Background Fever accelerates host immune system control of pathogens but at a high metabolic cost. The optimal approach to fever management and the optimal temperature thresholds used for treatment in critically ill children are unknown. Objectives To determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different temperature thresholds for antipyretic management. Design A mixed-methods feasibility study comprising three linked studies – (1) a qualitative study exploring parent and clinician views, (2) an observational study of the epidemiology of fever in children with infection in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and (3) a pilot RCT with an integrated-perspectives study. Setting Participants were recruited from (1) four hospitals in England via social media (for the FEVER qualitative study), (2) 22 PICUs in the UK (for the FEVER observational study) and (3) four PICUs in England (for the FEVER pilot RCT). Participants (1) Parents of children with relevant experience were recruited to the FEVER qualitative study, (2) patients who were unplanned admissions to PICUs were recruited to the FEVER observational study and (3) children admitted with infection requiring mechanical ventilation were recruited to the FEVER pilot RCT. Parents of children and clinicians involved in the pilot RCT. Interventions The FEVER qualitative study and the FEVER observational study had no interventions. In the FEVER pilot RCT, children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) using research without prior consent (RWPC) to permissive (39.5 °C) or restrictive (37.5 °C) temperature thresholds for antipyretics during their PICU stay while mechanically ventilated. Main outcome measures (1) The acceptability of FEVER, RWPC and potential outcomes (in the FEVER qualitative study), (2) the size of the potentially eligible population and the temperature thresholds used (in the FEVER observational study) and (3) recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between groups and distribution of potential outcomes (in the FEVER pilot RCT). Results In the FEVER qualitative study, 25 parents were interviewed and 56 clinicians took part in focus groups. Both the parents and the clinicians found the study acceptable. Clinicians raised concerns regarding temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain/discomfort. In the FEVER observational study, 1853 children with unplanned admissions and infection were admitted to 22 PICUs between March and August 2017. The recruitment rate was 10.9 per site per month. The majority of critically ill children with a maximum temperature of > 37.5 °C received antipyretics. In the FEVER pilot RCT, 100 eligible patients were randomised between September and December 2017 at a recruitment rate of 11.1 per site per month. Consent was provided for 49 out of 51 participants in the restrictive temperature group, but only for 38 out of 49 participants in the permissive temperature group. A separation of 0.5 °C (95% confidence interval 0.2 °C to 0.8 °C) between groups was achieved. A high completeness of outcome measures was achieved. Sixty parents of 57 children took part in interviews and/or completed questionnaires and 98 clinicians took part in focus groups or completed a survey. Parents and clinicians found the pilot RCT and RWPC acceptable. Concerns about children being in pain/discomfort were cited as reasons for withdrawal and non-consent by parents and non-adherence to the protocol by clinicians. Limitations Different recruitment periods for observational and pilot studies may not fully reflect the population that is eligible for a definitive RCT. Conclusions The results identified barriers to delivering the definitive FEVER RCT, including acceptability of the permissive temperature threshold. The findings also provided insight into how these barriers may be overcome, such as by limiting the patient inclusion criteria to invasive ventilation only and by improved site training. A definitive FEVER RCT using a modified protocol should be conducted, but further work is required to agree important outcome measures for clinical trials among critically ill children. Trial registration The FEVER observational study is registered as NCT03028818 and the FEVER pilot RCT is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16022198. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectiveTo explore parent and staff views on the acceptability of a randomised controlled trial investigating temperature thresholds for antipyretic intervention in critically ill children with fever and infection (the FEVER trial) during a multi-phase pilot study.DesignMixed methods study with data collected at three time points: (1) before, (2) during and (3) after a pilot trial.SettingEnglish, Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs).Participants(1) Pre-pilot trial focus groups with pilot site staff (n=56) and interviews with parents (n=25) whose child had been admitted to PICU in the last 3 years with a fever and suspected infection, (2) Questionnaires with parents of randomised children following pilot trial recruitment (n=48 from 47 families) and (3) post-pilot trial interviews with parents (n=19), focus groups (n=50) and a survey (n=48) with site staff. Analysis drew on Sekhon et al’s theoretical framework of acceptability.ResultsThere was initial support for the trial, yet some held concerns regarding the proposed temperature thresholds and not using paracetamol for pain or discomfort. Pre-trial findings informed protocol changes and training, which influenced views on trial acceptability. Staff trained by the FEVER team found the trial more acceptable than those trained by colleagues. Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. Some concerns about pain or discomfort during weaning from ventilation remained.ConclusionsPre-trial findings and pilot trial experience influenced acceptability, providing insight into how challenges may be overcome. We present an adapted theoretical framework of acceptability to inform future trial feasibility studies.Trial registration numbersISRCTN16022198 and NCT03028818.

Objective: Despite little evidence, the practice of routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide both the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding in pediatric intensive care units is widespread internationally. In light of increased scrutiny of the evidence surrounding this practice, and as part of a trial feasibility study, we aimed to determine enteral feeding and Gastric Residual Volume (GRV) measurement practices in United Kingdom (UK) Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs).

Background Choosing trial outcome measures is important. When outcomes are not clinically relevant or important to parents/patients, trial evidence is less likely to be implemented into practice. This study aimed to determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume (GRV) measurement in critically ill children. Methods A mixed‐methods approach was used: a focused literature review, parent and clinician interviews, a modified 2‐round Delphi, and a stakeholder consensus meeting. Results The review generated 13 outcomes. Fourteen pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) parents proposed 3 additional outcomes; these 16 were then rated by 28 clinicians in Delphi round 1. Six further outcomes were proposed, and 22 outcomes were rated in the second round. No items were voted “consensus out.” The 18 “no‐consensus” items were voted in a face‐to‐face meeting by 30 participants. The final 12 outcome measures were time to reach energy targets, ventilator‐associated pneumonia, vomiting, time enteral feeds withheld per 24 hours, necrotizing enterocolitis, length of invasive ventilation, PICU length of stay, mortality, change in weight and markers of feed intolerance (parenteral nutrition administered), feed formula altered, and change to postpyloric feeds all secondary to feed intolerance. Conclusion We have identified 12 outcomes for a trial of no GRV measurement through a multistage process, seeking views of parents and clinicians.

ObjectiveTo identify parents’ prioritised outcomes by combining qualitative findings from two trial feasibility studies of interventions for paediatric suspected severe infection.DesignQualitative synthesis combining parent interview data from the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) and Fever feasibility studies. Parents had experience of their child being admitted to a UK emergency department or intensive care unit with a suspected infection.Participantsn=: 85 parents. FiSh study: n=41 parents, 37 mothers, 4 fathers, 7 were bereaved. Fever study: n=44 parents, 33 mothers, 11 fathers, 7 were bereaved.ResultsIn addition to survival, parents prioritised short-term outcomes including: organ and physiological functioning (eg, heart rate, breathing rate and temperature); their child looking and/or behaving more like their normal self; and length of time on treatments or mechanical support. Longer term prioritised outcomes included effects of illness on child health and development. We found that parents’ prioritisation of outcomes was influenced by their experience of their child’s illness, survival and the point at which they are asked about outcomes of importance in the course of their child’s illness.ConclusionsFindings provide insight into parent prioritised outcomes to inform the design of future trials investigating treatments for paediatric suspected or proven severe infection as well as core outcome set development work.