No second chance: junior neonatal nurses' experiences of caring for babies at the end-of-life and their families

Death of an infant is acutely stressful for parents and professionals. Little is known about junior nurses' experiences providing end-of-life care in Neonatal units (NNU). This study aimed to better understand junior nurses' experiences providing end-of-life care in NNU. Neonatal nurses (n = 12) with less than 3 years experience participated in a focus group. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to build consensus around the challenges faced, alongside suggested developments in improving future care provision. Primary analysis involved successive rounds of ranking and decision-making whilst secondary analysis involved thematic analysis. All issues, whether environmental, professional or social appeared driven by an awareness on the part of nurses, that there was no ‘second chance’ which created a huge pressure to ‘get if right’ for the infants and families. Regarding future care 2 areas of improvement identified were ‘Education and Training’ and Support. This paper unpacks these findings making recommendations for practice.

No second chance: the experiences of junior neonatal nurses in providing end-of-life care for babies and families in the NNU

Background

An infant’s death is acutely stressful for parents and professionals. Little is known about junior nurses’ experiences providing end-of-life care in Neonatal Units (NNU).

Objectives

To better understand junior nurses’ experiences providing end-of-life care in NNU, the study explored the challenges and opportunities inherent in their practice relating to providing such care to babies and their families.

Methods

Neonatal nurses (n=12) with less than 3 years’ experience who were undergoing a neonatal education programme participated. Two focus groups were convened each with 6 nurses. The Ethics Committee at the relevant University approved the study. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used in the focus groups to build consensus around the challenges faced by junior nurses, alongside suggested developments in improving future care provision. Primary analysis involved successive rounds of ranking and decision making whilst secondary analysis involved thematic analysis.

Results

The study identified the pressures these nurses felt in having only one chance to ‘get it right’ for the infants and their families. They perceived the need for further ‘education and training’ highlighting that improved education provision would include both additional courses and internal training sessions. Greater ‘support’ from mentors themselves more experienced in this aspect of care within the NNU was identified as important in addressing issues around confidence building and skill development.

Conclusions

The results highlight junior nurses’ need for specific education and mentorship around end-of-life care for babies. This presentation will outline the implications for practice, education and further research.

PIPc study: development of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care using a modified Delphi technique

Objective There is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.


Design Two-round modified Delphi consensus method.


Setting Irish and UK general practice.


Participants A project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.


Results 47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).


Conclusions The PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.