Clinical Research Directory

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

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.

Informing Patients About Their Surgery's Environmental Impact: an Effective Pathway to Sustainable Healthcare?

The healthcare sector contributes significantly to climate change. Reducing the number of patients receiving resource-intensive procedures such as surgery can lower carbon emissions, particularly when two treatments with comparable clinical outcomes are available. Nevertheless, the impact of incorporating environmental considerations into patients' decision-making processes remains underexplored. The investigators examine how including information about the environmental impact of treatment options in a gallstone decision aid affects patients' real-life choice between surgery and the more sustainable alternative of conservative treatment. Moreover, the investigators examine whether factors such as severity of symptoms moderate the relation between sustainability information and patients' treatment choice. An exploratory vignette study informed the hypotheses that will be tested among actual patients with gallstones making actual treatment decisions. The results of this ecologically valid study have implications for both clinical practice and healthcare policy by offering insight into the effectiveness of pathways to include patients in the transition towards sustainable healthcare.

Code Status Discussions in Muslim ICU Patients: Insights Into Physician-Family Communication

This observational study aims to explore the real-time experiences, perceptions, and challenges faced by intensive care unit (ICU) physicians during goals-of-care discussions-specifically Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) and end-of-life decision-making conversations-with families of critically ill patients in a Muslim-majority healthcare setting. The study seeks to identify factors that influence whether a DNAR decision is reached after physician-family discussions, and how physician experience, family dynamics, religious perspectives, and institutional support affect communication outcomes and care transitions. Participants will include ICU physicians (residents, fellows, and consultants) who routinely conduct DNAR discussions as part of clinical care. After each discussion, physicians will complete a brief structured questionnaire about their perceptions of the interaction, family emotions, and decision outcomes. These responses will be anonymously linked to limited, de-identified patient-level data (e.g., diagnosis, ICU course, and outcome) extracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record. No patients or family members will be contacted directly. Data collection will occur prospectively over two years at King Faisal Specialist Hospital \& Research Centre-Jeddah. Findings from this study are expected to provide culturally grounded insights that inform physician training, enhance family-centered communication, and guide policy development for DNAR and end-of-life discussions in Muslim-majority intensive care units.

Shared Decision-Making for Families in Critical Dialysis Initiation

Background:Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent and serious complication in critically ill patients, often necessitating difficult decisions about starting hemodialysis. While shared decision-making (SDM) is known to improve communication, the effectiveness of structured SDM programs specifically designed for family members in this critical context is not well-established. Aims: The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured shared decision-making (SDM) program for family members of patients requiring critical hemodialysis initiation. We will assess the program's impact on the quality of the decision-making process (e.g., decision conflict, regret) and the psychological well-being (e.g., anxiety, depression) of the family members. Methods: This study is a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants (family members of patients with AKI initiating hemodialysis) will be randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group will receive a structured SDM support program, while the control group will receive standard care. Primary outcomes, including decision conflict, decision regret, anxiety, and depression, will be measured at baseline and follow-up. Data will be analyzed using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to compare the effectiveness between the two groups.

Decision Support Intervention of Minor Cancer Patients and Their Parents

The purpose of this stuidy are: (1) to explore the information needs of parents having children with cancer when making treatment decisions; (2) to develop a Taiwan version of the Control Preferences Scale for decision support aids; (3) to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of involving minor cancer patients and their parents in treatment decision-making.

This Study Aims to Quantify Decisional Regret as Well as Quality of Life in Patients With Low- to High-risk Cancer and High Burden of Symptoms Undergoing Radiotherapy Using Established Questionnaires.

In this prospective registry study, patients with low-, intermediate- and high-risk tumor entities as well as patients with high symptom burden of any tumor entity in palliative constellation with indication for radiation treatment are included. This radiation treatment can be applied either as 3D-conformal RT or IGRT. The duration of treatment can range from one day to several weeks. For the primary endpoint as well as the secondary clinical and other exploratory endpoints, the 3 groups will be compared in terms of DR, QoL, toxicities and treatment plan parameters