Search

Introduction: Paediatric palliative care (PPC) is care for children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions, and can involve complex high-tech care, which can last for months or years. In 2015, the National Individual Care Plan (ICP) for PPC was developed and has shown to be successful. The ICP can be seen as an instrument to facilitate coordination, quality and continuity of PPC. However, in practice, an ICP is often completed too late and for too few children. We aim to improve the coordination, quality and continuity of care for every child with a life-threatening or life-limiting condition and his/her family by further developing and implementing the ICP in the Netherlands., Methods and Analysis: To evaluate the original ICP, ICP 1.0, interviews and questionnaires will be held among parents of children who have or have had an ICP 1.0 and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who used ICP 1.0. Based on the results, ICP 1.0 will be further developed. An implementation strategy will be written and the renewed ICP, ICP 2.0, will be nationally tested in an implementation period of approximately 7 months. During the implementation period, ICP 2.0 will be used for all children who are registered with Children's Palliative Care teams. After the implementation period, ICP 2.0 will be evaluated using interviews and questionnaires among parents of children who received ICP 2.0 and HPCs who worked with ICP 2.0. Based on these results, ICP 2.0 will be further optimised into the final version: ICP 3.0., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received ethical approval. The ICP 3.0 will be disseminated through the Dutch Centre of Expertise in Children's Palliative Care, to ensure wide availability for the general public and HCPs within PPC. Additionally, we aim to publish study results in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and to present results at national and international scientific meetings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Children's views of health were explored in order to develop a health dialogue tool for children., Methods: A qualitative research design was used as part of a codesign process. Based on semi-structured interviews with both healthy children and children with a chronic condition (aged 8-18). Two approaches were applied. The first was an open exploration of children's views on health, which was then thematically analysed. Subsequently, a framework was used, based on the six-dimensional My Positive Health (MPH) dialogue tool for adults, to guide the second part of the interviews, focusing on reviewing the children's view on health within the context of the framework. For the final draft of the dialogue tool, a framework analysis was conducted and then validated by members of the 'children's council' of the Wilhelmina Children's Hospital., Results: We interviewed 65 children, 45 of whom had a chronic condition and 20 were healthy. The children described a broad concept of health with the central themes of 'feeling good about yourself' and 'being able to participate'. Based on the subsequent framework analysis, the wording of two of the six dimensions of the MPH dialogue tool was adjusted and the related aspects were adapted for better alignment with the children's concept of health. After these modifications, the tool fully matched the children's concept of health., Conclusion: The MPH dialogue tool for children was developed for children with and without a chronic condition, to help them open up about what they consider important for their health and well-being, and to improve directorship over decisions and actions that would affect their health. The MPH dialogue tool aims to support healthcare professionals in providing the type of care and treatment that is in line with the needs of their young patients/clients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To understand how a child with a stable chronic disease and his/her parents shape his/her daily life participation, we assessed: (1) the parents' goals regarding the child's daily life participation, (2) parental strategies regarding the child's participation and () how children and their parents interrelate when their goals regarding participation are not aligned., Methods: This was a qualitative study design using a general inductive approach. Families of children 8-19 years with a stable chronic disease (cystic fibrosis, autoimmune disease or postcancer treatment) were recruited from the PROactive study. Simultaneous in-depth interviews were conducted separately with the child and parent(s). Analyses included constant comparison, coding and categorisation., Results: Thirty-one of the 57 invited families (54%) participated. We found that parents predominantly focus on securing their child's well-being, using participation as a means to achieve well-being. Moreover, parents used different strategies to either support participation consistent with the child's healthy peers or support participation with a focus on physical well-being. The degree of friction between parents and their child was based on the level of agreement on who takes the lead regarding the child's participation., Conclusions: Interestingly, parents described participation as primarily a means to achieve the child's well-being, whereas children described participation as more of a goal in itself. Understanding the child's and parent's perspective can help children, parents and healthcare professionals start a dialogue on participation and establish mutual goals. This may help parents and children find ways to interrelate while allowing the child to develop his/her autonomy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No, there are no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The authors of the paper 'Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications' articulate concerns and reasons with regard to the conduct of euthanasia in persons with dementia based on advance directives. While we agree on the conclusion that there needs to be more attention for such directives in the preparation phase, we disagree with the reasons provided by the authors to support their conclusions. We will outline two concerns with their reasoning by drawing on empirical research and by providing reasons that contradict their assumptions about competence of people with dementia and the (un)importance of happiness in reasoning about advance directives of people with dementia. We will draw attention to the important normative questions that have been overstepped in their paper, and we will outline why further research is required., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)