Cargando…
A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock
OBJECTIVE: The Fluids in Shock (FiSh) Trial proposes to evaluate whether restrictive fluid bolus therapy (10 mL/kg) is more beneficial than current recommended practice (20 mL/kg) in the resuscitation of children with septic shock in the UK. This qualitative feasibility study aimed to explore accept...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754873/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28847877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-312515 |
_version_ | 1783290498948005888 |
---|---|
author | O’Hara, Caitlin B Canter, Ruth R Mouncey, Paul R Carter, Anjali Jones, Nicola Nadel, Simon Peters, Mark J Lyttle, Mark D Harrison, David A Rowan, Kathryn M Inwald, David Woolfall, Kerry |
author_facet | O’Hara, Caitlin B Canter, Ruth R Mouncey, Paul R Carter, Anjali Jones, Nicola Nadel, Simon Peters, Mark J Lyttle, Mark D Harrison, David A Rowan, Kathryn M Inwald, David Woolfall, Kerry |
author_sort | O’Hara, Caitlin B |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The Fluids in Shock (FiSh) Trial proposes to evaluate whether restrictive fluid bolus therapy (10 mL/kg) is more beneficial than current recommended practice (20 mL/kg) in the resuscitation of children with septic shock in the UK. This qualitative feasibility study aimed to explore acceptability of the FiSh Trial, including research without prior consent (RWPC), potential barriers to recruitment and participant information for a pilot trial. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study involving parents of children who had presented to a UK emergency department or been admitted to a paediatric intensive care unit with severe infection in the previous 3 years. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one parents (seven bereaved) were interviewed 16 (median) months since their child’s hospital admission (range: 1–41). RESULTS: All parents said they would have provided consent for the use of their child’s data in the FiSh Trial. The majority were unfamiliar with RWPC, yet supported its use. Parents were initially concerned about the change from currently recommended treatment, yet were reassured by explanations of the current evidence base, fluid bolus therapy and monitoring procedures. Parents made recommendations about the timing of the research discussion and content of participant information. Bereaved parents stated that recruiters should not discuss research immediately after a child’s death, but supported a personalised postal ‘opt-out’ approach to consent. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that parents whose child has experienced severe infection supported the proposed FiSh Trial, including the use of RWPC. Parents’ views informed the development of the pilot trial protocol and site staff training. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15244462—results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5754873 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57548732018-02-12 A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock O’Hara, Caitlin B Canter, Ruth R Mouncey, Paul R Carter, Anjali Jones, Nicola Nadel, Simon Peters, Mark J Lyttle, Mark D Harrison, David A Rowan, Kathryn M Inwald, David Woolfall, Kerry Arch Dis Child Original Article OBJECTIVE: The Fluids in Shock (FiSh) Trial proposes to evaluate whether restrictive fluid bolus therapy (10 mL/kg) is more beneficial than current recommended practice (20 mL/kg) in the resuscitation of children with septic shock in the UK. This qualitative feasibility study aimed to explore acceptability of the FiSh Trial, including research without prior consent (RWPC), potential barriers to recruitment and participant information for a pilot trial. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study involving parents of children who had presented to a UK emergency department or been admitted to a paediatric intensive care unit with severe infection in the previous 3 years. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one parents (seven bereaved) were interviewed 16 (median) months since their child’s hospital admission (range: 1–41). RESULTS: All parents said they would have provided consent for the use of their child’s data in the FiSh Trial. The majority were unfamiliar with RWPC, yet supported its use. Parents were initially concerned about the change from currently recommended treatment, yet were reassured by explanations of the current evidence base, fluid bolus therapy and monitoring procedures. Parents made recommendations about the timing of the research discussion and content of participant information. Bereaved parents stated that recruiters should not discuss research immediately after a child’s death, but supported a personalised postal ‘opt-out’ approach to consent. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that parents whose child has experienced severe infection supported the proposed FiSh Trial, including the use of RWPC. Parents’ views informed the development of the pilot trial protocol and site staff training. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15244462—results. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-01 2017-08-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5754873/ /pubmed/28847877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-312515 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Original Article O’Hara, Caitlin B Canter, Ruth R Mouncey, Paul R Carter, Anjali Jones, Nicola Nadel, Simon Peters, Mark J Lyttle, Mark D Harrison, David A Rowan, Kathryn M Inwald, David Woolfall, Kerry A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock |
title | A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock |
title_full | A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock |
title_fullStr | A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock |
title_full_unstemmed | A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock |
title_short | A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock |
title_sort | qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754873/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28847877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-312515 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oharacaitlinb aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT canterruthr aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT mounceypaulr aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT carteranjali aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT jonesnicola aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT nadelsimon aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT petersmarkj aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT lyttlemarkd aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT harrisondavida aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT rowankathrynm aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT inwalddavid aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT woolfallkerry aqualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT oharacaitlinb qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT canterruthr qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT mounceypaulr qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT carteranjali qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT jonesnicola qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT nadelsimon qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT petersmarkj qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT lyttlemarkd qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT harrisondavida qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT rowankathrynm qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT inwalddavid qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock AT woolfallkerry qualitativefeasibilitystudytoinformarandomisedcontrolledtrialoffluidbolustherapyinsepticshock |