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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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