Coaching doctors to improve ethical decision-making in adult hospitalized patients potentially receiving excessive treatment. The CODE stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess whether coaching doctors to enhance ethical decision-making in teams improves (1) goal-oriented care operationalized via written do-not-intubate and do-not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNI-DNACPR) orders in adult patients potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) during their first hospital stay and (2) the quality of the ethical climate.

Methods: We carried out a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and 9 referring internal medicine departments of Ghent University Hospital between February 2022 and February 2023. Doctors and nurses in charge of hospitalized patients filled out the ethical decision-making climate questionnaire (ethical decision-making climate questionnaire, EDMCQ) before and after the study, and anonymously identified PET via an electronic alert during the entire study period. All departments were randomly assigned to a 4-month coaching. At least one month of coaching was compared to less than one month coaching and usual care. The first primary endpoint was the incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions. The second primary endpoint was the EDMCQ before and after the study period. Because clinicians identified less PET than required to detect a difference in written DNI-DNACPR decisions, a post-hoc analysis on the overall population was performed. To reduce type I errors, we further restricted the analysis to one of our predefined secondary endpoints (mortality up to 1 year).

Results: Of the 442 and 423 clinicians working before and after the study period, respectively 270 (61%) and 261 (61.7%) filled out the EDMCQ. Fifty of the 93 (53.7%) doctors participated in the coaching for a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 4.36 (2.55) sessions. Of the 7254 patients, 125 (1.7%) were identified as PET, with 16 missing outcome data. Twenty-six of the PET and 624 of the overall population already had a written DNI-DNACPR decision at study entry, resulting in 83 and 6614 patients who were included in the main and post hoc analysis, respectively. The estimated incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions in the intervention vs. control arm was, respectively, 29.7% vs. 19.6% (odds ratio 4.24, 95% confidence interval 4.21-4.27; P < 0.001) in PET and 3.4% vs. 1.9% (1.65, 1.12-2.43; P = 0.011) in the overall study population. The estimated mortality at one year was respectively 85% vs. 83.7% (hazard ratio 2.76, 1.26-6.04; P = 0.011) and 14.5% vs. 15.1% (0.89, 0.72-1.09; P = 0.251). The mean difference in EDMCQ before and after the study period was 0.02 points (- 0.18 to 0.23; P = 0.815).

Conclusion: This study suggests that coaching doctors regarding ethical decision-making in teams safely improves goal-oriented care operationalized via written DNI-DNACPR decisions in hospitalized patients, however without concomitantly improving the quality of the ethical climate.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05167019.

Keywords: Advance care planning; Decision-making; End of life; Ethics; Goal-oriented care; Interprofessional collaboration; Palliative care; Treatment-limitation-decisions.

Fig. 1

Flowchart. PET patients potentially receiving excessive treatment, DNI-DNACPR do-not-intubate and do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Fig. 2

EDMCQ pre-post for all clinicians. EDMCQ ethical-decision-making climate questionnaire. Two-sided t-tests on combined paired and unpaired data were performed. The stars are only intended to flag levels of significance: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.