Paediatric Intensive Care Nutrition PSP Engagement Summary


Published: 08 March 2022

Version: 1

Print this document

Gathering uncertainties

Methods used (e.g. survey, focus groups, interviews): 

An initial scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties:

  1. What are your questions relating to experiences, knowledge and support around feeding and drinking (including feeding tube and intravenous nutrition) during and after the child's time in hospital?
  2. Any other comments relating to feeding during and after your/ their time in PICU

Additional optional questions were asked pertaining to basic demographic information including, ethnic group, gender, residence in the United Kingdom, and to identify themselves as either previous/ current patient on PICU, family member of someone who is or was on PICU or a PICU healthcare professional. The survey was circulated via the steering group and associated governing organisations as an open invitation. The survey was available online via Survey Monkey

165 topic ideas were suggested (12% by parents/ carers and 88% by PICU health care professionals).

  Number %
Total respondents (across all methods) 90 100
Total patients and carers  21 12
Total health and care professionals 79 88
Total number of original uncertainties submitted 165 100
Original uncertainties in scope 40 24
Original uncertainties out of scope 125 76


Interim prioritisation

Methods used (eg survey, focus groups, interviews): 

The overarching themes from the thematic analysis were used to generate a smaller number of representative summary questions. These were derived from the original submissions and were designed to summarise the submissions within each sub theme. The information specialist undertook this process. The summary questions were then reviewed by the steering group along with a selection of the original uncertainties to ensure they were a true representation, and to ensure that the language used was understandable to all stakeholder groups. For each summary question, a review of the current research evidence was undertaken to ensure that the proposed summary questions were ‘true uncertainties’ and had not already been answered by research. To fully incorporate the relevant literature, a thorough electronic screening was conducted by G O’Connor, scanning was focused on key elements of each summary question.

  Number %
Total number of indicative questions (answered & unanswered)   100
Number of verified answered questions 0 -
Number of verified unanswered questions 40 100
Number of verified unanswered questions included in the interim prioritisation 40  
Total respondents (across all methods) 140 100
Total patients and carers 25 18
Total health and care professionals 115 82
Number of questions taken to final workshop 18  


Final priority setting workshop

  Number %
Total participants 14 100
Total patients and carers 5 36
Total health and care professionals 9 64