Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T08:03:01.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Congenital cardiac surgery and parental perception of risk: a qualitative study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2019

Robyn R. Lotto Open the ORCID record for Robyn R. Lotto [Opens in a new window] ,
Ian D. Jones ,
Rafael Guerrero ,
Ram Dhannapuneni  and
Attilio A. Lotto
Robyn R. Lotto*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Ian D. Jones
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Rafael Guerrero
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool, UK
Ram Dhannapuneni
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool, UK
Attilio A. Lotto
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK Department of Cardiac Surgery, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool, UK
*
Author for correspondence: R. R. Lotto, Faculty of Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Webster Street, Liverpool L3 2ET, UK; E-mail: r.r.lotto@ljmu.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The way risk is interpreted by parents of children undergoing congenital cardiac surgery is poorly documented. Literature suggests clinicians have concerns that parents may not understand the complexity of procedures. Conversely, some parents perceive an unnecessary over-emphasis of risks.

Aim:

To explore how risk is encountered by parents of children who are undergoing cardiac surgery, in order to deliver effective and compassionate care.

Methods:

A qualitative approach was adopted. Interviews were undertaken with 18 parents (mothers n = 10; fathers n = 8). Recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a constant comparative-based approach.

Findings:

Three themes emerged from the data: the nature of risk, reflecting the complexity of parental perception of risk and the influence of the doctor–parent relationship; presenting risk, highlighting the way in which risk is presented to and interpreted by parents; and risk and responsibility, examining the way in which parents engaged with risk and the impact of this on their relationship.

Conclusions:

The way in which risk is perceived by parents is complex and multi-factorial. The doctor–parent relationship is key to parental engagement. However, parents manage risk and uncertainty through a number of mechanisms, including those perceived as being not rational. This can cause tension, particularly when required to engage in informed decision-making.

