Spontaneous intramural jejunal haematoma: a case report

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Establishing and augmenting acceptability of the Fever trial: a mixed methods feasibility study

Introduction: Paediatric clinical trials in critical care settings are challenging to conduct. Establishing trial acceptability can help inform trial design and avoid research waste. This paper reports on how research with parents and staff established and augmented perspectives and the design of a trial investigating temperature thresholds in critically ill children with fever and infection (Fever trial). // Methods: We used a mixed methods approach to explore perspectives at three time points: 1) before, 2) during and 3) after a pilot trial. This included: 1) pre-trial focus groups with staff and interviews with parents; 2) questionnaires with parents of randomised children following trial recruitment; 3) post-trial interviews with parents and focus groups and a survey with staff. Data analysis drew on Sekhon et al (2017) theoretical framework of acceptability. // Results: 1) 25 parents were interviewed and 56 staff took part focus groups, 2) 60 parents of 57 randomised children took part in questionnaires, 3) 19 parents were interviewed and 50 staff took part in focus group and 48 in a survey. There was initial support for the trial, although both groups raised concerns regarding proposed thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed pilot trial protocol changes and training, which assisted practitioner ‘buy in’. However, concerns about children being in pain or discomfort when weaned from ventilation led to cases of withdrawal and protocol non-adherence. Nevertheless, 95% of parents provided consent and all supported the trial. Those trained by the Fever team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Trusting parent and staff relationships were linked to trial acceptability. // Conclusions: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience augmented perspectives, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. The proposed trial was deemed feasible. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform the design of future trial feasibility studies

Determining optimal outcome measures in a trial investigating no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children

Background Choosing trial outcome measures is important. When outcomes are not clinically relevant or important to parents/patients, trial evidence is less likely to be implemented into practice. This study aimed to determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children. Methods: A mixed methods approach: a focused literature review, parent and clinician interviews, a modified two-round Delphi and a stakeholder consensus meeting. Results: The review generated 13 outcomes. 14 Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) parents proposed 3 additional outcomes, these 16 were then rated by 28 clinicians in Delphi round 1. Six further outcomes were proposed, and 22 outcomes were rated in the second round. No items were voted ‘consensus out’. The 18 ‘no-consensus’ items were voted in a face-to-face meeting by 30 participants. The final 12 outcome measures were: Time to reach energy targets; ventilator associated pneumonia; vomiting; time enteral feeds withheld per 24 hour; necrotizing enterocolitis; length of invasive ventilation; PICU length of stay; mortality; change in weight and markers of feed intolerance: parenteral nutrition administered; feed formula altered and changing to post-pyloric feeds all secondary to feed intolerance. Conclusion: We have identified 12 outcomes for a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement through a multi-stage process, seeking views of parents and clinicians. Clinical Relevancy statement: Twelve relevant outcomes have been identified for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children

Establishing and augmenting views on the acceptability of a paediatric critical care randomised controlled trial (the FEVER trial): a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE: To explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study. DESIGN: Mixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial. SETTING: English, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs). PARTICIPANTS: (1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al's theoretical framework of acceptability. RESULTS: There was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818

Consent and recruitment: the reporting of paediatric trials published in 2012.

Objectives: We evaluated 300 paediatric trials to determine: the consent and recruitment strategies used, who trial information was targeted to, how incentives were used and if they achieved their recruitment targets. Methods: For this cross-sectional evaluation, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for paediatric trials published in 2012 and randomly selected 300 that reported on outcomes for participants aged ≤21 years. We collected data on consent and recruitment procedures for each trial and undertook descriptive analyses in SPSS statistics V.23. Results: All but one trial (99.7%) used a standard recruitment strategy. Most (92%) trials reported that consent was obtained but only 13% reported who obtained consent. Two-thirds (65%) of trials included school-aged participants, and of these 68% reported obtaining assent. Half (50%) of the trials reported who the trial information was targeted to. Most trials (75%) of school-aged participants targeted information towards children or children and their parents. Fourteen per cent of trials reported using incentives, half (50%) of which were in the form of compensation. Only 48% of trials reported sufficient data to determine if their recruitment targets were achieved. Of these, 70% achieved their targets. Conclusions: Notable reporting shortcomings included: how families were recruited into the trial, who obtained consent and/or assent and how, who trial information was directed to, whether incentives were used and sufficient data to determine if the recruitment target was achieved. Forthcoming paediatric-specific reporting standards may improve reporting in this priority area. Our data provide a baseline for ongoing monitoring of the state of the research

Restricted fluid bolus volume in early septic shock: Results of the Fluids in Shock pilot trial

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Objective To determine the feasibility of Fluids in Shock, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of restricted fluid bolus volume (10 mL/kg) versus recommended practice (20 mL/kg). Design Nine-month pilot RCT with embedded mixed-method perspectives study. Setting 13 hospitals in England. Patients Children presenting to emergency departments with suspected infection and shock after 20 mL/kg fluid. Interventions Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to further 10 or 20 mL/kg fluid boluses every 15 min for up to 4 hours if still in shock. Main outcome measures These were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention, protocol adherence, separation, potential trial outcome measures, and parent and staff perspectives. Results Seventy-five participants were randomised; two were withdrawn. 23 (59%) of 39 in the 10 mL/kg arm and 25 (74%) of 34 in the 20 mL/kg arm required a single trial bolus before the shock resolved. 79% of boluses were delivered per protocol in the 10 mL/kg arm and 55% in the 20 mL/kg arm. The volume of study bolus fluid after 4 hours was 44% lower in the 10 mL/kg group (mean 14.5 vs 27.5 mL/kg). The Paediatric Index of Mortality-2 score was 2.1 (IQR 1.6-2.7) in the 10 mL/kg group and 2.0 (IQR 1.6-2.5) in the 20 mL/kg group. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admissions and PICU-free days at 30 days did not differ significantly between the groups. In the perspectives study, the trial was generally supported, although some problems with protocol adherence were described. Conclusions Participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Trial registration number ISRCTN15244462

Parental and professional perceptions of informed consent and participation in a time-critical neonatal trial: a mixed-methods study in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh

IntroductionTime-critical neonatal trials in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) raise several ethical issues. Using a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design, we explored informed consent process in Hypothermia for encephalopathy in low and middle-income countries (HELIX) trial conducted in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.MethodsTerm infants with neonatal encephalopathy, aged less than 6 hours, were randomly allocated to cooling therapy or usual care, following informed parental consent. The consenting process was audio-video (A-V) recorded in all cases. We analysed A-V records of the consent process using a 5-point Likert scale on three parameters—empathy, information and autonomy. In addition, we used exploratory observation method to capture relevant aspects of consent process and discussions between parents and professionals. Finally, we conducted in-depth interviews with a subgroup of 20 parents and 15 healthcare professionals. A thematic analysis was performed on the observations of A-V records and on the interview transcripts.ResultsA total of 294 A-V records of the HELIX trial were analysed. Median (IQR) score for empathy, information and autonomy was 5 (0), 5 (1) and 5 (1), respectively. However, thematic analysis suggested that the consenting was a ceremonial process; and parental decision to participate was based on unreserved trust in the treating doctors, therapeutic misconception and access to an expensive treatment free of cost. Most parents did not understand the concept of a clinical trial nor the nature of the intervention. Professionals showed a strong bias towards cooling therapy and reported time constraints and explaining to multiple family members as key challenges.ConclusionDespite rigorous research governance and consent process, parental decisions were heavily influenced by situational incapacity and a trust in doctors to make the right decision on their behalf. Further research is required to identify culturally and context-appropriate strategies for informed trial participation.</jats:sec

Psychological impact of working in paediatric intensive care. A UK-wide prevalence study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of work-related psychological distress in staff working in UK paediatric intensive care units (PICU). DESIGN: Online (Qualtrics) staff questionnaire, conducted April to May 2018. SETTING: Staff working in 29 PICUs and 10 PICU transport services were invited to participate. PARTICIPANTS: 1656 staff completed the survey: 1194 nurses, 270 physicians and 192 others. 234 (14%) respondents were male. Median age was 35 (IQR 28-44). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Moral Distress Scale-Revised (MDS-R) was used to look at moral distress, the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory to examine the depersonalisation and emotional exhaustion domains of burnout, and the Trauma Screening Questionnaire (TSQ) to assess risk of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RESULTS: 435/1194 (36%) nurses, 48/270 (18%) physicians and 19/192 (10%) other staff scored above the study threshold for moral distress (≥90 on MDS-R) (χ2 test, p<0.00001). 594/1194 (50%) nurses, 99/270 (37%) physicians and 86/192 (45%) other staff had high burnout scores (χ2 test, p=0.0004). 366/1194 (31%) nurses, 42/270 (16%) physicians and 21/192 (11%) other staff scored at risk for PTSD (χ2 test, p<0.00001). Junior nurses were at highest risk of moral distress and PTSD, and junior doctors of burnout. Larger unit size was associated with higher MDS-R, burnout and TSQ scores. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that UK PICU staff are experiencing work-related distress. Further studies are needed to understand causation and to develop strategies for prevention and treatment

Reporting of data monitoring committees and adverse events in paediatric trials: a descriptive analysis.

Objectives:For 300 paediatric trials, we evaluated the reporting of: a data monitoring committee (DMC); interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints. Methods:For this cross-sectional evaluation, we randomly selected 300 paediatric trials published in 2012 from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We collected data on the reporting of a DMC; interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints. We reported the findings descriptively and stratified by trial characteristics. Results:Eighty-five (28%) of the trials investigated drugs, and 18% (n=55/300) reported a DMC. The reporting of a DMC was more common among multicentre than single centre trials (n=41/132, 31% vs n=14/139, 10%, p<0.001) and industry-sponsored trials compared with those sponsored by other sources (n=16/50, 32% vs n=39/250, 16%, p=0.009). Trials that reported a DMC enrolled more participants than those that did not (median [range]): 224 (10-60480) vs 91 (10-9528) (p<0.001). Only 25% of these trials reported interim analyses, and 42% reported stopping rules. Less than half (n=143/300, 48%) of trials reported on adverse events, and 72% (n=215/300) reported on harm-related endpoints. Trials that reported a DMC compared with those that did not were more likely to report adverse events (n=43/55, 78% vs 100/245, 41%, p<0.001) and harm-related endpoints (n=52/55, 95% vs. 163/245, 67%, p<0.001). Only 32% of drug trials reported a DMC; 18% and 19% did not report on adverse events or harm-related endpoints, respectively. Conclusions:The reporting of a DMC was infrequent, even among drug trials. Few trials reported stopping rules or interim analyses. Reporting of adverse events and harm-related endpoints was suboptimal