Minimally invasive autopsy for fetuses and children based on a combination of post-mortem MRI and endoscopic examination: a feasibility study.
AUTOPSY
BIOPSY
CAUSE OF DEATH
CONSENT
CORONERS
FETAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
LAPAROSCOPIC
MRI
PAEDIATRIC
PARENTS
PERINATAL
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
entrez:
29
8
2019
pubmed:
29
8
2019
medline:
10
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Less invasive perinatal and paediatric autopsy methods, such as imaging alongside targeted endoscopy and organ biopsy, may address declining consent rates for traditional autopsy, but their acceptability and accuracy are not known. The aims of this study were to provide empirical data on the acceptability and likely uptake for different types of autopsy among key stakeholders (study 1); and to analyse existing autopsy data sources to provide estimates of the potential efficacy of less invasive autopsy (LIA) and its projected utility in clinical practice (study 2). Study 1: this was a mixed-methods study. Parents were involved in research design and interpretation of findings. Substudy 1: a cross-sectional survey of 859 parents who had experienced miscarriage, termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly, stillbirth, infant or child death, and interviews with 20 responders. Substudy 2: interviews with 25 health professionals and four coroners. Substudy 3: interviews with 16 religious leaders and eight focus groups, with 76 members of the Muslim and Jewish community. Study 2: a retrospective analysis of national data in addition to detailed information from an existing in-house autopsy database of > 5000 clinical cases that had undergone standard autopsy to determine the proportion of cases by clinical indication group for which tissue sampling of specific internal organs significantly contributed to the diagnosis. Substudy 1: 91% of participants indicated that they would consent to some form of LIA, 54% would consent to standard autopsy, 74% to minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) and 77% to non-invasive autopsy (NIA). Substudy 2: participants viewed LIA as a positive development, but had concerns around the limitations of the technology and de-skilling the workforce. Cost implications, skills and training requirements were identified as implementation challenges. Substudy 3: religious leaders agreed that NIA was religiously permissible, but MIA was considered less acceptable. Community members indicated that they might consent to NIA if the body could be returned for burial within 24 hours. Study 2: in 5-10% of cases of sudden unexplained death in childhood and sudden unexplained death in infants, the final cause of death is determined by routine histological sampling of macroscopically normal organs, predominantly the heart and lungs, and in this group routine histological sampling therefore remains an important aspect of investigation. In contrast, routine histological examination of macroscopically normal organs rarely (< 0.5%) provides the cause of death in fetal cases, making LIA and NIA approaches potentially highly applicable. A key limitation of the empirical research is that it is hypothetical. Further research is required to determine actual uptake. Furthermore, because of the retrospective nature of the autopsy data set, findings regarding the likely contribution of organ sampling to final diagnosis are based on extrapolation of findings from historical autopsies, and prospective data collection is required to validate the conclusions. LIA is viable and acceptable (except for unexplained deaths), and likely to increase uptake. Further health economic, performance and implementation studies are required to determine the optimal service configuration required to offer this as routine clinical care. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Autopsy (post-mortem) examination of babies and children who die is often necessary to help doctors or coroners find out the cause of death. It may also be useful for research. However, many bereaved parents dislike the idea of their child being cut and some religious communities prohibit the procedure. Over the past 30 years, consent rates for autopsies have declined. In order to address parental concerns and declining uptake, a number of less invasive options have been developed. These include X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging, by doing keyhole internal examination and needle organ biopsy. However, it is not known to what extent such methods are acceptable to parents, nor how accurate they are. We surveyed the attitudes of bereaved parents and religious group leaders to such less invasive methods. The less invasive option was considered acceptable and would be chosen by almost 1000 bereaved parents. Such an approach is also acceptable to those religious groups for whom standard autopsy examination is not. We also examined a database of > 5000 standard autopsies to determine the extent to which specific internal organ biopsy contributed to the diagnosis. In > 5000 standard autopsies, traditional organ biopsy rarely contributed to determination of the cause of death or the main diagnosis. Therefore, a more limited and targeted tissue sampling protocol could be introduced without significant reduction in the accuracy of final diagnosis. The specific approaches required will depend on individual circumstances and are likely to include a range, from targeted organ biopsy with an open incision, through incisionless image-guided needle biopsies, to non-invasive imaging-only techniques. Future studies may focus on how the NHS could implement offering less invasive approaches nationally, what the cost–benefit of such an approach could be and what the impact could be on real-world uptake if this were to be offered routinely.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Less invasive perinatal and paediatric autopsy methods, such as imaging alongside targeted endoscopy and organ biopsy, may address declining consent rates for traditional autopsy, but their acceptability and accuracy are not known.