Keywords

Qualitativecongenital cardiac surgeryrisk perception
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 29 , Issue 11 , November 2019 , pp. 1361 - 1367
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brehmer, B. Brunswikian psychology in the 1990’s. In: Lagerspetz, K, Niemi, P (eds). Psychology in the 1990’s. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1984: 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen-Szalanski, J. Improving the practical utility of judgement research. In: Brehmer, B, Jungermann, H, Lourens, P, Sevon, G (eds). New Directions for Research in Judgement and Decision Literature. Elsevier, Holland, 1986: 383–410.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D, Tversky, A. Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow. Macmillan, New York, 20 11.Google Scholar
Pfeil, M. Parents’ experience of giving consent for their child to undergo surgery. J Child Health Care 2011; 15: 380–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, AM. Qualitative research: what it is and what it can contribute to Cardiology in the Young. Cardiol Young 2009; 19: 131–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk. Routledge, London, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S, Bryant, LD, Tizro, Z, Shickle, D. Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: a cross-cultural, Q-methodology study. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74: 997–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, S, Atkin, K, Hewison, J, Green, J. The influence of faith and religion and the role of religious and community leaders in prenatal decisions for sickle cell disorders and thalassaemia major. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 801–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gitsels-van der Wal, JT, Manniën, J, Ghaly, MM, Verhoeven, PS, Hutton, EK, Reinders, HS. The role of religion in decision-making on antenatal screening of congenital anomalies: a qualitative study amongst Muslim Turkish origin immigrants. Midwifery 2014; 30: 297–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bécares, L, Shaw, R, Nazroo, J, et al. Ethnic density effects on physical morbidity, mortality, and health behaviors: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Public Health 2012; 102: e33–e66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erikson, SL. Post-diagnostic abortion in Germany: reproduction gone awry, again? Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 1987–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, SM, Cerritelli, B, Carter, LS, Cooke, M, Glazner, JA, Massie, J. Changing their minds with time: a comparison of hypothetical and actual reproductive behaviors in parents of children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics 2006; 118: e649–e656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(DoH) DoH. Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment. Department of Health; 2009. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/138296/dh_103653__1_.pdf Accessed 02-02-2019Google Scholar
Weil, J. Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: a point of view. J Genet Couns 2003; 12: 199–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, A. The process of genetic counselling. In: Harper, P, Clarke, A (eds). Genetics, Society and Clinical Practice. BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxford, 1997: 179–200.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotto, R, Smith, LK, Armstrong, N. Clinicians’ perspectives of parental decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e014716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lotto, R, Smith, LK, Armstrong, N. Diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly: a qualitative analysis of parental decision making and the implications for healthcare encounters. Health Expectations 2018; 21: 678–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stavropoulou, C, Glycopantis, D. Conflict in the doctor-patient relation and non-adherence: a game theory approach. London School of Economics, London, 2008.Google Scholar
Kennedy, I. Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry; Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into Children’s Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. The Stationary Office, London. 2001.Google Scholar
Palinkas, LA, Horwitz, SM, Green, CA, Wisdom, JP, Duan, N, Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 2015; 42: 533–544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, KJ, Gauvreau, K, Newburger, JW, Spray, TL, Moller, JH, Iezzoni, LI. Consensus-based method for risk adjustment for surgery for congenital heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 123: 110–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westaby, S, Archer, N, Manning, N, et al. Comparison of hospital episode statistics and central cardiac audit database in public reporting of congenital heart surgery mortality. BMJ 2007; 335: 759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, LK, Budd, JL, Field, DJ, Draper, ES. Socioeconomic inequalities in outcome of pregnancy and neonatal mortality associated with congenital anomalies: population based study. Br Med J 2011; 343: 4306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, J, Johnston, M, Robertson, C, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health 2010; 25: 1229–1245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Reilly, M, Parker, N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res 2013; 13: 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A, Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2006.Google Scholar
Seale, C, Gobo, G, Gubrium, J, Silverman, D. Qualitative Research Practice. Sage, London, 2007.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T, Annandale, E, Ashcroft, R, et al. An open letter to the BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ 2016; 352: i563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manera, KE, Craig, JC, Johnson, DW, Tong, A. The power of the patient voice: conducting and using qualitative research to improve care and outcomes in peritoneal dialysis. Periton Dialysis Int 2018; 38: 242–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lincoln, Y, Guba, E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J, Miller, D. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theor Pract 2000; 39: 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barusch, A, Gringeri, C, George, M. Rigor in qualitative social work research: a review of strategies used in published articles. Soc Work Res 2011; 35: 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmaz, K, Belgrave, L. Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. SAGE Handb Inter Res complexity Craft 2012; 2: 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, JM. Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res 2015; 25: 1212–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birt, L, Scott, S, Cavers, D, Campbell, C, Walter, F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res 2016; 26: 1802–1811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrilli, CM, Mack, M, Petrilli, JJ, Hickner, A, Saint, S, Chopra, V. Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature — targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolf‐King, SE, Arnold, E, Weiss, S, Teitel, D. “There’s no acknowledgement of what this does to people”: a qualitative exploration of mental health among parents of children with critical congenital heart defects. J Clin Nurs 2018; 27: 2785–2794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lotto, R, Armstrong, N, Smith, LK. Care provision during termination of pregnancy following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly ‐ A qualitative study of what is important to parents. Midwifery 2016; 43: 14–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beach, L, Lipshitz, R. Why classical decision theory is an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making. In: Klein, G, Orasanu, J, Calderwood, R, Zsambok, CE (eds). Decision Making in Action. Ablex Publishing Corporation, New Jersey, 1993: 21–36.Google Scholar
Zinn, JO. ‘In-between’and other reasonable ways to deal with risk and uncertainty: a review article. Health Risk Soc 2016; 18: 348–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meakins, L, Ray, L, Hegadoren, K, Rogers, LG, Rempel, GR. Parental vigilance in caring for their children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatr Nurs 2015; 41: 31–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Sjostrom-Strand, A, Terp, K. Parents’ experiences of having a baby with a congenital heart defect and the child’s heart surgery. Compr Child Adolesc Nurs 2017; 42: 10–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tregay, J, Wray, J, Crowe, S, et al. Going home after infant cardiac surgery: a UK qualitative study. Arch Dis Child 2016; 101: 320–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiegelhalter, D, Pearson, M, Short, I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 2011; 333: 1393–1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schapira, MM, Nattinger, AB, McHorney, CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 459–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A, Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malenka, DJ, Baron, JA, Johansen, S, Wahrenberger, JW, Ross, JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 543–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazur, DJ, Hickam, DH. Patients’ preferences for risk disclosure and role in decision making for invasive medical procedures. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12: 114–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, SR, Mathew, R, Keding, A, Marshall, HC, Brown, JM, Jayne, DG. The impact of postoperative complications on long-term quality of life after curative colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2014; 259: 916–923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinto, A, Faiz, O, Davis, R, Almoudaris, A, Vincent, C. Surgical complications and their impact on patients’ psychosocial well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e007224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, A, Hayes, P, Bell, PR, Naylor, AR. The role of risk and benefit perception in informed consent for surgery. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed