ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life patients is a challenging ethical issue faced by physicians. Understanding physicians' experiences and factors influencing their decisions can lead to improvement in end-of-life care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experiences of Thai physicians when making decisions regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life situations. Additionally, the study aims to assess the consensus among physicians regarding the factors that influence these decisions and to explore the influence of families or surrogates on the decision-making process of physicians, utilizing case-based surveys. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted among physicians practicing in Chiang Mai University Hospital (June - October 2022). RESULTS: Among 251 physicians (response rate 38.3%), most of the respondents (60.6%) reported that they experienced withholding or withdrawal treatment in end-of-life patients. Factors that influence their decision-making include patient's preferences (100%), prognosis (93.4%), patients' quality of life (92.8%), treatment burden (89.5%), and families' request (87.5%). For a chronic disease with comatose condition, the majority of the physicians (47%) chose to continue treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In contrast, only 2 physicians (0.8%) would do everything, in cases when families or surrogates insisted on stopping the treatment. This increased to 78.1% if the families insisted on continuing treatment. CONCLUSION: Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are common in Thailand. The key factors influencing their decision-making process included patient's preferences and medical conditions and families' requests. Effective communication and early engagement in advanced care planning between physicians, patients, and families empower them to align treatment choices with personal values.
Subject(s)
Hospitals, University , Physicians , Withholding Treatment , Humans , Withholding Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Withholding Treatment/ethics , Withholding Treatment/standards , Cross-Sectional Studies , Thailand , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Adult , Physicians/psychology , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Decision Making , Attitude of Health Personnel , Perception , Terminal Care/methods , Terminal Care/psychology , Terminal Care/ethics , Terminal Care/standards , Life Support Care/psychology , Life Support Care/statistics & numerical data , Life Support Care/methodsABSTRACT
Importance: End-of-life care quality indicators specific to adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 12 to 39 years with cancer have not been developed. Objective: To identify priority domains for end-of-life care from the perspectives of AYAs, family caregivers, and clinicians, and to propose candidate quality indicators reflecting priorities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted from December 6, 2018, to January 5, 2021, with no additional follow-up. In-depth interviews were conducted with patients, family caregivers, and clinicians and included a content analysis of resulting transcripts. A multidisciplinary advisory group translated priorities into proposed quality indicators. Interviews were conducted at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and an AYA cancer support community (lacunaloft.org). Participants included 23 AYAs, 28 caregivers, and 29 clinicians. Exposure: Stage IV or recurrent cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Care priorities. Results: Interviews were conducted with 23 patients (mean [SD] age, 29.3 [7.3] years; 12 men [52%]; 18 White participants [78%]), 28 family caregivers (23 women [82%]; 14 White participants [50%]), and 29 clinicians (20 women [69%]; 13 White participants [45%]). Caregivers included 22 parents (79%), 5 spouses or partners (18%), and 1 other family member (4%); the 29 clinicians included 15 physicians (52%), 6 nurses or nurse practitioners (21%), and 8 social workers or psychologists (28%). Interviews identified 7 end-of-life priority domains: attention to physical symptoms, attention to quality of life, psychosocial and spiritual care, communication and decision-making, relationships with clinicians, care and treatment, and independence. Themes were consistent across the AYA age range and participant type. Although some domains were represented in quality indicators developed for adults, unique domains were identified, as well as AYA-specific manifestations of existing domains. For example, quality of life included global quality of life; attainment of life goals, legacy, and meaning; support of personal relationships; and normalcy. Within communication and decision-making, domains included communication early in the disease course, addressing prognosis and what to expect at the end of life, and opportunity for AYAs to hold desired roles in decision-making. Care and treatment domains relevant to cancer therapy, use of life-prolonging measures, and location of death emphasized the need for preference sensitivity rather than a standard path. This finding differs from existing adult indicators that propose that late-life chemotherapy, intensive measures, and hospital death should be rare. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that AYAs with cancer have priorities for care at the end of life that are not fully encompassed in existing indicators for adults. Use of new indicators for this young population may better reflect patient- and family-centered experiences of quality care.
