ISSN Number - pISSN 2250 – 0685 | eISSN 2321-3817

Your Advertisement

Patient-Centered Care in Orthopedic Education: Bridging Gaps for Holistic Outcomes

Translate this page into:

Editorial
[https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2026.v16.i02.6722]
PDF Downloaded : 5 Fulltext Viewed : 17 views
CROSSMARK LOGO

Patient-Centered Care in Orthopedic Education: Bridging Gaps for Holistic Outcomes

Learning Point of the Article :
Integrating patient-centered care (PCC) into orthopedic education transforms clinical training by bridging the gap between technical expertise and holistic patient outcomes, fostering empathy, shared decision-making, and improved recovery experiences.
Editorial | Volume 16 | Issue 02 | JOCR February 2026 | Page 1-7 | Prakash Sigedar [1], Madhan Jeyaraman [2,3], Naveen Jeyaraman [2,3], Ashok Shyam [4,5] . DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2026.v16.i02.6722
Authors: Prakash Sigedar [1], Madhan Jeyaraman [2,3], Naveen Jeyaraman [2,3], Ashok Shyam [4,5]
[1] Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Sigedar Hospital, Jalna, Maharashtra, India,
[2] Department of Orthopaedics, ACS Medical College and Hospital, Dr. MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India,
[3] Department of Regenerative Medicine, Agathisha Institute of Stemcell and Regenerative Medicine (AISRM), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
[4] Indian Orthopaedic Research Group, Thane, Maharashtra, India,
[5] Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute for Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Address of Correspondence:
Dr. Madhan Jeyaraman, Department of Orthopaedics, ACS Medical College and Hospital, Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: madhanjeyaraman@gmail.com
Article Received : 2025-11-09,
Article Accepted : 2026-01-05

Abstract Patient-centered care (PCC) has emerged as a pivotal approach in healthcare, emphasizing the need to treat patients as active participants in their care rather than passive recipients. It focuses on understanding the unique needs, values, and preferences of individuals, fostering empathy, shared decision-making, and holistic outcomes. This scoping review explores the role of mentorship, feedback mechanisms, and reflective practices in fostering empathy and cultural competence. This article examines the challenges in implementing PCC within the rigid frameworks of medical curricula and proposes actionable strategies for overcoming these barriers. By aligning orthopedic education with PCC principles, medical institutions can cultivate a new generation of orthopedic surgeons who prioritize holistic outcomes, ensuring comprehensive care that meets the physical, emotional, and social needs of patients. The review delves into the concept of PCC within the context of orthopedic training, exploring its relevance, current shortcomings, and strategies for effective implementation. It highlights innovative teaching methods, the role of interdisciplinary collaboration, and the importance of fostering empathy and cultural competence among orthopedic trainees. The integration of PCC into orthopedic education is a transformative step toward achieving holistic outcomes in musculoskeletal health. Adopting PCC in orthopedic education has far-reaching benefits. It fosters stronger doctor-patient relationships, leading to greater patient satisfaction and trust. Patients who feel heard and involved in their care are more likely to adhere to treatment plans and experience improved clinical outcomes. Moreover, PCC equips orthopedic surgeons to address the emotional and social dimensions of recovery, promoting a better quality of life for patients. PCC represents a transformative approach in orthopedic education, bridging the gap between technical expertise and holistic patient outcomes. As healthcare evolves, the role of PCC becomes increasingly significant in addressing not only the physical but also the emotional, social, and psychological needs of patients. Integrating PCC into orthopedic education equips future surgeons with the skills necessary to foster trust, empathy, and shared decision-making, ultimately enhancing patient satisfaction and recovery.

Keywords: Integrated, patient-centered care, orthopedic education, bridging gaps, holistic outcomes.

Introduction

Patient-centered care (PCC) has emerged as a pivotal approach in healthcare, emphasizing the need to treat patients as active participants in their care rather than passive recipients. It focuses on understanding the unique needs, values, and preferences of individuals, fostering empathy, shared decision-making, and holistic outcomes. The key patient satisfaction factors are patient preferences, care coordination, emotional and physical comfort, attention of friends and family members, health education, and good healthcare access [1]. In the field of orthopedics, where treatment often involves complex interventions and prolonged recovery periods, the integration of PCC is particularly significant. Orthopedic care not only addresses physical ailments such as fractures, arthritis, and musculoskeletal disorders but also impacts patients’ emotional and social well-being [2,3,4].

Despite its importance, PCC is often underemphasized in traditional orthopedic education, which primarily focuses on technical expertise and clinical knowledge. This gap in training can lead to challenges in communication, reduced patient satisfaction, and suboptimal holistic outcomes. As healthcare evolves, there is a pressing need to bridge these gaps by embedding PCC principles into orthopedic education [5,6,7,8,9]. This article delves into the concept of PCC within the context of orthopedic training, exploring its relevance, current shortcomings, and strategies for effective implementation. It highlights innovative teaching methods, the role of interdisciplinary collaboration, and the importance of fostering empathy and cultural competence among orthopedic trainees. By addressing these aspects, the article aims to outline a roadmap for transforming orthopedic education to produce surgeons who excel not only in technical skills but also in delivering comprehensive, patient-focused care that enhances recovery and overall quality of life [2,10,11,12].

Evolution of PCC

PCC has emerged as a pivotal approach in modern healthcare, emphasizing the inclusion of patients’ values, preferences, and needs in clinical decision-making. PCC has been shown to contribute significantly to better health outcomes. Engle et al. stated that this approach emphasizes the individual’s preferences, needs, and values, and integrates them into the healthcare process. By focusing on collaboration between the patient and healthcare providers, PCC helps ensure that care is tailored to the individual [13].

In orthopedic education, this approach offers the potential to bridge gaps between technical expertise and holistic patient outcomes. This review explores key themes in the literature regarding the integration of PCC in orthopedic education [3,14,15,16,17,18,19].

  1. Theoretical foundations of PCC: PCC is rooted in the biopsychosocial model of health, which contrasts with the traditional biomedical model. Stewart et al. (2000) highlighted that PCC fosters better communication, trust, and satisfaction by addressing patients’ physical, emotional, and social needs. Epstein and Street (2011) emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, which aligns with the principles of PCC, enabling collaborative treatment planning.
  2. Impact of PCC on patient outcomes: Studies consistently demonstrate the positive impact of PCC on clinical outcomes. Rathert et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review showing improved patient satisfaction, adherence to treatment, and reduced recovery times in patient-centered orthopedic care. Similarly, Zgierska et al. (2014) reported that PCC reduces anxiety and improves functional outcomes in surgical patients.
  3. PCC in orthopedic education: Orthopedic education traditionally focuses on technical skills and disease management. However, recent studies advocate for incorporating PCC principles into training programs. Farley and Weinstein (2006) argued that orthopedic surgeons must develop communication skills and empathy to align with PCC practices. The CanMEDS (2015) framework also emphasizes the role of communication and professionalism in medical education, reinforcing the importance of PCC.
  4. Challenges in implementing PCC in orthopedic education: Despite its benefits, integrating PCC into orthopedic education faces several barriers. Levinson et al. (2010) noted that time constraints, lack of faculty training, and rigid curricula often hinder the adoption of PCC principles. In addition, Makary and Daniel (2016) highlighted systemic issues, such as limited resources and a focus on procedural efficiency, which can detract from patient-centered approaches.
  5. Strategies for bridging gaps: Innovative educational strategies are essential to bridge gaps in orthopedic education. Simulation-based learning, as discussed by Epstein et al. (2005), allows trainees to practice patient-centered communication in controlled environments. Furthermore, integrating patient narratives and feedback into the curriculum can enhance empathy and understanding of patient perspectives (Barry and Edgman-Levitan, 2012).
  6. Holistic outcomes in orthopedic care: The ultimate goal of PCC in orthopedic education is to achieve holistic outcomes, encompassing physical recovery, psychological well-being, and social reintegration. Kitson et al. (2013) emphasized that PCC not only improves clinical outcomes but also enhances the overall healthcare experience for patients and their families.

The literature underscores the critical role of PCC in transforming orthopedic education and practice. By addressing the gaps between technical training and holistic patient care, PCC offers a pathway to improved outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, achieving this requires systemic changes in educational frameworks, faculty training, and institutional support. This review highlights the need for continued research and innovation in integrating PCC into orthopedic education to meet the evolving demands of healthcare.

Highlights of PCC in Orthopedic Education

Orthopedic education has traditionally focused on technical skills and biomechanical understanding to treat musculoskeletal disorders effectively. However, with the evolving landscape of healthcare, there is a growing recognition of the need for a patient-centered approach. This approach emphasizes empathy, communication, shared decision-making, and holistic care to improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. Integrating PCC into orthopedic education can bridge existing gaps and ensure a more holistic approach to healthcare delivery. This article emphasizes the importance of transforming orthopedic education to align with the principles of PCC, paving the way for more compassionate and effective healthcare.

Need for PCC in Orthopedics

Orthopedic patients often face long-term conditions such as arthritis, fractures, and spinal disorders, requiring not only medical intervention but also psychological and emotional support. While orthopedic surgeons are adept at diagnosing and treating physical conditions, addressing patients’ mental, emotional, and social needs remains a challenge. Studies show that patients who feel heard and included in decision-making experience better recovery rates, adhere to treatment plans, and report higher satisfaction levels. However, current orthopedic education often lacks a structured framework for teaching these skills, focusing predominantly on surgical and clinical expertise [20,21].

Barriers to PCC in Orthopedic Education

Several factors hinder the integration of PCC into orthopedic education:

  1. Curriculum gaps: Most medical curricula prioritize technical skills over communication and empathy training
  2. Time constraints: Orthopedic surgeons and trainees often face packed schedules, leaving little time to engage deeply with patients
  3. Lack of faculty training: Educators themselves may not be equipped to teach PCC
  4. Cultural and systemic challenges: In some settings, the hierarchical nature of medical practice discourages open communication with patients [22,23,24,25].
Strategies for Integration

To incorporate PCC into orthopedic education, the following strategies can be implemented:

  1. Curriculum development: Introduce modules on communication skills, empathy, and shared decision-making and include case-based learning where students analyze patient stories to understand the psychosocial aspects of care.
  2. Simulation and role-playing: Conduct workshops where students interact with standardized patients to practice communication and empathy and use virtual reality or augmented reality tools to simulate patient interactions.
  3. Interdisciplinary learning: Collaborate with psychologists, physiotherapists, and social workers to provide a comprehensive understanding of patient needs.
  4. Patient feedback mechanisms: Encourage patients to provide feedback on their experiences with trainees and use this feedback as a learning tool for students to reflect on and improve their approach.
  5. Faculty training: Organize faculty development programs to equip educators with the skills to teach and model PCC.
  6. Evaluation metrics: Assess students on their ability to communicate effectively, demonstrate empathy, and involve patients in decision-making [26,27].
Benefits of PCC in Orthopedic Practice

 

Improved patient outcomes: Engaged and informed patients are more likely to adhere to treatment plans, leading to better recovery.
Enhanced patient satisfaction: Patients who feel valued and respected are more likely to trust their healthcare providers.
Reduced burnout: A patient-centered approach can foster better relationships, reducing stress for both patients and providers.
Holistic care delivery: Addressing physical, emotional, and social needs ensures comprehensive care.
Reduced costs by reducing the number of days of hospital stay and the number of review visits to the health center [28,29,30,31].

Case examples of PCC in orthopedic education

Case for PCC in orthopedics: Farley and Weinstein discuss the paradigm shift from disease-centered to PCC in orthopedics. They emphasize the importance of incorporating PCC into orthopedic practice and education to enhance patient outcomes.
Patient education in orthopedics: The role of information design and user experience: Goldschmidt et al. explore how information design and user experience can improve patient education in orthopedics, particularly for conditions like osteoarthritis. They highlight the need for patient-centered educational materials to enhance health literacy and patient engagement.
Pre-operative education – PCC approach: This study examines the impact of cost-effective, timely, quality, patient-centered pre-operative education on orthopedic patient outcomes. The findings suggest that such educational interventions can improve patient satisfaction and recovery.
Assessment of patient-centered and family-centered care: This article assesses patient engagement in orthopedic surgery, focusing on strategies to prevent wrong-site surgery. It underscores the importance of involving patients and families in the care process to enhance safety and outcomes.
Effectiveness of orthopedic patient education in improving outcomes: This review considers studies on adult patients requiring elective orthopedic surgery and examines how patient education influences outcomes. The review highlights the benefits of patient-centered educational approaches in improving recovery and satisfaction.

These examples illustrate the significance of integrating PCC principles into orthopedic practice and education to bridge gaps and achieve holistic patient outcomes.

Integration of PCC Into Orthopedic Education

The integration of PCC into orthopedic education is a transformative step toward achieving holistic outcomes in musculoskeletal health. Despite the undeniable importance of technical proficiency in orthopedics, an overemphasis on clinical and procedural skills often sidelines the interpersonal and empathetic dimensions of care. This education gap can lead to challenges such as diminished patient trust, suboptimal adherence to treatment plans, and inadequate attention to the psychosocial aspects of recovery [32,33,34].

A hip fracture is an unexpected event that necessitates prompt and higher levels of support from caregivers, such as family, friends, and neighbors. Individuals with fractures of the hip require ongoing assistance due to physical deconditioning or reduced function. While the individual is in the hospital, caregivers continue to play an important role in helping with daily activities (such as hygiene, dressing, and eating), as well as offering social and emotional support. Caregivers of individuals with hip fractures have reported challenges in adjusting to their new responsibilities, managing stress, navigating the unfamiliar, accessing the right information, and understanding the discharge process [35].

Challenges in Current Orthopedic Education

Orthopedic education traditionally focuses on biomechanics, surgical techniques, and disease management, often neglecting the broader context of patient needs. Limited exposure to communication training, cultural competence, and shared decision-making creates a disconnect between the physician’s expertise and the patient’s expectations. In addition, rigid curricula and time constraints in medical training leave little room for incorporating PCC principles [11,36,37,38].

Strategies to Bridge the Gap

To address these challenges, several strategies can be implemented:

  1. Curricular reforms: Incorporating PCC modules into orthopedic education can ensure that students and trainees develop a deeper understanding of patient perspectives. These modules should include topics such as empathy, active listening, and managing patient expectations.
  2. Simulation and role-playing: Simulated patient interactions and role-playing scenarios can provide trainees with opportunities to practice communication and decision-making skills in a controlled environment. For instance, scenarios involving complex discussions about surgical risks or rehabilitation plans can prepare trainees for real-life challenges.
  3. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Encouraging collaboration with physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and psychologists can expose trainees to a multidisciplinary approach to patient care. This holistic perspective helps trainees appreciate the importance of addressing both physical and psychosocial aspects of recovery.
  4. Mentorship and reflective practices: Mentorship programs can play a crucial role in instilling PCC values. Experienced orthopedic surgeons can model compassionate care, while reflective practices such as journaling or case discussions can help trainees internalize lessons from patient interactions.
  5. Patient feedback mechanisms: Incorporating structured patient feedback into training can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of communication and care delivery. This feedback can guide trainees in refining their approach to PCC [39,40].
Impact on Holistic Outcomes

Adopting PCC in orthopedic education has far-reaching benefits. It fosters stronger doctor-patient relationships, leading to greater patient satisfaction and trust. Patients who feel heard and involved in their care are more likely to adhere to treatment plans and experience improved clinical outcomes. Moreover, PCC equips orthopedic surgeons to address the emotional and social dimensions of recovery, promoting a better quality of life for patients [41].

