Objectives: Resuscitation care planning for extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGANs) is complex and ethically charged. Increasing survival at lower gestational ages has had a significant impact on this complexity. It also has an impact on healthcare resource utilization and policy development in Canada. This study sought to determine the current attitudes and practices of neonatologists in Canada, and to assess moral distress associated with resuscitation decisions in the ELGAN population. It also aimed to explore the perspectives of adopting a shared decision-making approach where further data with regard to best interests and prognosis are gathered in an individualized manner after birth.
Methods: Neonatologists in Canadian level III NICUs were surveyed in 2020.
Results: Amongst the 65 responses, 78% expressed moral distress when parents request non-resuscitation at 24 weeks. Uncertainty around long-term outcomes in an era with improved chances of morbidity-free survival was the most prominent factor contributing to moral distress. 70% felt less moral distress deciding goals of care after the baby's initial resuscitation and preferred an individualized approach to palliation decisions based on postnatal course and assessment.
Conclusions: While most current guidelines still support the option of non-resuscitation for infants born at less than 25 weeks, we show evidence of moral distress among Canadian neonatologists that suggests the consideration of routine resuscitation from 24 weeks and above is a more ethical approach in the current era of improved outcomes. Canadian neonatologists identified less moral distress when goals of care are developed postnatally, with availability of more evidence for prognostication, instead of antenatally based primarily on gestational age.
Keywords: clinical; decision making; ethics; extreme prematurity; neonatology; resuscitation.
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.