Subject(s)
Caregivers/psychology , Family/psychology , Hospice Care/psychology , Life Support Care/psychology , Neoplasms/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life/psychology , Terminal Care/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , California/epidemiology , California/ethnology , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Massachusetts/epidemiology , Massachusetts/ethnology , Prognosis , Qualitative Research , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented the comprehensive life-sustaining treatment (LST) Decisions Initiative to provide training and standardize documentation of goals of care and LST preferences for seriously ill Veterans to improve end-of-life (EOL) outcomes. LST documentation is expected for all Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) Veterans because they are at high risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis compared associations between Bereaved Family Survey (BFS) EOL care ratings and LST documentation. Participants were Veterans who died August 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 in one of 55 VA HBPC programs. Regression modeling generated odds for key BFS outcomes. LST template completion rate was plotted by month to understand the interaction between time, LST completion rate, and EOL care family ratings. RESULTS: LST preferences were documented for 39% of HBPC Veterans. Family members rated overall EOL care as excellent for 53% of Veterans but significant divergence in BFS ratings occurred during the last 7 months of the study with 60% of family members of LST completers rating care as excellent compared with 48% for Veterans lacking LST documentation (p = 0.003). The adjusted odds of rating overall care in the final month of life as excellent was higher among those with a completed LST template (1.64 95% CI 1.19, 2.26). CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of LST documentation were associated with more favorable ratings of EOL but not in initial months following implementation of the comprehensive initiative; however, LST documentation rates were lower than expected among HBPC Veterans. Following an initial period of implementation of a comprehensive national initiative to promote Veteran choice about care during serious illness, documented LST preferences were associated with better family ratings of EOL care. HBPC clinicians may improve the bereaved family experience by using LSDTI tools and training to elicit and document preferences.
Subject(s)
Documentation/statistics & numerical data , Military Family/psychology , Patient Preference/psychology , Terminal Care/psychology , Veterans/psychology , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Home Care Services/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Life Support Care/psychology , Male , Patient Care Planning , Primary Health Care/methods , Retrospective Studies , United States , United States Department of Veterans AffairsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In Korea, the "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life" was enacted on February 4, 2018. This study was conducted to analyze the current state of life-sustaining treatment decisions based on National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) data after the law came into force. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of 173,028 cancer deaths were extracted from NHIS qualification data between November 2015 and January 2019. RESULTS: The number of cancer deaths complied with the law process was 14,438 of 54,635 cases (26.4%). The rate of patient self-determination was 49.0%. The patients complying with the law process have used a hospice center more frequently (28% vs. 14%). However, the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission was similar between the patients who complied with and without the law process (ICU admission, 23% vs. 21%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who had undergone mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis in the comparative analysis before and after the enforcement of the law and the analysis according to the compliance with the law. The patients who complied with the law process received cardiopulmonary resuscitation at a lower rate. CONCLUSION: The law has positive effects on the rate of life-sustaining treatment decision by patient's determination. However, there was no sufficient effect on the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, which could protect the patient from unnecessary or harmful interventions.
Subject(s)
Decision Making , Life Support Care/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Palliative Care/psychology , Terminal Care/psychology , Withholding Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Death , Demography , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Life Support Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Neoplasms/psychology , Prognosis , Republic of Korea , Socioeconomic Factors , Survival Rate , Terminal Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Withholding Treatment/ethics , Withholding Treatment/legislation & jurisprudence , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End-of-Life" was enacted on February 3, 2016 and went into effect on February 4, 2018 in Korea. This study reviewed the first year of determination to life-sustaining treatment (LST) through data analysis of the National Agency for Management of Life-Sustaining Treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Agency for Management of LST provided data between February 4, 2018 and January 31, 2019 anonymously from 33,549 patients. According to the forms patients were defined as either elf-determinants or family-determinants. RESULTS: The median age of the patient was 73 and the majority was male (59.9%). Cancer patients were 59% and self-determinants were 32.1%. Cancer patients had a higher rate of self-determinants than non-cancer (47.3% vs. 10.1%). Plan for hospice service was high in cancer patients among self-determinants (81.0% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001). In comparison to family-determinants, self-determinants were younger (median age, 67 years vs. 75 years; p < 0.001) and had more cancer diagnosis (87.1% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001). Decision of withholding or withdrawing of LSTs in cancer patients was higher than non-cancer patients in four items. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients had a higher rate in self-determination and withholding or withdrawing of LSTs than non-cancer patients. Continued revision of the law and education of the public will be able to promote withdrawing or withholding the futile LSTs in patients at end-of-life. Further study following the revision of the law should be evaluated to change of end-of-life care.
Subject(s)
Decision Making , Life Support Care/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Palliative Care/psychology , Terminal Care/psychology , Withholding Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Death , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Life Support Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Neoplasms/psychology , Prognosis , Republic of Korea , Survival Rate , Terminal Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Withholding Treatment/ethics , Withholding Treatment/legislation & jurisprudence , Young AdultSubject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Emergency Service, Hospital , Life Support Care , Palliative Care , Pandemics , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Life Support Care/ethics , Life Support Care/psychology , Male , Medical Futility , New York City/epidemiology , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Palliative Care/ethics , Palliative Care/methods , Palliative Care/psychology , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prognosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Time-to-TreatmentABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Life-sustaining treatment (LST) decisions for patients and caregivers at the end-of-life (EOL) process are supported by the "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on LST for Patients at the EOL," enforced in February 2018. It remains unclear whether the act changes EOL decisions and LST implementation in clinical practice. For this study, we investigated patients' decision-making regarding LSTs during the EOL process since the act's enforcement. Materials and Methods: Retrospective reviews were conducted on adult patients who were able to decide to terminate LST and died at Seoul National University Hospital between February 5, 2018, and February 5, 2019. We examined demographics, who made the decisions, the type and date of documentation confirming patient's LST, and whether the LST was withheld or withdrawn. RESULTS: Of 809 patients who were enrolled, 29% (n=231) completed forms regarding LST themselves, and 71% (n=578) needed family members to decide. The median time from confirmation of the EOL process to death and from the Advance Statement to death were 2 and 5 days, respectively (both ranges, 0 to 244). In total, 90% (n=727) of patients withheld treatment, and 10% (n=82)withdrew it. We found a higher withdrawal rate when family members made the decisions (13.3% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After the act's enforcement, withdrawing LSTs became lawful and self-determination rates increased. Family members still make 71% of decisions regarding LSTs, but these are often inconsistent with the patients' wishes; thus, further efforts are needed to integrate the new act into clinical practice.
Subject(s)
Caregivers/psychology , Decision Making , Family/psychology , Life Support Care/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Preference , Terminal Care/psychology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Neoplasms/psychology , Republic of Korea , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Locked-in syndrome (LIS) characterizes individuals who have experienced pontine lesions, who have limited motor output but with preserved cognitive abilities. Despite their severe physical impairment, individuals with LIS self-profess a higher quality of life than generally expected. Such third-person expectations about LIS are shaped by personal and cultural factors in western countries. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate whether such opinions are further influenced by the cultural background in East Asia. We surveyed attitudes about the ethics of life-sustaining treatment in LIS in a cohort of medical and non-medical Chinese participants. RESULTS: The final study sample included 1545 respondents: medical professionals (n=597, 39%), neurologists (n=303, 20%), legal professionals (n=276, 18%) and other professionals (n=369, 24%), including 180 family members of individuals with LIS. Most of the participants (70%), especially neurologists, thought that life-sustaining treatment could not be stopped in individuals with LIS. It might be unnecessary to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, because the condition involved is not terminal and irreversible, and physical treatment can be beneficial for the patient. A significant proportion (59%) of respondents would like to be kept alive if they were in that condition; however, older people thought the opposite. Families experience the stress of caring for individuals with LIS. The mean (SD) quality of life score for relatives was 0.73 (2.889) (on a -5, +5 scale), which was significantly lower than that of non-relatives, 1.75 (1.969) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in opinions about end of life in LIS are affected by personal characteristics. The current survey did not identify a dissociation between personal preferences and general opinions, potentially because of a social uniformity in China where individualism is less pronounced. Future open-ended surveys could identify specific needs of caregivers so that strategic interventions to reduce ethical debasement are designed.
Subject(s)
Ethics, Medical , Life Support Care/ethics , Life Support Care/psychology , Locked-In Syndrome/psychology , Locked-In Syndrome/rehabilitation , Adult , Asian People/psychology , Attitude of Health Personnel , China , Cultural Characteristics , Family/ethnology , Family/psychology , Female , Health Personnel/ethics , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Individuality , Lawyers/psychology , Locked-In Syndrome/ethnology , Male , Middle Aged , Neurologists/ethics , Neurologists/psychology , Quality of Life/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
When should doctors seek protective custody to override a parent's refusal of potentially lifesaving treatment for their child? The answer to this question seemingly has different answers for different subspecialties of pediatrics. This paper specifically looks at different thresholds for physicians overriding parental refusals of life-sustaining treatment between neonatology, cardiology, and oncology. The threshold for mandating treatment of premature babies seems to be a survival rate of 25-50%. This is not the case when the treatment in question is open heart surgery for a child with congenital heart disease. Most cardiologists would not pursue legal action when parents refuse treatment, unless the anticipated survival rate after surgery is above 90%. In pediatric oncology, there are case reports of physicians requesting and obtaining protective custody for cancer treatment when the reported mortality rates are 40-50%. Such differences might be attributed to differences in care, a reasonable prioritization of quality of life over survival, or the role uncertainty plays on prognoses, especially for the extremely young. Nonetheless, other, non-medical factors may have a significant effect on inconsistencies in care across these pediatric subspecialties and require further examinations.
