Utility of do-not-resuscitate orders for critically ill infants in the NICU.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the value of DNR orders for critically ill infants in the NICU. METHODS: A prospective mixed-methods approach was utilized including chart review of infants who died in a regional NICU over a twenty-six-month period and surveys of their neonatologists, neonatal fellows, and nurses. RESULTS: 40 infants died during the study period and 120 staff surveys were completed. Infants with DNR orders were of a higher gestational age at birth and a higher chronological age at death. Nurses were more likely to perceive benefit from DNR orders than physicians. Medical staff recollection of the existence of DNR orders was not always accurate. Time and fear of adding unnecessary emotional burden to parents were identified as barriers to DNR order implementation. An advanced care planning model built on open communication instead of DNR order documentation was deemed the best approach. CONCLUSION: Though DNR orders are beneficial for a subset of infants, DNR orders are likely not applicable for all infants who die in the NICU. More important is supportive, individualized communication between families and the medical team to ensure quality end-of-life care. IMPACT: In the adult and pediatric ICU literature, DNR orders are associated with improved qualitative "good death" assessments and decreased familial decision regret. In the NICU, rates of DNR usage aren't well reported and their overall utility is unclear. Though DNR orders can help guide clinical decision making in the NICU and may be associated with higher quality ethical discussion, our data suggest that they are not applicable in all patient cases. We hope that this work will help guide approaches to end-of-life care in the NICU and underscore the importance of frequent, open communication between families and their medical team.

A new era of assessment for neonatal-perinatal medicine trainees: milestones 2.0.

To optimize post-graduate competency-based assessment for medical trainees, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education initiated a sub-specialty-specific revision of the existing Milestones 1.0 assessment framework in 2016. This effort was intended to increase both the effectiveness and accessibility of the assessment tools by incorporating specialty-specific performance expectations for medical knowledge and patient care competencies; decreasing item length and complexity; minimizing inconsistencies across specialties through the development of common "harmonized" milestones; and providing supplemental materials, including examples of expected behaviors at each developmental level, suggested assessment strategies, and relevant resources. This manuscript describes the efforts of the Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Milestones 2.0 Working Group, outlines the overall intent of Milestones 2.0, compares the novel Milestones to the original version, and details the materials contained in the novel supplemental guide. This new tool should enhance NPM fellow assessment and professional development while maintaining consistent performance expectations across specialties.