Skip to main content
BMJ Open Access logoLink to BMJ Open Access
. 2017 Jul 13;103(6):540–547. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-312638

Children with life-limiting conditions in paediatric intensive care units: a national cohort, data linkage study

Lorna K Fraser 1, Roger Parslow 2
PMCID: PMC5965357  PMID: 28705790

Abstract

Objective

To determine how many children are admitted to paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) with life-limiting conditions (LLCs) and their outcomes.

Design

National cohort, data-linkage study.

Setting

PICUs in England.

Patients

Children admitted to a UK PICU (1 January 2004 and 31 March 2015) were identified in the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network dataset. Linkage to hospital episodes statistics enabled identification of children with a LLC using an International Classification of Diseases (ICD10) code list.

Main outcome measures

Random-effects logistic regression was undertaken to assess risk of death in PICU. Flexible parametric survival modelling was used to assess survival in the year after discharge.

Results

Overall, 57.6% (n=89 127) of PICU admissions and 72.90% (n=4821) of deaths in PICU were for an individual with a LLC.

The crude mortality rate in PICU was 5.4% for those with a LLC and 2.7% of those without a LLC. In the fully adjusted model, children with a LLC were 75% more likely than those without a LLC to die in PICU (OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.64 to 1.87)).

Although overall survival to 1 year postdischarge was 96%, children with a LLC were 2.5 times more likely to die in that year than children without a LLC (OR 2.59 (95% CI 2.47 to 2.71)).

Conclusions

Children with a LLC accounted for a large proportion of the PICU population. There is an opportunity to integrate specialist paediatric palliative care services with paediatric critical care to enable choice around place of care for these children and families.

Keywords: PICU, Life-Limiting Conditions, Palliative Care, Survival, Child


What is already known on this topic?

  • The prevalence of children and young people with life-limiting conditions (LLCs) or life-threatening conditions is rising.

  • Overall mortality in paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) is decreasing.

What this study adds?

  • Children with a LLC accounted for the majority of admissions, bed-days and deaths in PICU.

  • Children with a LLC were75% more likely to die in PICU than those without a LLC.

  • There was 93% survival at 1 year for children with a LLC.

Introduction

Life-limiting conditions (LLCs) are those for which there is no reasonable hope of cure and from which children will ultimately die, for example, Duchenne muscular dystrophy or neurodegenerative disease. Life-threatening conditions (LTCs) are those for which curative treatment may be feasible but can fail, for example, cancer. LLC will be used to include life-limiting conditions and LTCs.

The prevalence of children and young people with a LLC is increasing1 partly due to more aggressive treatment of complications and the use of medical technologies, including paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). These children often have repeated hospital admissions2 and use increasing amounts of hospital resources.3–5 Many of these children also die on PICU6 when treatment fails or is withdrawn. This study aims to ascertain what proportion of admissions to PICUs are for children with a LLC and their outcomes in PICU and up to 1 year postdischarge.

Methods

Datasets

The Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet) collects data on all children admitted to PICUs in the UK and Ireland. All admissions to a PICU in the UK between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2015 were identified in the PICANet dataset.7 Only children resident in England were included as only their inpatient hospital data (Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES)) were available for linkage.8 Hospital data for the other nations of the UK were not available.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) death record data in England were available with a censor date of 1 November 2015.9

Linkage of the PICANet dataset to the HES and ONS data was undertaken by the NHS Digital.10 The standard deterministic linkage algorithm using National Health Service (NHS) number, date of birth, sex and postcode was used.

Clinical variables

Inpatient HES data

The PICANet data are of high quality and validated, but some of the non-mandatory fields, including comorbidities, are incomplete. Therefore, it is not possible to identify children with a LLC using the PICANet dataset alone. Linkage to the inpatient HES data (1 April 1997 to 31 March 2015) enabled the use of a previously developed International Classification of Diseases (ICD10) coding framework1 to identify individuals with a LLC (see online supplementary table 1). A PICU admission was categorised with a LLC if one of the LLC codes were recorded within the HES data for that individual before the date of PICU discharge. For the analyses for survival in the year after PICU discharge, LLC codes up to the censor date were included.

