Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar 18;19(3):e0299933.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299933. eCollection 2024.

Examining how goals of care communication are conducted between doctors and patients with severe acute illness in hospital settings: A realist systematic review

Affiliations

Examining how goals of care communication are conducted between doctors and patients with severe acute illness in hospital settings: A realist systematic review

Jamie Gross et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Patient involvement in goals of care decision-making has shown to enhance satisfaction, affective-cognitive outcomes, allocative efficiency, and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. However, the involvement of patients in goals of care planning within hospitals remains limited, particularly where mismatches in shared understanding between doctors and patients are present.

Aim: To identify and critically examine factors influencing goals of care conversations between doctors and patients during acute hospital illness.

Design: Realist systematic review following the RAMESES standards. A protocol has been published in PROSPERO (CRD42021297410). The review utilised realist synthesis methodology, including a scoping literature search to generate initial theories, theory refinement through stakeholder consultation, and a systematic literature search to support program theory.

Data sources: Data were collected from Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus databases (1946 to 14 July 2023), citation tracking, and Google Scholar. Open-Grey was utilized to identify relevant grey literature. Studies were selected based on relevance and rigor to support theory development.

Results: Our analysis included 52 papers, supporting seven context-mechanism-output (CMO) hypotheses. Findings suggest that shared doctor-patient understanding relies on doctors being confident, competent, and personable to foster trusting relationships with patients. Low doctor confidence often leads to avoidance of discussions. Moreover, information provided to patients is often inconsistent, biased, procedure-focused, and lacks personalisation. Acute illness, medical jargon, poor health literacy, and high emotional states further hinder patient understanding.

Conclusions: Goals of care conversations in hospitals are nuanced and often suboptimal. To improve patient experiences and outcome of care interventions should be personalised and tailored to individual needs, emphasizing effective communication and trusting relationships among patients, families, doctors, and healthcare teams. Inclusion of caregivers and acknowledgment at the service level are crucial for achieving desired outcomes. Implications for policy, research, and clinical practice, including further training and skills development for doctors, are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Model proposing how CMO hypotheses may be inter-related.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Belanger E. Shared decision-making in palliative care: Research priorities to align care with patients’ values. Palliative Medicine. 2017;31(7):585–6. doi: 10.1177/0269216317713864 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuosmanen L, Hupli M, Ahtiluoto S, Haavisto E. Patient participation in shared decision-making in palliative care–an integrative review. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2021;30(23–24):3415–28. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15866 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114–31. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14551638 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mulley AG. 30 The role of shared decision making in achieving allocative efficiency in health systems. In: Elwyn G, Edwards A, Thompson R, editors. Shared Decision Making in Health Care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice: Oxford University Press; 2016. ISBN: 9780198723448
    1. Brabers AE, van Dijk L, Groenewegen PP, van Peperstraten AM, de Jong JD. Does a strategy to promote shared decision-making reduce medical practice variation in the choice of either single or double embryo transfer after in vitro fertilisation? A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e010894. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010894 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types