Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study.
Acceptability
Feasibility
Gastric residual volume
Intensive care
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2021
16 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
20
05
2020
accepted:
26
01
2021
entrez:
17
2
2021
pubmed:
18
2
2021
medline:
18
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement. A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child's feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent's views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child's prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications. The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement.
METHODS
METHODS
A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child's feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent's views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child's prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33593416
doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00784-5
pii: 10.1186/s40814-021-00784-5
pmc: PMC7885383
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
49Subventions
Organisme : the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme
ID : (16/94/02)
Références
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021 Jan;45(1):79-86
pubmed: 32144809
Pediatrics. 2002 Mar;109(3):457-9
pubmed: 11875141
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):380-398
pubmed: 28168570
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017 Jul;41(5):706-742
pubmed: 28686844
Arch Dis Child. 2018 Jan;103(1):28-32
pubmed: 28847877
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2009 Apr;48(4):437-42
pubmed: 19330932
Nurs Crit Care. 2010 Nov-Dec;15(6):291-9
pubmed: 21040260
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2014 Oct 16;9:26152
pubmed: 25326092
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381(15):1434-1443
pubmed: 31597020
Health Technol Assess. 2019 Feb;23(5):1-148
pubmed: 30793698
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Nov;50(11):1459-67
pubmed: 23537895
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Jun;18(38):1-197, v-vi
pubmed: 24914457
Pediatrics. 2004 Jan;113(1 Pt 1):50-3
pubmed: 14702446
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Nov 23;9:33-39
pubmed: 29696222
Nutrition. 2017 Jan;33:91-95
pubmed: 27364223
Nurs Crit Care. 2017 Sep;22(5):293-297
pubmed: 28640510
Clin Nutr. 2016 Dec;35(6):1226-1235
pubmed: 27181526
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005 May-Jun;29(3):192-7
pubmed: 15837779
Lancet. 2004 Aug 28-Sep 3;364(9436):803-11
pubmed: 15337409
J Pediatr (Rio J). 2016 May-Jun;92(3):223-9
pubmed: 26854736
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 18;5(9):e008522
pubmed: 26384724
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016 Feb;40(2):159-211
pubmed: 26773077
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Apr;3(4):281-287
pubmed: 29533200
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug;20(8):707-713
pubmed: 31398180
J Pediatr. 2006 Jul;149(1 Suppl):S31-3
pubmed: 16829240
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2
pubmed: 10617534
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017 Sep;41(7):1100-1109
pubmed: 28061320
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
Arch Dis Child. 2019 May;104(5):426-431
pubmed: 30087153
Pediatrics. 2011 Jun;127(6):e1471-81
pubmed: 21624876
Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2012 Dec 1;12(4):207-213
pubmed: 23204932
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Nov 06;14:45
pubmed: 24195717
BMC Public Health. 2013 Aug 15;13:756
pubmed: 23947336