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this study were to provide empirical data on the acceptability and likely uptake for different types of autopsy among key stakeholders (study 1); and to analyse existing autopsy data sources to provide estimates of the potential efficacy of less invasive autopsy (LIA) and its projected utility in clinical practice (study 2).
REVIEW METHODS
Study 1: this was a mixed-methods study. Parents were involved in research design and interpretation of findings. Substudy 1: a cross-sectional survey of 859 parents who had experienced miscarriage, termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly, stillbirth, infant or child death, and interviews with 20 responders. Substudy 2: interviews with 25 health professionals and four coroners. Substudy 3: interviews with 16 religious leaders and eight focus groups, with 76 members of the Muslim and Jewish community. Study 2: a retrospective analysis of national data in addition to detailed information from an existing in-house autopsy database of > 5000 clinical cases that had undergone standard autopsy to determine the proportion of cases by clinical indication group for which tissue sampling of specific internal organs significantly contributed to the diagnosis.
RESULTS
Substudy 1: 91% of participants indicated that they would consent to some form of LIA, 54% would consent to standard autopsy, 74% to minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) and 77% to non-invasive autopsy (NIA). Substudy 2: participants viewed LIA as a positive development, but had concerns around the limitations of the technology and de-skilling the workforce. Cost implications, skills and training requirements were identified as implementation challenges. Substudy 3: religious leaders agreed that NIA was religiously permissible, but MIA was considered less acceptable. Community members indicated that they might consent to NIA if the body could be returned for burial within 24 hours. Study 2: in 5-10% of cases of sudden unexplained death in childhood and sudden unexplained death in infants, the final cause of death is determined by routine histological sampling of macroscopically normal organs, predominantly the heart and lungs, and in this group routine histological sampling therefore remains an important aspect of investigation. In contrast, routine histological examination of macroscopically normal organs rarely (< 0.5%) provides the cause of death in fetal cases, making LIA and NIA approaches potentially highly applicable.
LIMITATIONS
A key limitation of the empirical research is that it is hypothetical. Further research is required to determine actual uptake. Furthermore, because of the retrospective nature of the autopsy data set, findings regarding the likely contribution of organ sampling to final diagnosis are based on extrapolation of findings from historical autopsies, and prospective data collection is required to validate the conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
LIA is viable and acceptable (except for unexplained deaths), and likely to increase uptake. Further health economic, performance and implementation studies are required to determine the optimal service configuration required to offer this as routine clinical care.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Autopsy (post-mortem) examination of babies and children who die is often necessary to help doctors or coroners find out the cause of death. It may also be useful for research. However, many bereaved parents dislike the idea of their child being cut and some religious communities prohibit the procedure. Over the past 30 years, consent rates for autopsies have declined. In order to address parental concerns and declining uptake, a number of less invasive options have been developed. These include X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging, by doing keyhole internal examination and needle organ biopsy. However, it is not known to what extent such methods are acceptable to parents, nor how accurate they are. We surveyed the attitudes of bereaved parents and religious group leaders to such less invasive methods. The less invasive option was considered acceptable and would be chosen by almost 1000 bereaved parents. Such an approach is also acceptable to those religious groups for whom standard autopsy examination is not. We also examined a database of > 5000 standard autopsies to determine the extent to which specific internal organ biopsy contributed to the diagnosis. In > 5000 standard autopsies, traditional organ biopsy rarely contributed to determination of the cause of death or the main diagnosis. Therefore, a more limited and targeted tissue sampling protocol could be introduced without significant reduction in the accuracy of final diagnosis. The specific approaches required will depend on individual circumstances and are likely to include a range, from targeted organ biopsy with an open incision, through incisionless image-guided needle biopsies, to non-invasive imaging-only techniques. Future studies may focus on how the NHS could implement offering less invasive approaches nationally, what the cost–benefit of such an approach could be and what the impact could be on real-world uptake if this were to be offered routinely.