Shared Decision Making in the Geriatric Surgery Verification Program: Assessing Baseline Performance
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, ISSN: 0885-3924, Vol: 65, Issue: 6, Page: 510-520.e3
2023
- 6Citations
- 22Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
As part of the launch of the Geriatric Surgery Verification program in 2019, the American College of Surgeons issued care standards for older patients, including requirements for preoperative documentation of patients’ goals. Hospital performance on these standards prior to the Geriatric Surgery Verification program is unknown. To assess baseline performance of the Geriatric Surgery Verification (GSV) standard for documentation of preoperative goals for older patients, and to determine factors associated with standard adherence. Using natural language processing, this study examines the electronic health records of patients aged 65 years or older who underwent coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) or colectomies in 2017 or 2018 at three hospitals. The primary outcome was adherence to at least one of the three components of GSV Standard 5.1, which requires preoperative documentation of overall health goals, treatment goals, and patient-centered outcomes. A total of 2630 operations and 2563 patients were included. At least one component of the standard was met in 307 (11.7%) operations and all three components were met in 5 (0.2%). Higher likelihood of meeting the standard was demonstrated for patients who were female (odds ratio [OR] 1.30; 95% CI 1.00–1.68), undergoing colectomy (OR 2.82; 95% CI 2.15–3.72), or with more comorbidities (Charlson scores >3 [OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.14–2.09]). Before GSV program implementation, clinicians for two major operations almost never met the GSV standard for preoperative discussion of patient goals. Interdisciplinary teams will need to adjust clinical practice to meet best-practice communication standards for older patients.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392423000507; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.01.018; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85150263246&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36736861; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0885392423000507; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.01.018
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know