Search

Background: Although international guidelines recommend discussions about goals of care and treatment options for children with severe and life-limiting conditions, there are still few structured models of paediatric advance care planning., Aim: The study aimed at identifying key components of paediatric advance care planning through direct discussions with all involved parties., Design: The study had a qualitative design with a participatory approach. Participants constituted an advisory board and took part in two transdisciplinary workshops. Data were collected in discussion and dialogue groups and analysed using content analysis., Setting/participants: We included bereaved parents, health care providers and stakeholders of care networks., Results: Key elements were discussions, documentation, implementation, timing and participation of children and adolescents. Parents engage in discussions with facilitators and persons of trust to reach a decision. Documentation constitutes the focus of professionals, who endorse brief recommendations for procedures in case of emergencies, supplemented by larger advance directives. Implementation hindrances include emotional barriers of stakeholders, disagreements between parents and professionals and difficulties with emergency services. Discussion timing should take into account parental readiness. The intervention should be repeated at regular intervals, considering emerging needs and increasing awareness of families over time. Involving children and adolescents in advance care planning remains a challenge., Conclusion: A paediatric advance care planning intervention should take into account potential pitfalls and barriers including issues related to timing, potential conflicts between parents and professionals, ambiguity towards written advance directives, the role of non-medical carers for paediatric advance care planning implementation, the need to involve the child and the necessity of an iterative process.

In Germany, research on experiences and care pathways of parents continuing pregnancy after a life-limiting fetal diagnosis is scarce. There are several recommendations but few structured programs. We aimed to explore experiences and needs of parents, reconstruct their care pathways, and identify requirements for a perinatal palliative care program. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 mothers and 9 fathers and analyzed data using the Saldaña's Coding Method. Codes were organized in templates to reconstruct care pathways. Pathways started with a suspicious finding prompting a referral to prenatal diagnostics. Parents experienced severe emotional distress during prenatal diagnostics due to scarce information, insensitiveness, and a perceived pressure towards abortion. As a result, they overlooked referrals to psychosocial counseling, generating a care gap. Most parents reached the decision to continue pregnancy without professional support. They then chose a trusted midwife or gynecologist as main caregiver during pregnancy. There were no regular referrals to palliative care, which mainly became relevant when the child survived. Our data indicate that a perinatal palliative care program requires early and comprehensive information, sensitivity, and a non-directive approach. Already existing support services need to be identified and connected through structured pathways, with a particular focus on midwives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Advance care discussions (ACD) between health care professionals (HCPs) and parents of children with a life-limiting disease are a core element of successful pediatric advance care planning (pACP). Yet, they are perceived as a challenging situation for all participants. Objectives: Our goal was to investigate the first step of ACD and identify its challenges and helpful communication strategies to develop a conversation guide for initiating the pACP process and structure the conversational opening. Methods: We performed a participant observation of 11 initial ACD and 24 interviews with 13 HCPs and 20 parents of 11 children cared for by 3 different palliative care teams in southern Germany. Qualitative data collection was supplemented by a questionnaire. Content analysis and conversation analysis were used for evaluation. Results: Parents and HCPs start the process with different expectations, which can lead to misunderstandings and confusion. HCPs gain parental cooperation when they express the purpose of the meeting clearly and early, provide structure and guidance, and give parents time to talk about their experiences and feelings. Addressing dying and death is hard for both sides and requires a sensitive approach. Conclusions: Initiating ACD is extremely challenging for all participants. HCPs and parents should clarify expectations and aims at the beginning of the conversation. Future research should focus on how HCPs can be trained for this task and how the right timing for introducing ACD to families can be identified. Clinical Trial Registration number 049-12 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although international guidelines recommend discussions about goals of care and treatment options for children with severe and life-limiting conditions, there are still few structured models of paediatric advance care planning. Aim: The study aimed at identifying key components of paediatric advance care planning through direct discussions with all involved parties. Design: The study had a qualitative design with a participatory approach. Participants constituted an advisory board and took part in two transdisciplinary workshops. Data were collected in discussion and dialogue groups and analysed using content analysis. Setting/participants: We included bereaved parents, health care providers and stakeholders of care networks. Results: Key elements were discussions, documentation, implementation, timing and participation of children and adolescents. Parents engage in discussions with facilitators and persons of trust to reach a decision. Documentation constitutes the focus of professionals, who endorse brief recommendations for procedures in case of emergencies, supplemented by larger advance directives. Implementation hindrances include emotional barriers of stakeholders, disagreements between parents and professionals and difficulties with emergency services. Discussion timing should take into account parental readiness. The intervention should be repeated at regular intervals, considering emerging needs and increasing awareness of families over time. Involving children and adolescents in advance care planning remains a challenge. Conclusion: A paediatric advance care planning intervention should take into account potential pitfalls and barriers including issues related to timing, potential conflicts between parents and professionals, ambiguity towards written advance directives, the role of non-medical carers for paediatric advance care planning implementation, the need to involve the child and the necessity of an iterative process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]