Ignite Creation Date:
2026-03-26 @ 3:15 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2026-03-26 @ 3:35 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT07327450
Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2026-02-18
First Post:
2025-12-24
Is Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Coaching Doctors and Nurses to Improve Ethical Decision-making in Team
Sponsor:
University Hospital, Ghent
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Coaching Doctors and Nurses to Improve Ethical Decision-making in Team: a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial in 10 Departments of the Ghent University Hospital
Status:
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2026-02
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
CODE II
Brief Summary:
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 the Ghent University Hospital. In this study, the investigators 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, the investigators 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 the 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 the investigators 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:
See protocol
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: