Nobody likes premies: the relative value of patients' lives

End of life care in the setting of extreme prematurity - practical challenges and ethical controversies

While the underlying principles are the same, there are differences in practice in end of life decisions and care for extremely preterm infants compared with other newborns and older children. In this paper, we review end of life care for extremely preterm infants in the delivery room and in the neonatal intensive care unit. We identify potential justifications for differences in the end of life care in this population as well as practical and ethical challenges.

Decision-making for extremely preterm infants with severe hemorrhages on head ultrasound: Science, values, and communication skills

Severe intracranial hemorrhages are not rare in extremely preterm infants. They occur early, generally when babies require life-sustaining interventions. This may lead to ethical discussions and decision-making about levels of care. Prognosis is variable and depends on the extent, location, and laterality of the lesions, and, importantly also on the subsequent occurrence of other clinical complications or progressive ventricular dilatation. Decision-making should depend on prognosis and parental values. This article will review prognosis and the uncertainty of outcomes for different lesions and provide an outline of ways to conduct an ethically appropriate discussion on the decision of whether to continue life sustaining therapy. It is possible to communicate in a compassionate and honest way with parents and engage in decision-making, focussing on personalized information and decisions, and on function, as opposed to diagnosis.

Ethical Dilemmas in Neonatal Care at the Limit of Viability

Advances in neonatal care have pushed the limit of viability to incrementally lower gestations over the last decades. However, surviving extremely premature neonates are prone to long-term neurodevelopmental handicaps. This makes ethics a crucial dimension of periviable birth management. At 22 weeks, survival ranges from 1 to 15%, and profound disabilities in survivors are common. Consequently, there is no beneficence-based obligation to offer any aggressive perinatal management. At 23 weeks, survival ranges from 8 to 54%, and survival without severe handicap ranges from 7 to 23%. If fetal indication for cesarean delivery appears, the procedure may be offered when neonatal resuscitation is planned. At a gestational age ≥24 weeks, up to 51% neonates are expected to survive the neonatal period. Survival without profound neurologic disability ranges from 12 to 38%. Beneficence-based obligation to intervene is reasonable at these gestations. Nevertheless, autonomy of parents should also be respected, and parental consent should be sought prior to any intervention. Optimal counselling of parents involves harmonized cooperation of obstetric and neonatal care providers. Every fetus/neonate and every pregnant woman are different and have the right to be considered individually when treatment decisions are being made.

Association of Active Postnatal Care With Infant Survival Among Periviable Infants in the US

IMPORTANCE

Active postnatal care has been associated with center differences in survival among periviable infants. Regional differences in outcomes among periviable infants in the US may be associated with differences in active postnatal care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if regions with higher rates of active postnatal care will have higher gestational age-specific survival rates among periviable infants.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included live births from 22 to 25 weeks' gestation weighing 400 to 999 g in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WONDER 2017 to 2020 (expanded) database. Infants with congenital anomalies were excluded. Active postnatal care was defined using the CDC definition of abnormal conditions of newborn as presence of any of the following: neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, surfactant, assisted ventilation, antibiotics, and seizures. Data were analyzed from August to November 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Regional gestational age-specific survival rates were compared with rates of active postnatal care in the 10 US Health and Human Services regions using Kendall τ test.

RESULTS

We included 41 707 periviable infants, of whom 32 674 (78%) were singletons and 19 467 (46.7%) were female. Among those studied 34 983 (83.9%) had evidence of active care, and 26 009 (62.6%) survived. Regional rates of active postnatal care were positively correlated with regional survival rates at 22 weeks' gestation (rτ[8] = 0.56; r2 = 0.31; P = .03) but the correlation was not significant at 23 weeks' gestation (rτ[8] = 0.47; r2 = 0.22; P = .07). There was no correlation between active care and survival at 24 or 25 weeks' gestation. Regional rates of both NICU admission and assisted ventilation following delivery were positively correlated with regional rates of survival at 22 weeks' gestation (both P < .05). Regional rates of antenatal corticosteroids exposure were also positively correlated with regional rates of survival at 22 weeks' gestation (rτ[8] = 0.60; r2 = 0.36; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of 41 707 periviable infants, regional differences in rates of active postnatal care, neonatal intensive care unit admission, provision of assisted ventilation and antenatal corticosteroid exposure were moderately correlated with survival at 22 weeks' gestation. Further studies focused on individual-level factors associated with active periviable care are warranted.

A New Quantitative Triage System for Hospitalized Neonates to Assist with Decisions of Hospital Evacuation Priorities

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalized neonates are vulnerable to natural and man-made disasters because of their persistent requirement for medical resources and may need to be evacuated to safe locations when electricity and medical gas supply become unreliable. In Japan, a triage system for hospitalized neonates, or the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment for Neonates, Revised (START-Neo-R), has been used to determine whether neonates are in suitable conditions for transportation. However, this scale is not useful to determine the evacuation order of neonates because a considerable number of evacuees are classified into the same categories.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To solve this problem, a novel triage system, Neonatal Extrication Triage (NEXT) was developed. This study tested the validity and reproducibility of both triages and compared them with a standardized prognostic scoring system for hospitalized neonates, the Neonatal Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (NTISS).

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, physicians and nurses independently assessed each neonate hospitalized at a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) twice weekly using NEXT and START-Neo-R. The NEXT system comprises six questionnaires regarding medical resources required during transition and transportation, providing composite scores on a 12-point scale. The START-Neo-R classified neonates into five levels based on the severity of disease and dependence on medical care. Inter-rater reliability of both systems was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient, whereas the criterion validity with NTISS was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Overall, 162 neonates were assessed for 49 days, resulting in triage data for 1,079 accumulated patients. Both NEXT scores and START-Neo-R ranks were well-dispersed across different levels without excessive accumulation in specific categories. Inter-rater reliability of NEXT (kappa coefficient, 0.973; 95% confidence interval, 0.969-0.976) and START-Neo-R (kappa coefficient, 0.952; 95% confidence interval, 0.946-0.957) between physicians and nurses was sufficiently high. The correlation coefficient of NEXT and START-Neo-R scores with NTISS scores were 0.889 (P <.001) and 0.850 (P <.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both START-Neo-R and NEXT had good reproducibility and correlation with the severity of neonates indicated by NTISS. With its well-dispersed scores across different levels, the NEXT system might be a powerful tool to determine the priority of evacuation objectively.

