Article Text

Download PDFPDF
O13 Working definition of gastrointestinal dystonia of severe neuro-disability; outcome of the BSPGHAN/BAPM/BAPS/APPM/BPNA appropriateness panel
  1. Andrew Barclay1,
  2. Susanna Meade2,
  3. Catherine Richards3,
  4. Timothy Warlow4,
  5. Daniel Lumsden5,
  6. Charlie Fairhurst5,
  7. Catherine Paxton6,
  8. Katharine Forrest7,
  9. Santosh Mordekar8,
  10. David Campbell8,
  11. Julian Thomas9,
  12. Michelle Brooks1,
  13. Gregor Walker1,
  14. Osvaldo Borrelli10,
  15. Helen Wells11,
  16. Susie Holt12,
  17. Shoana Quinn13,
  18. Yifan Liang14,
  19. Mohammed Mutalib4,
  20. Elena Cernat15,
  21. Alex Lee16,
  22. Claire Lundy17,
  23. Fiona McGelliot18,
  24. Jo Griffiths19,
  25. Paul Eunson20,
  26. Haidee Norton14,
  27. Lisa Whyte14,
  28. Mark Samaan2,
  29. Sue Protheroe14
  1. 1Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow
  2. 2Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS FT
  3. 3British Association of Paediatric Surgeons’
  4. 4University Hospital of Southampton
  5. 5Evelina London Children’s Hospital
  6. 6Royal Hospital for Children and Young People, Edinburgh
  7. 7Paediatric Neurology, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow
  8. 8Sheffield Children’s Hospital
  9. 9Great North Children’s Hospital Newcastle
  10. 10Great Ormond Street Hospital, London
  11. 11University Hospital of Southampton
  12. 12Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool
  13. 13Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin
  14. 14Birmingham Children’s Hospital
  15. 15Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
  16. 16Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust
  17. 17Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children
  18. 18Temple Street Children’s Hospital, Dublin
  19. 19Swansea Bay University Hospital Trust

Abstract

Background and Aims Children and young people with severe neurosdisabling conditions (CYPWSND) experience an array of serious gastrointestinal symptoms beyond gastro-oesophageal reflux, constipation or dependence on artificial nutrition. When enteral feeds leads to disabling dystonia the term ‘gastrointestinal dystonia of severe neurodisability’ (GID) has been applied by clinicians. However a clear definition with criteria for entry point is lacking in the literature. We describe the methods for formal establishment of an agreed definition of GID.

Methods After commissioning by BSPGHAN, systematic review1 and consultation with public bodies it was agreed, due to paucity of evidence that an appropriateness panel should be the forum for formulation of output on GID. A writers group structured the questions for the survey definition, based on the limited written evidence and added professional experience. A panel of 27 experts in their field were assembled from 5 stakeholder groups including: Gastroenterology, Neurology/Neurodisability, Surgery, Palliative Care and Allied Health Professionals. Geographic representation was from 13 UK specialist centres (including all 4 nations) and 1 centre from Republic of Ireland. The panel rated the appropriateness of definition, investigations and management of GID. A scale of 1–9 enabled scoring of 1–3 to indicate inappropriate, 4–6 uncertain, 7–9 appropriate as criteria for recommendation. Panel agreement index was calculated using a continuous likelihood ratio, with <1 indicated ‘general agreement’ and >1 ‘no agreement’. Results were discussed at a moderated.

Results All of the panel completed all questions on ‘common’ (table 1) and ‘uncommon’ features of GID. The panel had strong concurrence that GID definition required patients have GMFCS 4–5 cerebral palsy or equivalent and that a temporal relationship between symptoms and enteral feeding had to be present (although this relationship may lessen or cease during progressive disease). Pain, distress, retching, autonomic activation and hypertonicity were seen as common features. Temporal relationship with bowel habit, involuntary movements were considered less common. The diagnosis should be a positive clinical diagnosis (not of exclusion) made by a specialist multi-disciplinary team with experience of feeding disorders in severe neuro-disability. Features suggesting patients feed intolerance has reached the threshold for GID would include malnutrition primarily due to feed cessation and GI symptoms being the greatest burden on QOL for patient/family on appropriate survey.

Abstract O13 Table 1

Results of panel appropriateness survey on ‘common features’ for definition of GID

Conclusions We present a coherent first definition for GID by consensus of a panel of identified experts drawn from 5 invested stakeholder groups. Clear entry point for diagnosing GID will allow for important epidemiological work to report investigations, interventions and outcomes for this complex group of patients. Identifying significant morbidity care burden and mortality in this patient group will help advocate for appropriate health resources, support to carers and families. The ongoing development of a management framework through completion of the RAND2 process in 2022 should assist navigation of the complex medical and ethical challenges of management of distressing and debilitating symptoms for patients with this condition.

Reference

  1. McConnell N, Beattie LM, Richards CA Protheroe S, Barclay AR. JPGN; 2018: 1002

  2. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269.html

Acknowledgement BSPGHAN BiG funding 2020.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.