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Autopsy (post-mortem) examination of babies and children who die is often necessary to help doctors or coroners find out the cause of death. It may also be useful for research. However, many bereaved parents dislike the idea of their child being cut and some religious communities prohibit the procedure. Over the past 30 years, consent rates for autopsies have declined. In order to address parental concerns and declining uptake, a number of less invasive options have been developed. These include X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging, by doing keyhole internal examination and needle organ biopsy. However, it is not known to what extent such methods are acceptable to parents, nor how accurate they are. We surveyed the attitudes of bereaved parents and religious group leaders to such less invasive methods. The less invasive option was considered acceptable and would be chosen by almost 1000 bereaved parents. Such an approach is also acceptable to those religious groups for whom standard autopsy examination is not. We also examined a database of > 5000 standard autopsies to determine the extent to which specific internal organ biopsy contributed to the diagnosis. In > 5000 standard autopsies, traditional organ biopsy rarely contributed to determination of the cause of death or the main diagnosis. Therefore, a more limited and targeted tissue sampling protocol could be introduced without significant reduction in the accuracy of final diagnosis. The specific approaches required will depend on individual circumstances and are likely to include a range, from targeted organ biopsy with an open incision, through incisionless image-guided needle biopsies, to non-invasive imaging-only techniques. Future studies may focus on how the NHS could implement offering less invasive approaches nationally, what the cost–benefit of such an approach could be and what the impact could be on real-world uptake if this were to be offered routinely.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31461397
doi: 10.3310/hta23460
pmc: PMC6732714
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-104Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : CDF-2017-10-037
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HTA/14/168/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : ICA-CDRF-2017-03-053
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No competing interests were declared.
Références
Department of Health and Social Care. Abortion Statistics, England and Wales 2013. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2013.
Office for National Statistics. Childhood, Infant and Perinatal Mortality in England and Wales, 2012. London: Office for National Statistics; 2015.
Office for National Statistics. Unexplained Deaths in Infancy, England and Wales: 2013. London: Office for National Statistics; 2015.
Department for Education. Child Death Review: Year Ending 31 March 2017. London: Department for Education; 2017.
Gordijn SJ, Erwich JJ, Khong TY. Value of the perinatal autopsy: critique. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2002;5:480–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10024-002-0008-y
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10024-002-0008-y
Downe S, Kingdon C, Kennedy R, Norwell H, McLaughlin MJ, Heazell AE. Post-mortem examination after stillbirth: views of UK-based practitioners. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;162:33–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.02.002
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.02.002
Heazell AE, McLaughlin MJ, Schmidt EB, Cox P, Flenady V, Khong TY, Downe S. A difficult conversation? The views and experiences of parents and professionals on the consent process for perinatal postmortem after stillbirth. BJOG 2012;119:987–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03357.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03357.x
Stock SJ, Goldsmith L, Evans MJ, Laing IA. Interventions to improve rates of post-mortem examination after stillbirth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;153:148–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.022
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.022
Manktelow BN, Smith LK, Seaton SE, Hyman-Taylor P, Kurinczuk JJ, Field DJ, et al. MBRRACE-UK Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report: UK Perinatal Deaths for Births from January to December 2014. Leicester: University of Leicester, Department of Health Sciences; 2016.
Sieswerda-Hoogendoorn T, van Rijn RR. Current techniques in postmortem imaging with specific attention to paediatric applications. Pediatr Radiol 2010;40:141–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1486-0
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1486-0
Kock KF, Vestergaard V, Hardt-Madsen M, Garne E. Declining autopsy rates in stillbirths and infant deaths: results from Funen County, Denmark, 1986–96. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003;13:403–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/jmf.13.6.403.407
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/jmf.13.6.403.407
Newton D, Coffin CM, Clark EB, Lowichik A. How the pediatric autopsy yields valuable information in a vertically integrated health care system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:1239–46.
Kumar P, Taxy J, Angst DB, Mangurten HH. Autopsies in children: are they still useful? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:558–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.152.6.558
doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.152.6.558
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Pathologists. Fetal and Perinatal Pathology: Report of a Joint Working Party. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 2001.
Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). Perinatal Mortality 2007. London: CEMACH; 2009.
Burton JL, Underwood J. Clinical, educational, and epidemiological value of autopsy. Lancet 2007;369:1471–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60376-6
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60376-6
Shojania KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, Goldman L. Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:2849–56. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.21.2849
doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.21.2849
Roulson J, Benbow EW, Hasleton PS. Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis and the value of post mortem histology: a meta-analysis and review. Histopathology 2005;47:551–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02243.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02243.x
Griffiths PD, Variend D, Evans M, Jones A, Wilkinson ID, Paley MN, Whitby E. Postmortem MR imaging of the fetal and stillborn central nervous system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:22–7.
Wigglesworth JS, Singer DB. Textbook of Fetal and Perinatal Pathology. 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 1998.
Gardosi J, Kady SM, McGeown P, Francis A, Tonks A. Classification of stillbirth by relevant condition at death (ReCoDe): population based cohort study. BMJ 2005;331:1113–17. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38629.587639.7C
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38629.587639.7C
Great Britain. Human Tissue Act 2004. London: The Stationery Office; 2004.
Royal College of Pathologists. Service Specification for Paediatric and Perinatal Histopathology 1995. URL: www.rcpath.org/resourceLibrary/service-specification-for-paediatric-and-perinatal-histopathology.html (accessed 1 April 2018).
Gordijn SJ, Erwich JJ, Khong TY. The perinatal autopsy: pertinent issues in multicultural Western Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132:3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.031
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.031
McHaffie HE. Crucial Decisions at the Beginning of Life: Parents’ Experiences of Treatment Withdrawals from Infants. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2001.
Rahman HA, Khong TY. Perinatal and infant postmortem examination: survey of women’s reactions to perinatal necropsy. BMJ 1995;310:870–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6983.870e
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6983.870e
Sajid MI. Autopsy in Islam: considerations for deceased Muslims and their families currently and in the future. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2016;37:29–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAF.0000000000000207
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAF.0000000000000207
Davis GJ, Peterson BR. Dilemmas and solutions for the pathologist and clinician encountering religious views of the autopsy. South Med J 1996;89:1041–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-199611000-00003
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-199611000-00003
Burton EC. Religions and Autopsy 2012. URL: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1705993-overview (accessed 8 August 2017).
Chichester M. Requesting perinatal autopsy: multicultural considerations. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2007;32:81–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NMC.0000264286.03609.bd
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NMC.0000264286.03609.bd
Cannie M, Votino C, Moerman P, Vanheste R, Segers V, Van Berkel K, et al. Acceptance, reliability and confidence of diagnosis of fetal and neonatal virtuopsy compared with conventional autopsy: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:659–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10079
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10079
Kang X, Cos T, Guizani M, Cannie MM, Segers V, Jani JC. Parental acceptance of minimally invasive fetal and neonatal autopsy compared with conventional autopsy. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:1106–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4435
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4435
McDermott M. The continuing decline of autopsies in clinical trials: is there any way back? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F198–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2003.045609
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2003.045609
Blokker BM, Wagensveld IM, Weustink AC, Oosterhuis JW, Hunink MG. Non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy compared to conventional autopsy of suspected natural deaths in adults: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 2016;26:1159–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3908-8
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3908-8
Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS, Wade A, Chong W, Olsen O, et al. Post-mortem MRI versus conventional autopsy in fetuses and children: a prospective validation study. Lancet 2013;382:223–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60134-8
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60134-8
Sebire NJ, Weber MA, Thayyil S, Mushtaq I, Taylor A, Chitty LS. Minimally invasive perinatal autopsies using magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic postmortem examination (‘keyhole autopsy’): feasibility and initial experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:513–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2011.601368
doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2011.601368
NHS Implementation Sub-Group of the Department of Health Post Mortem, Forensic and Disaster Imaging Group (PMFDI). Can Cross-Sectional Imaging as an Adjunct and/or Alternative to the Invasive Autopsy be Implemented within the NHS? UK: NHS; 2012.
Breeze AC, Statham H, Hackett GA, Jessop FA, Lees CC. Perinatal postmortems: what is important to parents and how do they decide? Birth 2012;39:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2011.00513.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2011.00513.x
Ben-Sasi K, Chitty LS, Franck LS, Thayyil S, Judge-Kronis L, Taylor AM, Sebire NJ. Acceptability of a minimally invasive perinatal/paediatric autopsy: healthcare professionals’ views and implications for practice. Prenat Diagn 2013;33:307–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4077
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4077
Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE). Perinatal Mortality 2009. London: CMACE; 2011.
Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J, Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team. 4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why? Lancet 2005;365:891–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5
NHS England. Five Year Forward View. London: NHS England; 2014.
Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS, Wade A, Olsen O, Gunny RS, et al. Post mortem magnetic resonance imaging in the fetus, infant and child: a comparative study with conventional autopsy (MaRIAS Protocol). BMC Pediatr 2011;11:120. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-120
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-120
Lewis C, Hill M, Arthurs OJ, Hutchinson C, Chitty LS, Sebire NJ. Factors affecting uptake of postmortem examination in the prenatal, perinatal and paediatric setting. BJOG 2018;125:172–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14600
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14600
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res 2012;22:1435–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
Kmet LMLR, Cook LS. Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields 2004. URL: www.ihe.ca/advanced-search/standard-quality-assessment-criteria-for-evaluating-primary-research-papers-from-a-variety-of-fields (accessed 11 April 2019).
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. London: Sage; 1988. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985000
doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985000
Holste C, Pilo C, Pettersson K, Rådestad I, Papadogiannakis N. Mothers’ attitudes towards perinatal autopsy after stillbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:1287–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01202.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01202.x
Khong TY, Turnbull D, Staples A. Provider attitudes about gaining consent for perinatal autopsy. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:994–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200106000-00023
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200106000-00023
Landers S, Kirby R, Harvey B, Langston C. Characteristics of infants who undergo neonatal autopsy. J Perinatol 1994;14:204–7.
Rankin J, Wright C, Lind T. Cross sectional survey of parents’ experience and views of the postmortem examination. BMJ 2002;324:816–18. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7341.816
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7341.816
Stolman CJ, Castello F, Yorio M, Mautone S. Attitudes of pediatricians and pediatric residents towards obtaining permission for autopsy. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1994;148:843–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1994.02170080073014
doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1994.02170080073014
Vijayan V, Hiu J. Perinatal postmortem: factors influencing uptake and subsequent outcomes in an Asian population. Med J Malaysia 2012;67:87–90.
Warland J, O’Brien LM, Heazell AE, Mitchell EA, STARS Consortium. An international internet survey of the experiences of 1,714 mothers with a late stillbirth: the STARS cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4
Brodlie M, Laing IA, Keeling JW, McKenzie KJ. Ten years of neonatal autopsies in tertiary referral centre: retrospective study. BMJ 2002;324:761–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7340.761
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7340.761
Khong TY, Tanner AR. Foetal and neonatal autopsy rates and use of tissue for research: the influence of ‘organ retention’ controversy and new consent process. J Paediatr Child Health 2006;42:366–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2006.00874.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2006.00874.x
Khong TY, Mansor FA, Staples AJ. Are perinatal autopsy rates satisfactory? Med J Aust 1995;162:469–70.
Maniscalco WM, Clarke TA. Factors influencing neonatal autopsy rate. Am J Dis Child 1982;136:781–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1982.03970450023005
doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1982.03970450023005
Okah FA. The autopsy: experience of a regional neonatal intensive care unit. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002;16:350–4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3016.2002.00439.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3016.2002.00439.x
Swinton CH, Weiner J, Okah FA. The neonatal autopsy: can it be revived? Am J Perinatol 2013;30:739–44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1332798
doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1332798
Whitehouse SR, Kissoon N, Singh N, Warren D. The utility of autopsies in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 1994;10:72–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006565-199404000-00002
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006565-199404000-00002
Epstein EG. End-of-life experiences of nurses and physicians in the newborn intensive care unit. J Perinatol 2008;28:771–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2008.96
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2008.96
Lishimpi K, Chintu C, Lucas S, Mudenda V, Kaluwaji J, Story A, et al. Necropsies in African children: consent dilemmas for parents and guardians. Arch Dis Child 2001;84:463–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.84.6.463
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.84.6.463
McHaffie HE, Fowlie PW, Hume R, Laing IA, Lloyd DJ, Lyon AJ. Consent to autopsy for neonates. Arch Dis Child 2001;85:F4–F7. https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.85.1.F4
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.85.1.F4
Meaney S, Gallagher S, Lutomski JE, O’Donoghue K. Parental decision making around perinatal autopsy: a qualitative investigation. Health Expect 2015;18:3160–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12305
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12305
Snowdon C, Elbourne DR, Garcia J. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of bereaved parents. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F208–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2003.041392
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2003.041392
Snowdon C, Elbourne DR, Garcia J. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: attitudes of neonatologists and pathologists. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F204–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2002.012732
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2002.012732
Siassakos D, Jackson S, Gleeson K, Chebsey C, Ellis A, Storey C, INSIGHT Study Group. All bereaved parents are entitled to good care after stillbirth: a mixed-methods multicentre study (INSIGHT). BJOG 2018;125:160–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14765
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14765
Fisher J, Lafarge C. Women’s experience of care when undergoing termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly in England. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2015;33:69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2014.970149
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2014.970149
Horey D, Flenady V, Conway L, McLeod E, Yee Khong T. Decision influences and aftermath: parents, stillbirth and autopsy. Health Expect 2014;17:534–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00782.x
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00782.x
Baker JN, Windham JA, Hinds PS, Gattuso JS, Mandrell B, Gajjar P, et al. Bereaved parents’ intentions and suggestions about research autopsies in children with lethal brain tumors. J Pediatr 2013;163:581–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.015
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.015
Sirkiä K, Saarinen-Pihkala UM, Hovi L, Sariola H. Autopsy in children with cancer who die while in terminal care. Med Pediatr Oncol 1998;30:284–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199805)30:5<284::AID-MPO4>3.0.CO;2-B
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199805)30:5<284::AID-MPO4>3.0.CO;2-B
Wiener L, Sweeney C, Baird K, Merchant MS, Warren KE, Corner GW, et al. What do parents want to know when considering autopsy for their child with cancer? J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2014;36:464–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPH.0000000000000078
doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MPH.0000000000000078
VanMarter LJ, Taylor F, Epstein MF. Parental and physician-related determinants of consent for neonatal autopsy. Am J Dis Child 1987;141:149–53. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1987.04460020039023
doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1987.04460020039023
Aiyelaagbe E, Scott RE, Holmes V, Lane E, Heazell AEP. Assessing the quality of bereavement care after perinatal death: development and piloting of a questionnaire to assess parents’ experiences. J Obstet Gynaecol 2017;37:931–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1316710
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1316710
Henderson J, Redshaw M. Parents’ experience of perinatal post-mortem following stillbirth: a mixed methods study. PLOS ONE 2017;12:e0178475. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178475
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178475
O’Connell O, Meaney S, O’Donoghue K. Caring for parents at the time of stillbirth: How can we do better? Women Birth 2016;29:345–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.01.003
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.01.003
Ellis A, Chebsey C, Storey C, Bradley S, Jackson S, Flenady V, et al. Systematic review to understand and improve care after stillbirth: a review of parents’ and healthcare professionals’ experiences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0806-2
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0806-2
Batty D. Alder Hey report on use of children’s organs. The Guardian, 2001. URL: www.theguardian.com/society/2001/jan/30/health.alderhey1 (accessed 16 January 2017).
Breeze AC, Statham H, Hackett GA, Jessop FA, Lees CC. Attitudes to perinatal postmortem: parental views about research participation. J Med Ethics 2011;37:364–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.038505
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.038505
Dyregrov K. Bereaved parents’ experience of research participation. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00205-3
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00205-3
Sebire NJ. Towards the minimally invasive autopsy? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:865–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.3869
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.3869
Addison S, Arthurs OJ, Thayyil S. Post-mortem MRI as an alternative to non-forensic autopsy in foetuses and children: from research into clinical practice. Br J Radiol 2014;87:20130621. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130621
doi: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130621
Henley A, Schott J. Sands’ learning outcomes for consent taker training: seeking consent/authorisation for a hospital post mortem examination of a baby. J Neonatal Nurs 2014;20:11–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnn.2013.10.004
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnn.2013.10.004
Human Tissue Authority. Code of Practice 3: Post-mortem Examination. London: Human Tissue Authority; 2014.
Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity. Sands Post Mortem Consent Package. London: Sands; 2013.
