Living bioethics, theories and children’s consent to heart surgery

Background: This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children’s consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families’ informed consent to surgery. Results: The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices. Conclusion: We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children’s rights

The involvement and autonomy of young children undergoing elective paediatric cardiac surgery: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Standards generally reported in the literature about informing children and respecting their consent or refusal before elective heart surgery may differ from actual practice. This research aims to summarize the main themes in the literature about paediatric anaesthesia and compare these with research findings on how health professionals counsel young children before elective heart surgery, respect their consent or refusal, and maintain patient-centred care. METHODS: This qualitative research involved: literature reviews about children’s consent to surgery and major interventions; observations of wards, clinics and medical meetings in two paediatric cardiology departments, October 2019 to February 2020; audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with 45 hospital staff, including 5 anaesthetists, and related experts, November 2019 to April 2021; interviews with 16 families, with children aged 6- to 15-years and their parents shortly after elective heart surgery, and some months later (reported in other papers); thematic data analysis; and research reports on how different professions contribute to children’s informed decisions for heart surgery. RESULTS: The medical, ethics and English legal literature tend to assume legal minors cannot refuse major recommended treatment, and cannot consent until they are 12 years or older. Little is said about informing pre-competent children. If children resist, some anaesthetists rely on sedation and distraction, and avoid much informed discussion, aiming to reduce peri-operative anxiety. However, interviewees reported informing young children, and respecting their consent or refusal before elective surgery. They may delay elective surgery and provide further information and support, aiming to reduce fear and promote trust. Six years of age was commonly cited as the threshold for respecting consent to heart transplantation. COCNLUSION: Differing views about younger children’s competence, anxiety and best interests support different reactions to children’s consent and refusal before elective heart surgery. This paper reports the zero-restraint policy followed for over a decade in at least one leading surgery centre. The related law and literature need to be updated, to take more account of evidence of actual practice

Incidence of severe critical events in paediatric anaesthesia (APRICOT): a prospective multicentre observational study in 261 hospitals in Europe

Background Little is known about the incidence of severe critical events in children undergoing general anaesthesia in Europe. We aimed to identify the incidence, nature, and outcome of severe critical events in children undergoing anaesthesia, and the associated potential risk factors. Methods The APRICOT study was a prospective observational multicentre cohort study of children from birth to 15 years of age undergoing elective or urgent anaesthesia for diagnostic or surgical procedures. Children were eligible for inclusion during a 2-week period determined prospectively by each centre. There were 261 participating centres across 33 European countries. The primary endpoint was the occurence of perioperative severe critical events requiring immediate intervention. A severe critical event was defined as the occurrence of respiratory, cardiac, allergic, or neurological complications requiring immediate intervention and that led (or could have led) to major disability or death. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878760. Findings Between April 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 31â127 anaesthetic procedures in 30â874 children with a mean age of 6·35 years (SD 4·50) were included. The incidence of perioperative severe critical events was 5·2% (95% CI 5·0â5·5) with an incidence of respiratory critical events of 3·1% (2·9â3·3). Cardiovascular instability occurred in 1·9% (1·7â2·1), with an immediate poor outcome in 5·4% (3·7â7·5) of these cases. The all-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 10 in 10â000. This was independent of type of anaesthesia. Age (relative risk 0·88, 95% CI 0·86â0·90; p<0·0001), medical history, and physical condition (1·60, 1·40â1·82; p<0·0001) were the major risk factors for a serious critical event. Multivariate analysis revealed evidence for the beneficial effect of years of experience of the most senior anaesthesia team member (0·99, 0·981â0·997; p<0·0048 for respiratory critical events, and 0·98, 0·97â0·99; p=0·0039 for cardiovascular critical events), rather than the type of health institution or providers. Interpretation This study highlights a relatively high rate of severe critical events during the anaesthesia management of children for surgical or diagnostic procedures in Europe, and a large variability in the practice of paediatric anaesthesia. These findings are substantial enough to warrant attention from national, regional, and specialist societies to target education of anaesthesiologists and their teams and implement strategies for quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia. Funding European Society of Anaesthesiology

Incidence of severe critical events in paediatric anaesthesia (APRICOT): a prospective multicentre observational study in 261 hospitals in Europe

Background Little is known about the incidence of severe critical events in children undergoing general anaesthesia in Europe. We aimed to identify the incidence, nature, and outcome of severe critical events in children undergoing anaesthesia, and the associated potential risk factors. Methods The APRICOT study was a prospective observational multicentre cohort study of children from birth to 15 years of age undergoing elective or urgent anaesthesia for diagnostic or surgical procedures. Children were eligible for inclusion during a 2-week period determined prospectively by each centre. There were 261 participating centres across 33 European countries. The primary endpoint was the occurence of perioperative severe critical events requiring immediate intervention. A severe critical event was defined as the occurrence of respiratory, cardiac, allergic, or neurological complications requiring immediate intervention and that led (or could have led) to major disability or death. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878760. Findings Between April 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 31 127 anaesthetic procedures in 30 874 children with a mean age of 6.35 years (SD 4.50) were included. The incidence of perioperative severe critical events was 5.2% (95% CI 5.0-5.5) with an incidence of respiratory critical events of 3.1% (2.9-3.3). Cardiovascular instability occurred in 1.9% (1.7-2.1), with an immediate poor outcome in 5.4% (3.7-7.5) of these cases. The all-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 10 in 10 000. This was independent of type of anaesthesia. Age (relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.86-0.90; p<0.0001), medical history, and physical condition (1.60, 1.40-1.82; p<0.0001) were the major risk factors for a serious critical event. Multivariate analysis revealed evidence for the beneficial effect of years of experience of the most senior anaesthesia team member (0.99, 0.981-0.997; p<0.0048 for respiratory critical events, and 0.98, 0.97-0.99; p=0.0039 for cardiovascular critical events), rather than the type of health institution or providers. Interpretation This study highlights a relatively high rate of severe critical events during the anaesthesia management of children for surgical or diagnostic procedures in Europe, and a large variability in the practice of paediatric anaesthesia. These findings are substantial enough to warrant attention from national, regional, and specialist societies to target education of anaesthesiologists and their teams and implement strategies for quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia