Optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care: a mixed methods consensus process.


Journal

Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition
ISSN: 1468-2052
Titre abrégé: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9501297

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2021
Historique:
received: 24 04 2020
revised: 15 09 2020
accepted: 11 10 2020
pubmed: 1 11 2020
medline: 30 4 2021
entrez: 31 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding is widespread in neonatal units but not supported by high-quality evidence. Outcome selection is critical to trial design. To determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care. A focused literature review, parent interviews, modified two-round Delphi survey and stakeholder consensus meeting. Sixty-one neonatal healthcare professionals participated in an eDelphi survey; 17 parents were interviewed. 19 parents and neonatal healthcare professionals took part in the consensus meeting. Literature review generated 14 outcomes, and parent interviews contributed eight additional outcomes; these 22 outcomes were then ranked by 74 healthcare professionals in the first Delphi round where four further outcomes were proposed; 26 outcomes were ranked in the second round by 61 healthcare professionals. Five outcomes were categorised as 'consensus in', and no outcomes were voted 'consensus out'. 'No consensus' outcomes were discussed and voted on in a face-to-face meeting by 19 participants, where four were voted 'consensus in'. The final nine consensus outcomes were: mortality, necrotising enterocolitis, time to full enteral feeds, duration of parenteral nutrition, time feeds stopped per 24 hours, healthcare-associated infection; catheter-associated bloodstream infection, change in weight between birth and neonatal discharge and pneumonia due to milk aspiration. We have identified outcomes for a trial of no routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding in neonatal care. This outcome set will ensure outcomes are important to healthcare professionals and parents.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding is widespread in neonatal units but not supported by high-quality evidence. Outcome selection is critical to trial design.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care.
DESIGN METHODS
A focused literature review, parent interviews, modified two-round Delphi survey and stakeholder consensus meeting.
PARTICIPANTS METHODS
Sixty-one neonatal healthcare professionals participated in an eDelphi survey; 17 parents were interviewed. 19 parents and neonatal healthcare professionals took part in the consensus meeting.
RESULTS RESULTS
Literature review generated 14 outcomes, and parent interviews contributed eight additional outcomes; these 22 outcomes were then ranked by 74 healthcare professionals in the first Delphi round where four further outcomes were proposed; 26 outcomes were ranked in the second round by 61 healthcare professionals. Five outcomes were categorised as 'consensus in', and no outcomes were voted 'consensus out'. 'No consensus' outcomes were discussed and voted on in a face-to-face meeting by 19 participants, where four were voted 'consensus in'. The final nine consensus outcomes were: mortality, necrotising enterocolitis, time to full enteral feeds, duration of parenteral nutrition, time feeds stopped per 24 hours, healthcare-associated infection; catheter-associated bloodstream infection, change in weight between birth and neonatal discharge and pneumonia due to milk aspiration.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE CONCLUSIONS
We have identified outcomes for a trial of no routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding in neonatal care. This outcome set will ensure outcomes are important to healthcare professionals and parents.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33127738
pii: archdischild-2020-319469
doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319469
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

292-297

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: CG reports grants from Medical Research Council and the NIHR during the conduct of the study; grants from NIHR, Mason Medical Research Foundation, Rosetrees Foundation and from Canadian Institute for Health Research outside the submitted work. He reports grants and personal fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work; the grant is for a research study, and the personal fee was to support attendance at an educational meeting. CG is vice-chair of the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit London Regional Assessment Panel and has sat on the panel since 2016. JD reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study for the study; grants from NIHR, and grants from Nutrinia, outside the submitted work. The grant from Nutrinia in 2018 was for part of his salary to work as an expert advisor on a trial. JD was a member of the NIHR HTA General Board (from 2017 to 2018) and the NIHR HTA Maternity, Newborn and Child Health Panel (from 2013 to 2018). FV reports personal fees from BAXTER, personal fees from NUTRICIA, outside the submitted work. LT is an NIHR HTA panel member.

Auteurs

Chris Gale (C)

Neonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK christopher.gale@imperial.ac.uk.

Jon Dorling (J)

Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Dalhousie University - Faculty of Medicine, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Barbara Arch (B)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.

Kerry Woolfall (K)

Institute of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.

Elizabeth Deja (E)

Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.

Louise Roper (L)

Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.

Ashley P Jones (AP)

Medicines for Children Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Trial Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Lynne Latten (L)

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.

Helen Eccleson (H)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.

Helen Hickey (H)

Clinical Trial Research Centre, Medicines for Children Clinical Trials Unit, Liverpool, UK.

Nazima Pathan (N)

Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.

Jennifer Preston (J)

Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool School of Life Sciences, Liverpool, UK.

Anne Beissel (A)

Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Lyon-Bron, France.

Izabela Andrzejewska (I)

Department of Neonatal Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Frederic Valla (F)

Service de réanimation pédiatrique, Hôpital Femme-Mère-Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Université Claude-Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.

Lyvonne Tume (L)

Department of Child Health, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH