Patient-centred Care in Liver Transplantation in Georgia:Implications for Professionalism, Communication, and Accredited Transplant Services
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18207027%20Keywords:
liver transplantation, patient-centred care, professionalism, Clinical communication, Healthcare quality, Accreditation standards, transplant ethics, GeorgiaAbstract
Liver transplantation represents one of the most complex and ethically demanding domains of contemporary healthcare, characterised by prolonged care pathways, organ scarcity, and heightened vulnerability of both recipients and living donors. In Georgia, the expansion of liver transplant services over the past decade has demonstrated increasing clinical capacity while simultaneously exposing systemic challenges related to access, communication, continuity, and ethical governance. This commentary examines patient-centred care in liver transplantation as an organisational and educational responsibility rather than an individual professional attribute. Drawing on international transplant evidence, Georgian clinical experience, and accreditation standards governing access, intake, informed consent, living donation, and ethics oversight, the article argues that patient-centred transplant care can only be sustained through integrated systems of professionalism, communication, and institutional accountability.
References
1. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). OPTN/SRTR 2023 Annual Data Report: Liver Transplantation. Rockville, MD; 2024.
2. NHS Blood and Transplant. Annual Report on Liver Transplantation 2023–2024. London; 2024.
3. Georgian Association of Transplantologists. National Transplant Activity Report. Tbilisi; 2022.
4. Mkurnali.ge. Liver transplantation in Georgia: current practice and challenges. 2017.
5. Kamkamidze G, et al. Early outcomes of liver transplantation in Georgia. Georgian Medical News. 2018;(278):52–58.
6. Mortuladze M, Kamkamidze G, Beridze S, Kashibadze K, Nagervadze M. Blood groups and living donor liver transplantation in Georgia. WSEAS Trans Biol Biomed. 2025;22:389–399.
7. Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Steinert Y. Teaching professionalism across cultural and national borders. Med Teach. 2010;32(5):371–374.
8. Hafferty FW, O’Donnell JF. The Hidden Curriculum in Health Professional Education. Dartmouth College Press; 2014.
9. Hodges BD, Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Lingard L. Professional identity formation. Acad Med. 2019;94(5):707–713.
10. Accreditation Canada. Qmentum Global Standards: Organ Donation and Transplantation – Investing in Quality Services. Version 4. Ottawa; 2023.
11. Colmenero J, et al. Risk factors for non-adherence to immunosuppressive therapy in liver transplantation: an umbrella review. Transplant Rev. 2024;38(1):100723.
12. Dew MA, DiMartini AF, De Vito Dabbs A, et al. Adherence to the medical regimen during the first two years after liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2007;83(6):817–824.
13. Abecassis M, et al. Consensus statement on the live organ donor. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2919–2926.
14. Delmonico FL, et al. Ethical incentives—not payment—for organ donation. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(25):2002–2005.
15. World Health Organization. People-centred and integrated health services: an overview of the evidence. Geneva; 2015.
16. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2001.
17. Epstein RM, Street RL. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):100–103.
18. Levinson W, Lesser CS, Epstein RM. Developing physician communication skills for patient-centred care. Health Aff. 2010;29(7):1310–1318.
19. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2013 (as amended).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sulkhan Inaishvili
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
License Terms
This article is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
You are free to: share and adapt the work for any purpose, even commercially.
Conditions: provide appropriate credit to the authors and Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ), link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. Do not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the licence permits.
Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ · Legal code: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Third-party material. Images or other content credited to a third party are not covered by CC BY 4.0; permission must be obtained from the rights holder for reuse beyond statutory exceptions.
Authors’ rights. Authors retain copyright. First publication rights are granted to GMJ.
Data & code. Where provided, datasets or code may carry their own licences; please follow the licence stated in the article or repository record.
Recommended citation: Author(s). Title. Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ) Year;Volume(Issue):Pages. CC BY 4.0.
A new scientific commentary published in the Georgian Medical Journal examines the ethical and legal foundations for including critically ill patients in clinical research. The article is based on international standards and the Georgian regulatory context and is available in English with a DOI.
An overview of the evolution of ISO 15189—from a technical laboratory standard to a foundation of patient safety and health system trust—highlighting the roles of international organisations, WHO, and modern accreditation frameworks.
