Paediatric palliative care research has come of age

Children with palliative care needs - the landscape of the nordic countries

BACKGROUND

To strengthen palliative care for children in the Nordic countries, an updated status of current needs, resources, clinical services, education, and research is necessary to align and consolidate future research. A Nordic research collaboration initiative for children with palliative care needs was assembled in 2023. Building on this initiative, this paper presents an overview of pediatric palliative care (PPC) in the Nordic countries' (a) population characteristics, (b) care models and setting of care, (c) education and training, and (d) research.

METHODS

The Nordic initiative researchers collaboratively gathered and assessed available data on the characteristics of PPC within Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Sweden, and Åland. Data were compiled in a matrix with population characteristics, models- and setting of care, education and training, and areas of research in a Nordic context. The findings are narratively and descriptively presented, providing an overview of Nordic PPC.

RESULTS

In total, the Nordic child population comprises around six million children (0-19 years), of which about 41.200 are estimated to be living with a life-limiting and/or life-threatening condition. Healthcare services are provided through various care models, ranging from specialized care to homecare settings. Overall, there remain few opportunities for education and training with some exceptions. Also, Nordic research within PPC has been shown to be a growing field although much remains to be done.

CONCLUSION

This overview is the first outline of the current PPC in Nordic countries. Although some differences remain important to acknowledge, overall, the strengths and challenges faced within PPC in the Nordic countries are comparable and call for joint action to increase evidence, services, and education to better serve the children, families, and healthcare personnel within PPC. Despite the varying structural premises for PPC, research endeavors aiming to provide evidence in this field seem increasing, timely and relevant for the Nordic countries, as well as the international context.

Paediatric palliative care in the NICU: A new era of integration

We are entering a new era of integration between neonatal medicine and paediatric palliative care, with increasing recognition that the role and skills of palliative care extend beyond care of only the terminally ill infant. This paper addresses the principles of paediatric palliative care and how they apply in the NICU, considers who provides palliative care in this setting and outlines the key components of care. We consider how the international standards of palliative care pertain to neonatal medicine and how a fully integrated approach to care may be realised across these two disciplines. Palliative care is so much more than end-of-life care, offering a proactive and holistic approach which addresses the physical, emotional, spiritual and social needs of the infant and family. This is a truly interdisciplinary endeavour, relying on a harmonisation of the skills from both the neonatal and palliative care teams to deliver high-quality coordinated care.

Measuring quality of dying, death and end-of-life care for children and young people: A scoping review of available tools

BACKGROUND

The circumstances and care provided at the end of a child's life have a profound impact on family members. Although assessing experiences and outcomes during this time is challenging, healthcare professionals have a responsibility to ensure high quality of care is provided.

AIM

To identify available tools which measure the quality of dying, death and end-of-life care for children and young people; describe the content, and data on validity and reliability of existing tools.

DESIGN

Scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework.

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO) and grey literature were searched for studies published in English (January 2000-June 2021). A review of reference lists and citation searching was also undertaken. Tools needed to include a focus on the 'dying' phase of illness (defined as the last month of life).

RESULTS

From 2078 articles, a total of 18 studies, reporting on 11 tools were identified. All tools were completed by primary caregivers or healthcare professionals as 'proxy' assessments; all except one was undertaken after death. Question items about quality of life and preparation for death were found in all tools; items relating to cultural aspects of care, grief and financial costs were less common. Only 6/11 had undergone psychometric testing within a paediatric palliative care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should include ways to adapt, refine and improve existing tools. Assessing their wider application in different clinical and cultural settings and conducting further psychometric assessment represent areas of focus.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.