‘Goals of Care’ Discussion in Surgical Settings: A Pilot Curriculum for the Training of the Faculty Members and Residents under Faculty of Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early consideration and communication about goals, values, and treatment preferences in the surgical settings can prevent patients (who are suffering from incurable disease e.g., terminal stages of cancer) from undergoing unwanted and unnecessary interventions and help them discuss their priorities (themselves, or along with family members or through surrogate decision-makers). However, there is no (bio)ethics curriculum/training in clinical education in Bangladesh to address the specific needs of the professionals to gain knowledge and skills in ‘goals of care’ discussion. Hence, this (bio)ethics education and training is intended to train surgical faculties and residents to enhance their knowledge, skills, and attitude towards ‘goals of care’ (GOC) conversations (near end of life). Ethics and values play crucial roles in ‘goals of care’ discussion. High quality care can only be achieved when a patient’s care is aligned with their goals, preferences, and values. Physicians do have thoroughly entrenched values like promoting health and reducing suffering, while patients may have some values of life, family connections, and religious or cultural beliefs. The prominent ethical principles behind the ‘goals of care’ discussion are: patient’s autonomy (patient’s choices and preferences based on his/her values of life, engagement of family members, or living in according with religious beliefs or cultural norms), beneficence (care planning aligning with patient’s disease course and prognosis), non-maleficence (avoiding unnecessary and unwanted interventions in terms of surgery or other therapies and resuscitation procedures) and distributive justice (in terms of resource allocation, e.g., unnecessary occupancy of hospital bed/ICU). This curriculum has been designed in a way that it is expected to enhance awareness about those ethical challenges based on ‘principlism’, and ways to overcome those challenges, which will ultimately lead to better communication skill, physician-patient relationship, improve patient safety and outcomes, and optimize the cost-effectiveness of organizational resources. Mugda Med Coll J. 2025; 8(2): 133-137
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".