Physician decision-making process about withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in paediatric patients: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

Chinese and Belgian pediatricians' perspectives toward pediatric palliative care: an online survey

BACKGROUND

As pediatricians play a vital role in pediatric palliative care (PPC), understanding their perspectives toward PPC is important. PPC is established for a long time in Belgium, but has a shorter tradition in China, although it is growing in the last decade. Sampling and comparing the perspectives of these pediatricians could be insightful for both countries. Therefore, we sampled and compared perspectives of pediatricians in China and Belgium toward PPC, and explored factors influencing their perspectives.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey using the validated Pediatric Palliative Care Attitude Scale (PPCAS). Over a five-month period, we recruited pediatricians practicing in China (C) and Flanders (F), Belgium. Convenience sampling and snowballing were used. We analyzed data with descriptive statistics, and evaluated group differences with univariate, multivariate and correlation tests.

RESULTS

440 complete surveys were analyzed (F: 115; C: 325). Pediatricians in both regions had limited PPC experience (F: 2.92 ± 0.94; C: 2.76 ± 0.92). Compared to Flemish pediatricians, Chinese pediatricians perceived receiving less unit support (F: 3.42 ± 0.86; C: 2.80 ± 0.89); perceived PPC less important (F: 4.70 ± 0.79; C: 4.18 ± 0.94); and faced more personal obstacles while practicing PPC (F: 3.50 ± 0.76; C: 2.25 ± 0.58). Also, select socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., experiences caring for children with life-threatening condition and providing PPC) influenced pediatricians' perspectives. Correlational analyses revealed that pediatricians' PPC experiences significantly correlated with perceived unit support (ρF = 0.454; ρC=0.661).

CONCLUSIONS

Chinese pediatricians faced more barriers in practicing PPC. Expanding PPC experiences can influence pediatricians' perspectives positively, which may be beneficial for the child and their family.

Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment for Pediatric Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Importance

The decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging for clinicians and families with limited evidence quantifying existing practices. Given the lack of standardized clinical guidelines, variable practice patterns across trauma centers seem likely.

Objective

To evaluate the factors influencing decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment across North American trauma centers for pediatric patients with severe TBI and to quantify any existing between-center variability in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment practices.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data collected from 515 trauma centers through the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program between 2017 and 2020. Pediatric patients younger than 19 years with severe TBI and a documented decision for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment were included. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A random intercept multilevel logistic regression model was used to quantify patient, injury, and hospital characteristics associated with the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment; the median odds ratio was used to characterize residual between-center variability. Centers were ranked by their conditional random intercepts and quartile-specific adjusted mortalities were computed.

Results

A total of 9803 children (mean [SD] age, 12.6 [5.7]; 2920 [29.8%] female) with severe TBI were identified, 1003 of whom (10.2%) had a documented decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Patient-level factors associated with an increase in likelihood of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment were young age (younger than 3 years), higher severity intracranial and extracranial injuries, and mechanism of injury related to firearms. Following adjustment for patient and hospital attributes, the median odds ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.46-1.62), suggesting residual variation in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment between centers. When centers were grouped into quartiles by their propensity for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, adjusted mortality was higher for fourth-quartile compared to first-quartile centers (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45-1.88).

Conclusions and Relevance

Several patient and injury factors were associated with withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment decision-making for pediatric patients with severe TBI in this study. Variation in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment practices between trauma centers was observed after adjustment for case mix; this variation was associated with differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates. Taken together, these findings highlight the presence of inconsistent approaches to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in children, which speaks to the need for guidelines to address this significant practice pattern variation.

Shepherding parents to prepare for end-of-life decision-making: a critical phenomenological study of the communication approach of paediatricians caring for children with life-limiting conditions in Australia

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Shared decision-making is widely accepted as the best approach for end-of-life decision-making for children with life-limiting conditions. Both paediatricians and parents find benefit in preparing for such decisions. However, little detail is known about this preparatory process. This study aims to explore how paediatricians prepare parents for end-of-life decision-making for a child with a life-limiting condition using clinical simulation.

DESIGN

Individual, semistructured, post-simulation qualitative interviews of paediatricians and parent-actors.

SETTING

Acute intensive and long-term outpatient paediatric care in Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

18 purposively sampled paediatricians who treat children with life-limiting conditions and the two parent-actors involved in all simulations. Paediatricians were excluded if they assisted in the study design, worked within specialist palliative care teams or did not provide clinical care outside the neonatal period.

RESULTS

Three key themes in a preparatory process (termed 'shepherding') were identified: (1) paediatricians aim to lead parents along a pathway to future end-of-life decisions, (2) paediatricians prefer to control the pace of these discussions and (3) paediatricians recognise they need to have courage to face risk with this preparation. Paediatricians use a variety of shepherding strategies to influence the pace, content and framing of discussions, which may help prepare parents to make the best end-of-life treatment decisions when the time comes.

CONCLUSIONS

Shepherding is a newly identified, subtle process intended to influence parents by guiding their understanding of their child's health and potential suffering in advance of decision-making. Shepherding does not fit within current descriptions of physicians' decision-making influence. Paced reflection, thinking and provision of information are shepherding strategies preferred by paediatricians, and these appear the same regardless of whether paediatricians intend to steer parents towards particular treatment decisions or simply prepare them for the process of decision-making. Further study about the intention of this influence and parental perception of this communication is needed.

Listening to the Residents: The Perception of Pediatric Palliative Care Education in a Residency Program in Brazil

Background: In Brazil, a relevant portion and children suffer without receiving adequate control of their symptoms. Failures in pediatrician training may contribute to this problem. Objective: The goal was to characterize the educational failures perceived by pediatric residents for pediatric palliative care throughout their training. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out, with the application of the Pediatric Palliative Care Questionnaire (QCPP) to residents of three pediatrics and specialties of public limits at the Escola de Saúde Pública do Estado do Ceará (ESP-CE), Brazil. Results: The response rate was 68 out of 123 residents (55%). It was reported that they did not consider the specialty as patient care or death. He also feels comfortable explaining the physiological process of dying to his family. The time devoted to CPP teaching, as well as medical residency, was considered reduced. For those who attended a subspecialty, the number they signaled was "0 hours" at 82.40%. Conclusion: It can be said that the main flaws in the teaching-learning process of pediatric residents were the number of hours of training in teaching, communication skills training (through participation in conferences) and guidance on the practice of teaching suspension of invasive measures. It was observed that less time reserved for this learning is related to lesser knowledge and greater barriers to the use of palliative care. Those who declared themselves able to take care of children with life-organizing conditions received some teaching in CPP.

Physicians' attitudes and experiences about withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in pediatrics: a systematic review of quantitative evidence

BACKGROUND

One of the most important and ethically challenging decisions made for children with life-limiting conditions is withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (LST). As important (co-)decision-makers in this process, physicians are expected to have deeply and broadly developed views. However, their attitudes and experiences in this area remain difficult to understand because of the diversity of the studies. Hence, the aim of this paper is to describe physicians' attitudes and experiences about withholding/withdrawing LST in pediatrics and to identify the influencing factors.

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, Cinahl®, Embase®, Scopus®, and Web of Science™ in early 2021 and updated the search results in late 2021. Eligible articles were published in English, reported on investigations of physicians' attitudes and experiences about withholding/withdrawing LST for children, and were quantitative.

RESULTS

In 23 included articles, overall, physicians stated that withholding/withdrawing LST can be ethically legitimate for children with life-limiting conditions. Physicians tended to follow parents' and parents-patient's wishes about withholding/withdrawing or continuing LST when they specified treatment preferences. Although most physicians agreed to share decision-making with parents and/or children, they nonetheless reported experiencing both negative and positive feelings during the decision-making process. Moderating factors were identified, including barriers to and facilitators of withholding/withdrawing LST. In general, there was only a limited number of quantitative studies to support the hypothesis that some factors can influence physicians' attitudes and experiences toward LST.

CONCLUSION

Overall, physicians agreed to withhold/withdraw LST in dying patients, followed parent-patients' wishes, and involved them in decision-making. Barriers and facilitators relevant to the decision-making regarding withholding/withdrawing LST were identified. Future studies should explore children's involvement in decision-making and consider barriers that hinder implementation of decisions about withholding/withdrawing LST.