Browsing by Subject "Periviability"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparing neonatal morbidity and mortality estimates across specialty in periviable counseling
    (Taylor & Francis, 2015-12) Edmonds, Brownsyne Tucker; McKenzie, Fatima; Panoch, Janet; Frankel, Richard M.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IU School of Medicine
    Objective To describe and compare estimates of neonatal morbidity and mortality communicated by neonatologists and obstetricians in simulated periviable counseling encounters. Methods A simulation-based study of 16 obstetricians (OBs) and 15 neonatologists counseling standardized patients portraying pregnant women with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. Two investigators tabulated all instances of numerically-described risk estimates across individuals and by specialty. Results Overall, 12/15 (80%) neonatologists utilized numeric estimates of survival; 6/16 (38%) OBs did. OBs frequently deferred the discussion of “exact numbers” to neonatologists. The twelve neonatologists provided 13 unique numeric estimates, ranging from 3% to 50% survival. Half of those neonatologists provided 2-3 different estimates in a single encounter. By comparison, six OBs provided 4 unique survival estimates (“50%”, “30-40%”, “1/3-1/2”, “<10%”). Only 2/15 (13%) neonatologists provided numeric estimates of survival without impairment. None of the neonatologists used the term ‘intact’ survival, while 5 OBs did. Three neonatologists gave numeric estimates of long-term disability and one OB did. Conclusion We found substantial variation in estimates and noteworthy omissions of discussions related to long-term morbidity. Across specialties, we noted inconsistencies in the use and meaning of terms like ‘intact survival.’ More tools and training are needed to improve the quality and consistency of periviable risk-communication.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    "Doctor, what would you do?": physicians' responses to patient inquiries about periviable delivery
    (Elsevier, 2015-01) Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne; McKenzie, Fatima; Panoch, Janet E.; Wocial, Lucia D.; Barnato, Amber E.; Frankel, Richard M.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IU School of Medicine
    OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess obstetricians' and neonatologists' responses to standardized patients (SPs) asking "What would you do?" during periviable counseling encounters. METHODS: An exploratory single-center simulation study. SPs, portraying a pregnant woman presenting with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, were instructed to ask, "What would you do?" if presented options regarding delivery management or resuscitation. Responses were independently reviewed and classified. RESULTS: We identified five response patterns: 'Disclose' (9/28), 'Don't Know' (11/28), 'Deflect' (23/28), 'Decline' (2/28), and 'Ignore' (2/28). Most physicians utilized more than one response pattern (22/28). Physicians 'deflected' the question by: restating or offering additional medical information; answering with a question; evoking a hypothetical patient; or redirecting the SP to other sources of support. When compared with neonatologists, obstetricians (40% vs. 15%) made personal or professional disclosures more often. Though both specialties readily acknowledged the importance of values in making a decision, only one physician attempted to elicit the patient's values. CONCLUSION: "What would you do?" represented a missed opportunity for values elicitation. Interventions are needed to facilitate values elicitation and shared decision-making in periviable care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If physicians fail to address patients' values and goals, they lack the information needed to develop patient-centered plans of care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Maternal-Fetal Medicine physicians' practice patterns for 22-week delivery management
    (Taylor & Francis, 2016) Edmonds, Brownsyne Tucker; McKenzie, Fatima; Robinson, Barret K.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IU School of Medicine
    OBJECTIVE: To describe Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) physicians' practice patterns for 22-week delivery management. MEHODS: Surveyed 750 randomly-sampled members of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, querying MFMs' practices and policies guiding 22-week delivery management. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-five (43%) MFMs responded. Nearly all (87%) would offer induction. Twenty-eight percent would order steroids, and 12% would perform cesarean for a patient desiring resuscitation. Offering induction differed significantly based on the provider's practice setting, region, religious service attendance and political affiliation. In multivariable analyses, political affiliation remained a significant predictor of offering induction (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Most MFMs offer induction for PPROM at 22 weeks. A noteworthy proportion is willing to order steroids and perform cesarean. Personal beliefs and practice characteristics may contribute to these decisions. While little is known about the efficacy of these interventions at 22 weeks, some MFMs will offer obstetrical intervention if resuscitation is intended.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Pilot Study of Neonatologists' Decision-Making Roles in Delivery Room Resuscitation Counseling for Periviable Births
    (Taylor and Francis, 2016-07) Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne; McKenzie, Fatima; Panoch, Janet E.; White, Douglas B.; Barnato, Amber E.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about neonatologists' roles in helping families navigate the difficult decision to attempt or withhold resuscitation for a neonate delivering at the threshold of viability. Therefore, we aimed to describe the "decision-making role" of neonatologists in simulated periviable counseling sessions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded simulation encounters and post-encounter debriefing interviews collected as part of a single-center simulation study of neonatologists' resuscitation counseling practices in the face of ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. We trained standardized patients to request a recommendation if the physician presented multiple treatment options. We coded each encounter for communication behaviors, applying an adapted, previously developed coding scheme to classify physicians into four decision-making roles (informative, facilitative, collaborative, or directive). We also coded post-simulation debriefing interviews for responses to the open-ended prompt: "During this encounter, what did you feel was your role in the management decision-making process?" RESULTS: Fifteen neonatologists (33% of the division) participated in the study; audio-recorded debriefing interviews were available for 13. We observed 9 (60%) take an informative role, providing medical information only; 2 (13%) take a facilitative role, additionally eliciting the patient's values; 3 (20%) take a collaborative role, additionally engaging the patient in deliberation and providing a recommendation; and 1 (7%) take a directive role, making a treatment decision independent of the patient. Almost all (10/13, 77%) of the neonatologists described their intended role as informative. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatologists did not routinely elicit preferences, engage in deliberation, or provide treatment recommendations-even in response to requests for recommendations. These findings suggest there may be a gap between policy recommendations calling for shared decision making and actual clinical practice.