Child death review: understanding variations in practice using normalisation process theory.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Karen Shaw, Sara Kenyon, Anna Pease, Jenna Spry, Gayle Routledge, Joanna Jane Garstang
{"title":"Child death review: understanding variations in practice using normalisation process theory.","authors":"Karen Shaw, Sara Kenyon, Anna Pease, Jenna Spry, Gayle Routledge, Joanna Jane Garstang","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In England, Child Death Review (CDR) is a statutory process designed to identify full reasons for death, support parents, improve care and save lives. At CDR meetings, professionals review care and identify learning. Although parents do not attend CDR meetings, they should be invited to contribute questions and feedback and be informed of outcomes. There is a lack of evidence to support implementation, particularly for families after an expected child death.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine how parent involvement in CDR is operationalised currently, following expected child death, to support improvements in practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A secure online questionnaire was developed to collect data on parental CDR involvement in hospitals and palliative care services in England. Semistructured interviews were undertaken during 2022-2023, with 21 professionals in five care settings, purposively sampled from the survey to include sites with different provision contexts. Quantitative data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed qualitative content analysis and through a conceptual lens of Normalisation Process Theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Questionnaires were completed by 13 Paediatric Intensive Care Units and 16 palliative care services. 25/29 (86%) held CDR meetings reflecting statutory guidance, 17/29 (59%) routinely informed parents about CDR and 10/29 (28%) shared outcomes with them. Interviews with 21 professionals revealed that despite valuing CDR, many struggled to implement the process and lacked confidence to involve parents. Professionals felt that parents need good bereavement support to be able to contribute and wanted resources to help inform parents about CDR and support their involvement. Enthusiastic leaders were important. Lack of funding, particularly for CDR and bereavement keyworkers, was a challenge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12121585/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003432","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In England, Child Death Review (CDR) is a statutory process designed to identify full reasons for death, support parents, improve care and save lives. At CDR meetings, professionals review care and identify learning. Although parents do not attend CDR meetings, they should be invited to contribute questions and feedback and be informed of outcomes. There is a lack of evidence to support implementation, particularly for families after an expected child death.

Objective: To examine how parent involvement in CDR is operationalised currently, following expected child death, to support improvements in practice.

Methods: A secure online questionnaire was developed to collect data on parental CDR involvement in hospitals and palliative care services in England. Semistructured interviews were undertaken during 2022-2023, with 21 professionals in five care settings, purposively sampled from the survey to include sites with different provision contexts. Quantitative data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed qualitative content analysis and through a conceptual lens of Normalisation Process Theory.

Results: Questionnaires were completed by 13 Paediatric Intensive Care Units and 16 palliative care services. 25/29 (86%) held CDR meetings reflecting statutory guidance, 17/29 (59%) routinely informed parents about CDR and 10/29 (28%) shared outcomes with them. Interviews with 21 professionals revealed that despite valuing CDR, many struggled to implement the process and lacked confidence to involve parents. Professionals felt that parents need good bereavement support to be able to contribute and wanted resources to help inform parents about CDR and support their involvement. Enthusiastic leaders were important. Lack of funding, particularly for CDR and bereavement keyworkers, was a challenge.

Conclusions:

儿童死亡回顾:使用正常化过程理论理解实践中的变化。
背景:在英国,儿童死亡审查(CDR)是一个法定程序,旨在确定死亡的全部原因,支持父母,改善护理和挽救生命。在CDR会议上,专业人员回顾护理并确定学习内容。虽然家长不参加CDR会议,但应该邀请他们提出问题和反馈,并告知结果。缺乏支持实施的证据,特别是对预期儿童死亡后的家庭而言。目的:研究目前在预期儿童死亡后,父母参与CDR是如何运作的,以支持实践中的改进。方法:开发了一份安全的在线问卷,收集英国医院和姑息治疗服务中父母CDR参与情况的数据。在2022-2023年期间,对五个护理机构的21名专业人员进行了半结构化访谈,有目的地从调查中抽取样本,包括具有不同规定背景的地点。定量资料采用基本描述性统计进行分析。定性数据分析使用定向定性内容分析,并通过标准化过程理论的概念镜头。结果:13家儿科重症监护病房和16家姑息治疗机构完成了问卷调查。25/29(86%)举办了反映法定指导的CDR会议,17/29(59%)定期向家长通报CDR, 10/29(28%)与家长分享结果。对21位专业人士的采访显示,尽管重视CDR,但许多人在实施过程中遇到困难,缺乏让父母参与进来的信心。专业人士认为,父母需要良好的丧亲支持才能做出贡献,他们需要资源来帮助父母了解CDR,并支持他们的参与。热情的领导者很重要。缺乏资金,特别是对CDR和丧亲关键工作者来说,是一个挑战。结论:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信