Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents the results of a survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery in England, concerning the controversy over elective Caesarean section. Questions on the survey; Data showing that a majority of those surveyed would support a randomized trial of planned Caesarean section compared with planned vaginal birth.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to detect cardiovascular changes after mild severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection., Background: Concern exists that mild coronavirus disease 2019 may cause myocardial and vascular disease., Methods: Participants were recruited from COVIDsortium, a 3-hospital prospective study of 731 health care workers who underwent first-wave weekly symptom, polymerase chain reaction, and serology assessment over 4 months, with seroconversion in 21.5% (n = 157). At 6 months post-infection, 74 seropositive and 75 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched seronegative control subjects were recruited for cardiovascular phenotyping (comprehensive phantom-calibrated cardiovascular magnetic resonance and blood biomarkers). Analysis was blinded, using objective artificial intelligence analytics where available., Results: A total of 149 subjects (mean age 37 years, range 18 to 63 years, 58% women) were recruited. Seropositive infections had been mild with case definition, noncase definition, and asymptomatic disease in 45 (61%), 18 (24%), and 11 (15%), respectively, with 1 person hospitalized (for 2 days). Between seropositive and seronegative groups, there were no differences in cardiac structure (left ventricular volumes, mass, atrial area), function (ejection fraction, global longitudinal shortening, aortic distensibility), tissue characterization (T 1 , T 2 , extracellular volume fraction mapping, late gadolinium enhancement) or biomarkers (troponin, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). With abnormal defined by the 75 seronegatives (2 SDs from mean, e.g., ejection fraction <54%, septal T 1 >1,072 ms, septal T 2 >52.4 ms), individuals had abnormalities including reduced ejection fraction (n = 2, minimum 50%), T 1 elevation (n = 6), T 2 elevation (n = 9), late gadolinium enhancement (n = 13, median 1%, max 5% of myocardium), biomarker elevation (borderline troponin elevation in 4; all N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide normal). These were distributed equally between seropositive and seronegative individuals., Conclusions: Cardiovascular abnormalities are no more common in seropositive versus seronegative otherwise healthy, workforce representative individuals 6 months post-mild severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures COVIDsortium funding was donated by individuals, charitable trusts, and corporations including Goldman Sachs, Citadel and Citadel Securities, The Guy Foundation, GW Pharmaceuticals, Kusuma Trust, and Jagclif Charitable Trust, and enabled by Barts Charity with support from UCLH Charity. Wider support is acknowledged on the COVIDsortium web site. Institutional support from Barts Health NHS Trust and Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust facilitated study processes, in partnership with University College London and Queen Mary University London. Serology tests (anti-S1 and anti-NP) were funded by Public Health England. This study forms part of the portfolio of COVID-Heart, a UKRI UKRI-DHSC funded study (ISRCTN58667920). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Dr Seraphim is supported by a doctoral research fellowship from the British Heart Foundation (FS/18/83/34025). Dr Augusto is supported by an EACVI grant. Prof. McKnight is supported by Rosetrees trust, The John Black Charitable Foundation, and Medical College of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Trust. Prof. Noursadeghi is supported by the Wellcome Trust (207511/Z/17/Z) and by NIHR Biomedical Research Funding to UCL and UCLH. Prof. Fontana is supported by a BHF Intermediate Research Fellowship (FS FS/18/21/33447). Dr Treibel is funded by a BHF Intermediate Research Fellowship (FS/19/35/34374). Drs Treibel and Manisty and Prof. Moon are directly and indirectly supported by the University College London Hospitals (UCLH) and Barts NIHR Biomedical Research Centres and through the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Accelerator Award (AA/18/6/34223). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Choosing an appropriately sized vein reduces the risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters. This observational study described the diameters of the brachial, basilic, and cephalic veins and determined the effect of patient factors on vein size. Ultrasound was used to measure the veins of 176 participants. Vein diameter was similar in both arms regardless of hand dominance and side. Patient factors-including greater age, height, and weight, as well as male gender-were associated with increased vein diameter. The basilic vein tended to have the largest diameter statistically. However, this was the case in only 55% of patients.