Ac Fenton

Services for neonatal intensive care in the United Kingdom have evolved in a largely unplanned fashion. Units of different sizes provide various amounts of intensive care, and, with a few exceptions, there is little or no formal regional or subregional organisation. Chronic underresourcing and the salvaging of ever more complex infants have resulted in tertiary neonatal intensive care units operating at full capacity most of the time, a situation compounded by a chronic national shortage of nursing staff. These factors have in turn resulted in an increase in requirements for emergency perinatal transfers.

Background: Recruitment into research studies in the neonatal intensive care unit has been problematic. Therefore suggestions have been made to take decision making about enrolment out of the hands of the parents. Objective: To understand parental perceptions of the process of recruitment and enrolment for research in the neonatal intensive care unit. Method: A questionnaire was developed and used in both a retrospective survey and a prospective study of parents whose newborns were enrolled in trials in a neonatal intensive care unit. Closed ended and open ended questions were included, as well as demographic questions. Results: The retrospective survey had a 79% response rate (29 of 38). Overall, 90% of parents felt that they had made informed decisions, and 93% were against the option that a doctor decide if the newborn should be enrolled into a study, rather than the parent. Although some parents (38%) found that recruitment did add “stress to an already stressful situation”, 90% felt that they had made informed decisions and understood the elements of the study. Most parents had been requested to enrol their newborn into more than one trial, and, on average, they thought that they would be comfortable with enrolment into two studies (range 0–6). When asked how the process could be improved, parents suggested that information be made available before delivery. The responses of parents in the prospective study were mostly consistent with those from the retrospective survey. Conclusions: Overall the parents did not support the suggestion that decision making about enrolment be taken away from parents and put into the hands of doctors. The healthcare team should support parents in their role of decision maker, enhance availability of the research staff, and provide more information about the research.

Percutaneously inserted central venous catheters (CVCs) are frequently used for parenteral nutrition (PN) in neonates. Catheter-related sepsis (CRS) is the most commonly reported complication. The aim of this study was to compare sepsis rates between neonates receiving PN by CVC and by peripheral cannula. Neonates were randomized to receive PN either by CVC or by peripheral cannula. Primary outcomes were sepsis rates and efficacy of PN delivery. Interim analysis (49 neonates) revealed no difference in sepsis rates (CVC group 46%, cannula group 40%, p= 0.57). There was a significant discrepancy in PN delivered (median deficit 3.2% in the CVC group, 10.3% in the cannula group, p= 0.0014). After consideration of these findings the study was terminated. Conclusion: Because the trial was stopped early, small but clinically important differences in the rates of sepsis may have been missed. Neonates in the cannula group accrued significant deficits of PN owing to a lack of venous access. This may contribute to undernutrition in neonates. CVC can be advocated for PN administration, in that sepsis appears to be no higher than when using cannulae and delivery of nutrition is significantly better.