Subject(s)
Life Support Care/ethics , Parenting/psychology , Withholding Treatment/standards , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Life Support Care/methods , Life Support Care/psychology , Neonatology/ethics , Neonatology/legislation & jurisprudence , Professional-Patient Relations , Withholding Treatment/ethics , Withholding Treatment/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Attitude to Computers , Home Nursing/psychology , Life Support Care/psychology , Mothers/psychology , Technology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , United States , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The transition from the NICU to home is a complicated, challenging process for mothers of infants dependent on lifesaving medical technology, such as feeding tubes, supplemental oxygen, tracheostomies, and mechanical ventilation. The study purpose was to explore how these mothers perceive their transition experiences just prior to and during the first three months after initial NICU discharge. DESIGN: A qualitative, descriptive, longitudinal design was employed. SAMPLE: Nineteen mothers of infants dependent on lifesaving technology were recruited from a large Midwest NICU. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: Description of mothers' transition experience. RESULTS: Three themes were identified pretransition: negative emotions, positive cognitive-behavioral efforts, and preparation for life at home. Two posttransition themes were negative and positive transition experiences. Throughout the transition, the mothers expressed heightened anxiety, fear, and stress about life-threatening situations that did not abate over time despite the discharge education received.
Subject(s)
Home Care Services/organization & administration , Life Support Care , Mothers/psychology , Patient Discharge , Adult , Biomedical Technology/instrumentation , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal , Life Support Care/methods , Life Support Care/organization & administration , Life Support Care/psychology , Longitudinal Studies , Nurse's Role , Qualitative Research , Social Perception , Transitional Care/organization & administrationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the preferences of home caregivers on patient advance care planning (ACP), including life-sustaining treatment (LST) and the factors relating to these preferences. BACKGROUND: Personalized ACP aims to respect the autonomy and choices of terminally ill patients regarding end-of-life care. However, there have been cases wherein doctors must instead discuss ACP with surrogates (including caregivers) for various reasons such as dementia, intractable neurologic diseases, and cerebrovascular accident. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, self-written questionnaires (filled by individuals themselves) were distributed to 506 in-home caregivers in 6 Japanese prefectures; the questionnaires contained items on caregiver and patient demographics, number of people living together in a caregiver's home (aside from patients), care duration, comprehension level of doctors' explanations regarding their patient's condition, patient diseases, whether caregivers have or have not told patients about their disease, level of nursing care, and caregiver LST preference (preferred or not preferred). The questionnaire package also contained the Burden Index of Caregiver-11, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Short Form-8 Health Survey. RESULTS: Valid responses were obtained from 309 caregivers. More than half of them were not sure of their patient's LST preference. Sex, number of people living together in a care home, comprehension level of doctors' explanations, and care duration were found to be the significant factors relating to caregivers' LST preference (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Health providers should be cognizant of the background factors relating to caregiver ACP preference when deciding on LST for terminal patients.
Subject(s)
Advance Care Planning/statistics & numerical data , Caregivers/psychology , Terminal Care/psychology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Decision Making , Female , Humans , Japan , Life Support Care/psychology , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Preference , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Importance: Despite its spread in much of the United States and increased international interest, the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) paradigm still lacks supporting evidence. The interrater reliability of the POLST form to translate patients' values and preferences into medical orders for care at the end of life remains to be studied. Objective: To assess the interrater reliability of the medical orders documented in POLST forms. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a public university hospital in southeastern Brazil. Two independent researchers interviewed the same patients or decision-making surrogates (n = 64) during a single episode of hospitalization within a time frame of 1 to 7 days. Eligible participants were hospitalized adults aged 21 years or older who were expected to remain hospitalized for at least 4 days and whose attending physician responded no to the question, Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year? Data collection occurred between November 1, 2015, and September 20, 2016, and first data analyses were performed on October 3, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Interrater reliability as measured by κ statistics. Results: Of the 64 participants interviewed in the study, 53 (83%) were patients and 11 (17%) were surrogates. Patients' mean (SD) age was 64 (14) years, and 35 patients (55%) and 8 surrogates (73%) were women. Overall, in 5 cases (8%), disagreement in at least 1 medical order for life-sustaining treatment was found in the POLST form, changing from the first interview to the second interview. The κ statistic for cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80-1.00); for level of medical intervention, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.76-1.00); and for artificially administered nutrition, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.00). Conclusions and Relevance: The high interrater reliability of the medical orders in POLST forms appears to offer further support for this advance care planning paradigm; in addition, the finding that this interrater reliability was not 100% underscores the need to ensure that patients or their surrogates have decision-making capacity and to confirm that the content of POLST forms accurately reflects patients' current treatment preferences.
Subject(s)
Advance Care Planning/standards , Attitude to Death , Life Support Care/psychology , Patient Preference/psychology , Terminal Care/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil , Cross-Sectional Studies , Decision Making , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observer Variation , Physicians/psychology , Reproducibility of Results , Terminal Care/psychology , TranslationsABSTRACT
Medicine regards the prevention of death as an important priority. Yet patients may have a range of priorities of equal or greater importance. These other priorities are often not discussed or appreciated by treating doctors. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify priorities of care for patients attending an advance care planning (ACP) clinic and among the general population, and to identify factors associated with priorities other than prolonging life. METHODS: We used a locally developed survey tool 'What Matters Most' to identify values. Choices presented were: maintaining dignity, avoiding pain and suffering, living as long as possible, and remaining independent. Participants rated the importance of each and then selected a main priority for their doctor. Participant groups were a purposive sample of 382 lay people from the general population and 100 attendees at an ACP clinic. RESULTS: Living as long as possible was considered to be less important than other values for ACP patients and for the general population. Only 4% of ACP patients surveyed and 2.6% of our general population sample selected 'living as long as possible' as their top priority for medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: 'Living as long as possible' was not the most important value for ACP patients, or for a younger general population. Prioritisation of other goals appeared to be independent of extreme age or illness. When end of life treatment is being discussed with patients, priorities other than merely prolonging life should be considered.
Subject(s)
Advance Care Planning , Attitude to Health , Health Priorities , Life Support Care/psychology , Social Values , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Qualitative Research , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Parents of children diagnosed with cancer may experience decision regret about cancer treatment decisions and dissatisfaction with the perceived clarity in information received from their child's providers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe parental perspectives about receiving an early palliative care and end-of-life (PC/EOL) communication intervention titled "Communication Plan: Early through End of Life Intervention" (COMPLETE) from an interprofessional team of physician and registered nurse providers. METHODS: Ten parents participated in semistructured interviews after receiving the COMPLETE intervention. The COMPLETE intervention included 3 sessions delivered shortly after diagnosis and at the next 2 cancer treatment evaluations. Sessions of COMPLETE focused on early PC/EOL care discussions at diagnosis and after tumor response evaluations with their child's providers. RESULTS: Results included 2 theme categories: (1) COMPLETE nurtures realistic hope and meaningful dialogue by parents connecting with healthcare providers as a dyad, and (2) benefits of COMPLETE helped parents to make informed decisions. In addition, there were offered suggestions to improve COMPLETE. CONCLUSION: The COMPLETE intervention provided a unique mechanism to foster early discussions about PC/EOL options between parents and an interprofessional team during the first 6 months of the child's cancer treatment. Future study is needed using a randomized clinical control-group design to evaluate COMPLETE with a large sample of parents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings provide promising evidence of parents' preference and receptivity to receive early information about PC/EOL care options for a child with a brain tumor with a poor prognosis. The COMPLETE intervention provided a mechanism to help encourage parental consideration of realistic hoped-for goals for their child's condition and care.
Subject(s)
Life Support Care/psychology , Neoplasms/psychology , Parents/psychology , Terminal Care/psychology , Adult , Attitude to Death , Brain Neoplasms/psychology , Child , Child, Preschool , Decision Making , Female , Home Nursing/psychology , Humans , Infant , Male , Palliative Care/psychology , Professional-Family Relations , Terminal Care/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine prospective parents' perceptions of management options and outcomes in the context of threatened periviable delivery, and the values they apply in making antenatal decisions during this period. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of 46 antenatal interviews conducted at three tertiary-care hospitals with 54 prospective parents (40 pregnant women, 14 partners) who had received counseling for threatened periviable delivery (40 cases). RESULTS: Participants most often recalled being involved in resuscitation, cerclage, and delivery mode decisions. Over half (63.0%) desired a shared decision-making role. Most (85.2%) recalled hearing about morbidity and mortality, with many reiterating terms like "brain damage", "disability", and "handicap". The potential for disability influenced decision making to variable degrees. In describing what mattered most, participant spoke of giving their child a "fighting chance"; others voiced concerns about "best interest", a "healthy baby", "pain and suffering", and religious faith. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the importance of presenting clear information on disability and eliciting the factors that parents deem most important in making decisions about periviable birth.