Judith Rankin1, Chris Wright, Tom Lind. 1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH. j.m.rankin@ncl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe parents' experience and views of the postmortem examination after the loss of a baby. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. SETTING: Hospital with a dedicated bereavement counselling service, Newcastle upon Tyne. PARTICIPANTS: 258 women who had attended a bereavement counselling service at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, on at least one occasion after losing a baby during pregnancy or infancy, between October 1996 and October 2000. METHOD: Self completion postal questionnaire incorporating fixed choice and open ended questions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of respondents who were asked if they would agree to a postmortem examination of their baby, and number who agreed to a postmortem examination; reasons for agreeing and not agreeing to a postmortem examination; quality of explanation received; number who regretted their decision to give or withhold consent for a postmortem examination. RESULTS: 166 (64%) respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these, 148 (89%) had been asked to agree to a postmortem examination on their baby and 120/148 of these respondents (81%) agreed, most of whom recognised benefits resulting from the examination. 101/117 (86%) respondents believed the findings had been explained appropriately. Nine (7%) of the 120 respondents who had agreed to a postmortem examination regretted their decision. Of the respondents who refused an examination, four (14%) had regrets about their decision. DISCUSSION: Parents viewed the postmortem examination as a useful and necessary tool in helping to discover the reasons why their baby had died. Simplifying the language used to explain findings may further raise parents' understanding of the value of the postmortem examination and ensure that they are satisfied with it. Medical staff involved in consent for postmortem examinations should be fully trained in how to ask for parental consent, the postmortem examination procedure, and how to explain the findings.
OBJECTIVE: To describe parents' experience and views of the postmortem examination after the loss of a baby. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. SETTING: Hospital with a dedicated bereavement counselling service, Newcastle upon Tyne. PARTICIPANTS: 258 women who had attended a bereavement counselling service at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, on at least one occasion after losing a baby during pregnancy or infancy, between October 1996 and October 2000. METHOD: Self completion postal questionnaire incorporating fixed choice and open ended questions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of respondents who were asked if they would agree to a postmortem examination of their baby, and number who agreed to a postmortem examination; reasons for agreeing and not agreeing to a postmortem examination; quality of explanation received; number who regretted their decision to give or withhold consent for a postmortem examination. RESULTS: 166 (64%) respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these, 148 (89%) had been asked to agree to a postmortem examination on their baby and 120/148 of these respondents (81%) agreed, most of whom recognised benefits resulting from the examination. 101/117 (86%) respondents believed the findings had been explained appropriately. Nine (7%) of the 120 respondents who had agreed to a postmortem examination regretted their decision. Of the respondents who refused an examination, four (14%) had regrets about their decision. DISCUSSION: Parents viewed the postmortem examination as a useful and necessary tool in helping to discover the reasons why their baby had died. Simplifying the language used to explain findings may further raise parents' understanding of the value of the postmortem examination and ensure that they are satisfied with it. Medical staff involved in consent for postmortem examinations should be fully trained in how to ask for parental consent, the postmortem examination procedure, and how to explain the findings.
Authors: Sheri L Spunt; Sara O Vargas; Cheryl M Coffin; Stephen X Skapek; David M Parham; Joan Darling; Douglas S Hawkins; Charles Keller Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Justin Nathaniel Baker; Jennifer A Windham; Pamela S Hinds; Jami S Gattuso; Belinda Mandrell; Poorna Gajjar; Nancy K West; Teresa Hammarback; Alberto Broniscer Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Matthew S Kelly; Lisa Spees; Richard Vinesett; Andre Stokhuyzen; Lauren McGill; Alan D Proia; Kirsten Jenkins; Mehreen Arshad; Patrick C Seed; Paul L Martin Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Aleena M Wojcieszek; Emily Shepherd; Philippa Middleton; Glenn Gardener; David A Ellwood; Elizabeth M McClure; Katherine J Gold; Teck Yee Khong; Robert M Silver; Jan Jaap Hm Erwich; Vicki Flenady Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-04-30