Supplementary Tables

archdischild-2017-312638supp001.pdf (373.5KB, pdf)

PICANet data

Clinical diagnoses were coded using clinical terms 3 and aggregated into 12 primary diagnostic groups.11

Risk adjustment for mortality used the log odds of mortality based on the Paediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) with recalibrated coefficients calculated using data from 2011 to 2013.12 PIM2 was categorised into five categories of risk: <1%, 1 to <5%, 5% to <15%, 15% to <30% and 30%+.

Length of stay was categorised into <1, 1 to <3, 3 to <7, 7 to <14, 14 to <28 and ≥28 days. The total number of bed-days for each individual was calculated for all their PICU admissions. The number of PICU admissions were categorised as single admission, two admissions, three admissions and four or more admissions.

The type of admission was defined as planned after surgery, unplanned after surgery, planned other and unplanned.

ONS death data

Date of death was obtained from the ONS data.9

Sociodemographic variables

Age at admission to PICU was categorised as <1, 1–4, 5–10, 11–15 and ≥16 years. Sex was included in the analysis only where it was non-ambiguous.

An Index of Multiple Deprivation13 category was assigned to each individual based on their lower super output area (LSOA) of residence. An LSOA is a census geographical area built up of output areas with population of 1000–3000 per LSOA.14

Ethnicity is poorly recorded in all the datasets; therefore, ethnicity was determined using two name analysis programmes which classified children as South Asian (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi): Nam Pehchan15 16 and the South Asian Names and Group Recognition Algorithm.17 The results were corrected manually for known misclassification errors.18 Ethnicity was assessed as South Asian or not, as the South Asian population are the largest minority ethnic group in the UK.19

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were undertaken, and differences between groups were assessed by χ2 or t-test.

Random-effects logistic regression was undertaken to account for inter-PICU variation in the outcome, death in PICU. Variables were included via a forced entry method and retained if p<0.05 or if they improved the model fit assessed using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC).

Flexible parametric survival modelling was undertaken to assess survival in the year after discharge from PICU rather than traditional Cox regression as the proportional hazards assumption was violated.20 Data from the last PICU admission for each individual discharged alive from PICU were included.

Analyses were carried out using STATA V.13, and tests of statistical significance were at p≤0.05.

Ethics approval

Collection of personally identifiable data has been approved by the Patient Information Advisory Group (now the Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group), and ethics approval was granted by the Trent Medical Research Ethics Committee (ref. 05/MRE04/17 +5).

Results

Cohort and linkage

Nearly 200 000 PICU admissions occurred in the UK in the study period. After excluding non-English residents and those with poor-quality demographic data (denoting missing NHS number and date of birth which are required for linkage), data for 103 374 individuals were sent for linkage. Linkage was successful for 102 722 individuals (99%) who had 154 667 PICU admissions (figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Study flowchart. HES, Hospital Episodes Statistics; LLC, life-limiting condition; PICU, paediatric intensive care unit.

There were no significant differences between those who linked and those in whom linkage was not successful by sex, ethnicity, PIM2 score or length of PICU stay (see online supplementary table 2). Some significant differences were found; linkage improved from 98.0% in 2004 to 99.4% in 2015 (χ2=365, p<0.001), fewer >16-year-olds linked compared with the <1-year-olds (98.9% vs 99.3%) and children with more PICU admissions were more likely to be linked than those with a single admission (99.5% vs 98.9%, χ2=120, p<0.001).