Ethical considerations in the use of artificial womb/placenta technology

Despite improvements in survival over the past few decades, pulmonary immaturity and the use of mechanical ventilation have stunted reduction in short- and long-term morbidities for infants at the borderline of viability (22-24 weeks of gestation). It has long been suspected that the use of an artificial womb or artificial placenta to preserve native fetal physiology and maintain fluid- rather than air-filled lungs would help to improve outcomes for these infants. As such, several institutions have ongoing efforts to develop this technology, bringing the field of neonatology within sight of clinical trials. Prior to use in humans, several important ethical issues should be considered and discussed, including the moral status of these patients and the term used to describe them, whether neonate, fetus, or another term entirely. These determinations will guide when it is appropriate to use the technology and when it is permissible to withdraw this support, as well as how to ascribe parental rights and the legal status of these patients.

Whom are we seeking to protect? Extremely preterm babies and moral distress

Advances in perinatal care bring with them ethical challenges and difficult questions. When should we provide life-sustaining interventions, and who should decide? Particularly at the edges of viability, some clinicians may feel required to provide a level of care that they believe is not in the patient's interests, resulting in moral distress. This article will discuss the complex nature of moral distress arising during the care of extremely preterm babies. It will describe the challenges and cognitive biases present when contemplating potential harms to the baby and recognize the possible costs to both healthcare provider and baby when moral distress arises. Both clinicians caring for extremely preterm babies and the families themselves can experience moral distress. This article argues that for clinicians, recognizing the range of possible sources of moral distress is vital in order to appropriately address moral distress. Moral distress may arise from a desire to protect the baby, but also from an impulse to protect oneself from the emotional burdens of care. Addressing moral distress requires reflection on the factual beliefs, experiences and personal values which lie behind the distress, both within oneself and in discussion with colleagues. Moral distress indicates that a situation is ethically challenging, but it does not necessarily mean that a wrong decision has been made.

Dutch guidelines on care for extremely premature infants: Navigating between personalisation and standardization

OBJECTIVE

There is no international consensus on what type of guideline is preferred for care at the limit of viability. We aimed to conceptualize what type of guideline is preferred by Dutch healthcare professionals: 1) none; 2) gestational-age-based; 3) gestational-age-based-plus; or 4) prognosis-based via a survey instrument. Additional questions were asked to explore the grey zone and attitudes towards treatment variation.

FINDING

769 surveys were received. Most of the respondents (72.8%) preferred a gestational-age-based-plus guideline. Around 50% preferred 24^+0/7 weeks gestational age as the lower limit of the grey zone, whereas 26^+0/7 weeks was the most preferred upper limit. Professionals considered treatment variation acceptable when it is based upon parental values, but unacceptable when it is based upon the hospital's policy or the physician's opinion.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the current Dutch guideline, our results suggest that there is a preference to take into account individual factors besides gestational age.

Neonatal Outcome and Treatment Perspectives of Preterm Infants at the Border of Viability

Decision-making at the border of viability remains challenging for the expectant parents and the medical team. The preterm infant is dependent on others making the decision that will impact them for a lifetime in hopefully their best interest. Besides survival and survival without neurodevelopmental impairment, other relevant outcome measures, such as the quality of life of former preterm infants and the impact on family life, need to be integrated into prenatal counselling. Recommendations and national guidelines continue to rely on arbitrarily set gestational age limits at which treatment is not recommended, can be considered and it is recommended. These guidelines neglect other individual prognostic outcome factors like antenatal steroids, birth weight and gender. Besides individual factors, centre-specific factors like perinatal treatment intensity and the attitude of healthcare professionals significantly determine the futures of these infants at the border of viability. A more comprehensive approach regarding treatment recommendations and relevant outcome measures is necessary.

Pandemic planning: Developing a triage framework for Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Although the Covid-19 pandemic has not had a direct impact on neonates so far, it has raised concerns about resource distribution and showed that planning is required before the next crisis or pandemic. Resource allocation must consider unique Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) attributes, including physical space and equipment that may not be transferable to older populations, unique skills of NICU staff, inherent uncertainty in prognosis both antenatally and postnatally, possible biases against neonates, and the future pandemic disease's possible impact on neonates. We identified the need for a validated Neonatal Severity of Illness Prognostic Score to guide triage decisions. Based on this score, triage decisions are the responsibility of an informed triage team not involved in direct patient care. Support for the distress experienced by parents and staff is needed. This paper presents essential considerations in developing a practical framework for resources and triage in the NICU before, during and after a pandemic.

Elternzentrierte ethische Entscheidungsfindung für Frühgeborene im Grenzbereich der Lebensfähigkeit – Reflexion über die Bedeutung probabilistischer Prognosen als Entscheidungsgrundlage

