Differences in end-of-life communication for children with advanced cancer who were referred to a palliative care team.

BACKGROUND: There is a general consensus that involving a specialized palliative care team in the care of children with advanced cancer can help optimize end-of-life communication; however, how this compares to standard oncology care is still unknown. We aimed to determine whether there was an association between specialist palliative care involvement and improved end-of-life communication for children with advanced cancer and their families. PROCEDURE: We administered questionnaires to 75 bereaved parents (response rate 54%). Outcome measures were presence or absence of 11 elements related to end-of-life communication. RESULTS: Parents were significantly more likely to receive five communication elements if their child was referred to a palliative care team. These elements are: discussion of death and dying with parents by the healthcare team (P<0.01); discussion of death and dying with child by the healthcare team when appropriate (P < 0.01); providing parents with guidance on how to talk to their child about death and dying when appropriate (P < 0.01); preparing parents for medical aspects surrounding death (P = 0.02) and sibling support (P = 0.02). Children were less likely to be referred to a palliative care team if they had a hematologic malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Children who receive standard oncology care are at higher risk of not receiving critical communication elements at end of life. Strategies to optimize end-of-life communication for children who are not referred to a palliative care team are needed.

Parent and clinician preferences for location of end-of-life care: home, hospital or freestanding hospice?

BACKGROUND: Current options for location of end-of-life (EOL) care for children with cancer include home, hospital, and freestanding pediatric hospice (FSPH). However, access to these options varies greatly depending on geographical location. We aimed to determine bereaved parent and clinician preferences for location to EOL care and death. PROCEDURE: We administered questionnaires to 75 bereaved parents (response rate 54%) and 48 pediatric oncology clinicians (response rate 91%) at a large teaching hospital. Main outcome measure was parent and clinician ranking for preferred location of EOL care and death if given the options of home, hospital or FSPH. RESULTS: Majority of parents and clinicians ranked home as their first choice for EOL care (70.2% and 87%, respectively) and death (70.8% and 89.1%, respectively). Compared to clinicians, parents gave a higher ranking to hospital (P < 0.01) and lower ranking to FSPH (P < 0.01) as the preferred location for EOL care and death. Congruence between actual and preferred location of EOL care was more likely when a palliative care team was involved (P < 0.01) and less likely for children with haematologic malignancies (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Parents and clinicians prefer home as the location for EOL care and death for children with cancer. Hospital based palliative care is a preferred alternative if home is not desired. FSPH is a relatively recent phenomena and further research needs to be directed towards understanding its cost benefit in comparison to home and hospital-based EOL care.

Moving toward quality palliative cancer care: parent and clinician perspectives on gaps between what matters and what is accessible.

PURPOSE: The National Consensus Project (NCP) published a set of standards for quality palliative care delivery. A key step before applying these guidelines to pediatric oncology is to evaluate how much families and clinicians value these standards. We aimed to determine which elements of palliative care are considered important according to bereaved parents and pediatric oncology clinicians and to determine accessibility of these elements. METHODS: We administered questionnaires to 75 bereaved parents (response rate, 54%) and 48 pediatric oncology clinicians (response rate, 91%) at a large teaching hospital. Outcome measures included importance ratings and accessibility of core elements of palliative care delivery. RESULTS: Fifteen of 20 core elements were highly valued by both parents and clinicians (defined as > 60% of parents and clinicians reporting the item as important). Compared with clinicians, parents gave higher ratings to receiving cancer-directed therapy during the last month of life (P < .01) and involvement of a spiritual mentor (P = .03). Of the valued elements, only three were accessible more than 60% of the time according to clinicians and parents. Valued elements least likely to be accessible included a direct admission policy to hospital, sibling support, and parent preparation for medical aspects surrounding death. CONCLUSION: Parents and clinicians highly value a majority of palliative care elements described in the NCP framework. Children with advanced cancer may not be receiving key elements of palliative care despite parents and clinicians recognizing them as important. Evaluation of barriers to provision of quality palliative care and strategies for overcoming them are critical.