Siassakos D, Storey C, Davey L, Insight Study Team. Stillbirth: public/patient involvement in sensitive research and research ethics. BJOG 2015;122:1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13412
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13412
Snowdon C, Brocklehurst P, Tasker R, Ward Platt M, Harvey S, Elbourne D. Death, bereavement and randomised controlled trials (BRACELET): a methodological study of policy and practice in neonatal and paediatric intensive care trials. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(42). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18420
doi: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18420
Tashakkori A, Creswell JW. The new era of mixed methods. J Mix Methods Res 2007;1:307. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042
O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ 2010;341:c4587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587
Lakhanpaul M, Culley L, Robertson N, Bird D, Hudson N, Johal N, et al. A qualitative study to identify parents’ perceptions of and barriers to asthma management in children from South Asian and White British families. BMC Pulm Med 2017;17:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-017-0464-9
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-017-0464-9
Lakhanpaul M, Bird D, Culley L, Hudson N, Robertson N, Johal N, et al. The use of a collaborative structured methodology for the development of a multifaceted intervention programme for the management of asthma (the MIA project), tailored to the needs of children and families of South Asian origin: a community-based, participatory study. Health Serv Deliv 2014;2(28).
Stirland L, Halani L, Raj B, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J, et al. Recruitment of South Asians into asthma research: qualitative study of UK and US researchers. Prim Care Respir J 2011;20:282–90, 8 p following 290. https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2011.00032
doi: https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2011.00032
Leicester City Council. 2011 Census Findings: Diversity and Migration. URL: www.leicester.gov.uk/media/177367/2011-census-findings-diversity-and-migration.pdf (accessed 17 January 2018).
Tower Hamlets. Ethnicity in Tower Hamlets: Analysis of 2011 Census Data. 2013. URL: www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Borough_statistics/Ward_profiles/Census-2011/RB-Census2011-Ethnicity-2013-01.pdf (accessed 17 January 2018).
Tower Hamlets. Religion in Tower Hamlets: 2011 Census Update. 2015. URL: www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Borough_statistics/Ward_profiles/Census-2011/2015-04-21-Faith-key-facts-Revised-data.pdf (accessed 17 January 2018).
Office for National Statistics. Full Story: What Does the Census Tell Us About Religion in 2011. 2013. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/fullstorywhatdoesthecensustellusaboutreligionin2011/2013-05-16 (accessed September 2017).
Rocker S. Census 2011: The Jewish Breakdown. The Jewish Chronicle; 2012. URL: www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/census-2011-the-jewish-breakdown-1.39530 (accessed 3 October 2017).
Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Synagogue Membership in the United Kingdom in 2016. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research; 2016.
Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res 2016;26:1802–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Lewis C, Riddington M, Hill M, Arthurs OJ, Hutchinson JC, Chitty LS, et al. Availability of less invasive prenatal, perinatal and paediatric autopsy will improve uptake rates: a mixed methods study with bereaved parents [published online ahead of print December 21 2018]. BJOG 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15591
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15591
Wojcieszek AM, Boyle FM, Belizán JM, Cassidy J, Cassidy P, Erwich J, et al. Care in subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth: an international survey of parents. BJOG 2018;125:193–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14424
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14424
Office for National Statistics. Statistical Bulletin: Childhood, Infant and Perinatal Mortality in England and Wales – 2013. London: Office for National Statistics; 2015.
Lewis C, Hill M, Arthurs OJ, Hutchinson JC, Chitty LS, Sebire N. Health professionals’ and coroners’ views on less invasive perinatal and paediatric autopsy: a qualitative study. Arch Dis Child 2018;103:572–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-314424
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-314424
Hutchinson JC, Arthurs OJ, Sebire NJ. Postmortem research: innovations and future directions for the perinatal and paediatric autopsy. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2016;101:54–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-309321
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-309321
NHS Implementation Sub-Group of the Department of Health Post Mortem, Forensic and Disaster Imaging Group (PMFDI). Strategy for Implementation of a National Less Invasive Autopsy Imaging Service within the NHS. Leicester: University of Leicester; 2012.
Maskell G, Wells M. RCR/RCPath Statement on Standards for Medico-Legal Post-Mortem Cross-Sectional Imaging in Adults. London: The Royal College of Pathologists; 2012.
