An interventional study of Education Specialist Delivered Training and Automated Training in Communication, Surgery and Shared Decision Making, sponsored by University of Wisconsin, Madison. Enrolling by invitation at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-04.
Sponsored by University of Wisconsin, Madison · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
This study evaluates strategies to train surgeons to use Better Conversations, an evidence-based communication framework designed to improve informed consent by helping patients understand the goals of surgery, the downsides of treatment, and what to expect. Better Conversations supports deliberation, patient preparation, and alignment of decisions with patient goals, addressing known shortcomings in traditional informed consent.
The purpose of this study is to compare two methods of surgeon training: (1) training delivered by an education specialist using audit and feedback, and (2) training supported by computerized automation that identifies elements of Better Conversations in de-identified transcripts of surgical consultations. The central question is whether the automated training program is non-inferior to the specialist-delivered program.
Approximately 60 surgeons from two academic health systems will be randomized to one of these training approaches. Each surgeon will complete a didactic session, have outpatient surgical consultations audio-recorded for feedback, and complete assessment recordings after training. Patients of enrolled surgeons will complete surveys before and after their surgeon's training to evaluate patient-reported communication outcomes.
Findings from this study will assess the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of automated training and support the development of a larger pragmatic study to evaluate the broader effects of Better Conversations on patient outcomes.
This study evaluates two training strategies to help surgeons use Better Conversations, an evidence-based communication framework that improves informed consent by supporting patient understanding, deliberation, and preparation for surgery. Prior work by the investigative team shows that Better Conversations addresses shortcomings in traditional consent practices, aligns with quality improvement standards, and is well-received by surgeons and patients.
This is a non-inferiority trial comparing (1) audit-and-feedback training delivered by an education specialist and (2) an automated training approach that uses natural language processing and active machine learning to identify key elements of Better Conversations in de-identified transcripts of surgical consultations. Automated output is reviewed and finalized by the education specialist before being shared with surgeons. The hypothesis is that automated training will be non-inferior to specialist-delivered training, with a 5% non-inferiority margin.
The study also evaluates feasibility and acceptability of training a large number of surgeons across two institutions. Feasibility is defined as training at least 80% of surgeons to competence. Acceptability will be assessed using surgeon surveys and exit interviews, and patient-reported outcomes. Patients will complete validated surveys (Feeling Heard and Understood; CAHPS Surgical Care items) before and after their surgeon's training. A subset of patients will participate in interviews regarding their consultation experience. A separate group of patients will consent to have their consultations audio recorded solely for surgeon training or assessment purposes.
Sixty surgeons from UW Health and the Medical College of Wisconsin will be randomized, stratified by site, to one of the two training groups. All surgeons will begin with a 30-minute didactic session, followed by 10 training recordings with corresponding feedback, and 5-7 assessment recordings used to evaluate competence. Consultations will be audio recorded, transcribed, and de-identified prior to feedback and analysis. Competence will be evaluated using a standardized adherence checklist developed by the study team, assessing both the presence and quality of required communication elements.
This study will generate estimates of within- and between-surgeon variation in communication performance and patient-reported outcomes. These data will inform analytic planning and power calculations for a future pragmatic trial examining the broader impact of Better Conversations on patient decision making, satisfaction, and health outcomes.
719 studies on the registry are indexed under Communication; 159 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 660 is above the median of 144 across 571 interventional studies indexed under Communication.
Browse Communication studies →University of Wisconsin, Madison is the lead sponsor of 1,188 studies on the registry; 181 are open to participants now.
Of its 157 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 118 (75%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Inclusion Criteria (Surgeons):
Inclusion Criteria (Patients):
Exclusion Criteria (Surgeons):
Exclusion Criteria (Patients):
Surgeons receive standard audit-and-feedback training delivered by an education specialist, including a brief didactic session and feedback on 10 de-identified outpatient consultations. Five additional recordings are used to assess performance with an adherence checklist.
Behavioral: Education Specialist Delivered Training
Surgeons receive automated audit-and-feedback training. De-identified transcripts from 10 consultations are processed with previously developed natural language processing, and an education specialist reviews and edits the automated output. Five additional recordings are assessed using the same checklist.
Behavioral: Automated Training
Identical to Intervention A with the addition that surgeons receive intermittent disclosure messages indicating that some feedback is computer-generated. Assessment and scoring procedures match the other arms and use the adherence checklist with a competence threshold.
Behavioral: Automated Training
Training in the Better Conversations framework delivered by an education specialist, including a brief didactic session and audit-and-feedback based on 10 de-identified outpatient consultations, followed by assessment using five additional recordings scored with an adherence checklist.
Also known as: Better Conversations, Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent
Training in the Better Conversations framework supported by computerized automation. Procedures match the education-specialist approach (didactic session; 10 training recordings; 5-7 assessment recordings). For each training consultation, the de-identified transcript is processed using previously developed natural language processing with active/supervised machine learning to identify elements of Better Conversations that are present or absent and common errors. An education specialist reviews and edits the automated output and emails feedback and a score sheet within one week using the same standardized format. In one half of the automated-training arm, surgeons also receive intermittent disclosure messages indicating that some feedback is computer-generated.
Also known as: Better Conversations, Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent
Percentage of surgeons trained to competence
Competence is assessed using the established 10-item adherence checklist, yielding a total possible score ranging from 0 to 10, applied to the five assessment audio recordings obtained after each surgeon completes the 10 training recordings. Higher scores indicate greater fidelity to the Better Conversations framework, competence is 6 or higher. The performance of surgeons in the automated-training group will be compared with those in the education-specialist training group, and non-inferiority will be evaluated using a 5% non-inferiority margin. Feasibility is defined as greater than or equal to 80 percent of surgeons trained to competence.
Time frame: At completion of the assessment phase (after 10 training recordings and 5 assessment recordings per surgeon), approximately 3-12 months
Surgeon assessment score
For each treatment group, the mean and standard deviation of surgeons' assessment scores (range 0-10) will be reported. Higher scores indicate higher competence.
Time frame: At completion of the assessment phase (after 10 training recordings and 5 assessment recordings per surgeon), approximately 3-12 months
Feeling Heard and Understood
The mean and standard deviation of Feeling Heard and Understood scores before and after surgeon training will be reported. This patient-survey item uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all true to 5 = Completely true), with higher scores indicating better perceived communication. It is used to assess acceptability to patients and preliminary changes associated with surgeon training. For each surgeon, a change score defined as the difference between post-training and pre-training scores will be computed. Surgeon-level change scores will be compared between groups using 95% confidence intervals.
Time frame: Within 7 days of each patient's surgical consultation; analyzed relative to each surgeon's training completion (pre vs post)
Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Surgical Care survey
CAHPS Surgical Care survey items from 5 patients per surgeon pre-training and 5 patients post-training, aggregated per surgeon and by arm, to characterize patient experience of communication. Items include Yes/No responses (0-1), 3-point responses (0-2), and 4-point responses (0-3). Higher values indicate better experience and scores are expressed as a continuous percent, 0-100. Surgeon-level change scores will be compared between groups using 95% confidence intervals.
Time frame: Within 7 days of each patient's surgical consultation; analyzed relative to surgeon training completion (pre vs post)
Surgeon Acceptability (Practitioner Opinion Survey)
Practitioner Opinion Survey administered after training and assessment to evaluate surgeons' perspectives on the training and use of Better Conversations (e.g., usefulness and feasibility). Items use a 0-5 response scale, and higher scores indicate greater acceptability. Summarized overall and by arm. Scores are expressed as a continuous percent, 0-100.
Time frame: At completion of the assessment phase (after 10 training recordings and 5 assessment recordings per surgeon), approximately 3-12 months
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Started Feb 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Mar 2028, 25 months after the start.
Of 390 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Communication, half reached primary completion within 18 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 36. This study's planned 25 months is above that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 394 studies reached it within 18 months; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 36.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Wisconsin, Madison →