Cargando…
Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study
BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33593416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00784-5 |
_version_ | 1783651593061662720 |
---|---|
author | Deja, Elizabeth Roper, Louise Tume, Lyvonne N. Dorling, Jon Gale, Chris Arch, Barbara Latten, Lynne Pathan, Nazima Eccleson, Helen Hickey, Helen Preston, Jenny Beissel, Anne Andrzejewska, Izabela Valla, Frédéric V. Woolfall, Kerry |
author_facet | Deja, Elizabeth Roper, Louise Tume, Lyvonne N. Dorling, Jon Gale, Chris Arch, Barbara Latten, Lynne Pathan, Nazima Eccleson, Helen Hickey, Helen Preston, Jenny Beissel, Anne Andrzejewska, Izabela Valla, Frédéric V. Woolfall, Kerry |
author_sort | Deja, Elizabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement. METHODS: A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child’s feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent’s views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child’s prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00784-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7885383 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78853832021-02-17 Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study Deja, Elizabeth Roper, Louise Tume, Lyvonne N. Dorling, Jon Gale, Chris Arch, Barbara Latten, Lynne Pathan, Nazima Eccleson, Helen Hickey, Helen Preston, Jenny Beissel, Anne Andrzejewska, Izabela Valla, Frédéric V. Woolfall, Kerry Pilot Feasibility Stud Research BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement. METHODS: A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child’s feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent’s views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child’s prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00784-5. BioMed Central 2021-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7885383/ /pubmed/33593416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00784-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Deja, Elizabeth Roper, Louise Tume, Lyvonne N. Dorling, Jon Gale, Chris Arch, Barbara Latten, Lynne Pathan, Nazima Eccleson, Helen Hickey, Helen Preston, Jenny Beissel, Anne Andrzejewska, Izabela Valla, Frédéric V. Woolfall, Kerry Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study |
title | Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study |
title_full | Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study |
title_fullStr | Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study |
title_full_unstemmed | Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study |
title_short | Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study |
title_sort | can they stomach it? parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in uk nnu and picus: a feasibility study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33593416 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00784-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dejaelizabeth cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT roperlouise cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT tumelyvonnen cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT dorlingjon cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT galechris cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT archbarbara cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT lattenlynne cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT pathannazima cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT ecclesonhelen cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT hickeyhelen cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT prestonjenny cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT beisselanne cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT andrzejewskaizabela cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT vallafredericv cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy AT woolfallkerry cantheystomachitparentandpractitioneracceptabilityofatrialcomparinggastricresidualvolumemeasurementversusnogastricresidualvolumeinuknnuandpicusafeasibilitystudy |