Frühgeborene im Grenzbereich der Lebensfähigkeit befinden sich in einer prognostischen Grauzone. Das bedeutet, dass deren Prognose zwar schlecht, aber nicht hoffnungslos ist, woraus folgt, dass nach Geburt lebenserhaltende Behandlungen nicht obligatorisch sind. Die Entscheidung für oder gegen lebenserhaltende Maßnahmen ist wertbeladen und für alle Beteiligten enorm herausfordernd. Sie sollte eine zwischen Eltern und Ärzt*innen geteilte Entscheidung sein, wobei sie unbedingt mit den Präferenzen der Eltern abgestimmt sein sollte. Bei der pränatalen Beratung der Eltern legen die behandelnden Ärzt*innen üblicherweise numerische Schätzungen der Prognose vor und nehmen in der Regel an, dass die Eltern ihre Behandlungspräferenzen davon ableiten. Inwieweit probabilistische Daten die Entscheidungen der Eltern in prognostischen Grauzonen tatsächlich beeinflussen, ist noch unzureichend untersucht. In der hier vorliegenden Arbeit wird eine Studie reflektiert, in welcher die Hypothese geprüft wurde, dass numerisch bessere oder schlechtere kindliche Prognosen die Präferenzen werdender Mütter für lebenserhaltende Maßnahmen nicht beeinflussen. In dieser Studie zeigte sich, dass die elterlichen Behandlungspräferenzen eher von individuellen Einstellungen und Werten als von Überlegungen zu numerischen Ergebnisschätzungen herzurühren scheinen. Unser Verständnis, welche Informationen werdende Eltern, die mit einer extremen Frühgeburt konfrontiert sind, wünschen und brauchen, ist noch immer unvollständig. Bedeutende medizinische Entscheidungen werden keineswegs nur rational und prognoseorientiert gefällt. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird diskutiert, welchen Einfluss der Prozess der Entscheidungsfindung auf das Beratungsergebnis haben kann und welche Implikationen sich aus den bisher vorliegenden Studienergebnissen ergeben – klinisch-praktisch, ethisch und wissenschaftlich.

Moral Distress in Neonatology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To longitudinally examine the nature of moral distress (MoD) experienced by clinicians caring for extremely low gestational age neonates.

METHODS

Neonatologists, medical trainees, and nurses were surveyed at regular intervals on their experience of MoD and their preferred level of care in relation to 99 neonates born <28 weeks' gestational age managed from birth until discharge or death in 2 tertiary NICUs. Clinicians reporting significant distress (≥6 of 10 on Wocial's Moral Distress Thermometer) were asked to provide open-ended responses on why they experienced MoD. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze frequency and intensity of MoD across different clinician characteristics. Open-ended responses were analyzed by using mixed methods.

RESULTS

Over 18 months, 4593 of 5332 surveys (86% response rate) were collected. MoD was reported on 687 (15%) survey occasions; 91% of neonates elicited MoD during their hospitalization. In their open-ended answers, clinicians invoked 5 main themes to explain their distress: (1) infant-centered reasons (83%), including illness severity, predicted outcomes, and disproportionate care; (2) management plans (26%); (3) family-centered reasons (19%); (4) parental decision-making (16%); and (5) provider-centered reasons (15%). MoD was strongly associated with the perception of "parents wanting too much." Neonatologists experienced less distress and were more likely than nurses and trainees to align preferred levels of care with family wishes.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of preterm infants will generate some MoD; however, it is rarely shared and of a sustained nature. The main constraint reported by clinicians was "parents wanting too much," leading to disproportionate care.

Bereaved Parents: Insights for the Antenatal Consultation

OBJECTIVE

 The study aimed to explore experiences of extremely preterm infant loss in the delivery room and perspectives about antenatal consultation.

STUDY DESIGN

 Bereaved participants were interviewed, following a semi-structured protocol. Personal narratives were analyzed with a mixed-methods approach.

RESULTS

 In total, 13 participants, reflecting on 17 pregnancies, shared positive, healing and negative, harmful interactions with clinicians and institutions: feeling cared for or abandoned, doubted or believed, being treated rigidly or flexibly, and feeling that infant's life was valued or not. Participants stressed their need for personalized information, individualized approaches, and affective support. Their decision processes varied; some wanted different things for themselves than what they recommended for others. These interactions shaped their immediate experiences, long-term well-being, healing, and regrets. All had successful subsequent pregnancies; few returned to institutions where they felt poorly treated.

CONCLUSION

 Antenatal consultations can be strengthened by personalizing them, within a strong caregiver relationship and supportive institutional practices.

KEY POINTS

· Personalized antenatal consultations should strive to balance cognitive and affective needs.. · Including perspectives from bereaved parents can strengthen antenatal consultations.. · Trusting provider-parent partnerships are pivotal for risk communication..

Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses

OBJECTIVE

Discrepancies between physician and parent neonatal prognostic expectations are common. Optimism bias is a possible explanation.

STUDY DESIGN

Parents interpreted hypothetical neonatal prognoses in an online survey.

RESULTS

Good prognoses tended to be interpreted accurately, while poor prognoses were interpreted as less than the stated value. One-third of participants consistently overstated survival for the three lowest prognoses, compared to the sample as a whole. Three significant predictors of such optimistic interpretations were single-parent status (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.2-0.75; p = 0.005), African-American descent (OR 3.78; 95% CI 1.63-8.98; p = 0.002) and the belief that physicians misrepresented prognoses (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.47-6.65; p = 0.003). Participants' explanations echoed research on optimism bias in clinical and decision science studies.

CONCLUSION

Participants accepted positive prognoses for critically ill neonates, but reinterpreted negative ones as being unduly pessimistic demonstrating optimism bias.

Should Extremely Premature Babies Get Ventilators During the COVID-19 Crisis?

In a crisis, societal needs take precedence over a patient's best interests. Triage guidelines, however, differ on whether limited resources should focus on maximizing lives or life-years. Choosing between these two approaches has implications for neonatology. Neonatal units have ventilators, some adaptable for adults. This raises the question of whether, in crisis conditions, guidelines for treating extremely premature babies should be altered to free-up ventilators. Some adults who need ventilators will have a survival rate higher than some extremely premature babies. But surviving babies will likely live longer, maximizing life-years. Empiric evidence demonstrates that these babies can derive significant survival benefits from ventilation when compared to adults. When "triaging" or choosing between patients, justice demands fair guidelines. Premature babies do not deserve special consideration; they deserve equal consideration. Solidarity is crucial but must consider needs specific to patient populations and avoid biases against people with disabilities and extremely premature babies.

The Extremely Preterm Infant: Ethical Considerations in Life-and-Death Decision-Making

Care of the preterm infant has improved tremendously over the last 60 years, with attendant improvement in outcomes. For the extremely preterm infant, <28 weeks' gestation, concerns related to survival as well as neurodevelopmental impairment, have influenced decision-making to a much larger extent than seen in older children. Possible reasons for conferring a different status on extremely preterm infants include: (1) the belief that the brain is a privileged organ, (2) the degree of medical uncertainty in terms of outcomes, (3) the fact that the family will deal with the psychological, emotional, physical, and financial consequences of treatment decisions, (4) that the extremely preterm looks more like a fetus than a term newborn, (5) the initial lack of relational identity, (6) the fact that extremely preterm infants are technology-dependent, and (7) the timing of decision-making around delivery. Treating extremely preterm infants differently does not hold up to scrutiny. They are owed the same respect as other pediatric patients, in terms of personhood, and we have the same duties to care for them. However, the degree of medical uncertainty and the fact that parents will deal with the consequences of decision-making, highlights the importance of providing a wide band of discretion in parental decision-making authority. Ethical principles considered in decision-making include best interest (historically the sine qua non of pediatric decision-making), a reasonable person standard, the "good enough" parent, and the harm principle, the latter two being more pragmatic. To operationalize these principles, potential models for decision-making are the Zone of Parental Discretion, the Not Unreasonable Standard, and a Shared Decision-Making model. In the final analysis shared decision-making with a wide zone of parental discretion, which is based on the harm principle, would provide fair and equitable decision-making for the extremely preterm infant. However, in the rare circumstance where parents do not wish to embark upon intensive care, against medical recommendations, it would be most helpful to develop local guidelines both for support of health care practitioners and to provide consistency of care for extremely preterm infants.

A Cross-sectional Study Among Healthcare and Non-healthcare Students in Slovenia and Croatia About Do-not Resuscitate Decision-making

Objective

To survey university students on their views concerning the respect for autonomy of patients and the best interest of patients in relation to the withholding of resuscitation.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey among university students of medicine, nursing, philosophy, law and theology of the first and the final study years at the University of Ljubljana and the University of Zagreb was conducted during the academic year of 2016/2017. A questionnaire constructed by Janiver et al. presenting clinical case vignettes was used.

Results

The survey response rates for students in Ljubljana and Zagreb were 45.4% (512 students) and 37.9% (812 students), respectively. The results of our research show statistically significant differences in do-not resuscitate decisions in different cases between medical and non-medical students in both countries. Male and religious students in both countries have lower odds of respecting relatives’ wishes for the withholding of resuscitation (odds ratio 0.49–0.54; 95% confidence interval). All students agreed that they would first resuscitate children if they had to prioritize among patients.

Conclusions

Our study clearly shows that gender, religious beliefs, and type of study are important factors associated with the decisions pertaining to the respect for autonomy, patient’s best interest, and initiation or withholding of resuscitation.

Understanding and addressing barriers to communication in the context of neonatal neurologic injury: Exploring the ouR-HOPE approach

Predicting neurologic outcomes for neonates with acute brain injury is essential for guiding the development of treatment goals and appropriate care plans in collaboration with parents and families. Prognostication helps parents imagine their child's possible future and helps them make ongoing treatment decisions in an informed way. However, great uncertainty surrounds neurologic prognostication for neonates, as well as biases and implicit attitudes that can impact clinicians' prognoses, all of which pose significant challenges to evidence-based prognostication in this context. In order to facilitate greater attention to these challenges and guide their navigation, this chapter explores the practice principles captured in the ouR-HOPE approach. This approach proposes the principles of Reflection, Humility, Open-mindedness, Partnership, and Engagement and related self-assessment questions to encourage clinicians to reflect on their practices and to engage with others in responding to challenges. We explore the meaning of each principle through five clinical cases involving neonatal neurologic injury, decision making, and parent-clinician communication. The ouR-HOPE approach should bring more cohesion to the sometimes disparate concerns reported in the literature and encourage clinicians and teams to consider its principles along with other guidelines and practices they find to be particularly helpful in guiding communication with parents and families.

Physician characteristics influence the trends in resuscitation decisions at different ages

AIM

We examined how physicians in different medical specialties would evaluate treatment decisions for vulnerable patients in need of resuscitation.

METHODS

A survey depicting six acutely ill patients from newborn infant to aged, all in need of resuscitation with similar prognoses, was distributed (in 2009) to a representative sample of 1650 members of the Norwegian Medical Association and 676 members of the Norwegian Pediatric Association.

RESULTS

There were 1335 respondents (57% participation rate). The majority of respondents across all specialties thought resuscitation was in the best interest of a 24 weeks' gestation preterm infant and would resuscitate the patient, but would also accept palliative care on the family's demand. Accepting a family's refusal of resuscitation was more common for the newborn infants. Specialists were overall similar in their answers, but specialty, age and gender were associated with different answers for the patients at both ends of the age spectrum.

CONCLUSION

Resuscitation decisions for the very young do not always seem to follow the best interest principle. Specialty and personal characteristics still have an impact on how we consider important ethical issues. We must be cognisant of our own valuations and how they may influence care.

Animatio: a history of ideas on the beginning of personhood

The onset of individual human life has fascinated thinkers of all cultures and epochs, and the history of their ideas may enlighten an unsettled debate. Aristotle attributed three different souls to the subsequent developmental stages. The last, the rational soul, was associated with the formed fetus, and entailed fetal movements. With some modifications, the concept of delayed ensoulment - at 30, 42, 60, or 90 days after conception - was adopted by several Christian Church Fathers and remained valid throughout the Middle Ages. The concept of immediate ensoulment at fertilization originated in the 15th century and became Catholic dogma in 1869. During the Enlightenment, philosophers began to replace the rational soul with the term personhood, basing the latter on self-consciousness. Biological reality suggests that personhood accrues slowly, not at a specific date during gestation. Requirements for personhood are present in the embryo, but not in the preembryo before implantation: anatomic substrate; no more totipotent cells; decreased rate of spontaneous loss. However, biological facts alone cannot determine the embryo's moral status. Societies must negotiate and decide the degree of protection of unborn humans. In the 21st century, fertilization, implantation, extrauterine viability and birth have become the most widely accepted landmarks of change in ontological status.

Provider Perspectives Regarding Resuscitation Decisions for Neonates and Other Vulnerable Patients

OBJECTIVES

To use structured surveys to assess the perspectives of pediatric residents and neonatal nurses on resuscitation decisions for vulnerable patients, including neonates.

STUDY DESIGN

Pediatric providers were surveyed using scenarios for 6 critically ill patients of different ages with outcomes explicitly described. Providers were asked (1) whether resuscitation was in each patient's best interest; (2) whether they would accept families' wishes for comfort care (no resuscitation); and (3) to rank patients in order of priority for resuscitation. In a structured interview, each participant explained how they evaluated patient interests and when applicable, why their answers differed for neonates. Interviews were audiotaped; transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and mixed methods.

RESULTS

Eighty pediatric residents and neonatal nurses participated (response rate 74%). When making life and death decisions, participants considered (1) patient characteristics (96%), (2) personal experience/biases (85%), (3) family's wishes and desires (81%), (4) disease characteristics (74%), and (5) societal perspectives (36%). These factors were not in favor of sick neonates: of the participants, 85% reported having negative biases toward neonates and 60% did not read, misinterpreted, and/or distrusted neonatal outcome statistics. Additional factors used to justify comfort care for neonates included limited personhood and lack of relationships/attachment (73%); prioritization of family's best interest, and social acceptability of death (36%). When these preconceptions were discussed, 70% of respondents reported they would change their answers in favor of neonates.

CONCLUSIONS

Resuscitation decisions for neonates are based on many factors, such as considerations of personhood and family's interests (that are not traditional indicators of benefit), which may explain why decision making is different for the neonatal population.

International variations in application of the best-interest standard across the age spectrum

OBJECTIVE

Ethically and legally, assertions that resuscitation is in a patient's best interest should be inversely correlated with willingness to forego intensive care (and accept comfort care) at the surrogate's request. Previous single country studies have demonstrated a relative devaluation of neonates when compared with other critically ill patients.

STUDY DESIGN

In this international study, physicians in Argentina, Australia, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway and the United States were presented with eight hypothetical vignettes of incompetent critically ill patients of different ages. They were asked to make assessments about best interest, respect for surrogate autonomy and to rank the patients in a triage scenario.

RESULTS

In total, 2237 physicians responded (average response rate 61%). In all countries and scenarios, participants did not accept to withhold resuscitation if they estimated it was in the patient's best interest, except for scenarios involving neonates. Young children (other than neonates) were given high priority for resuscitation, regardless of existing disability. For neonates, surrogate autonomy outweighed assessment of best interest. In all countries, a 2-month-old-infant with meningitis and a multiply disabled 7-year old were resuscitated first in the triage scenario, with more variable ranking of the two neonates, which were ranked below patients with considerably worse prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The value placed on the life of newborns is less than that expected according to predicted clinical outcomes and current legal and ethical theory relative to best interests. Value assessments on the basis of age, disability and prognosis appear to transcend culture, politics and religion in this domain.

The 'ouR-HOPE' approach for ethics and communication about neonatal neurological injury

Predicting neurological outcomes of neonates with acute brain injury is an essential component of shared decision-making, in order to guide the development of treatment goals and appropriate care plans. It can aid parents in imagining the child's future, and guide timely and ongoing treatment decisions, including shifting treatment goals and focusing on comfort care. However, numerous challenges have been reported with respect to evidence-based practices for prognostication such as biases about prognosis among clinicians. Additionally, the evaluation or appreciation of living with disability can differ, including the well-known disability paradox where patients self-report a good quality of life in spite of severe disability. Herein, we put forward a set of five practice principles captured in the "ouR-HOPE" approach (Reflection, Humility, Open-mindedness, Partnership, and Engagement) and related questions to encourage clinicians to self-assess their practice and engage with others in responding to these challenges. We hope that this proposal paves the way to greater discussion and attention to ethical aspects of communicating prognosis in the context of neonatal brain injury.

Evacuation of a Tertiary Neonatal Centre: Lessons from the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes

BACKGROUND

Newborn infants hospitalised in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are vulnerable to natural disasters. However, publications on evacuation from NICUs are sparse. The 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes caused serious damage to Kumamoto City Hospital and its level III regional core NICU. Local/neighbour NICU teams and the disaster-communication team of a neonatal academic society cooperated to evacuate 38 newborn infants from the ward.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to highlight potential key factors to improve emergency NICU evacuation and coordination of hospital transportation following natural disasters.

METHODS

Background variables including clinical risk scores and timing/destination of transportation were compared between infants, who subsequently were transferred to destinations outside of Kumamoto Prefecture, and their peers.

RESULTS

All but 1 of the infants were successfully evacuated from their NICU within 8 h. One very-low-birth-weight infant developed moderate hypothermia following transportation. Fourteen infants were transferred to NICUs outside of Kumamoto Prefecture, which was associated with the diagnosis of congenital heart disease, dependence on respiratory support, higher risk scores, and longer elapsed time from the decision to departure. There was difficulty in arranging helicopter transportation because the coordination office of the Disaster Medical Assistance Team had requisitioned most air/ground ambulances and only helped arrange ground transportations for 13 low-risk infants. Transportation for all 10 high-risk infants (risk scores greater than or equal to the upper quartile) was arranged by local/neighbour NICUs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall evacuation process was satisfactory, potential risks of relying on the adult-based emergency transportation system were highlighted. A better system needs to be developed urgently to put appropriate priority on vulnerable infants.

Neonatal nurses' response to a hypothetical premature birth situation: What if it was my baby?

