Neonatologists' Resuscitation Decisions at Birth for Extremely Premature Infants. A Belgian Qualitative Study.

ethics extremely premature infants neonatal intensive care neonatology qualitative study

Journal

Frontiers in pediatrics
ISSN: 2296-2360
Titre abrégé: Front Pediatr
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101615492

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 10 01 2022
accepted: 23 02 2022
entrez: 11 4 2022
pubmed: 12 4 2022
medline: 12 4 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Deciding whether initiating or withholding resuscitation at birth for extremely preterm infants (EPIs) can be difficult due to uncertainty on outcomes. Clinical uncertainty generates ethical uncertainty. Thus, physicians' attitudes and perspectives on resuscitation of EPIs might influence resuscitation decisions. We aimed at understanding how neonatologists make clinical-ethical decisions for EPI resuscitation and how they perceive these decisions. We performed a qualitative study using a constructivist account of grounded theory. Face-to-face, semi-structured in-depth interviews with neonatologists comprised data collection. For data analysis, we used the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. We interviewed 20 neonatologists working in 10 hospitals in Belgium. Participants' decision-making can be described as consensus-based, gestational age-based, contextualized, progressive, and shared. All participants agreed on the importance of using the consensus expressed in guidelines as a guidance for the decision-making, i.e., consensus-based. Consequently, all 20 participants use GA thresholds indicated in the guidelines, i.e., GA-based. However, they use these thresholds differently in their decisions. Few participants rigidly follow established thresholds. The vast majority reported using additional contextual factors as birthweight or parents' wishes in the decision-making, rather than only the EPIs' GA, i.e., contextualized. All participants agreed on the importance of involving the parents in the decision-making, i.e., shared, and indeed parents' wishes were among the most valued factors considered in the decision-making. However, the extent to which parents were involved in the decision-making depended on the infant's GA. Participants described a gray zone in which parents' were viewed as the main decision-makers due to the high clinical uncertainty. This mean that participants tend to follow parents' request even when they disagree with it. Outside the gray zone, physicians were viewed as the main decision-makers. This mean that, although parents' wishes were still considered, counseling was more directive and the final decision was made by the physician. Although an EPI's GA remains the main factor guiding neonatologists' resuscitation decisions, other factors are seriously considered in the decision-making process. All neonatologist participants agreed on the importance of involving parents in the decision-making. However, they involve parents differently depending on the EPI's GA.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35402353
doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.852073
pmc: PMC8989134
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

852073

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Cavolo, Dierckx de Casterlé, Naulaers and Gastmans.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Neonatal Netw. 2000 Apr;19(3):25-32
pubmed: 11949061
Circulation. 2020 Oct 20;142(16_suppl_1):S185-S221
pubmed: 33084392
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Feb;23(1):25-29
pubmed: 29066179
Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Mar;49(3):360-71
pubmed: 21996649
Acta Paediatr. 1999 Apr;88(4):438-44
pubmed: 10342545
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020 Mar;59(3):599-608.e2
pubmed: 31639496
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021 Jul;106(4):418-424
pubmed: 33504573
Early Hum Dev. 2013 Oct;89(10):795-802
pubmed: 23870752
J Perinatol. 2001 Apr-May;21(3):193-8
pubmed: 11503107
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
J Med Ethics. 2020 Apr 27;:
pubmed: 32341186
Qual Health Res. 2021 May;31(6):1083-1093
pubmed: 33135554
BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jun 20;19(1):204
pubmed: 31221128
J Perinatol. 2006 Jun;26(6):321-4
pubmed: 16688203
Nurs Ethics. 2018 Nov;25(7):897-905
pubmed: 28027674
J Pediatr Nurs. 2005 Oct;20(5):347-59
pubmed: 16182094
Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2018 Oct 04;5:2333393618799571
pubmed: 30306099
Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):429-30; author reply 430-2
pubmed: 16818594
Acta Paediatr. 2008 Apr;97(4):402-6
pubmed: 18363948
Am J Perinatol. 2017 Jul;34(8):787-794
pubmed: 28192814
Semin Perinatol. 1998 Jun;22(3):207-15
pubmed: 9650228
Pediatrics. 2019 Feb;143(2):
pubmed: 30705140
Matern Child Health J. 2014 May;18(4):920-9; quiz 927-8
pubmed: 23807716
J Pediatr. 2018 May;196:109-115.e7
pubmed: 29223461
J IMA. 2011 Dec;43(3):188-92
pubmed: 23610507
Pediatrics. 2019 Mar;143(3):
pubmed: 30824603
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021 Jul;106(4):413-417
pubmed: 33452221
Semin Perinatol. 2009 Dec;33(6):354-63
pubmed: 19914519
Nurs Inq. 2019 Jan;26(1):e12261
pubmed: 30123965
Arch Dis Child. 2021 Dec;106(12):1155-1157
pubmed: 33853763
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jun;35(6):343-7
pubmed: 19482975
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S2
pubmed: 24625129
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Aug;102(8):1541-1549
pubmed: 30948203
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2000 Sep;14(2):44-57
pubmed: 11930460
Implement Sci. 2019 Jan 18;14(1):7
pubmed: 30658670
Clin Perinatol. 2014 Dec;41(4):799-814
pubmed: 25459775
AMA J Ethics. 2017 Aug 1;19(8):743-752
pubmed: 28846514
Pediatrics. 2005 Aug;116(2):e263-71
pubmed: 16061579
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020 May;105(3):232-239
pubmed: 31980443
Bioethics. 2018 Mar;32(3):205-214
pubmed: 29369374
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Dec;169(12):1162-72
pubmed: 26457641
Pediatrics. 2019 Jun;143(6):
pubmed: 31076541
Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2020 Sep;28:133-141
pubmed: 32788055
Pediatrics. 2015 Aug;136(2):343-50
pubmed: 26169424
JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Oct 01;170(10):954-963
pubmed: 27479919
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 8;379(19):1851-1860
pubmed: 30403936
Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(3):339-47
pubmed: 17082871
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012 Mar;54(3):240-6
pubmed: 22188215

Auteurs

Alice Cavolo (A)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé (B)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Gunnar Naulaers (G)

Pregnancy, Fetus and Newborn, Department of Development and Regeneration, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Chris Gastmans (C)

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH