https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5261-220X
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
High quality hospital care for serious ill persons requires exemplary team-based communication and decision-making. However, there is a need for evidence-based interventions in this area. This study’s aim is to gain insight in the adoption and implementation of the COaching Doctors to improve Ethical decision-making (CODE) intervention, composed of one-on-one professional coaching in doctors and an alert to identify patients potentially receiving excessive treatment.
Methods
Mixed-method process evaluation study using focus group interviews, sub-analysis of the ethical decision-making climate questionnaire (EDMCQ) in nurses and doctors and a satisfaction survey in doctors.
Results
Of the 423 clinicians, 198 (60.2%) nurses and 63 (67.0%) doctors filled-out the EDMCQ and 20 nurses and 12 doctors participated to the focus-group interviews respectively. Thirty-five (70%) of the 50 coached doctors filled-out the satisfaction survey.
Doctors estimated their leadership skills higher than the nurses prior to the study period (P = 0.006) but no longer after the study period (P = 0.366). Nurses estimated ethical awareness and reflection higher (respectively, P = 0.002 and P = 0.049) and non-avoiding end-of-life decisions and active involvement of nurses lower than the doctors (respectively P < 0.001 and P = 0.023) after the study period but not before the study period (all P-values >0.05).
Doctors testified of increased awareness in ethical decision-making, more open interactions with patients and nurses, and more courage to intervene instead of doing nothing. Nurses spoke of an increased awareness to act as patient advocate, increased deliberation among peer nurses and frustration when they felt no effect of activating the CODE alert. Both doctors and nurses advised for more active involvement of nurses.
The mean overall satisfaction score in doctors was 8.69 on 10.
Citation: Piers R, Dillen L, Goethals K, Lievrouw A, Versluys K, De Pauw A, et al. (2025) Coaching doctors to improve ethical decision-making in adult hospitalized patients potentially receiving excessive treatment: Process evaluation study of the CODE intervention in doctors and nurses working in ten acute hospital wards. PLoS One 20(12): e0337801. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337801
Editor: Luca Valera, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (PUC) / Universidad de Valladolid (UVa), SPAIN
Received: June 2, 2025; Accepted: November 10, 2025; Published: December 8, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Piers et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Due to ethical restrictions (in the informed consent of participants, it was stated that interview data will not be shared due to the potentially identifying and sensitive nature of the data). Data requests may be sent to ethisch.comite@uzgent.be (Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital BC-09828).
Funding: This study is supported by grants from the Ghent University Hospital “Fonds voor Innovatie en Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” and the Belgian “Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” FWO (senior clinical investigators grant 1800518N obtained by Benoit in 2017). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states there is no conflict of interest with regard to the content of this manuscript. This study is supported by grants from the Ghent University Hospital “Fonds voor Innovatie en Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” and the Belgian “Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek” FWO (senior clinical investigators grant 1800518N obtained by Benoit in 2017). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Introduction
High quality hospital care for serious ill persons requires exemplary team-based communication and decision-making [1,2]. Doctors have a pivotal role in fostering a safe ethical decision-making climate [3–8] crucial for optimizing end-of-life care management [1,4,9,10]. The COaching Doctors to improve Ethical decision-making (CODE) intervention aimed to improve team-based ethical decision-making in hospital wards in order to reduce potentially excessive treatments causing suffering in patients [1,11–13] and moral distress in clinicians taking care for patients at the end of life [9,14,15]. Coaching was chosen as a way for personal and professional growth of doctors in self-reflective and empowering leadership [16–18]. This method is firmly established in the sports and business world and is taking its first steps into the medical world [18,19].
Benoit et al. reported that the CODE intervention increased doctors’ goal-oriented care via written do-not-intubate and do-not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNI-DNACPR) decisions without concomitant increase in the quality of the ethical climate [17] as measured via de validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire (EDMCQ) [4,5]. However, we lack insight in the underlying reasons for the observed outcomes: how did the CODE intervention work (or not) and what were the underlying mechanisms? Moreover, as the CODE study is the first study assessing the impact of coaching doctors in ethical decision-making, this is an unique opportunity to better understand how the intervention, and more specifically professional coaching, was perceived and implemented by nurses and doctors working in different wards of a large university hospital.
The research aim is to gain insight in the adoption, implementation and the intention of the participants to maintain the CODE intervention in future practice [16,20–22].
Materials and methods
Process evaluation study based on the RE-AIM framework [22] of the stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled CODE trial, conducted in the medical ICU and 9 referring internal medicine wards of Ghent University Hospital between February 2022 and February 2023.
The CODE intervention was composed of three main intervention components: (1) one-on-one coaching of doctors in self-reflective and empowering leadership as well as in team dynamics with regard to ethical decision-making, (2) the CODE alert to allow identification of patients potentially receiving excessive treatment by bedside clinicians (both nurses and doctors), and (3) observation of and feedback on interdisciplinary meetings. Nurses and doctors were instructed to use the CODE alert in the electronic patient file for each patient under their care in whom they deemed that treatment was excessive (defined as to be no longer consistent with the expected survival or quality of life or that is provided against the patient’s or relatives’ wishes). When two or more clinicians (nurses and/or doctors) perceived excessive treatment in a patient, the coach and the treating doctor were informed by an e-mail throughout the 4-month intervention period. Detailed description of the CODE intervention and the reach and effectivity of the study can be found elsewhere [16,17].
Design and data collection
Recruitment of nurses and doctors for this process evaluation study started 01/01/2022 and ended 07/10/2023 (last interview for the qualitative part).
For the satisfaction survey, all 50 doctors who took part in the coaching received an e-mail with a link to a REDCap [23] survey hosted at the Ghent University Hospital after the 4-months intervention period in their respective ward. The survey consisted of a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 for overall satisfaction, questions pertaining the organization and used coaching techniques as described in the coaching protocol [16], as well as questions pertaining gained awareness and skills in ethical decision-making based on theoretical frameworks about conversations in seriously ill patients [8,24–26].
All nurses and doctors were invited to fill out the EDMCQ [4,5] before and after the 12 months intervention period (February 2022 until February 2023). We refer to earlier publications for more details on the EDMCQ tool and data collection method [16,17].
In addition, a qualitative study design was set up to get insight into the experiences of nurses and doctors. For the interview study, the 261 clinicians who filled-out the EDMCQ were invited to participate by e-mail. Two reminders were sent to obtain a minimum of participants of each ward and of each profession. Data collection was driven by an interview guide that was composed by the head research investigators (RP, DB), and an independent interviewer (KV, PhD candidate, experienced geriatric nurse specialist, female). The interview guide was built thematically as the aim was to stir up group discussion and free speech. The focus was on enabling participants to share their lived experiences regarding the CODE intervention in a safe manner. Active listening, paraphrasing and open questioning made up the interviewer’s stance. The interviewer proposed herself to the participants as a nurse with special interest in the topic of ethical decision-making but independent from the CODE study. The focus groups were audio-recorded with written informed consent of the participants. The focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analyzed iteratively. The institutional review board requires that audio-recordings are destroyed after transcription. Analysis was performed before the primary outcomes of the CODE study were known. Analysis was led by the research question, viz. the experiences with the three aforementioned CODE intervention elements. Transcripts were read an experienced qualitative researcher who was independent from the CODE intervention (LD, PhD, psychologist, female) and by RP (MD, PhD, experienced geriatrician, female). Thematic analysis was applied using an open inductive coding framework inspired by the QUalitative Analysis Guide Of Leuven [27]. No software was used to manage the data (paper coding by LD). Data collection happened in two waves. After the first wave a preliminary analysis was discussed with the research team (KV: interviewer, AL: PhD, psychologist, CODE coach, female,; KG: certified coach, CODE coach, female) ensuing in researcher’s triangulation. Adaptations were made to the interview guide based on themes that remained unsaturated. After the second wave a new round of analysis was performed, confronting the new data with the first analysis. This was again debated in group (RP, AL, KG, FM: senior certified coach, CODE supervisor, male; DB: MD, PhD, experienced intensivist, male). Finally, the other authors (some were doctors on the participating wards for participant checking) critically revised the text of analysis. Reporting is based on COREQ guidelines (S1Appendix) [28].
