Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Parents of children with cancer perceive deficits in quality of prognostic communication. How oncologists disclose information about disease progression and incurability and how prognostic communication impacts parental understanding of prognosis are poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to (1) characterize communication strategies used by pediatric oncologists to share prognostic information across a child’s advancing illness course and (2) explore relationships between different communication approaches and concordance of oncologist-parent prognostic understanding. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, serial disease reevaluation conversations were audio recorded across an advancing illness course for children with cancer and their families. Surveys and interviews also were conducted with oncologists and caregivers at specific time points targeting disease progression. RESULTS: Seventeen children experienced advancing illness on study, resulting in 141 recordings (40 hours). Fewer than 4% of recorded dialogue constituted prognostic communication, with most codes (77%) occurring during discussions about frank disease progression. Most recordings at study entry contained little or no prognosis communication dialogue, and oncologists rated curability lower than parents across all dyads. Parent-oncologist discordance typically was preceded by conversations without incurability statements; ultimately, concordance was achieved in most cases after the oncologist made direct statements about incurability. Content analysis revealed 3 distinct patterns (absent, deferred, and seed planting) describing the provision of prognostic communication across an advancing pediatric cancer course. CONCLUSIONS: When oncologists provided direct statements about incurability, prognostic understanding appeared to improve. Further research is needed to determine optimal timing for prognostic disclosure in alignment with patient and family preferences.

BACKGROUND: Parents and clinicians caring for premature infants face high-stakes and time-sensitive decisions about care. We aimed to characterize how parents and clinicians discuss outcome in the context of decision-making for premature infants. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we used a case-based, prospective design. Cases of extreme prematurity were targeted. Parents and clinicians completed semistructured interviews about care decisions longitudinally in the first year of life. Interview data were analyzed by using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen parents and 53 clinicians of 10 infants completed 178 interviews (n = 115 parent; n = 63 clinician). Two primary themes emerged. First, parents and clinicians discussed prognostic information differently from each other. Parents focused on whether their infant would survive, whereas clinicians concentrated on neurologic outcome and the potential for life with disability. Parent discussion of the future was broad and rooted in hope and spirituality. Clinician prognostic language was narrowly focused and probabilistic. Second, we identified barriers and facilitators to a shared understanding of infant outcome. Clinicians perceived that parents were unaware of or unable to process important information about the big picture. Parents valued consistent therapeutic relationships; transitions of care and underused roles of the care team undermined this consistency. Clinical uncertainty forced parents and clinicians to “wait and see” about the future. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and clinicians discuss and weigh information about the future differently from each other as they consider choices for extremely premature infants. Future work should characterize the impact of these differences on prognostic communication and decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Families must process complex information related to neonatal encephalopathy and therapeutic hypothermia. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, semi-structured interviews were performed with parents whose infants were enrolled in an existing longitudinal cohort study of therapeutic hypothermia between 2011 and 2014. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was achieved after 20 interviews. Parental experience of communicating with clinicians was characterized by 3 principle themes. Theme 1 highlighted that a fragmented communication process mirrored the chaotic maternal and neonatal course. Parents often received key information about neonatal encephalopathy and therapeutic hypothermia from maternal clinicians. Infant medical information was often given to 1 family member (60%), who felt burdened by the responsibility to relay that information to others. Families universally valued the role of the bedside nurse, who was perceived as the primary source of communication for most (75%) families. Theme 2 encompassed the challenges of discussing the complex therapy of therapeutic hypothermia: families appreciated clinicians who used lay language and provided written material, and they often felt overwhelmed by technical information that made it hard to understand the “big picture” of their infant’s medical course. Theme 3 involved the uncertain prognosis after neonatal encephalopathy. Parents appreciated specific expectations about their infant’s long-term development, and experienced long-term distress about prognostic uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating complex and large volumes of information in the midst of perinatal crisis presents inherent challenges for both clinicians and families. We identified an actionable set of communication challenges that can be addressed with targeted interventions.

An infant has a massive intracranial hemorrhage. She is neurologically devastated and ventilator-dependent. The prognosis for pulmonary or neurologic recovery is bleak. The physicians and parents face a choice: withdraw the ventilator and allow her to die or perform a tracheotomy? The parents cling to hope for recovery. The physician must decide how blunt to be in communicating his own opinions and recommendations. Should the physician try to give just the facts? Or should he also make a recommendation based on his own values? In this article, experts in neonatology, decision-making, and bioethics discuss this situation and the choice that the physician faces.