PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2025; 42(04): 502-510
DOI: 10.1055/a-2405-3336
Original Article

What Is Culture Made of? An Exploratory Study of Ethical Cultures and Provider Perspectives on the Care of Periviable Neonates

Shannon Y. Adams 
1   Department of Pediatrics, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
,
Jessica T. Fry
1   Department of Pediatrics, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
2   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
3   Division of Neonatology, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
,
Natalia Henner
1   Department of Pediatrics, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
2   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
3   Division of Neonatology, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Studies examining intercenter variation in neonatal intensive care unit practices at the limits of fetal viability have hypothesized that institutional “culture” can be one of many factors that impact patient care. This study aimed to describe institutional culture at a single, large academic center with regard to the antenatal consultation, resuscitation, and postnatal management of periviable neonates.

Study Design Members of six clinical groups—attending and fellow maternal–fetal medicine physicians, attending and fellow neonatal–perinatal medicine physicians, neonatal nurses, advanced practiced neonatal nurses, pediatric hospitalist physicians, and neonatal respiratory therapists—were invited to complete qualitative, semi-structured interviews. All audio recordings were transcribed. Dedoose software was used to complete team-based coding and thematic analysis.

Results Twenty-two interviews were completed. Thematic analysis revealed three central themes described by participants as contributory to institutional culture: Perception, referring to factors based on individual attitudes and insights, Statements of Information, referring to factors anchored in more objective concepts such as outcomes data and institutional policy, and Dynamic Factors, referring to the relatively fluid factors of institutional culture that interact with both Perception and Statements of Information. Participants were more likely to mention factors in the Perception category (n = 430) compared with factors in the Information category (n = 225), and although the latter were described as critical components of antenatal counseling and perinatal management, the philosophy of our unit appeared to be more heavily rooted in institutional memory and individual belief systems.

Conclusion Our data demonstrate a personal undertone to institutional culture at the limits of viability, with an emphasis on individual attitudes and subjective interpretations of fact rather than empirical data. As the landscape of neonatology continues to change, understanding those factors that contribute to culture remains a necessary step toward deconstructing institutional belief systems and optimizing clinical care.

Key Points

  • Institutional culture is the collective norms and attitudes that help guide organizational behavior.

  • Institutional culture may be one of many factors that impact the care of periviable neonates.

  • Deconstructing culture helps us better understand our clinical environment and optimize patient care.

Keywords

neonatology - attitudes - bioethics - periviability

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 19. Februar 2024

Angenommen: 26. August 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
19. September 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Berger TM. Decisions in the gray zone: evidence-based or culture-based?. J Pediatr 2010; 156 (01) 7-9
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Arbour K, Lindsay E, Laventhal N. et al. Shifting provider attitudes and institutional resources surrounding resuscitation at the limit of gestational viability. Am J Perinatol 2022; 39 (08) 869-877
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Cummings J. Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation and intensive care before 25 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (03) 588-595
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Silva ER, Shukla VV, Tindal R, Carlo WA, Travers CP. Association of active postnatal care with infant survival among periviable infants in the US. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (01) e2250593
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Boghossian NS, Geraci M, Edwards EM, Ehret DEY, Saade GR, Horbar JD. Regional and racial-ethnic differences in perinatal interventions among periviable births. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (04) 885-895
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rysavy MA, Li L, Bell EF. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Between-hospital variation in treatment and outcomes in extremely preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (19) 1801-1811
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Bell EF, Hintz SR, Hansen NI. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Mortality, in-hospital morbidity, care practices, and 2-year outcomes for extremely preterm infants in the US, 2013-2018. JAMA 2022; 327 (03) 248-263
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Watkins PL, Dagle JM, Bell EF, Colaizy TT. Outcomes at 18 to 22 months of corrected age for infants born at 22 to 25 weeks of gestation in a center practicing active management. J Pediatr 2020; 217: 52-58.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lantos JD, Carter B, Garrett J. Do sociocultural factors influence periviability counseling and treatment more than science? Lessons from Scandinavia. Pediatrics 2018; 142 (Suppl. 01) S600-S602
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Isayama T. The clinical management and outcomes of extremely preterm infants in Japan: past, present, and future. Transl Pediatr 2019; 8 (03) 199-211
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Mehler K, Oberthuer A, Keller T. et al. Survival among infants born at 22 or 23 weeks' gestation following active prenatal and postnatal care. JAMA Pediatr 2016; 170 (07) 671-677
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Ohlinger J, Brown MS, Laudert S, Swanson S, Fofah O. CARE Group. Development of potentially better practices for the neonatal intensive care unit as a culture of collaboration: communication, accountability, respect, and empowerment. Pediatrics 2003; 111 (4 Pt 2): e471-e481
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Hellmann J, Knighton R, Lee SK, Shah PS. Canadian Neonatal Network End of Life Study Group. Neonatal deaths: prospective exploration of the causes and process of end-of-life decisions. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2016; 101 (02) F102-F107
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Fry JT, Matoba N, Datta A. et al; Children's Hospital Neonatal Consortium (CHNC). Center, gestational age, and race impact end-of-life care practices at regional neonatal intensive care units. J Pediatr 2020; 217: 86-91.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Fontana MS, Farrell C, Gauvin F, Lacroix J, Janvier A. Modes of death in pediatrics: differences in the ethical approach in neonatal and pediatric patients. J Pediatr 2013; 162 (06) 1107-1111
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Lawrence C, Laventhal N, Fritz KA. et al. Ethical cultures in perinatal care: do they exist? Correlation of provider attitudes with periviability practices at six centers. Am J Perinatol 2021; 38 (S 01): e193-e200
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Haward MF, Murphy RO, Lorenz JM. Message framing and perinatal decisions. Pediatrics 2008; 122 (01) 109-118
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Gallagher K, Aladangady N, Marlow N. The attitudes of neonatologists towards extremely preterm infants: a Q methodological study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2016; 101 (01) F31-F36
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Janvier A, Lantos J, Deschênes M, Couture E, Nadeau S, Barrington KJ. Caregivers attitudes for very premature infants: what if they knew?. Acta Paediatr 2008; 97 (03) 276-279
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Ireland S, Larkins S, Ray R, Woodward L. Negativity about the outcomes of extreme prematurity a persistent problem - a survey of health care professionals across the North Queensland region. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol 2020; 6: 2
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 LoRe D, Mattson C, Feltman DM. et al. Physician perceptions on quality of life and resuscitation preferences for extremely early newborns. Am J Perinatol 2023; 40 (10) 276-279
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Sonix. San Francisco, CA; 2023 . Accessed September 3, 2024 at: https://sonix.ai/
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Dedoose Version 9.0.107. Cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC; 2023. . Accessed September 3, 2024 at: www.dedoose.com
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Prentice TM, Janvier A, Gillam L, Donath S, Davis PG. Moral distress in neonatology. Pediatrics 2021; 148 (02) e2020031864
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Myers P, Laventhal N, Andrews B, Lagatta J, Meadow W. Population-based outcomes data for counseling at the margin of gestational viability. J Pediatr 2017; 181: 208-212.e4
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Fanaroff JM, Hascoët JM, Hansen TW. et al; International Perinatal Collegium (IPC). The ethics and practice of neonatal resuscitation at the limits of viability: an international perspective. Acta Paediatr 2014; 103 (07) 701-708
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Cuttini M, Nadai M, Kaminski M. et al; EURONIC Study Group. End-of-life decisions in neonatal intensive care: physicians' self-reported practices in seven European countries. Lancet 2000; 355 (9221) 2112-2118
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Verhagen E, Janvier A. How babies die and why this is important to clinicians, researchers, and parents. Ethical Dilemmas for Critically Ill Babies. Springer Netherlands; 2013: 5-11
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Prentice TM, Gillam L, Davis PG, Janvier A. The use and misuse of moral distress in neonatology. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 23 (01) 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Rushton CH. Moral resilience: a capacity for navigating moral distress in critical care. AACN Adv Crit Care 2016; 27 (01) 111-119
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Arnold C, Inthorn J, Roth B. et al. Attitudes and values towards decisions at the margin of viability among expectant mothers at risk for preterm birth. Acta Paediatr 2024; 113 (03) 442-448
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Krick JA, Feltman DM, Arnolds M. Decision-making for extremely preterm infants: a qualitative systematic review. J Pediatr 2022; 251: 6-16
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Haward MF, Gaucher N, Payot A, Robson K, Janvier A. Personalized decision making: practical recommendations for antenatal counseling for fragile neonates. Clin Perinatol 2017; 44 (02) 429-445
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Gillam L. The zone of parental discretion: an ethical tool for dealing with disagreement between parents and doctors about medical treatment for a child. Clin Ethics 2016; 11 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Lantos JD, Meadow W. Variation in the treatment of infants born at the borderline of viability. Pediatrics 2009; 123 (06) 1588-1590
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Meadow J, Arzu J, Rychlik K, Henner N. Trial of therapy on trial: inconsistent thresholds for discussing withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in the neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Perinatol 2024; 41: E794-E802
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Boland RA, Davis PG, Dawson JA, Doyle LW. What are we telling the parents of extremely preterm babies?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 56 (03) 274-281
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Blanco F, Suresh G, Howard D, Soll RF. Ensuring accurate knowledge of prematurity outcomes for prenatal counseling. Pediatrics 2005; 115 (04) e478-e487
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Morse SB, Haywood JL, Goldenberg RL, Bronstein J, Nelson KG, Carlo WA. Estimation of neonatal outcome and perinatal therapy use. Pediatrics 2000; 105 (05) 1046-1050
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Rysavy MA. Prognosis as an intervention. Clin Perinatol 2018; 45 (02) 231-240
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Nair N, Patel RM. The center-effect on outcomes for infants born at less than 25 weeks. Semin Perinatol 2022; 46 (01) 151538
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Janvier A, Baardsnes J, Hebert M, Newell S, Marlow N. Variation of practice and poor outcomes for extremely low gestation births: ordained before birth?. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2017; 102 (06) F470-F471
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Backes CH, Söderström F, Ågren J. et al. Outcomes following a comprehensive versus a selective approach for infants born at 22 weeks of gestation. J Perinatol 2019; 39 (01) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Course Transcript. Care of Periviable Infants; 2021 . Accessed September 3, 2024 at: https://pnce.org/documents/59060-757_Transcript.pdf
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Thurn T, Anneser J. Medical students' experiences of moral distress in end-of-life care. J Palliat Med 2020; 23 (01) 116-120
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Wetherell M. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. Sage; 2012: 192
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Schaefer DO. The Evolution of Affect Theory: The Humanities, the Sciences, and the Study of Power. Cambridge University Press; 2019
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Cristofaro M. “I feel and think, therefore I am”: an affect-cognitive theory of management decisions. Eur Manage J 2020; 38 (02) 344-355
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Bandyopadhyay D, Pammi VSC, Srinivasan N. Chapter 3 - Role of affect in decision making. In: Pammi VSC, Srinivasan N. eds. Progress in Brain Research. Elsevier; 2013: 37-53
    Suche in Google Scholar