Cargando…

PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process

OBJECTIVE: The PARENTS 1 study (Parents' Active Role and ENgagement in The review of their Stillbirth/perinatal death) found that parents would endorse the opportunity to give feedback into the perinatal mortality review (PNMR) process. In subsequent focus groups, healthcare professionals were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bakhbakhi, D., Siassakos, D., Lynch, M., Timlin, L., Storey, C., Heazell, A., Burden, C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6772129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30294945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.20139
_version_ 1783455842915319808
author Bakhbakhi, D.
Siassakos, D.
Lynch, M.
Timlin, L.
Storey, C.
Heazell, A.
Burden, C.
author_facet Bakhbakhi, D.
Siassakos, D.
Lynch, M.
Timlin, L.
Storey, C.
Heazell, A.
Burden, C.
author_sort Bakhbakhi, D.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The PARENTS 1 study (Parents' Active Role and ENgagement in The review of their Stillbirth/perinatal death) found that parents would endorse the opportunity to give feedback into the perinatal mortality review (PNMR) process. In subsequent focus groups, healthcare professionals were positive about parental engagement, although they considered that there may be significant challenges. The objective of this study was to develop core principles and recommendations for parental engagement in PNMR in the UK. METHODS: A two‐round Delphi technique was followed to reach consensus on core principles for parental engagement in the PNMR process; Round 1 included a national consensus workshop and Round 2 an online questionnaire. The consensus meeting was attended by a national panel of stakeholders (clinical and academic experts, parent advocates, managers and commissioners) in stillbirth and neonatal and bereavement care. To develop recommendations for parental engagement, participants discussed four key areas comprising: communication with parents, including receiving feedback; the format of the PNMR meeting; the parental engagement pathway; and challenging aspects of engaging with parents in reviews. Content analysis was conducted to generate recommendations from the meeting for a subsequent anonymous web‐based survey. Attendees of the consensus workshop and members of the PARENTS 2 Project Advisory Board were asked to rank recommendations using a 9‐point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). It had been agreed a priori, in compliance with established Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, that ‘consensus’ would be achieved if over 70% of participants scored the principle as ‘critical’ (score of 7–9) and fewer than 15% scored the principle as ‘not important’ (score of 1–3). Principles for which consensus was achieved were included in the core recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 29 invited stakeholders, 22 participated in the consensus meeting and 25 (86% response rate) in the subsequent online questionnaire in June 2017. Consensus was agreed on 12 core principles. Of the 25 participants, 96% agreed that a face‐to‐face explanation of the PNMR process was of critical importance, 72% considered that parents should be offered the opportunity to nominate a suitable advocate, 92% believed that responses to parents' comments should be formally documented, 96% indicated that it was vital for action plans to be translated into lessons learnt and that this process should be monitored, and 100% of stakeholders voted that a plain‐English summary should be produced for the parents following the meeting. There was good agreement on a further seven principles. CONCLUSIONS: Key national stakeholders were unanimously supportive of parental engagement in the PNMR process and agreed on core principles to make this process feasible, meaningful and robust. A 6‐month pilot of parental engagement in the PNMR process (PARENTS 2 study) in two UK units took place after the consensus on core principles. In collaboration with the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, the findings will inform the national standardized PNMR tool. © 2018 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6772129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67721292019-10-07 PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process Bakhbakhi, D. Siassakos, D. Lynch, M. Timlin, L. Storey, C. Heazell, A. Burden, C. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Original Papers OBJECTIVE: The PARENTS 1 study (Parents' Active Role and ENgagement in The review of their Stillbirth/perinatal death) found that parents would endorse the opportunity to give feedback into the perinatal mortality review (PNMR) process. In subsequent focus groups, healthcare professionals were positive about parental engagement, although they considered that there may be significant challenges. The objective of this study was to develop core principles and recommendations for parental engagement in PNMR in the UK. METHODS: A two‐round Delphi technique was followed to reach consensus on core principles for parental engagement in the PNMR process; Round 1 included a national consensus workshop and Round 2 an online questionnaire. The consensus meeting was attended by a national panel of stakeholders (clinical and academic experts, parent advocates, managers and commissioners) in stillbirth and neonatal and bereavement care. To develop recommendations for parental engagement, participants discussed four key areas comprising: communication with parents, including receiving feedback; the format of the PNMR meeting; the parental engagement pathway; and challenging aspects of engaging with parents in reviews. Content analysis was conducted to generate recommendations from the meeting for a subsequent anonymous web‐based survey. Attendees of the consensus workshop and members of the PARENTS 2 Project Advisory Board were asked to rank recommendations using a 9‐point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). It had been agreed a priori, in compliance with established Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, that ‘consensus’ would be achieved if over 70% of participants scored the principle as ‘critical’ (score of 7–9) and fewer than 15% scored the principle as ‘not important’ (score of 1–3). Principles for which consensus was achieved were included in the core recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 29 invited stakeholders, 22 participated in the consensus meeting and 25 (86% response rate) in the subsequent online questionnaire in June 2017. Consensus was agreed on 12 core principles. Of the 25 participants, 96% agreed that a face‐to‐face explanation of the PNMR process was of critical importance, 72% considered that parents should be offered the opportunity to nominate a suitable advocate, 92% believed that responses to parents' comments should be formally documented, 96% indicated that it was vital for action plans to be translated into lessons learnt and that this process should be monitored, and 100% of stakeholders voted that a plain‐English summary should be produced for the parents following the meeting. There was good agreement on a further seven principles. CONCLUSIONS: Key national stakeholders were unanimously supportive of parental engagement in the PNMR process and agreed on core principles to make this process feasible, meaningful and robust. A 6‐month pilot of parental engagement in the PNMR process (PARENTS 2 study) in two UK units took place after the consensus on core principles. In collaboration with the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, the findings will inform the national standardized PNMR tool. © 2018 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2019-08-05 2019-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6772129/ /pubmed/30294945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.20139 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Papers
Bakhbakhi, D.
Siassakos, D.
Lynch, M.
Timlin, L.
Storey, C.
Heazell, A.
Burden, C.
PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process
title PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process
title_full PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process
title_fullStr PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process
title_full_unstemmed PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process
title_short PARENTS 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process
title_sort parents 2 study: consensus report for parental engagement in the perinatal mortality review process
topic Original Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6772129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30294945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.20139
work_keys_str_mv AT bakhbakhid parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess
AT siassakosd parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess
AT lynchm parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess
AT timlinl parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess
AT storeyc parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess
AT heazella parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess
AT burdenc parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess
AT parents2studyconsensusreportforparentalengagementintheperinatalmortalityreviewprocess