Coaching Doctors and Nurses to Improve Ethical Decision-making in Team

NCT ID: NCT07327450

Last Updated: 2026-01-08

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

NOT_YET_RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

360 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2026-03-01

Study Completion Date

2028-02-28

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Literature and a pilot study performed in 2019 indicate room for enhancing openness to discuss ethical sensitive issues within and between teams, and improving goal-oriented care and decision-making for the benefit of the patient at end-of-life, worldwide and more specifically in Belgium and in the Ghent University Hospital. The CODE study intervention performed in 2021 suggests already an improvement in goal oriented care operationalized via written Do-Not-Intubate and Do-Not-Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNI-DNACPR orders in our hospital. In this study, we found a nearly doubling of the incidence in written DNI-DNACPR in patient potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) (from 19.7% to 29.7%, p\<0.001) and in patients hospitalized for the first time (from 1.9% to 3.4%, p=0.011) without increasing one-year mortality, after coaching doctors during 4 months in self-reflective and empowering leadership, and coping with group dynamics. However, we found no improvement in the perception of the quality of the ethical climate by clinicians, more specifically by nurses. Despite the fact that ethical decision-making is considered a strategic priority in the Ghent University Hospital and an intense communication campaign, clinicians identified also a much smaller number of PET during this interventional study than during our observational pilot study in 2019. Although fading attention for the study over time and visibility of the electronic CODE alert to identify PET was claimed as the main reasons by 75% and 50.7% of the nurses, respectively, 95% expressed the desire to keep on using this alert in the future. This underscores a deeper concern in nurses. More than 40% expressed fear of blaming doctors or skepticism regarding the impact of identifying PET. Nonetheless, 35% acknowledged improvement in interdisciplinary meetings about end-of-life issues since study initiation. These findings highlights the need to additionally coach the entire team in future studies. Indeed, creating a safe climate which enhances inter-professional shared decision-making for the benefit of the patient requires both, specific self-reflective and empowering leadership skills in doctors and head nurses (including the management of group dynamics in the interdisciplinary team), and confidence in speaking up in nurses and other health care professionals. This is what we want to develop with this intervention. These skills will also help clinicians during patient and family meetings which will enable clinicians to better take into account the patient's and family's wishes.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

See protocol

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Decision Making ,Shared Leadership End of Life Communication End of Life Decision Making End of Life Patients Ethical Sensitivities Coaching

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

SEQUENTIAL

In total 50 to 75 junior doctors, 50 to 75 senior doctors (including medical head of department), 300 to 500 nurses (including head nurses) and 100 to 200 allied health professionals working in 10 departments of the Ghent University Hospital are eligible for this study and about 350 to 700 adult patients potentially receiving excessive treatment who did not yet receive a written DNI-DNACPR order together with one of their relatives. Stepped wedge cluster randomized trial in 10 hospital wards combined with pre- and post-measurement of the ethical climate.
Primary Study Purpose

SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants
Patients will be blinded to the 4 months intervention period

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Usual care

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Usual Care Group

Intervention Type OTHER

The control group will receive usual care in which the quality of the ethical decision-making is determined by the clinical team according to their usual pratice. Except from a treatment-limitation-decisions guideline which focuses on the legal and deontological framework, no other guideline with regard to ethical decision-making has been implemented at the Ghent University Hospital.

CODE II intervention

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

CODE II intervention

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

1\) One interactive session of two hours focusing on the concepts of medical-ethical decision-making, the psychological challenge of dealing with ethically sensitive medical topics, empowering leadership and the importance of "speaking up" within the team. 2) Every clinician will be invited to provide perceptions of excessive treatment via the electronic patient file. Once a patient is identified by two or more different clinicians, an email will be sent to coaches and the clinicians in charge of the PET during intervention period. 3) The 4 months coaching intervention will consist of : a. Doctors and head nurses : individual coaching sessions in self-reflective and empowering leadership and in managing groups dynamics with regard to ethical decision-making in team about PET patients. b. All clinicians : multidisciplinary coaching during work shift hand-overs and structured metareflective sessions on specific themes related to ethical decision-making in team about PET.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Usual Care Group

The control group will receive usual care in which the quality of the ethical decision-making is determined by the clinical team according to their usual pratice. Except from a treatment-limitation-decisions guideline which focuses on the legal and deontological framework, no other guideline with regard to ethical decision-making has been implemented at the Ghent University Hospital.

Intervention Type OTHER

CODE II intervention

1\) One interactive session of two hours focusing on the concepts of medical-ethical decision-making, the psychological challenge of dealing with ethically sensitive medical topics, empowering leadership and the importance of "speaking up" within the team. 2) Every clinician will be invited to provide perceptions of excessive treatment via the electronic patient file. Once a patient is identified by two or more different clinicians, an email will be sent to coaches and the clinicians in charge of the PET during intervention period. 3) The 4 months coaching intervention will consist of : a. Doctors and head nurses : individual coaching sessions in self-reflective and empowering leadership and in managing groups dynamics with regard to ethical decision-making in team about PET patients. b. All clinicians : multidisciplinary coaching during work shift hand-overs and structured metareflective sessions on specific themes related to ethical decision-making in team about PET.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Patients potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) who are identified by clinicians during their first hospitalization. PET is defined as a patient in whom 2 or more clinicians doubt whether the treatment or treatment limitation code is consistent with their expected survival or quality of life (= "too much" or "excessive treatment") or whether the treatment limitation code is in line with the patient's or relatives' goals.
* Family members of PET
* Junior and senior doctors (including Department Heads) taking care of hospitalized patients
* Nurses (including head nurses) taking care of hospitalized patients
* Allied health professionals (psychologists, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, social workers, spiritual care providers) taking care of hospitalized patients
* PET admitted / clinicians working in the 10 participating departments of of the Ghent University Hospital (Cardiology, Gastro-enterology and Hepatology, General Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, Hematology, Medical Oncology, Neurology, Nephrology (including dialysis unit), Pulmonology and the Medical ICU)

Exclusion Criteria

* PET with a previous written DNI-DNACPR order
* Patients and family members of PET who are less than 18 years old and persons who cannot understand Ducth questionnaires
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University Hospital, Ghent

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Ghent University Hospital

Ghent, East-Flanders, Belgium

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Belgium

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Dominique Benoit, MD, PhD

Role: CONTACT

+32 (9) 332 27 75

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Domininique Benoit, MD, PhD

Role: primary

+32 (9) 332 27 75

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Gerritsen RT, Koopmans M, Hofhuis JG, Curtis JR, Jensen HI, Zijlstra JG, Engelberg RA, Spronk PE. Comparing Quality of Dying and Death Perceived by Family Members and Nurses for Patients Dying in US and Dutch ICUs. Chest. 2017 Feb;151(2):298-307. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.09.003. Epub 2016 Sep 19.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27660153 (View on PubMed)

Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers PP, Kempen GI, Speckens AE, Van Hemert AM. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med. 1997 Mar;27(2):363-70. doi: 10.1017/s0033291796004382.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 9089829 (View on PubMed)

Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain. 1983 Sep;17(1):45-56. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 6226917 (View on PubMed)

Jensen HI, Gerritsen RT, Koopmans M, Downey L, Engelberg RA, Curtis JR, Spronk PE, Zijlstra JG, Ording H. Satisfaction with quality of ICU care for patients and families: the euroQ2 project. Crit Care. 2017 Sep 7;21(1):239. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1826-7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28882192 (View on PubMed)

Sinclair S, Kondejewski J, Hack TF, Boss HCD, MacInnis CC. What is the Most Valid and Reliable Compassion Measure in Healthcare? An Updated Comprehensive and Critical Review. Patient. 2022 Jul;15(4):399-421. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00571-1. Epub 2022 Feb 2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 35107822 (View on PubMed)

US Department of Health and Human Services. Hospital compare quality of care. 2011. www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002087.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11491192 (View on PubMed)

Benoit DD, De Pauw A, Jacobs C, Moors I, Offner F, Velghe A, Van Den Noortgate N, Depuydt P, Druwe P, Hemelsoet D, Meurs A, Malotaux J, Van Biesen W, Verbeke F, Derom E, Stevens D, De Pauw M, Tromp F, Van Vlierberghe H, Callebout E, Goethals K, Lievrouw A, Liu L, Manesse F, Vanheule S, Piers R. Coaching doctors to improve ethical decision-making in adult hospitalized patients potentially receiving excessive treatment. The CODE stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2024 Oct;50(10):1635-1646. doi: 10.1007/s00134-024-07588-0. Epub 2024 Sep 4.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 39230678 (View on PubMed)

Benoit DD, Vanheule S, Manesse F, Anseel F, De Soete G, Goethals K, Lievrouw A, Vansteelandt S, De Haan E, Piers R; CODE study group. Coaching doctors to improve ethical decision-making in adult hospitalised patients potentially receiving excessive treatment: Study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2023 Mar 21;18(3):e0281447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281447. eCollection 2023.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 36943825 (View on PubMed)

Benoit DD, Jensen HI, Malmgren J, Metaxa V, Reyners AK, Darmon M, Rusinova K, Talmor D, Meert AP, Cancelliere L, Zubek L, Maia P, Michalsen A, Vanheule S, Kompanje EJO, Decruyenaere J, Vandenberghe S, Vansteelandt S, Gadeyne B, Van den Bulcke B, Azoulay E, Piers RD; DISPROPRICUS study group of the Ethics Section of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Outcome in patients perceived as receiving excessive care across different ethical climates: a prospective study in 68 intensive care units in Europe and the USA. Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jul;44(7):1039-1049. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5231-8. Epub 2018 May 28.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 29808345 (View on PubMed)

Bekelman JE, Halpern SD, Blankart CR, Bynum JP, Cohen J, Fowler R, Kaasa S, Kwietniewski L, Melberg HO, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B, Oosterveld-Vlug M, Pring A, Schreyogg J, Ulrich CM, Verne J, Wunsch H, Emanuel EJ; International Consortium for End-of-Life Research (ICELR). Comparison of Site of Death, Health Care Utilization, and Hospital Expenditures for Patients Dying With Cancer in 7 Developed Countries. JAMA. 2016 Jan 19;315(3):272-83. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18603.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26784775 (View on PubMed)

Kompanje EJ, Piers RD, Benoit DD. Causes and consequences of disproportionate care in intensive care medicine. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013 Dec;19(6):630-5. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000026.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24240830 (View on PubMed)

Curtis JR, Vincent JL. Ethics and end-of-life care for adults in the intensive care unit. Lancet. 2010 Oct 16;376(9749):1347-53. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60143-2. Epub 2010 Oct 11.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20934213 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

ONZ-2025-0602

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Facilitating Communication Study
NCT03721952 COMPLETED NA