Finally, a sub-analysis of the validated EDMCQ across roles was performed.
Ethics
This study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital (BC-09828, date of approval 27/05/2021). A written informed consent was required for clinicians for the interview study and an electronic informed consent for the satisfaction survey and the EDMCQ.
Results
Participants
Thirty-five of 50 doctors (response rate 70%) who participated in one-on-one coaching filled out the satisfaction survey. For the interview study, we attained 32 participants (20 nurses and 12 doctors). More characteristics can be found in Table 1 and S1 Table.
In total 270 and 261 of 423 clinicians filled-in the EDMCQ before and after the study period (response rate 67.0% in doctors and 60.2% in nurses). Characteristics of the participants can be found in an earlier publication [17].
Satisfaction survey
Participating doctors gave a mean satisfaction score of 8.69 (SD, 0.796). Over 80% indicated the coaching made them more aware of how they deal with conflicts and difficult decision-making, they gained insight in the perspectives of team-members, and stated to use the learned skills in daily practice (Table 2). The items that improved to a lesser extent were collaboration among doctors: collaboration with senior (60%), junior (60%) and referring doctors (51%) (Table 2). Ninety-seven percent found the one-on-one coaching useful for themselves; 60% said it increased their job satisfaction (Table 2).
Interview study
In the first and second wave of qualitative research, respectively five and three focus groups were held. Additionally, two individual interviews were organized because the participants could not attend the focus groups (S1 Table). The focus groups lasted on average 59 minutes. Data saturation was reached after these two waves.
The results are structured around the diverse elements of the intervention: (A) one-on-one coaching, (B) CODE alert and (C) observation of interdisciplinary team meetings.
One-on-one coaching.
The coaching process: Participating doctors used the coaching sessions for debriefing challenging patient cases, team conflicts and for reflection on patient cases in which the CODE alert was activated (quotations [Q]1, Table 3). Participants testified of a process wherein their perspective was broadened (Q2-3; Table 3). Although reflection is inherent to a professional stance and thus not entirely new to most participants, the reflection process within the coaching sessions was from a whole different nature. It was described as more philosophical and personal. As most participants were not familiar with such a personal approach in their work context, this asked for a subtle process in which the coach build trust and confidentiality. This process was time-intensive and often evolved from an initially defensive posture, to step by step allowing vulnerability (Q4-5, Table 3), leaving the habitual stance of defense behind (Q6, Table 3).
Perceived impact of the coaching on doctors: Participants characterized the coaching sessions as enlightening and transformative. Some doctors expressed professional and personal growth. It opened up possibilities to look in a meta-level manner at how doctors deal with (in)vulnerability (Q7, Table 3). Effects were articulated on several domains.
Expansion of ways to interact: Many participants testified acquiring a more open and explorative attitude in interaction (Q8-9, Table 3). Some participants said they learned how to communicate in a more assertive way and to name things in a non-attacking way (Q10-11, Table 3).
Increase of awareness: Participants exhibited increased sensitivity to team dynamics and their own contributions therein, as well as a greater awareness of their blind spots, routines and behavior patterns (Q12, Table 3).
Increase of one’s leadership: Participating doctors mentioned that they were more prone to take up their leadership responsibility by daring to explicitly intervene instead of doing nothing (Q13, Table 3).
Although most participants testified that the coaching had impact in some way, the sustainability of the effect was nuanced (Q14, Table 3). Some doctors were uncertain about the visibility of the coaching’s effects within their teams. However, in the focus groups with nurses it became clear that the effect of the coaching was felt on some wards (Q15-16, Table 3). Participating doctors expressed support for the continuation of the coaching. Most advocated for its integration throughout one’s career, starting at the early beginning (Q17, Table 3). Yet, participants also discussed the problem that it is followed by people who are already prone to reflect (Q18, Table 3). The sting is how to reach the ones who are more reluctant, but who would benefit also. Mandating participation was questioned, as willingness to engage in introspection was mentioned as a prerequisite for a successful coaching trajectory. In thinking about the future of coaching the suggestion was raised both by doctors and nurses that nurses should also be involved in a sort of coaching trajectory, either separately or jointly (Q19-20, Table 3).
