Literature DB >> 16061596

Prenatal consultation practices at the border of viability: a regional survey.

Tara K Bastek1, Douglas K Richardson, John A F Zupancic, Jeffrey P Burns.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We undertook a survey of all practicing neonatologists in New England to determine their attitudes and practices regarding prenatal consultations for infants at the border of viability.
METHODS: A self-administered anonymous survey, mailed to every practicing neonatologist in the 6 Northeast states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, explored respondent attitudes and practices with respect to a hypothetical clinical scenario of a prenatal consultation for an infant at the border of viability.
RESULTS: Our final sample included 149 surveys from 175 eligible neonatologists, giving a response rate of 85%. Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that they thought neonatologists and parents should make the decision jointly to withhold resuscitation. Only 40% indicated that the decision actually is made by both parties. A majority of neonatologists (58%) saw their primary role during the prenatal consultation as providing factual information to the parents. Far fewer (27%) thought that their main role was to assist the parents in weighing the risks and benefits of various management options. A majority of respondents indicated that parental understanding of the mother's current medical situation (96%), desired parental role (77%), and parental prior experience with premature or handicapped children (64%) were frequently or always discussed. However, far fewer respondents reported frequently or always asking about parental interpretations of a "good quality of life" (42%), parental prior experiences with death or dying (30%), and parental religious or spiritual beliefs (25%). Short-term outcomes and complications such as the need for surfactant/respiratory distress syndrome (89%) and the risk of intraventricular hemorrhage (81%) were discussed more extensively than long-term outcomes such as motor delays or cerebral palsy (68%), cognitive delays or learning disabilities (63%), and chronic lung disease (61%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed 2 characteristics that were significant predictors of shared decision-making for the final decision regarding resuscitation in the delivery room for extremely premature infants, ie, believing that the main role of the neonatologist during prenatal consultations is to help parents weigh the risks and benefits of each resuscitation option (odds ratio: 4.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.6-10.9) and having >10 years of clinical experience (odds ratio: 3.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.5-8.8).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results showed that neonatologists are quite consistent in discussing clinical issues but quite varied in discussing social and ethical issues. If neonatologists are to perform complete prenatal consultations for infants at the border of viability as described by the latest American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, then they will be expected to address quality-of-life values more robustly, to explain long-term outcomes, and to incorporate parental preferences during their conversations. Potential barriers to shared decision-making have yet to be outlined.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16061596     DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-1427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  28 in total

1.  The influence of resuscitation preferences on obstetrical management of periviable deliveries.

Authors:  B Tucker Edmonds; F McKenzie; K S Hendrix; S M Perkins; G D Zimet
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 2.521

2.  Counselling and management for anticipated extremely preterm birth.

Authors:  Brigitte Lemyre; Gregory Moore
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 2.253

3.  Constructing a Culturally Informed Spanish Decision-Aid to Counsel Latino Parents Facing Imminent Extreme Premature Delivery.

Authors:  Matthew J Drago; Ursula Guillén; Maria Schiaratura; Jennifer Batza; Annette Zygmunt; Anja Mowes; David Munson; John M Lorenz; Christiana Farkouh-Karoleski; Haresh Kirpalani
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2018-07

4.  Parent decision making for life support for extremely premature infants: from the prenatal through end-of-life period.

Authors:  Teresa T Moro; Karen Kavanaugh; Teresa A Savage; Maria R Reyes; Robert E Kimura; Rama Bhat
Journal:  J Perinat Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2011 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.638

5.  Family Conferences in the Neonatal ICU: Observation of Communication Dynamics and Contributions.

Authors:  Renee D Boss; Pamela K Donohue; Susan M Larson; Robert M Arnold; Debra L Roter
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.624

6.  From powerlessness to empowerment: Mothers expect more than information from the prenatal consultation for preterm labour.

Authors:  Nathalie Gaucher; Antoine Payot
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.253

7.  Successful resuscitation of an extremely low birth weight premature infant in delma island community hospital, United arab emirates.

Authors:  Zahra'a Mohamed Saeed; Imad Ibrahim Shubbar
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2012-07-15

8.  Do maternal characteristics influence maternal-fetal medicine physicians' willingness to intervene when managing periviable deliveries?

Authors:  F McKenzie; B K Robinson; B Tucker Edmonds
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 2.521

9.  A Pilot Study of Neonatologists' Decision-Making Roles in Delivery Room Resuscitation Counseling for Periviable Births.

Authors:  Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds; Fatima McKenzie; Janet E Panoch; Douglas B White; Amber E Barnato
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2016-07

10.  Prognostic accuracy of antenatal neonatology consultation.

Authors:  S Kukora; N Gollehon; G Weiner; N Laventhal
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 2.521

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.