to acute health changes, (2) ambiguity around patient autonomy and the surgeon's duty to prioritize surgical treatment, (3) surgeons as curators of information, and (4) tendency of surgeons to provide a set of standard treatment pathways and determine specific care decisions rather than establish understanding of patients' long-term goals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Further research is needed to determine best practices for caregiver and next-of-kin involvement and expand the diversity of reported experiences to include patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds and genders and individuals from rural and lower-resource communities. Findings from this review have important implications for improving GOC conversations to ensure they support patient-centered care.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2828-2836"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12515031/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70070","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Discussing GOC is essential to ensuring that patients' treatment recommendations and care plans are aligned with their preferences, priorities, and values. This review aims to characterize the existing literature on the quality, practices, and frameworks of goals of care (GOC) discussions in surgery to identify gaps and propose strategies for improvement.

Methods: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.Gov were searched using terms related to GOC, surgery, and best practices or education. The search strategy was run from inception to July 29, 2022. Studies regarding the quality of GOC discussions in surgery were included.

Results: The search identified 14,254 articles from which 37 were included for review. Key findings included (1) the reactive nature of GOC discussions and initiating conversations in response to acute health changes, (2) ambiguity around patient autonomy and the surgeon's duty to prioritize surgical treatment, (3) surgeons as curators of information, and (4) tendency of surgeons to provide a set of standard treatment pathways and determine specific care decisions rather than establish understanding of patients' long-term goals.

Conclusion: Further research is needed to determine best practices for caregiver and next-of-kin involvement and expand the diversity of reported experiences to include patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds and genders and individuals from rural and lower-resource communities. Findings from this review have important implications for improving GOC conversations to ensure they support patient-centered care.

外科护理讨论目标的范围综述:我们做得如何以及我们如何做得更好?
背景:讨论GOC对于确保患者的治疗建议和护理计划与他们的偏好、优先事项和价值观保持一致至关重要。这篇综述的目的是描述现有文献的质量,实践,和框架的护理目标(GOC)讨论在外科找出差距,并提出改进策略。方法:MEDLINE、MEDLINE In-Process/ epub、Embase、Cochrane中央对照试验注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库、Web of Science、Scopus和ClinicalTrials。Gov使用与GOC、手术、最佳实践或教育相关的术语进行搜索。该搜索策略从开始运行到2022年7月29日。包括关于手术中GOC讨论质量的研究。结果:检索确定了14,254篇文章,其中37篇被纳入审查。主要发现包括:(1)GOC讨论的反应性和针对急性健康变化发起的对话;(2)患者自主权和外科医生优先考虑手术治疗的责任模糊;(3)外科医生作为信息管理者;(4)外科医生倾向于提供一套标准治疗途径并确定具体的护理决策,而不是建立对患者长期目标的理解。结论:需要进一步的研究来确定护理人员和近亲属参与的最佳实践,并扩大报告经验的多样性,以包括来自不同种族背景和性别的患者以及来自农村和低资源社区的个人。本综述的发现对于改善GOC对话以确保其支持以患者为中心的护理具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Surgery
World Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
460
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信