BACKGROUND:

Evolving technology and scientific advancement have increased the chances of survival of the extremely premature baby; however, such survival can be associated with some severe long-term morbidities.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

The research investigates the caregiving and ethical dilemmas faced by neonatal nurses when caring for extremely premature babies (defined as ≤24 weeks' gestation). This article explores the issues arising for neonatal nurses when they considered the philosophical question of 'what if it was me and my baby', or what they believed they would do in the hypothetical situation of going into premature labour and delivering an extremely premature baby.

PARTICIPANTS:

Data were collected via a questionnaire to Australian neonatal nurses and semi-structured interviews with 24 neonatal nurses in New South Wales, Australia.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Relevant ethical approvals have been obtained by the researchers.

FINDINGS:

A qualitative approach was used to analyse the data. The theme 'imagined futures' was generated which comprised three sub-themes: 'choice is important', 'not subjecting their own baby to treatment' and 'nurses and outcome predictions'. The results offer an important and unique understanding into the perceptions of nursing staff who care for extremely premature babies and their family, see them go home and witness their evolving outcomes. The results show that previous clinical and personal experiences led the nurses in the study to choose to have the belief that if in a similar situation, they would choose not to have their own baby resuscitated and subjected to the very treatment that they provide to other babies.

CONCLUSION:

The theme 'imagined futures' offers an overall understanding of how neonatal nurses imagine what the life of the extremely premature baby and his or her family will be like after discharge from neonatal intensive care. The nurses' past experience has led them to believe that they would not want this life for themselves and their baby, if they were to deliver at 24 weeks' gestation or less.

The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care

BACKGROUND

Resuscitation and treatment of critically ill newborn infants is associated with relatively high mortality, morbidity and cost. Guidelines relating to resuscitation have traditionally focused on the best interests of infants. There are, however, limited resources available in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), meaning that difficult decisions sometimes need to be made. This study explores the intuitions of lay people (non-health professionals) regarding resource allocation decisions in the NICU.

METHODS

The study design was a cross-sectional quantitative survey, consisting of 20 hypothetical rationing scenarios. There were 119 respondents who entered the questionnaire, and 109 who completed it. The respondents were adult US and Indian participants of the online crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk. Respondents were asked to decide which of two infants to treat in a situation of scarce resources. Demographic characteristics, personality traits and political views were recorded. Respondents were also asked to respond to a widely cited thought experiment involving rationing.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents, in all except one scenario, chose the utilitarian option of directing treatment to the infant with the higher chance of survival, higher life expectancy, less severe disability, and less expensive treatment. As discrepancy between outcomes decreased, however, there was a statistically significant increase in egalitarian responses and decrease in utilitarian responses in scenarios involving chance of survival (P = 0.001), life expectancy (P = 0.0001), and cost of treatment (P = 0.01). In the classic 'lifeboat' scenario, all but two respondents were utilitarian.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey suggests that in situations of scarcity and equal clinical need, non-health professionals support rationing of life-saving treatment based on probability of survival, duration of survival, cost of treatment or quality of life. However, where the difference in prognosis or cost is very small, non-health professionals preferred to give infants an equal chance of receiving treatment.

Update on Ethical Issues in Pediatric Dialysis: Has Pediatric Dialysis Become Morally Obligatory?

Improvements in pediatric dialysis over the past 50 years have made the decision to proceed with dialysis straightforward for the majority of pediatric patients. For certain groups, however, such as children with multiple comorbid conditions, children and families with few social and economic resources, and neonates and infants, the decision of whether to proceed with dialysis remains much more controversial. In this review, we will examine the best available data regarding the outcomes of dialysis in these populations and analyze the important ethical considerations that should guide decisions regarding dialysis for these patients. We conclude that providers must continue to follow a nuanced and individualized approach in decision making for each child and to recognize that, regardless of the decision reached about dialysis, there is a continued duty to care for patients and families to maximize the remaining quality of their lives.

Extremely premature birth and the choice of neonatal intensive care versus palliative comfort care: an 18-year single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Review all live births 22 0/7 through 26 6/7 weeks gestation born 1996 through 2013 at our institution to describe the decision process and immediate outcomes of palliative comfort care (PCC) versus neonatal intensive care (NICU) and whether any significant family complaints or quality assurance concerns arose.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review, physician and ethicist interview process and database review focused upon our established periviability counseling guidelines that are directive of PCC at 22 weeks gestation and NICU at 26 weeks but supportive of informed family choice of either option at 23, 24 and 25 weeks.

RESULT

At 22 weeks--all 54 infants had PCC; at 23 weeks--29/78 (37%) chose NICU care, 6/29 (21%) infants survived; at 24 weeks--79/108 (73%) chose NICU care, 47/79 (59%) survived; at 25 weeks--147/153 (96%) chose NICU care, 115/147 (78%) survived; and at 26 weeks--all infants had NICU care, 176/203 (87%) survived. Over 18 years and 606 births, we identified only three significant concerns from families and/or physicians that required formal review.

CONCLUSION

Most pregnant women and families choose NICU care for their extremely premature infant, but if given the option via shared decision making, a significant proportion will choose PCC at gestational ages that some NICUs mandate resuscitation. We support a reasoned dialogue and bioethical framework that recognizes human values to be irreducibly diverse, sometimes conflicting, and ultimately incommensurable--value pluralism. Respectful shared decision making requires thoughtful and compassionate flexibility, nuanced and individualized suggestions for PCC or NICU and the reduction of hierarchical directives from physicians to families. We continue to advocate and rely upon informed family preference between 23 and 25 weeks gestation in our updated 2015 periviability guidelines.

Attitudes of Australian neonatologists to resuscitation of extremely preterm infants

AIM

We aimed to investigate how Australian neonatologists made decisions when incompetent patients of different ages needed resuscitation.

METHODS

A survey including vignettes of eight incompetent patients requiring resuscitation was sent to 140 neonatologists. Patients ranged from a very preterm infant to 80 years old. While some had existing impairments, all faced risk of death or neurological sequelae. Respondents indicated whether they would resuscitate, whether they believed resuscitation was in the patients' best interests, whether they would want intervention for a family member and whether they would comply with families' wishes to withhold resuscitation. They were also asked how they would rank the eight patients in a triage situation.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight per cent of specialists completed the survey. The majority of respondents gave priority to the resuscitation of children over adults. Less than 40% would agree to withhold resuscitation at families' request for all children except for the preterm infant, where 96% would comply with families' wishes to withhold intensive care despite 77% believing resuscitation to be in the infant's best interest.

CONCLUSION

This study found inconsistencies between physicians' perceptions of the patient's best interest regarding resuscitation and their willingness to comply with families' wishes to withhold resuscitation and give comfort care. Accepting a family's refusal of resuscitation was more marked for the premature infant, even among respondents who thought that resuscitation was in the patient's best interest. These findings are consistent with other international studies.

An introduction to behavioural decision-making theories for paediatricians

Behavioural decision-making theories provide insights into how people make choices under conditions of uncertainty. However, few have been studied in paediatrics. This study introduces these theories, reviews current research and makes recommendations for their application within the context of shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

As parents are expected to share decision-making in paediatrics, it is critical that the fields of behavioural economics, communication and decision sciences merge with paediatric clinical ethics to optimise decision-making.

The ethics and practice of neonatal resuscitation at the limits of viability: an international perspective

Premature infants at the limits of viability raise difficult ethical, legal, social and economic questions. Neonatologists attending an international Collegium were surveyed about delivery room behaviour, and the approach taken by selected countries practicing 'modern' medicine was explored.

CONCLUSION

There were strong preferences for comfort care at 22 weeks and full resuscitation at 24 weeks. Resuscitation was a grey area at 23 weeks. Cultural, social and legal factors also had a considerable impact on decision-making.

End-of-life decisions for extremely low-gestational-age infants: why simple rules for complicated decisions should be avoided

Interventions for extremely preterm infants bring up many ethical questions. Guidelines for intervention in the "periviable" period generally divide infants using predefined categories, such as "futile," "beneficial," and "gray zone" based on completed 7-day periods of gestation; however, such definitions often differ among countries. The ethical justification for using gestational age as the determination of the category boundaries is rarely discussed. Rational criteria used to make decisions regarding life-sustaining interventions must incorporate other important prognostic information. Precise guidelines based on imprecise data are not rational. Gestational age-based guidelines include an implicit judgment of what is deemed to be an unacceptably poor chance of "intact" survival but fail to explore the determination of acceptability. Furthermore, unclear definitions of severe disability, the difficulty, or impossibility, of accurately predicting outcome in the prenatal or immediate postnatal period make such simplistic formulae inappropriate. Similarly, if guidelines for intervention for the newborn are based on the "qualitative futility" of survival, it should be explicitly stated and justified according to established ethical guidelines. They should discuss whether newborn infants are morally different to older individuals or explain why thresholds recommended for intervention are different to recommendations for those in older persons. The aim should be to establish individualized goals of care with families while recognizing uncertainty, rather than acting on labels derived from gestational age categories alone.

Medical interventions for children with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18: what is the value of a short disabled life?

Children with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 (T13 or T18) have low survival rates, and survivors have significant disabilities. Life saving interventions (LSIs) are generally not recommended by many healthcare providers (HCPs). After a diagnosis of T13 or T18, many parents chose termination of pregnancy or comfort care at birth, but others consider treatment to prolong the lives of their children. While LSIs may be effective at prolonging the life of some children, the quality of life of survivors and the possible burden on the family may be considered negatively by HCP, which may lead to conflicts with families. Resource allocation considerations are often invoked to withhold LSI for T13 or T18 even though they are seldom mentioned for older patients with comparable outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We should strive to improve communication with parents by 1. Investigating these conditions further to be able to better inform parents and 2. Providing balanced information for families and personalised care for each child.

The evolving ethics of infant dialysis

In this paper, we review ethical issues that arise when families and doctors face clinical decisions about renal replacement therapy for an infant with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Over the last 20 years, many centers have begun to routinely offer renal replacement therapy. However, doctors and nurses both continue to view such therapy as optional, rather than mandatory. We speculate that the burdens of therapy on the family, and the uncertainties about satisfactory outcomes have led to a situation in which renal replacement therapy remains desirable, but non-obligatory. We discuss the reasons why this is likely to remain so, and the ways in which renal replacement therapy for infants with ESRD is similar to, or different from, other clinical situations in pediatrics. Finally, we propose a research agenda to answer questions that are crucial to making good ethical decisions about infant dialysis.

Have the boundaries of the 'grey zone' of perinatal resuscitation changed for extremely preterm infants over 20 years?

AIM

To determine the boundaries of the grey zone of discretionary resuscitation over the past 20 years.

BACKGROUND

As the likelihood of survival improves over time, the BW- and GA-specific boundaries of discretionary nonresuscitation should fall.

HYPOTHESIS

Between 1988 and 2008 reductions in BW- and GA-specific mortality would drive a parallel reduction in BW and GA boundaries of discretionary resuscitation.

METHODS

We determined the likelihood of resuscitation and survival to NICU discharge for all infants born <700 g or <26 gestational weeks from 1988 to 2008. In addition, for 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 and 2008, we determined the BW and GA for the 10 smallest infants who were resuscitated, and the 10 largest infants who were not resuscitated. We excluded any infant born with congenital anomaly.

RESULTS

Mortality fell from 80% in 1988 to 28% in 2008, and as expected, the percentage who were resuscitated rose from 63% in 1988-93 to 95% in 2004-2008. However, unexpectedly, over the 20-year study period, the smallest infants who were resuscitated despite extreme immaturity did not change (450-550 g and 23-24 weeks) and the largest infants not resuscitated did not change (600-700 g and 23-24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Neither the BW nor GA boundaries of the grey zone of discretionary resuscitation have fallen over the past 20 years. Factors guiding resuscitation at the border of viability are complex and incompletely understood.

