Death review of children receiving medical care at home

Developing a toolkit to support parents' involvement in child death review: an experience-based co-design study

BACKGROUND

Understanding why children die is important for grieving parents and for informing system improvements aimed at prevention and future care. Many countries have child death review (CDR) process, but little is known about how best to engage parents. The aim of this study was to use experience-based co-design to create a toolkit to support parental involvement in CDR.

METHODS

A survey of English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and palliative care services explored practices and identified a diverse sample of sites for professional interviews. Bereaved parents were recruited through charities, hospitals and social media. Semistructured interviews were held with parents and professionals followed by co-design workshops to develop the toolkit.

RESULTS

There were 29 survey responses, 13 out of 21 from PICUs and 16 out of 34 from palliative care.21 multidisciplinary healthcare professionals were interviewed.23 bereaved parents of children who died aged 0-18 years in 2021-2022, either during hospital admission or under palliative care were, interviewed.10 parents and 23 professionals participated in co-design meetings. Key emotional touchpoints identified from parents' experiences were: becoming aware of CDR meetings, being asked for input, knowing the date and receiving feedback. All agreed on the importance of involving parents, with clear communication, and need for resources and training for key workers.The toolkit includes training videos, a standardised pathway including template letters, feedback form, easy-read leaflet and an animation explaining the importance of involving parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-design has successfully supported the development of a toolkit of resources in a sensitive area. It required considerable support from bereavement support organisations and researchers. Future evaluation is required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN14790455.

Post-market surveillance of medical devices: A review

BACKGROUND

Medical devices (MDs) represent the backbone of the modern healthcare system. Considering their importance in daily medical practice, the process of manufacturing, marketing and usage has to be regulated at all levels. Harmonized evidence-based conformity assessment of MDs during PMS relying on traceability of medical device measurements can contribute to higher reliability of MD performance and consequently to higher reliability of diagnosis and treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This paper discusses issues within MD post-market surveillance (PMS) mechanisms in order to set a path to harmonization of MD PMS.

METHODS

Medline (1980-2021), EBSCO (1991-2021), and PubMed (1980-2021) as well as national and international legislation and standard databases along with reference lists of eligible articles and guidelines of relevant regulatory authorities such as European Commission, Food and Drug Administration were searched for relevant information. Journal articles that contain information regarding PMS methodologies concerning stand-alone medical devices. National and international legislation, standards and guidelines concerning the topic.

RESULTS

The search strategy resulted in 2282 papers. Out of those only 24 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria and were finally included in the review. Papers were grouped per categories: medical device registry, medical device adverse event reporting, and medical device performance evaluation. In addition to journal articles, national and international legislation, standards, and guidelines were reviewed to assess the state of PMS in different regions of the world.

CONCLUSION

Although the regulatory framework prescribes PMS of medical devices, the process itself is not harmonized with international standards. Particularly, conformity assessment of MDs, as an important part of PMS, is not measured and managed in a traceable, evidence-based manner. The lack of harmonization within PMS results in an environment of increased adverse events involving MDs and overall mistrust in medical device diagnosis and treatment results.