Descriptive statistics

Overall, 57.6% (n=89 127) of PICU admissions were for an individual with a LLC (table 1). Excluding 2015 data which in only part year, the percentage of admissions to PICU for those with a LLC has increased from 51.8% to 61.0%. There was a U-shaped association with age with 58.5% of the <1-year-olds admitted to PICU having a LLC, 50.2% of the children aged 11- to 15 years and 65.4% of the >16-year-olds. More of the admissions from children with a South Asian background had a LLC compared with non-South Asians (62.9% vs 56.9% χ2=233, p<0.001).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of PICU admissions by LLC status (with row %)

Total LLC % No LLC % Χ2 p Value
Number 154 667 89 127 57.6 65 540 42.4
Age category 556 <0.001
 <1 year 72 170 42 232 58.5 29 938 41.5
 1–4 years 39 571 23 097 58.4 16 474 41.6
 5–10 years 20 448 11 982 58.6 8466 41.4
 11–15 years 19 003 9542 50.2 9461 49.8
 16+ 3467 2267 65.4 1200 34.6
 Missing 8 7 1
Sex 3.1 0.21
 Male 87 686 50 422 57.5 37 264 42.5
 Female 66 933 38 682 57.8 28 251 42.2
 Missing 48 23 25
Ethnicity 233 <0.001
 Non-South Asian 1 36 670 77 804 56.9 58 866 43.1
 South Asian 17 997 11 323 62.9 6674 37.1
Deprivation category 74.7 <0.001
 Category 1 (least deprived) 21 421 12 101 56.5 9320 43.5
 Category 2 21 816 12 573 57.6 9243 42.4
 Category 3 26 341 15 437 58.6 10 904 41.4
 Category 4 34 498 19 935 57.8 14 563 42.2
 Category 5 (most deprived) 49 538 28 361 57.3 21 177 42.7
 Missing 1053 720 333
Diagnostic group (reason for PICU admission) 1300 <0.001
 Neurological 17 270 8154 47.2 9116 52.8
 Cardiac 44 767 32 465 72.5 12 302 27.5
 Respiratory 42 230 21 687 51.4 20 543 48.6
 Oncology 5190 4663 89.8 527 10.2
 Infection 8014 3468 43.3 4546 56.7
 Musculoskeletal 5736 3192 55.6 2544 44.4
 Gastrointestinal 10 019 5245 52.4 4774 47.6
 Other 8140 4554 55.9 3586 44.1
 Blood and lymph 1456 757 52.0 699 48.0
 Trauma 4581 405 8.8 4176 91.2
 Endocrine/metabolic 3878 2131 55.0 1747 45.0
 Multisystem 427 402 94.1 25 5.9
 Body wall and cavities 2959 2004 67.7 808 32.3
Risk of mortality (PIM2) 2001 <0.001
 <1% 48 957 25 583 52.3 23 374 47.7
 1% to <5% 74 212 42 403 57.1 31 809 42.9
 5% to <15% 24 727 16 261 65.8 8466 34.2
 15% to <30% 4270 3321 77.8 949 22.2
 >30% 2501 1559 62.3 942 37.7
LOS PICU (days) 5600 <0.001
 <1 45 246 22 420 49.6 22 826 50.4
 1 to <3 49 285 26 579 53.9 22 706 46.1
 3 to <7 34 122 20 381 59.7 13 741 40.3
 7 to <14 15 957 11 342 71.1 4615 28.9
 14 to <28 6603 5401 81.8 1202 18.2
 28+ 3412 2986 87.5 426 12.5
 Missing 42 18 42.9 24 57.1
Type of PICU admission 3600 <0.001
 Planned, after surgery 49 749 33 034 66.4 16 715 33.6
 Unplanned, after surgery 7688 3985 51.8 3703 48.2
 Planned other 10 900 7551 69.3 3349 30.7
 Unplanned 86 050 44 412 51.6 41 638 48.4
 Not known 280 145 135
Year of PICU admission 574 <0.001
 2004 12 293 6366 51.8 5927 48.2
 2005 12 326 6531 53.0 5795 47.0
 2006 12 634 7116 56.3 5518 43.7
 2007 13 275 7492 56.4 5783 43.6
 2008 13 462 7463 55.4 5999 44.6
 2009 14 023 7994 57.0 6029 43.0
 2010 14 185 8341 58.8 5844 41.2
 2011 14 006 8282 59.1 5724 40.9
 2012 14 597 8904 61.0 5693 39.0
 2013 14 865 9126 61.4 5739 38.6
 2014 14 973 9137 61.0 5836 39.0
 2015 4028 2375 59.0 1653 41.0

LLC, life-limiting condition; LOS, length of stay; PICU, paediatric intensive care unit; PIM2, Paediatric Index of Mortality 2.