Future Directions

To sustain the integration of PCC in orthopedic education, ongoing research, and innovation are necessary. Studies assessing the impact of PCC training on patient outcomes and trainee performance can provide evidence for further curricular reforms. In addition, leveraging technology such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence can enhance PCC training by simulating diverse patient scenarios.

The terminology of “eHealth technology” refers to the utilization of modalities ssuch as Mobile apps, and social media platforms, to deliver digital information, emergency interventions, and related educational awareness content to the patients and their relatives [42].

Bridging the gap between traditional orthopedic education and PCC is essential for achieving holistic outcomes. By incorporating PCC principles into training, orthopedic education can produce surgeons who not only excel in technical expertise but also deliver compassionate, comprehensive care. This shift will ultimately benefit both patients and the healthcare system, fostering a culture of empathy and collaboration in orthopedics.

Conclusion

PCC represents a transformative approach to orthopedic education, bridging the gap between technical expertise and holistic patient outcomes. As healthcare evolves, the role of PCC becomes increasingly significant in addressing not only the physical but also the emotional, social, and psychological needs of patients. Integrating PCC into orthopedic education equips future surgeons with the skills necessary to foster trust, empathy, and shared decision-making, ultimately enhancing patient satisfaction and recovery. Future efforts must focus on developing structured frameworks and fostering a culture of PCC within orthopedic education, ensuring that the next generation of orthopedic surgeons is equipped to deliver care that is as compassionate as it is competent.

Clinical Message
  • PCC enhances orthopedic outcomes by fostering empathy, shared decision-making, and addressing psychosocial needs alongside physical recovery
  • Integrating PCC into orthopedic training equips future surgeons with essential communication and cultural competence skills, improving patient trust and treatment adherence
  • Structured feedback, simulation, and interdisciplinary collaboration are key strategies to embed PCC principles into orthopedic education and transform clinical practice.

References

  • 1.
    Kuipers SJ, Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. The importance of patient-centered care and co-creation of care for satisfaction with care and physical and social well-being of patients with multi-morbidity in the primary care setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2019;19:13. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 2.
    Epstein RM, Street RL. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med 2011;9:100-3. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 3.
    Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract 2000;49:796-804. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 4.
    Jensen CM. Person centred practice in orthopaedic and trauma care. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs 2023;51:101053. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 5.
    Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2006;60:301-12. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 6.
    Charon R. The patient-physician relationship. Narrative medicine: A model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust. JAMA 2001;286:1897-902. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 7.
    Cliff B. Patient-centered care: The role of healthcare leadership. J Healthc Manag 2012;57:381-3. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 8.
    Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010;376:1923-58. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 9.
    Baumann C, Rat AC, Osnowycz G, Mainard D, Cuny C, Guillemin F. Satisfaction with care after total hip or knee replacement predicts self-perceived health status after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009;10:150. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 10.
    Hafferty F, Castellani B. The Hidden Curriculum: A Theory of Medical Education; 2009. Available from: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1632759/the-hidden-curriculum-a-theory-of-medical-education [Last accessed on 2025 Mar 15]. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 11.
    Levinson W, Lesser CS, Epstein RM. Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:1310-8. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 12.
    Farley FA, Weinstein SL. The case for patient-centered care in orthopaedics. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006;14:447-51. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 13.
    Engle RL, Mohr DC, Holmes SK, Seibert MN, Afable M, Leyson J, et al. Evidence-based practice and patient-centered care: Doing both well. Health Care Manage Rev 2021;46:174-84. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 14.
    Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016;353:i2139. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 15.
    Légaré F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: Examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32:276-84. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 16.
    Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2013;70:351-79. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 17.
    (PDF) CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289254803_canmeds_2015_physician_competency_framework [Last accessed on 2025 Mar 15]. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 18.
    Pelzang R. Time to learn: Understanding patient-centred care. Br J Nurs 2010;19:912-7. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 19.
    Haidet P, Paterniti DA. “Building” a history rather than “taking” one: A perspective on information sharing during the medical interview. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1134-40. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 20.
    Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care. 3rd ed. Wiley. Available from: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/improving+patient+care%3a+the+implementation+of+change+in+health+care%2c+3rd+edition-p-9781119488606 [Last accessed on 2025 Mar 15]. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 21.
    Zgierska A, Rabago D, Miller MM. Impact of patient satisfaction ratings on physicians and clinical care. Patient Prefer Adherence 2014;8:437-46. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 22.
    Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centred consultations and outcomes in primary care: A review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2002;48:51-61. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 23.
    Hingorani AD, Windt DA, Riley RD, Abrams K, Moons KG, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: Stratified medicine research. BMJ 2013;346:e5793. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 24.
    Fiscella K, Epstein RM. So much to do, so little time: Care for the socially disadvantaged and the 15-minute visit. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1843-52. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 25.
    Berwick DM. What ‘patient-centered’ should mean: Confessions of an extremist. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:w555-65. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 26.
    Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press US; 2001. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/nbk222274 [Last accessed on 2025 Mar 15]. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 27.
    Coulter A, Oldham J. Person-centred care: What is it and how do we get there? Future Hosp J 2016;3:114-6. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 28.
    Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust 2004;180:S57-60. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 29.
    Moira S. Patient-Centered Medicine-Transforming the Clinical Method. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.1201/9781003394679/patient-centered-medicine-moira-stewart-judith-belle-brown-wayne-weston-thomas-freeman-bridget-ryan-carol-mcwilliam-ian-mcwhinney [Last accessed on 2025 Mar 15]. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
  • 30.
    Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780-1. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 31.
    Stenberg U, Vågan A, Flink M, Lynggaard V, Fredriksen K, Westermann KF, et al. Health economic evaluations of patient education interventions a scoping review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2018;101:1006-35. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 32.
    Kitson A, Marshall A, Bassett K, Zeitz K. What are the core elements of patient-centred care? A narrative review and synthesis of the literature from health policy, medicine and nursing. J Adv Nurs 2013;69:4-15. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 33.
    Dwamena F, Holmes-Rovner M, Gaulden CM, Jorgenson S, Sadigh G, Sikorskii A, et al. Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD003267. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 34.
    Frankel RM, Stein T. Getting the most out of the clinical encounter: The four habits model. J Med Pract Manage 2001;16:184-91. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 35.
    Dautel A, Eckert T, Gross M, Hauer K, Schäufele M, Lacroix A, et al. Multifactorial intervention for hip and pelvic fracture patients with mild to moderate cognitive impairment: Study protocol of a dual-centre randomised controlled trial (OF-CARE). BMC Geriatr 2019;19:125. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 36.
    Epstein RM, Franks P, Fiscella K, Shields CG, Meldrum SC, Kravitz RL, et al. Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1516-28. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 37.
    Teutsch C. Patient-doctor communication. Med Clin North Am 2003;87:1115-45. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 38.
    Rathert C, May DR, Williams ES. Beyond service quality: The mediating role of patient safety perceptions in the patient experience-satisfaction relationship. Health Care Manage Rev 2011;36:359-68. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 39.
    Street RL, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 2009;74:295-301. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 40.
    Initial Lessons from the First National Demonstration Project on Practice Transformation to a Patient-Centered Medical Home – PubMed. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19433844 [Last accessed 2025 Mar 15]. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  • 41.
    Engaging Patients in Healthcare. Default Book Series. Avilable from: https://mhebooklibrary.com/doi/book/10.1036/9780335242726 [Last accessed on 2025 Mar 15]. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
  • 42.
    Wolff JL, Darer JD, Larsen KL. Family caregivers and consumer health information technology. J Gen Intern Med 2016;31:117-21. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
How to Cite This Article: Sigedar P, Jeyaraman M, Jeyaraman N, Shyam A. Patient-Centered Care in Orthopedic Education: Bridging Gaps for Holistic Outcomes. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports 2026 February, 16(02): 1-7.