Withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: parental perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the experience of the practice of withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration (WANH) and to describe parental perspectives on the process. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review and parental survey. SETTING: Tertiary level Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). PARTICIPANTS: Infants who had WANH after withdrawal of other life-sustaining treatment, and their parents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Parental perspectives on the care and process were obtained through a survey administered 1 to 4 years after the death of their infant. RESULTS: Fifteen cases (5.5% of all mortality and 0.5% of all admissions) of WANH were identified, and 10 parents participated in the survey. The median (range) gestational age was 40 weeks (31-42) and birth weight was 3409 g (2000-4640). The reason for WANH was predicted poor outcome due to severe neurological injury/disease. The median (range) time between WANH and death was 16 days (2-37). All parents reported favourable perceptions of preparation, support, communication and care. Seven parents reported concerns regarding pain experienced by their infant. Parents reported the ability to spend quality time, creating tangible memories and the virtues and professional qualities of the caregivers to be helpful, but identified that consistency and continuity of care could be improved. CONCLUSION: Within the spectrum of palliative care in neonates, WANH can be a tenable, justifiable and humane practice in the NICU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".