NEOnatal Central-venous Line Observational study on Thrombosis (NEOCLOT): Evaluation of a national guideline on management of neonatal catheter-related thrombosis

Background: In critically ill (preterm) neonates, central venous catheters (CVCs) are increasingly used for administration of medication or parenteral nutrition. A serious complication, however, is the development of catheter-related thrombosis (CVC-thrombosis), which may resolve by itself or cause severe complications. Due to lack of evidence, management of neonatal CVC-thrombosis varies among neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). In the Netherlands an expert-based national management guideline has been developed which is implemented in all 10 NICUs in 2014. Methods: The NEOCLOT study is a multicentre prospective observational cohort study, including 150 preterm and term infants (0-6 months) admitted to one of the 10 NICUs, developing CVC-thrombosis. Patient characteristics, thrombosis characteristics, risk factors, treatment strategies and outcome measures will be collected in a web-based database. Management of CVC-thrombosis will be performed as recommended in the protocol. Violations of the protocol will be noted. Primary outcome measures are a composite efficacy outcome consisting of death due to CVC-thrombosis and recurrent thrombosis, and a safety outcome consisting of the incidence of major bleedings during therapy. Secondary outcomes include individual components of primary efficacy outcome, clinically relevant non-major and minor bleedings and the frequency of risk factors, protocol variations, residual thrombosis and post thrombotic syndrome. Discussion: The NEOCLOT study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of the new, national, neonatal CVC-thrombosis guideline. Furthermore, risk factors as well as long-term consequences of CVC-thrombosis will be analysed

NEOnatal Central-venous Line Observational study on Thrombosis (NEOCLOT): evaluation of a national guideline on management of neonatal catheter-related thrombosis

Contains fulltext : 190037.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Implementation of Nationwide Evidence- and Consensus-Based Guidelines to Harmonize Neonatal Care in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND: A Dutch committee for National Guidelines in Neonatology developed nineteen evidence- and consensus-based guidelines to be used in all Dutch neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The primary goal was to make clinical practices more uniform and consistent. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated to what extent the guidelines were implemented and which factors played a role in implementation. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed method study design was used to investigate both the level and the process of implementation. A nationwide, multicenter, cross-sectional survey was performed using a validated instrument for measuring the level of implementation (Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire, NoMAD). The number of implemented guidelines per NICU and the frequency and content of the amendments that NICUs made to the original consensus guidelines were analyzed. Through semi-structured interviews, perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation were explored. PARTICIPANTS: Fellows and neonatologists working at all ten Dutch level 3-4 NICUs were eligible. RESULTS: On an average, NICUs implemented 12.6 (of 19) guidelines (range 6-17). The Normalization Process Scale was 54 (of 65). Main influencing factors impeding implementation were guideline-related (e.g., unpractical, lengthy guidelines) and personal (e.g., an active representative responsible for local implementation). CONCLUSION: The implementation of our guidelines appears to be successful. Ways for improvement can be distinguished in personal, guideline-related and external factors. Empowerment of local representatives was considered most essential

How doctors manage conflicts with families of critically ill patients during conversations about end-of-life decisions in neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care

Purpose: Intensive care is a stressful environment in which team-family conflicts commonly occur. If managed poorly, conflicts can have negative effects on all parties involved. Previous studies mainly investigated these conflicts and their management in a retrospective way. This study aimed to prospectively explore team-family conflicts, including its main topics, complicating factors, doctors’ conflict management strategies and the effect of these strategies. Methods: Conversations between doctors in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care unit of a large university-based hospital and families of critically ill patients were audio-recorded from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was still in patients’ best interest. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a qualitative deductive approach. Results: Team-family conflicts occurred in 29 out of 101 conversations (29%) concerning 20 out of 36 patients (56%). Conflicts mostly concerned more than one topic. We identified four complicating context- and/or family-related factors: diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, families’ strong negative emotions, limited health literacy, and burden of responsibility. Doctors used four overarching strategies to manage conflicts, namely content-oriented, process-oriented, moral and empathic strategies. Doctors mostly used content-oriented strategies, independent of the intensive care setting. They were able to effectively address conflicts in most conversations. Yet, if they did not acknowledge families’ cues indicating the existence of one or more complicating factors, conflicts were likely to linger on during the conversation. Conclusion: This study underlines the importance of doctors tailoring their communication strategies to the concrete conflict topic(s) and to the context- and family-related factors which complicate a specific conflict

How doctors manage conflicts with families of critically ill patients during conversations about end-of-life decisions in neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care

Purpose: Intensive care is a stressful environment in which team-family conflicts commonly occur. If managed poorly, conflicts can have negative effects on all parties involved. Previous studies mainly investigated these conflicts and their management in a retrospective way. This study aimed to prospectively explore team-family conflicts, including its main topics, complicating factors, doctors’ conflict management strategies and the effect of these strategies. Methods: Conversations between doctors in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care unit of a large university-based hospital and families of critically ill patients were audio-recorded from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was still in patients’ best interest. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a qualitative deductive approach. Results: Team-family conflicts occurred in 29 out of 101 conversations (29%) concerning 20 out of 36 patients (56%). Conflicts mostly concerned more than one topic. We identified four complicating context- and/or family-related factors: diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, families’ strong negative emotions, limited health literacy, and burden of responsibility. Doctors used four overarching strategies to manage conflicts, namely content-oriented, process-oriented, moral and empathic strategies. Doctors mostly used content-oriented strategies, independent of the intensive care setting. They were able to effectively address conflicts in most conversations. Yet, if they did not acknowledge families’ cues indicating the existence of one or more complicating factors, conflicts were likely to linger on during the conversation. Conclusion: This study underlines the importance of doctors tailoring their communication strategies to the concrete conflict topic(s) and to the context- and family-related factors which complicate a specific conflict

Diversity of Parent Emotions and Physician Responses During End-of-Life Conversations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To provide support to parents of critically ill children, it is important that physicians adequately respond to parents' emotions. In this study, we investigated emotions expressed by parents, physicians' responses to these expressions, and parents' emotions after the physicians' responses in conversations in which crucial decisions regarding the child's life-sustaining treatment had to be made.METHODS: Forty-nine audio-recorded conversations between parents of 12 critically ill children and physicians working in the neonatal and pediatric intensive care units of 3 Dutch university medical centers were coded and analyzed by using a qualitative inductive approach.RESULTS: Forty-six physicians and 22 parents of 12 children participated. In all 49 conversations, parents expressed a broad range of emotions, often intertwining, including anxiety, anger, devotion, grief, relief, hope, and guilt. Both implicit and explicit expressions of anxiety were prevalent. Physicians predominantly responded to parental emotions with cognition-oriented approaches, thereby limiting opportunities for parents. This appeared to intensify parents' expressions of anger and protectiveness, although their anxiety remained under the surface. In response to more tangible emotional expressions, for instance, grief when the child's death was imminent, physicians provided parents helpful support in both affect- and cognition-oriented ways.CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the diversity of emotions expressed by parents during end-of-life conversations. Moreover, they offer insight into the more and less helpful ways in which physicians may respond to these emotions. More training is needed to help physicians in recognizing parents' emotions, particularly implicit expressions of anxiety, and to choose helpful combinations of responses.</p

Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study

Purpose: In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations. Method: A qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families. Results: Seventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor’s line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together. Conclusion: This study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation

How Physicians Discuss Uncertainty With Parents in Intensive Care Units

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians and parents of critically ill neonates and children receiving intensive care have to make decisions on the child's behalf. Throughout the child's illness and treatment trajectory, adequately discussing uncertainties with parents is pivotal because this enhances the quality of the decision-making process and may positively affect the child's and parents' well-being. We investigated how physicians discuss uncertainty with parents and how this discussion evolves over time during the trajectory. METHODS: We asked physicians working in the NICU and PICU of 3 university medical centers to audio record their conversations with parents of critically ill children from the moment doubts arose whether treatment was in the child's best interests. We qualitatively coded and analyzed the anonymized transcripts, thereby using the software tool MAXQDA 2020. RESULTS: Physicians were found to adapt the way they discussed uncertainty with parents to the specific phase of the child's illness and treatment trajectory. When treatment options were still available, physicians primarily focused on uncertainty related to diagnostic procedures, treatment options, and associated risks and effects. Particularly when the child's death was imminent, physicians had less "scientific" guidance to offer. They eliminated most uncertainty and primarily addressed practical uncertainties regarding the child's dying process to offer parents guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Our insights may increase physicians' awareness and enhance their skills in discussing uncertainties with parents tailored to the phase of the child's illness and treatment trajectory and to parental needs in each specific phase