Meghan L Marsac1,2, Christine Kindler1, Danielle Weiss3, Lindsay Ragsdale1,2. 1. 1 Department of Pediatrics, Kentucky Children's Hospital , Lexington, Kentucky. 2. 2 College of Medicine, University of Kentucky , Lexington, Kentucky. 3. 3 Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication is key in optimizing medical care when a child is approaching end of life (EOL). Research is yet to establish best practices for how medical teams can guide intrafamily communication (including surviving siblings) when EOL care is underway or anticipated for a pediatric patient. While recommendations regarding how medical teams can facilitate communication between the medical team and the family exist, various barriers may prevent the implementation of these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to provide a summary of research-to-date on family and medical provider perceptions of communication during pediatric EOL care. DESIGN: Systematic review. RESULTS: Findings from a review of 65 studies suggest that when a child enters EOL care, many parents try to protect their child and/or themselves by avoiding discussions about death. Despite current recommendations, medical teams often refrain from discussing EOL care with pediatric patients until death is imminent for a variety of reasons (e.g., family factors and discomfort with EOL conversations). Parents consistently report a need for honest complete information, delivered with sensitivity. Pediatric patients often report a preference to be informed of their prognosis, and siblings express a desire to be involved in EOL discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Families may benefit from enhanced communication around EOL planning, both within the family and between the family and medical team. Future research should investigate a potential role for medical teams in supporting intrafamily communication about EOL challenges and should examine how communication between medical teams and families can be facilitated as EOL approaches.
BACKGROUND: Communication is key in optimizing medical care when a child is approaching end of life (EOL). Research is yet to establish best practices for how medical teams can guide intrafamily communication (including surviving siblings) when EOL care is underway or anticipated for a pediatric patient. While recommendations regarding how medical teams can facilitate communication between the medical team and the family exist, various barriers may prevent the implementation of these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to provide a summary of research-to-date on family and medical provider perceptions of communication during pediatric EOL care. DESIGN: Systematic review. RESULTS: Findings from a review of 65 studies suggest that when a child enters EOL care, many parents try to protect their child and/or themselves by avoiding discussions about death. Despite current recommendations, medical teams often refrain from discussing EOL care with pediatric patients until death is imminent for a variety of reasons (e.g., family factors and discomfort with EOL conversations). Parents consistently report a need for honest complete information, delivered with sensitivity. Pediatric patients often report a preference to be informed of their prognosis, and siblings express a desire to be involved in EOL discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Families may benefit from enhanced communication around EOL planning, both within the family and between the family and medical team. Future research should investigate a potential role for medical teams in supporting intrafamily communication about EOL challenges and should examine how communication between medical teams and families can be facilitated as EOL approaches.
Entities:
Keywords:
child; death; family; family communication; palliative care; sibling
Authors: Margaret H Barlet; Mary C Barks; Peter A Ubel; J Kelly Davis; Kathryn I Pollak; Erica C Kaye; Kevin P Weinfurt; Monica E Lemmon Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-10-03
Authors: Jessica D Thompkins; Jennifer Needle; Justin N Baker; Linda Briggs; Yao I Cheng; Jichuan Wang; Sarah Friebert; Maureen E Lyon Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 9.703
Authors: Olivia Ibañez-Masero; Inés María Carmona-Rega; María Dolores Ruiz-Fernández; Rocío Ortiz-Amo; José Cabrera-Troya; Ángela María Ortega-Galán Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Jennifer K Walter; Douglas L Hill; Concetta DiDomenico; Shefali Parikh; Chris Feudtner Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Ansley E Kenney; Perri R Tutelman; Rachel S Fisher; Keagan G Lipak; Maru Barrera; Mary Jo Gilmer; Diane Fairclough; Terrah Foster Akard; Bruce E Compas; Betty Davies; Nancy S Hogan; Kathryn Vannatta; Cynthia A Gerhardt Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2021-06-26