Challenging nurses' cultural competence of disability to improve interpersonal interactions

Worldwide, at least 6.9 billion people have an impairment-producing health condition. Insensitive encounters with healthcare providers (HCPs) can result in negative appraisals, fear, and avoidance, but little is known about what things are commonly perceived as insensitive. A review of published narratives describing negative encounters with HCPs was conducted. Narrative analysis was used to compare, contrast, and synthesize six themes describing the common negative encounters: (a) ignoring or minimizing their knowledge, (b) detached interpersonal interactions, (c) placing a negative skew on their life quality, (d) lack of HCP knowledge related to their complete needs, (e) assuming they should be asexual and childless, and (f) an inherent power differential. The medical model of disability is perceived by individuals with impairment-producing health conditions to inform negative encounters perceived as insensitive. This preliminary knowledge is important so we can address educational needs, plan future research questions, and establish clinical practice improvements.

Ethics, choices, and decisions in acute medicine: a national survey of Norwegian physicians' attitudes

OBJECTIVE

To study the attitudes of Norwegian physicians to resuscitation of hypothetical patients all at risk of neurological sequelae.

DESIGN

Mail-based survey.

SETTING

A cohort of Norwegian physicians who are representative of the national physician corps.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 1650 Norwegian physicians (7% of practicing physicians in Norway) received a written questionnaire describing six scenarios of patients all in need of emergency life-saving intervention. Respondents were asked whether they would resuscitate; whether such resuscitation was in the patient's best interest; whether a surrogate's refusal of intervention would be accepted; and whether they would have wanted resuscitation if the patient were their own child, their spouse, or themselves. Positive or negative responses on a four-point Likert scale were recorded.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1,069 respondents (response rate, 65%). Physicians responding to these scenarios were a) more inclined to resuscitate an anonymous patient than if the patient were themselves or their kin; b) willing to resuscitate although they do not consider this intervention to be in the patient's best interest; c) willing to refrain from resuscitation on surrogate request in spite of a reasonably good prognosis; d) willing to accept surrogate's refusal of resuscitation in spite of a stated opinion that such intervention would be in the patient's best interest; and e) less willing to resuscitate newborn infants compared with older children and adults (except the aged) with similar prognoses.

CONCLUSION

There appear to be differences in medical thinking about best interest, surrogate decision making, and the relative value of lives as far as these are applied to acute, life-saving treatment.

Divergent views of hope influencing communications between parents and hospital providers

This study evaluated parents' and health care providers' (HCPs) descriptions of hope following counseling of parents at risk of delivering an extremely premature infant. Data came from a longitudinal multiple case study investigation that examined the decision making and support needs of 40 families and their providers. Semistructured interviews were conducted before and after delivery. Divergent viewpoints of hope were found between parents and many HCPs and were subsequently coded using content analysis. Parents relied on hope as an emotional motivator, whereas most HCPs described parents' notions of hope as out of touch with reality. Parents perceived that such divergent beliefs about the role of hope negatively shaped communicative interactions and reduced trust with some of their providers. A deeper understanding of how varying views of hope might shape communications will uncover future research questions and lead to theory-based interventions aimed at improving the process of discussing difficult news with parents.

Challenges in reconciling best interest and parental exercise of autonomy in pediatric life-or-death situations

OBJECTIVE

To study attitudes regarding life-saving interventions.

STUDY DESIGN

An Internet questionnaire describing 6 patients of different ages needing resuscitation was sent to members of the Norwegian Pediatric Association (n = 676): a 24-week gestational age infant, a term infant, a 2-month-old infant, a 7-year, a 50-year, and an 80-year-old individual. Neonates had similar or better described outcomes than older patients.

RESULTS

A total of 266 people responded (39.4%). The majority would resuscitate all the patients except the 80-year-old. The majority thought that resuscitation was in the best interest of the younger 5 patients, but fewer thought so for neonates (P < .05). Although the majority of the respondents thought that resuscitation was in the neonates' best interest (71% for 24-week-old and 75% for term infant), significantly more would accept comfort care at parental demand (62% for 24-week-old and 72% for term infant), unlike for other scenarios. Quality of life was used to justify decision making; 25% used the length of the life for neonates to motivate their answers. Patients were prioritized for resuscitation in the following order: 2-month-old infant, 7-year-old child with multiple disabilities, 50-year-old adult, the neonates, and lastly the 80-year-old individual.

CONCLUSION

There are challenges in reconciling best interest and parental exercise of autonomy in pediatric life-or-death situations. Neonates seem to be devalued.

Why do we treat the newborn differently?

End-of-life decisions are often taken in neonatology, based on widely accepted guidelines, to avoiding futile therapies. Usually, the criteria upon which these guidelines rely are different from those used for older patients, even when patients require a guardian to decide on their behalf. Main differences are the weight of parental interests and the probabilistic base of the choice. A careful analysis of the literature found three main reasons of this difference: the obsolescence of the guidelines criteria, the difficulty to distinguish between parents' and babies' interests and the neonatologist's responsibility to prolong a life with the prospective of severe disability. In conclusion, the future guidelines for newborn end-of-life decisions should follow at least the same moral criteria used for older patients.

Age and disability biases in pediatric resuscitation among future physicians

This study examined whether biases concerning age and/or disability status influenced resuscitation decisions. Medical students were randomly chosen to read 1 of 4 vignettes, organized in a 2 (age: infant vs school-age) × 2 (disability: preexisting vs no preexisting) between-subjects design. The vignettes described a pediatric patient experiencing an acute episode who required resuscitation. Following resuscitation, patients with existing disability would continue to have disability, whereas those without would develop disability. Participants indicated whether they would resuscitate, given a 10% chance of success. There was a significant main effect of disability: Medical students displayed a preference for resuscitating previously disabled children compared with previously healthy children when prognosis was held constant, F(1, 121) = 4.89, p = .03. This differential treatment of the two groups cannot easily be morally justified and poses a quandary for educators.