The CODE alert.
The use of the CODE alert: Nurses testified that they used the alert in cases of a feeling of powerlessness and not being heard by medical staff. In some wards it was a tremendous relief to have a tool to report such situations; even so that the mere fact to have such a tool was already such a step forward that they didn’t even expect doctors to do anything with it (Q1-2, Table 4). Pushing the alert was never an impulsive act. It was often accompanied by a round of deliberation with colleagues, even over the borders of work shifts or wards (Q3, Table 4). On some wards pushing the alert became a group event: they agreed to push the alert with several colleagues (Q4, Table 4). Many nurses articulated a certain caution in using the alert. Some out of fear it was not anonymous, or to be held accountable for it, some out of fear to disrupt a working relationship with their doctors. They did not want to finger point someone on the one hand, yet had a sense that what was going on didn’t help the patient on the other hand. Pushing the alert took courage (Q5-6, Table 4).
The perceived impact of the CODE alert on doctors and nurses: On some wards nurses felt that the existence of the alert was a motivator for doctors to involve nurses in end-of-life decisions. The latter entailed that doctors more often explained their motives for a certain treatment decision, which nurses highly appreciated. Nurses testified that some doctors more frequently inquired about nurses’ view and even when this involvement did not change the actual treatment choices, nurses found the care for that patient more enjoyable afterwards (Q7, Table 4). There were also wards in which nurses did not feel any effect of activating the CODE alert, which sometimes led to frustration and increased feelings of powerlessness (Q8, Table 4).
When doctors spoke of the CODE alert, they said they had a love hate relationship with the alert. They saw it as an accessible way for nurses to communicate on the one hand, yet they also regretted that the messenger hadn’t found a direct way to communicate (Q9-10, Table 4).
Due to the CODE alert there was a change in awareness and communication culture among nurses. A kind of responsibility was awakened, as nurses sensed that they now had a tool to signal when they were too little involved (Q3,4,11,12, Table 4). Yet, there was also a concern articulated mostly by doctors, in that the CODE alert may never be narrowed to a frustration alert. It should always be accompanied by an argumentation and by a dialogue (Q13, Table 4). Furthermore it was argued that the alert must not only be used to debate a specific case but also as a sort of team thermometer (Q13, Table 4). The CODE study was a moment of sensitizing to install a culture of collaboration instead of one of pointing a finger. Nurses saw potential in a future CODE alert on the condition that direct feedback was visible to all parties. Participants saw an open dialogue as the ideal consequence of the alert. Yet, for some wards, this needed a non-involved third party to enable a safe talking environment (Q14, Table 4).
Observation of the interdisciplinary team meetings.
The observation of interdisciplinary meetings was positively experienced because: there was a direct feedback loop after the observation; during the feedback also positive aspects were highlighted (Q15, Table 4); being real-life observation instead of second-hand talking about it (Q15, Table 4).
In general, the participants described the effects of the CODE study as opening up the visor. In some teams the CODE study opened up the dialogue between team members: they more easily debated cases in a non-threatening way (Q16, Table 4). There was even mentioned that the CODE study had ensued in a change of atmosphere on the ward (Q17, Table 4). Yet to attain this impact in a specific ward all the organization levels should click: the personal, team, and cultural level. It asks for seeing each other as equivalent partners with the same goal, namely the best possible care for the patients (Q18, Table 4).
Results of the EDMCQ across roles
The (communication) gap between doctors and nurses popped up as one of the main results of the qualitative study and was confirmed by the sub-analysis of the EDMCQ [21], zooming in on the difference between doctors and nurses in the evolution of the EDMCQ before and after the study period. As depicted in Fig 1, doctors estimated their “self-reflective and empowering leadership” skills higher than the nurses prior to the study period (P = 0.006) but no longer after the study period (P = 0.366). Nurses estimated “ethical awareness” and “open interdisciplinary reflection” higher (respectively, P = 0.002 and P = 0.049) and “the climate of not avoiding end-of-life decisions” and “active involvement of nurses at end-of-life” lower than the doctors (respectively P < 0.001 and P = 0.023) after the study period but not before the study period (all P-values >0.05). Nurses estimated the factor “active decision-making by doctors” much lower than doctors across both periods (both P < 0.001).
Sub-analysis of the validated ethical decision-making climate questionnaire (EDMCQ) across roles.
Discussion
The CODE study is the first intervention study that coached bedside doctors in self-reflective and empowering leadership as well as in managing group dynamics concerning ethical decision-making. This mixed-method evaluation study showed that the CODE intervention was successful in bringing awareness and opening visors among doctors and nurses concerning ethical decision-making. However, the CODE intervention did not close the communication gap between nurses and doctors.
Process evaluation findings in relation to intervention effectiveness
This study showed that one-on-one coaching was an effective tool for installing (self-)reflection in doctors working in ten different acute hospital wards. That the majority of doctors testified of gained awareness and skills in decision-making is also reflected by more frequent treatment limitation decisions after the intervention in the quantitative analysis [17].
However, there is more work to be done to achieve true team-based decision-making; although this is widely recommended to achieve good clinical outcomes in complex patient situations [29–31]. The traditional role of the doctors as a medical expert (‘the heroic lone healer’ [3]) remains deeply ingrained in daily practice on hospital wards [3,32], as evidenced in this study. In order to set a safe and open climate to install team-based ethical decision-making, doctors will have to install vulnerability in their own practice when ethical matters are at stake in which there is not one science-based truth [33–35]. The need for a more safe and open climate to discuss ethical issues is also voiced by nurses who used the CODE alert to speak up their ‘this-is-not-right’ intuition [32,36–38]. There is a call for both nurses and doctors in this study to take responsibility in safe speaking-up: ‘In case of continuation of the CODE alert it should be grounded in the responsibility of both parties: the (nurse) messenger who cannot activate the CODE alert without direct communication and argumentation and the (doctor) receiver who has to listen, explain and involve’. That the intervention did not succeed in involving and empowering the whole team in ethical decision-making is further supported by the EDMCQ sub-analysis between roles. The decrease in the factors “non-avoiding end-of-life decisions” and “active involvement of nurses at end-of-life decision-making” in nurses after the study period suggests that the intervention did not fulfill the expectations of the nurses, and highlights the need to additionally coach the entire team.
To bridge the communication gaps between doctors and nurses, future iterations of the CODE intervention could consider implementing joint coaching sessions for doctors and nurses and/or interprofessional meetings focusing on real-life ethical dilemmas facilitating mutual understanding, respect and team-based decision-making [37,39–42].
Strengths and limitations
The main strength is the complementarity of the findings with the main outcomes in the quantitative paper [17]. Methodological strengths of the process evaluation are (1) the high response rate for the satisfaction and EDMCQ survey and (2) the blinding for the qualitative study: the interviewer and main analyst were independent from the CODE intervention study, and the analyses for this study were finished before the main outcomes were known.
External validation of the results may pose a challenge. However, the high variability in ethical decision-making climates between the 10 participating wards found in the interview study as well as in the quantitative analyses [17] suggest that our findings may be extrapolated to other centers.
Recommendations for practice and further research
In contrast to other investigators who focused on the effect of a consultant outside the team (communication facilitator, palliative or ethics consultant) [43–45], we preferred to perform an intervention in bedside clinicians to improve ethical decision-making. One-on-one coaching was successful in doctors, however longer coaching periods are recommended to solidify new attitudes, behaviors and insights into new habits [19,46]. Most doctors in this study were critical towards the sustainability of the gained skills and plead for continuation of the coaching as a normal practice, especially in younger doctors early in their careers [19,46].
Though, to implement change felt in the entire interprofessional team, future interventions should involve nurses and doctors together and provide workplace learning with closed-loop communication [31,46,47]. Additionally, expanding the intervention to multiple hospitals would enhance its generalizability and impact.
In future research, it is advisable to include the difference between doctors and nurses in EDMCQ scores rather than the overall EDMCQ alone.
Conclusions
This mixed-method evaluation study showed that the CODE intervention was successful in bringing awareness and opening visors among doctors in ethical decision-making. The findings show nurses’ increased awareness of their advocacy roles but also their frustration with the limited scope of their participation in ethical decision-making. Future interventions should prioritize closing the (communication) gap between doctors and nurses in order to attain ethical decision-making through the entire team to improve patient-centered care.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Characteristics of participants of the interview studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337801.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Appendix. COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337801.s002
(PDF)
S2 File. PLOSOne human subjects research checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337801.s004
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank all of the participants who volunteered for this study as well as the heads (not included in the co-author list: Prof Sylvie Rottey, Medical Oncology; Prof Paul Boon, Neurology; Prof Steven Callens, Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases; Prof Guy Brusselle Pneumology, doctors (Sofie Gevaert and Els Vandecasteele, Cardiology), chief nurses of the participating departments (Kristof Alluyn, Medical Oncology; Bart Sobrie, Internal Medicine; Isabelle Danel, Neurology; Els Carrijn, Geriatrics; Jo Vandenbossche, Medical Intensive Care Unit; Tania Helleputte, Gastro-intestinal and Liver Diseases; Fatima Snoussi, Pneumology; Katrien Schelfhout, Hematology; Gastroenterology and Pneumology; Annelies Masset, Cardiology and Internal Medicine; Jens Boelens, Cardiology Intensive Care; Christelle Lizy, Nephrology and Endocrinology; Delphine Lacante, Hematology) and care managers (Lieve De Geyter from the Man, Woman and Child Cluster; An Van Holsbeek from the Blood, Respiratory and Gastro-intestinal Cluster, Geert De Smet from the Metabolic and Cardiovascular Cluster and Hilde Goedertier from the Critical Care Cluster) for their commitment to this challenging study. We are also grateful to the nurses of the ICU trial cell (Anouska De Smeytere, Daisy Vermeiren, Jolien Van Hecke and Lesley Decoster) for their professional support. Last but not least, we would like to thank the following members of the Executive Board of the Ghent University Hospital to make this study possible; Prof Eric Mortier, CEO; Prof Frank Vermassen, Chief doctor; Prof. Rik Verhaeghe, Chief Nursing Officer; Prof Kristof Eeckloo, Responsible for the Strategic Policy, Quality Management, Information Management & Clinical Networks and Chantal Haeck, Responsible for the Company Supporting Service.
References
- 1. Dzeng E, Batten JN, Dohan D, Blythe J, Ritchie CS, Curtis JR. Hospital Culture and Intensity of End-of-Life Care at 3 Academic Medical Centers. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(8):839–48. pmid:37399038
- 2. Moynihan KM, Taylor L, Crowe L, Balnaves M-C, Irving H, Ozonoff A, et al. Ethical climate in contemporary paediatric intensive care. J Med Ethics. 2021;medethics-2020-106818. pmid:33431646
- 3. Stoller JK. Leadership Essentials for CHEST Medicine Professionals: Models, Attributes, and Styles. Chest. 2021;159(3):1147–54. pmid:32956716
- 4. Benoit DD, Jensen HI, Malmgren J, Metaxa V, Reyners AK, Darmon M, et al. 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;44(7):1039–49. pmid:29808345
- 5. Van den Bulcke B, Piers R, Jensen HI, Malmgren J, Metaxa V, Reyners AK, et al. Ethical decision-making climate in the ICU: theoretical framework and validation of a self-assessment tool. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(10):781–9. pmid:29475979
- 6. Jensen HI, Hebsgaard S, Hansen TCB, Johnsen RFA, Hartog CS, Soultati I, et al. Perceptions of Ethical Decision-Making Climate Among Clinicians Working in European and U.S. ICUs: Differences Between Nurses and Physicians. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(12):1716–23. pmid:31625980
- 7. Druwé P, Benoit DD, Monsieurs KG, Gagg J, Nakahara S, Alpert EA, et al. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Adults Over 80: Outcome and the Perception of Appropriateness by Clinicians. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(1):39–45. pmid:31840239
- 8. Piers RD, Azoulay E, Ricou B, Dekeyser Ganz F, Decruyenaere J, Max A, et al. Perceptions of appropriateness of care among European and Israeli intensive care unit nurses and physicians. JAMA. 2011;306(24):2694–703. pmid:22203538
- 9. Donkers MA, Gilissen VJHS, Candel MJJM, van Dijk NM, Kling H, Heijnen-Panis R, et al. Moral distress and ethical climate in intensive care medicine during COVID-19: a nationwide study. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22(1):73. pmid:34139997
- 10. Gross J, Koffman J. Examining how goals of care communication are conducted between doctors and patients with severe acute illness in hospital settings: A realist systematic review. PLoS One. 2024;19(3):e0299933. pmid:38498549
- 11. Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Teno JM. Understanding variability of end-of-life care in the ICU for the elderly. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(1):94–6. pmid:27033890
- 12. Sallnow L, Smith R, Ahmedzai SH, Bhadelia A, Chamberlain C, Cong Y, et al. Report of the Lancet Commission on the Value of Death: bringing death back into life. Lancet. 2022;399(10327):837–84. pmid:35114146
- 13. Lee XJ, Farrington A, Carter H, Shield C, Graves N, McPhail SM, et al. A stepped-wedge randomised-controlled trial assessing the implementation, impact and costs of a prospective feedback loop to promote appropriate care and treatment for older patients in acute hospitals at the end of life: study protocol. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):262. pmid:32727393
- 14. Piers RD, Banner-Goodspeed V, Åkerman E, Kieslichova E, Meyfroidt G, Gerritsen RT, et al. Outcomes in Patients Perceived as Receiving Excessive Care by ICU Physicians and Nurses: Differences Between Patients < 75 and ≥ 75 Years of Age? Chest 2023;164:656–666. pmid:37062350
- 15. Salmond E, Salmond S, Ames M, Kamienski M, Holly C. Experiences of compassion fatigue in direct care nurses: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019;17(5):682–753. pmid:31091199
- 16. Benoit DD, Vanheule S, Manesse F, Anseel F, De Soete G, Goethals K, et al. 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;18(3):e0281447. pmid:36943825
- 17. Benoit DD, De Pauw A, Jacobs C, Moors I, Offner F, Velghe A, et al. 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;50(10):1635–46. pmid:39230678
- 18. De Haan E, Nilsson VO. What can we know about the effectiveness of coaching? A meta-analysis based only on randomized controlled trials. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2023;22:1–21.
- 19. McGonagle AK, Schwab L, Yahanda N, Duskey H, Gertz N, Prior L, et al. Coaching for primary care physician well-being: A randomized trial and follow-up analysis. J Occup Health Psychol. 2020;25(5):297–314. pmid:32297776
- 20. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be?. BMJ. 2004;328(7455):1561–3. pmid:15217878
- 21. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. BMJ. 2006;332:413–6.
- 22. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:64. pmid:30984733
- 23. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. pmid:18929686
- 24. You JJ, Downar J, Fowler RA, Lamontagne F, Ma IWY, Jayaraman D, et al. Barriers to goals of care discussions with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families: a multicenter survey of clinicians. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):549–56. pmid:25642797
- 25. Bekelman DB, Johnson-Koenke R, Ahluwalia SC, Walling AM, Peterson J, Sudore RL. Development and Feasibility of a Structured Goals of Care Communication Guide. J Palliat Med. 2017;20(9):1004–12. pmid:28422561
- 26. Curtis JR, Lee RY, Brumback LC, Kross EK, Downey L, Torrence J, et al. Intervention to Promote Communication About Goals of Care for Hospitalized Patients With Serious Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023;329(23):2028–37. pmid:37210665
- 27. Dierckx de Casterlé B, Gastmans C, Bryon E, Denier Y. QUAGOL: a guide for qualitative data analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(3):360–71. pmid:21996649
- 28. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. pmid:17872937
- 29. Morrison RS, Meier DE, Arnold RM. What’s Wrong With Advance Care Planning?. JAMA. 2021;326(16):1575–6. pmid:34623373
- 30. Michalsen A, Long AC, DeKeyser Ganz F, White DB, Jensen HI, Metaxa V, et al. Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Recommendations From an Expert Panel. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(9):1258–66. pmid:31169620
- 31. Benbenishty J, Ganz FD, Lautrette A, Jaschinski U, Aggarwal A, Søreide E, et al. Variations in reporting of nurse involvement in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (ETHICUS-2): A prospective observational study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024;155:104764. pmid:38657432
- 32. Weller J, Boyd M, Cumin D. Teams, tribes and patient safety: overcoming barriers to effective teamwork in healthcare. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90(1061):149–54. pmid:24398594
- 33. Goleman D. What makes a leader?. Harv Bus Rev. 1998;76(6):93–102. pmid:10187249
- 34. Stokar YN. Sense of failure in end of life care: Perspectives from physicians and nurses. Soc Sci Med. 2024;348:116805. pmid:38569282
- 35. Toll ET, Sinsky CA. The Deep Work of Doctoring-Prioritizing Relationships in Medicine. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(9):904–5. pmid:37486645
- 36. Abdollahi R, Ghasemianrad M, Hosseinian-Far A, Rasoulpoor S, Salari N, Mohammadi M. Nurses’ moral courage and related factors: A systematic review. Appl Nurs Res. 2024;75:151768. pmid:38490799
- 37. Amos VK, Epstein E. Moral distress interventions: An integrative literature review. Nurs Ethics. 2022;29(3):582–607. pmid:35144497
- 38. Alingh CW, van Wijngaarden JDH, van de Voorde K, Paauwe J, Huijsman R. Speaking up about patient safety concerns: the influence of safety management approaches and climate on nurses’ willingness to speak up. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(1):39–48. pmid:29954948
- 39. Dzeng E, Curtis JR. Understanding ethical climate, moral distress, and burnout: a novel tool and a conceptual framework. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;27(10):766–70. pmid:29669857
- 40. Lee SE, Dahinten VS, Ji H, Kim E, Lee H. Motivators and inhibitors of nurses’ speaking up behaviours: A descriptive qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(10):3398–408. pmid:35765723
- 41. Rock LK, Morse KJ, Eppich W, Rudolph JW. Transforming team culture: A case study from critical care. Chest. 2023;163:1448–57.
- 42. Schwarzkopf D, Bloos F, Meißner W, Rüddel H, Thomas-Rüddel DO, Wedding U. Perceptions of Quality of Interprofessional Collaboration, Staff Well-Being and Nonbeneficial Treatment: A Comparison between Nurses and Physicians in Intensive and Palliative Care. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(6):602. pmid:38540566
- 43. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD, Dugan DO, Blustein J, Cranford R, et al. Effect of ethics consultations on nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care setting: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(9):1166–72. pmid:12952998
- 44. Renet A, Azoulay E, Reignier J, Cariou A, Renault A, Huet O, et al. “It’s all about setting the stage.” The nurse facilitator trial: perceived outcomes and implementation issues. A qualitative study among ICU clinicians and nurse facilitators. Intensive Care Med. 2024;50(10):1657–67. pmid:39158706
- 45. Vanbutsele G, Pardon K, Van Belle S, Surmont V, De Laat M, Colman R, et al. Effect of early and systematic integration of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(3):394–404. pmid:29402701
- 46. Solms L, van Vianen A, Koen J, Theeboom T, de Pagter APJ, De Hoog M, et al. Turning the tide: a quasi-experimental study on a coaching intervention to reduce burn-out symptoms and foster personal resources among medical residents and specialists in the Netherlands. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e041708. pmid:33495254
- 47. Iyasere CA, Wing J, Martel JN, Healy MG, Park YS, Finn KM. Effect of Increased Interprofessional Familiarity on Team Performance, Communication, and Psychological Safety on Inpatient Medical Teams: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(11):1190–8. pmid:36215043