Arthurs OJ, Thayyil S, Pauliah SS, Jacques TS, Chong WK, Gunny R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and limitations of post-mortem MRI for neurological abnormalities in fetuses and children. Clin Radiol 2015;70:872–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.04.008
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.04.008
Taylor AM, Sebire NJ, Ashworth MT, Schievano S, Scott RJ, Wade A, et al. Postmortem cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses and children: a masked comparison study with conventional autopsy. Circulation 2014;129:1937–44. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.005641
doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.005641
Arthurs OJ, Thayyil S, Addison S, Wade A, Jones R, Norman W, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of postmortem MRI for musculoskeletal abnormalities in fetuses and children. Prenat Diagn 2014;34:1254–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4460
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4460
NHS England. 2013/14 NHS Standard Contract for Perinatal Pathology: Particulars, Schedule 2 – The Services, A – Service Specification. 2013. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/e12-perinatal-path.pdf (accessed 7 August 2017).
Arthurs OJ, Bevan C, Sebire NJ. Less invasive investigation of perinatal death. BMJ 2015;351:h3598. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3598
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3598
Lewis C, Latif Z, Hill M, Riddington M, Lakhanpaul M, Arthurs OJ, et al. ‘We might get a lot more families who will agree’: Muslim and Jewish perspectives on less invasive perinatal and paediatric autopsy. PLOS ONE 2018;13:e0202023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202023
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202023
Gurley ES, Parveen S, Islam MS, Hossain MJ, Nahar N, Homaira N, et al. Family and community concerns about post-mortem needle biopsies in a Muslim society. BMC Med Ethics 2011;12:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-12-10
doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-12-10
Maixenchs M, Anselmo R, Zielinski-Gutiérrez E, Odhiambo FO, Akello C, Ondire M, et al. Willingness to know the cause of death and hypothetical acceptability of the minimally invasive autopsy in six diverse African and Asian settings: a mixed methods socio-behavioural study. PLOS Med 2016;13:e1002172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002172
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002172
Weiss R. Haredim (Charedim), or Ultra-Orthodox Jews. URL: www.myjewishlearning.com/article/haredim-charedim/ (accessed 17 January 2018).
Bisset RA, Thomas NB, Turnbull IW, Lee S. Postmortem examinations using magnetic resonance imaging: four year review of a working service. BMJ 2002;324:1423–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1423
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1423
Saad Foundation. MRI PM vs PM. URL: www.saadfoundation.com/?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=3 (accessed 17 January 2018).
Islam21c. Protecting Yourself from Mutilation After Death. URL: www.islam21c.com/campaigns/protect-yourself-from-mutilation-after-death/ (accessed 17 January 2018).
Rocker S. High Court backs Jewish family who rejected invasive autopsy on religious groups. The Jewish Chronicle, 28 July 2015.
Watts G. Imaging the dead. BMJ 2010;341:c6600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6600
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6600
digitalautopsy.co.uk. Sandwell Council Supporting Digital Autopsy. URL: http://digitalautopsy.co.uk/sandwell-council-supporting-digital-autopsy/ (accessed 7 September 2017).
Ministry of Justice. Implementing the Coroner Reforms in Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009: Consultation on Rules, Regulations, Coroner Areas and Statutory Guidance. London: Ministry of Justice; 2013.
Kai J, Beavan J, Faull C, Dodson L, Gill P, Beighton A. Professional uncertainty and disempowerment responding to ethnic diversity in health care: a qualitative study. PLOS Med 2007;4:e323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040323
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040323
Weber MA, Klein NJ, Hartley JC, Lock PE, Malone M, Sebire NJ. Infection and sudden unexpected death in infancy: a systematic retrospective case review. Lancet 2008;371:1848–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60798-9
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60798-9
Bamber AR, Paine SM, Ridout DA, Pryce JW, Jacques TS, Sebire NJ. Brain weight in sudden unexpected death in infancy: experience from a large single-centre cohort. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 2016;42:344–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/nan.12251
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nan.12251
Office for National Statistics. Childhood, Infant and Perinatal Mortality in England and Wales: 2013. London: Office for National Statistics; 2015.
Drapers ES, Gallimore ID, Krurinczuk JJ, Smith PW, Boby T, Smith LK, et al. Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report, UK Perinatal Deaths for Births from January to December 2016. Leicester: Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester; 2018.
Judge-Kronis L, Hutchinson JC, Sebire NJ, Arthurs OJ. Consent for paediatric and perinatal postmortem investigations: implications of less invasive autopsy. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 2016;4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jofri.2015.12.001
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jofri.2015.12.001
Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings. Nurs Res 2003;52:226–33.