Differences between the two groups existed for the clinical variables with 94.1% of those children whose reason for PICU admission was multisystem having a LLC compared with only 8.8% of trauma cases and 43.3% of infective cases (χ2=1300, p<0.001).

The risk of mortality scores varied by LLC status with 52.3% of those with a PIM2 score <1% having a LLC, 77.8% of those with a PIM2 score of 15% to <30% and 62.3% of those with a PIM2 score of >30% (χ2=2300, p<0.001).

A linear association with length of PICU stay was shown with 49.6% of those with a PICU stay of <1 day and 87.5% of those staying in PICU >28 days having a LLC (χ2=6000, p<0.001). The median length of stay was 2.6 days (IQR 1.0–6.1) for those with a LLC compared with 1.6 days (IQR 0.8–3.5) for those without a LLC.

The total number of PICU bed days for this cohort was 763 664; children with a LLC accounted for 72.6% (554 404).

More than 66% of the planned PICU admissions after surgery were for children with a LLC compared with 51.6% of unplanned PICU admissions (χ2=3600, p<0.001).

Deaths

A total of 11 588 children had died at the censor date, with 6612 deaths occurring in PICU. Children with a LLC accounted for 72.9% (n=4821) of PICU deaths and 87.4% (n=4397) of deaths after discharge. The crude PICU mortality rate was 5.4% for those with a LLC and 2.7% for those without a LLC.

Death in PICU

The unadjusted risk of death in PICU for children with a LLC was nearly twice that of those without a LLC (OR 1.94 (95% CI 1.84 to 2.06)). After adjusting for expected risk of mortality and other clinical and demographic variables, children with a LLC were 75% more likely than those without a LLC to die in PICU (OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.64 to 1.87)) (table 2).

Table 2.

Random-effects logistic regression model for death in PICU

OR 95% CIs p Value
LLC
 No Ref
 Yes 1.75 1.64 1.87 <0.001
Age category
 <1 year Ref
 1–4 years 0.81 0.75 0.87 <0.001
 5–10 years 0.94 0.86 1.03 0.20
 11–15 years 1.06 0.96 1.16 0.26
 16+ 1.37 1.13 1.66 <0.001
Sex
 Male Ref
 Female 1.09 1.03 1.15 0.002
Ethnicity
 Non-South Asian Ref
 South Asian 1.30 1.20 1.41 <0.001
Deprivation category
 Category 1 (least deprived) Ref
 Category 2 1.02 0.91 1.13 0.77
 Category 3 1.03 0.92 1.14 0.64
 Category 4 1.07 0.97 1.18 0.18
 Category 5 (most deprived) 1.07 0.97 1.17 0.17
Diagnostic group (reason for PICU admission)
 Neurological 1.39 1.26 1.54 <0.001
 Cardiac 1.23 1.13 1.35 0.001
 Respiratory Ref
 Oncology 2.06 1.75 2.42 <0.001
 Infection 1.94 1.74 2.17 <0.001
 Musculoskeletal 0.74 0.55 0.99 0.04
 Gastrointestinal 1.39 1.22 1.58 <0.001
 Other 1.26 1.10 1.45 <0.001
 Blood and lymph 2.32 1.86 2.91 <0.001
 Trauma 1.69 1.43 2.01 <0.001
 Endocrine/metabolic 2.18 1.90 2.50 <0.001
 Multisystem 0.67 0.33 1.38 0.28
 Body wall and cavities 0.97 0.76 1.22 0.78
Risk of mortality (PIM2)
 <1% Ref
 1% to <5% 4.54 3.91 5.28 <0.001
 5% to <15% 12.46 10.65 14.57 <0.001
 15% to <30% 32.56 27.44 38.64 <0.001
 >30% 201.63 169.60 239.70 <0.001
LOS PICU (days)
 <1 1.51 1.39 1.63 <0.001
 1 to <3 Ref
 3 to <7 0.86 0.79 0.94 0.001
 7 to <14 1.09 0.99 1.20 0.07
 14 to <28 2.02 1.81 2.24 <0.001
 >28 3.98 3.53 4.47 <0.001
Type of PICU admission
 Planned, after surgery Ref
 Unplanned, after surgery 1.20 1.01 1.42 0.04
 Planned other 1.32 1.14 1.52 <0.001
 Unplanned 1.53 1.38 1.70 <0.001
 Not known 1.35 0.63 2.88 0.44
Year of admission 0.97 0.96 0.98 <0.001

n=153 513, group=35, Wald χ2=10 213, BIC=40 229, sigma_u=0.30, rho=0.03.

BIC, Bayesian information criterion; LLC, life-limiting condition; LOS, length of stay; PICU, paediatric intensive care unit; PIM2, Paediatric Index of Mortality 2.

Stratified analyses by LLC status highlighted some differences between the main variables associated with a higher risk of death in PICU (see online supplementary table 3a and b). For those with a LLC, being older than age 16 years (OR 1.37 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.67)) and of South Asian origin (OR 1.30 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.41)) had a higher risk of death. This was not seen for those without a LLC. The diagnoses with highest risk of death in PICU were blood and lymph (OR 2.54 (95% CI 1.98 to 3.25)) or endocrine/metabolic (OR 2.38 (95% CI 2.05 to 2.76)) for those with a LLC compared with trauma (OR 2.37 (95% CI 1.84 to 3.00)) or neurological conditions (OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.79 to 2.69)) for those without a LLC. The risk of death was highest for stays longer than 7 days in those with a LLC but not until 14 days for those without a LLC.

The odds of dying in PICU decreased by 3% each year (OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99)).

Survival after discharge from PICU

Overall survival rate is >96% at 1 year after PICU (figure 2A). There are differences between these survival functions for children with (figure 2B) and without a LLC (figure 2C). There is a steeper curve in the first 3 months after discharge from PICU for those with a LLC with approximately 93% still alive at 1 year postdischarge. For those without a LLC, the survival curve is much flatter, and >99% are alive at 1 year post-PICU discharge.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Survival curves with 95% CIs. LLC, life-limiting condition; PICU, paediatric intensive care unit.

A log normal distribution model with 5 df provided the best fit assessed using BIC (table 3). There are some similarities to the death in PICU model: children with a LLC (OR 2.59 (95% CI 2.47 to 2.71)), those from a South Asian background (OR 1.19 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.25)) and those from the most deprived category (OR 1.08 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.14) were more likely to die in the year after discharge from PICU than children without a LLC, non-South Asian and those in the least deprived areas, respectively. All other types of PICU admission had significantly higher odds of death compared with the planned after surgery group and the odds of dying after discharge decreased by 3% with each increasing year of admission (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.98)). Compared with the reference group of respiratory reasons for PICU admission, those with an oncology (OR 1.83 (95% CI 1.70 to 1.97)) or neurology diagnoses (OR 1.17 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.24)) were more likely to die in the year after discharge from PICU. Those with trauma (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.77)) or body wall and cavities (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.72)) diagnoses were significantly less likely to die in the year after discharge from PICU.

Table 3.

Results of flexible parametric survival modelling for survival to 365 days after discharge from PICU

HR 95% CIs p Value
Age category
 <1 year Ref
 1–4 years 0.83 0.80 0.87 <0.001
 5–10 years 0.77 0.73 0.82 <0.001
 11–15 years 0.85 0.80 0.90 <0.001
 16+ 0.98 0.89 1.09 0.72
Sex
 Male Ref
 Female 1.02 0.99 1.06 0.23
Ethnicity
 Non-South Asian Ref
 South Asian 1.19 1.13 1.25 <0.001
Deprivation category
 Category 1 (least deprived) Ref
 Category 2 0.99 0.92 1.05 0.66
 Category 3 1.03 0.96 1.09 0.41
 Category 4 1.06 1.00 1.13 0.04
 Category 5 (most deprived) 1.08 1.02 1.14 0.01
LLC
 No Ref
 Yes 2.59 2.47 2.71 <0.001
Diagnostic group (reason for PICU admission)
 Neurological 1.17 1.11 1.24 <0.001
 Cardiac 0.86 0.81 0.90 <0.001
 Respiratory Ref
 Oncology 1.83 1.70 1.97 <0.001
 Infection 0.87 0.80 0.94 0.001
 Musculoskeletal 0.91 0.81 1.03 0.152
 Gastrointestinal 1.04 0.97 1.12 0.276
 Other 1.04 0.96 1.13 0.339
 Blood and lymph 0.98 0.82 1.17 0.79
 Trauma 0.63 0.53 0.77 <0.001
 Endocrine/metabolic 1.08 0.98 1.20 0.117
 Multisystem 0.97 0.70 1.33 0.831
 Body wall and cavities 0.63 0.54 0.72 <0.001
Risk of mortality (PIM2)
 <1% Ref
 1% to <5% 1.28 1.22 1.35 <0.001
 5% to <15% 1.55 1.45 1.64 <0.001
 15% to <30% 2.07 1.88 2.28 <0.001
 >30% 2.46 2.12 2.85 <0.001
LOS PICU (days)
 <1 1.14 1.08 1.19 <0.001
 1 to <3 Ref
 3 to <7 1.06 1.01 1.12 0.01
 7 to <14 1.29 1.22 1.37 <0.001
 14 to <28 1.58 1.47 1.71 <0.001
 >28 1.75 1.57 1.95 <0.001
Type of PICU admission
 Planned, after surgery Ref
 Unplanned, after surgery 1.22 1.12 1.33 <0.001
 Planned other 1.65 1.54 1.78 <0.001
 Unplanned 1.37 1.29 1.44 <0.001
 Not known 1.17 0.76 1.78 0.48
Year of admission 0.97 0.96 0.98 <0.001

n=91 614.

HR, hazard ratio; LLC, life-limiting condition; LOS, length of stay; PICU, paediatric intensive care unit; PIM2, Paediatric Index of Mortality 2.

In contrast to the in-PICU death models, all those aged 1–15 years were significantly less likely to die than the <1 age group.

Discussion

Children with a LLC accounted for nearly 58% of all admissions to PICU, 72% of PICU bed-days and 87.5% of all PICU admissions that lasted >28 days. Although the mortality rate continues to decrease in PICU, 73% of all deaths in PICU during this study were in children with a LLC. The survival in the year after PICU discharge was also significantly lower in children with a LLC compared with those without a LLC.

The high number and percentage of PICU admissions for children with a LLC is similar to results from a US study in which children with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) accounted for 53% (range 22.4%–70.6%) of PICU admissions.21 The definitions used to identify the populations with CCCs were different to the LLC definition used in the current study. A multicountry prevalence study found that 67% of children had a CCC or disability within PICU or neonatal intensive care unit.22

Previous work has found that children with a CCC had an increased risk of prolonged length of PICU stay (>15 days)21 and children who died in PICU have longer lengths of stay before death.23 This study has shown that the risk of death in PICU is significantly higher for those with a LLC who have been in PICU for longer than 7 days.

The higher PICU crude death rate for children with a LLC is not unexpected and confirms the patterns seen in the US study where they found in-PICU mortality of 3.9% for those with a CCC compared with 2.2% for children with no chronic condition and 0.3% for those with non-CCCs.21 However, death in a child with a LLC may be expected, and admissions to PICU are known to be stressful24–27 and parents and siblings of children who died in hospital show more psychological symptoms28 and poorer adjustment29 than if their child had died at home. If the child is likely to die despite PICU admission, then an alternative place of care such as being cared for at home or in a hospice by specialist paediatric palliative care may be more appropriate. Guidance from The European Association of Palliative Care30 and the International Children’s Palliative Care Network31 both state that the family home should, where possible, be the main place of care and that these families should have access to paediatric palliative care services.

With in-PICU mortality falling to low levels, it is important that other in-/post-PICU outcomes such as quality of life or functional status are assessed, especially for this group of children with high-care needs.

Although the vast majority of children survived their PICU admission, nearly 7% of those with a LLC will die in the year after discharge from PICU with many of these deaths occurring in the first 3 months. PICU staff are highly experienced at caring for a dying child and their family, but given the expansion of specialist paediatric palliative care services and the children’s hospice sector over the last decade, further integration of these services may offer the family more choice over place of care or death for their child and can often offer longer term input, both when the child has died and in the bereavement period than is possible from a PICU.

Strengths/limitations

This is the first national study providing data on survival following PICU admission in this population of children, and it used linked audit, administrative and hospital data. Identification of children with a LLC in this dataset was via the HES data. This is an administrative dataset in which the coding has improved over time, but its primary aim is not as a research dataset. Lack of agreement on definitions of some complex conditions has been shown previously.32 Having complete data for comorbidities in the PICANet dataset, which is audited for quality, would be preferable.

Conclusions

Children with a LLC accounted for nearly 58% of admissions to PICU, 72% of bed-days, 87.5% of stays greater than 28 days and 73% of deaths in PICU. There is an opportunity, given the recent growth in specialist paediatric palliative care services, to have integration of these services to enable choice around place of care and place of death for these children and families.

Future studies collecting high-quality information on changes in functional status and quality of life are vital to further gauge the clinical value of these PICU admissions.

Acknowledgments

The PICANet Audit is commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) as part of the National Clinical Audit Programme (NCA). HQIP is led by a consortium of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Nursing and National Voices. Its aim is to promote quality improvement and, in particular, to increase the impact that clinical audit has on healthcare quality in England and Wales. HQIP holds the contract to manage and develop the NCA Programme, comprising more than 30 clinical audits that cover care provided to people with a wide range of medical, surgical and mental health conditions. The PICANet Audit is funded by National Health Service (NHS) England, the Welsh Government, NHS Lothian/National Service Division NHS Scotland, the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, The National Office of Clinical Audit (NOCA), Ireland and HCA Healthcare.

Footnotes

Contributors: LKF and RP designed this study. LKF undertook the analyses. LKF and RP contributed to the interpretation of the results. LKF drafted the first version of the manuscript, and RP revised it. LKF and RP approved the final version.

Funding: This paper is an independent research arising from a postdoctoral fellowship supported by the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health.

Competing interests: None declared.

Ethics approval: Trent Medical Research Ethics Committee, ref. 05/MRE04/17 +5.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement: As the original data for this study were collected under section 251 approval, they cannot be shared.

References

  • 1. Fraser LK, Miller M, Hain R, et al. . Rising national prevalence of life-limiting conditions in children in England. Pediatrics 2012;129:e923–29. 10.1542/peds.2011-2846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Benini F, Trapanotto M, Spizzichino M, et al. . Hospitalization in children eligible for palliative care. J Palliat Med 2010;13:711–7. 10.1089/jpm.2009.0308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Burns KH, Casey PH, Lyle RE, et al. . Increasing prevalence of medically complex children in US hospitals. Pediatrics 2010;126:638–46. 10.1542/peds.2009-1658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Simon TD, Berry J, Feudtner C, et al. . Children with complex chronic conditions in inpatient hospital settings in the United States. Pediatrics 2010;126:647–55. 10.1542/peds.2009-3266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Cohen E, Berry JG, Camacho X, et al. . Patterns and costs of health care use of children with medical complexity. Pediatrics 2012;130:e1463–70. 10.1542/peds.2012-0175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Ramnarayan P, Craig F, Petros A, et al. . Characteristics of deaths occurring in hospitalised children: changing trends. J Med Ethics 2007;33:255–60. 10.1136/jme.2005.015768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Paediatric Intensive Care Audit. 2015. http://www.picanet.org.uk
  • 8. NHS Digital. 2016. NHS Digital Hospital Episodes Statistics. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/hes
  • 9. Office for National Statistics (2014). 2012. Mortality Statistics: Deaths Registered in England and Wales by Area of Usual Residence. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-332351
  • 10. Digital NHS. Data linkage. 2016. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/media/11668/HES-ONS-Mortality-Data-Guide/pdf/mortality_guide.pdf
  • 11. PICANet. PICANet Admission Dataset Definitions Manual Version 5.0. 2014. http://www.picanet.org.uk/Documentation/Guidance/PICANet_Admission_Dataset_Manual_v5.0
  • 12. PICANet. 2015. PICANet 2015 Annual Report. http://www.picanet.org.uk/Audit/Annual-Reporting/
  • 13. Department for Communities and Local Government. English indices of deprivation. 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010
  • 14. Public Health England. IMD 2010 scores adjusted to align with 2011 LSOAs. 2013. http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125887
  • 15. Bradford Health Authority and City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. Nam Pehchan computer program for the identification of names of South Asian Ethnic origin. 2002.
  • 16. Cummins C, Winter H, Cheng KK, et al. . An assessment of the Nam Pehchan computer program for the identification of names of South Asian ethnic origin. J Public Health Med 1999;21:401–6. 10.1093/pubmed/21.4.401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Nanchahal K, Mangtani P, Alston M, et al. . Development and validation of a computerized South Asian Names and Group Recognition Algorithm (SANGRA) for use in British health-related studies. J Public Health Med 2001;23:278–85. 10.1093/pubmed/23.4.278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Parslow RC, Tasker RC, Draper ES, et al. . Epidemiology of critically ill children in England and Wales: incidence, mortality, deprivation and ethnicity. Arch Dis Child 2009;94:210–5. 10.1136/adc.2007.134403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Office for National Statistics. 2011. Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_290558.pdf
  • 20. Crowther MJ, Abrams KR, Lambert PC. Flexible parametric joint modelling of longitudinal and survival data. Stat Med 2012;31:4456–71. 10.1002/sim.5644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Edwards JD, Houtrow AJ, Vasilevskis EE, et al. . Chronic conditions among children admitted to U.S. pediatric intensive care units: their prevalence and impact on risk for mortality and prolonged length of stay*. Crit Care Med 2012;40:2196–203. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824e68cf [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Cremer R, Leclerc F, Lacroix J, et al. . Children with chronic conditions in pediatric intensive care units located in predominantly French-speaking regions: prevalence and implications on rehabilitation care need and utilization. Crit Care Med 2009;37:1456–62. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31819cef0c [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Plunkett A, Parslow RC. Is it taking longer to die in paediatric intensive care in England and Wales? Arch Dis Child 2016;101:798–802. 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309592 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Balluffi A, Dominguez TE, Tucker M, et al. . Post-traumatic stress responses of parents in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Critical Care Medicine 2001;29:A150. [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Bronner MB, Knoester H, Bos AP, et al. . Follow-up after paediatric intensive care treatment: parental posttraumatic stress. Acta Paediatr 2008;97:181–6. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00600.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Colville G, Darkins J, Hesketh J, et al. . The impact on parents of a child’s admission to intensive care: integration of qualitative findings from a cross-sectional study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2009;25:72–9. 10.1016/j.iccn.2008.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Mortensen J, Simonsen BO, Eriksen SB, et al. . Family-centred care and traumatic symptoms in parents of children admitted to PICU. Scand J Caring Sci 2015;29:495–500. 10.1111/scs.12179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Mulhern RK, Lauer ME, Hoffmann RG. Death of a child at home or in the hospital: subsequent psychological adjustment of the family. Pediatrics 1983;71:743–7. 10.1016/S0002-7138(09)61529-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Lauer ME, Mulhern RK, Wallskog JM, et al. . A comparison study of parental adaptation following a child’s death at home or in the hospital. Pediatrics 1983;71:107–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Craig F, Abu-Saad Huijer H, Benini F, et al. . [IMPaCCT: standards of paediatric palliative care]. Schmerz 2008;22:401–8. 10.1007/s00482-008-0690-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. International Children’s Palliative Care Network. ICPCN Charter for the rights of Life-Limited and Life-Threatened Children and Young People. 2008. www.icpcn.org.uk
  • 32. Pearson GA, Ward-Platt M, Kelly D. How children die: classifying child deaths archives of disease in Childhood. 2011;2011:922–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Tables

archdischild-2017-312638supp001.pdf (373.5KB, pdf)


Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES