Background Intestinal transplant in infants with severe short bowel syndrome (SBS) is an emerging therapy, yet without sufficient long-term data or established guidelines, resulting in possible variation in practice. Objectives To assess current attitudes and counselling practices among physicians regarding intestinal transplant in infants with SBS, and to determine whether counselling and management vary between subspecialists or centres. Methods A national sample of practicing paediatric surgeons and neonatologists was surveyed via the American Academy of Paediatrics listserves. Results were analysed by (...) physician subspecialty and again by presence or absence of intestinal transplant at respondent's centre. Results The survey was completed by 433 respondents, consisting of 363 neonatologists and 70 paediatric surgeons. Fifty-seven respondents (13.2%) practiced at a centre that performed intestinal transplants in children. The vast majority of respondents (91% for preterm, 95% for term neonates) felt that maintaining a neonate with SBS on total parenteral nutrition for intestinal transplant was ethically optional (neither impermissible nor obligatory), and that parents should be given an informed choice whether to pursue that option. However, only 33% indicated they often/always offer intestinal transplant as a treatment option to families in this situation. Conclusions There is a marked disparity between individual physicians’ beliefs regarding the acceptability of intestinal transplant for severe SBS and their reported practice. Wide variability exists among physicians with respect to their knowledge, beliefs and practice regarding severe SBS, raising concerns about transparency and justice. Survival data prior to transplant, currently unavailable, are essential to rational decision making and informed parental permission. (shrink)

Wait, what? I've been fired?” I repeated, in the middle of morning rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit. Finally, the nurse who was taking care of our patient, Angela, responded, “Her parents fired you last night. They've already called Patient Relations. They want a new doctor.” My heart sank. Only days into my block of service time as the attending physician in the NICU and I was fired, axed, canned, rejected by a family. How could this have happened? On (...) my first day of service, I had introduced myself to Angela's parents, and I had then met with them daily to review results and the plan and to answer their questions. I thought we had connected well. I thought I had done everything right. I thought they trusted me to care for their daughter. (shrink)

With advancing rank in medical training comes increased academic and clinical responsibility, including education and supervision of trainees and junior staff. When I became a senior postdoctoral fellow sub‐specializing in neonatology, I assumed the role of co‐attending in the neonatal intensive care unit. At that point in my training, I felt well prepared for the challenging task. I would be in charge, make decisions independently with the team, and supervise, as well as teach, the junior fellows, residents, and practitioners. In (...) short, I would assume full responsibility for the care of the patients, their families, and the medical team. My mentor, an experienced attending, would discuss every patient with me each day, but would otherwise stand in the shadows, available for help and guidance when needed. On the very first day, one of the smaller premature babies on our service started having difficulty breathing, and it was soon clear that she would need to have her endotracheal tube reinserted. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 174-177.