| Literature DB >> 34219567 |
Poh Heng Chong1, Catherine Walshe2, Sean Hughes2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding what makes a 'good death' in the child with life shortening illness is important, as it informs appropriate and effective end-of-life care. Above play, peer contact and opportunities for assent, prior literature review found meeting needs and managing control were critical. The influence of disease types, location of death and palliative care support remains unclear. AIM: Explore how a good death for children can occur in the real-world context and identify factors influencing it.Entities:
Keywords: Child; caregivers; death; delivery of health care; palliative care; qualitative research; terminal care
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34219567 PMCID: PMC8637356 DOI: 10.1177/02692163211027700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Palliat Med ISSN: 0269-2163 Impact factor: 4.762
Case profiles: patients’ clinical information and respondents’ socio-demographic information.
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 | Case 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | |||||
| Age at time of death | 17 | 16 | 6 | 11 | 1.5 |
| Gender | Female | Female | Male | Female | Male |
| Circumstances of child during study period | Local resident | Local resident | Parents are expatriates | Came to seek treatment locally | Mother is an expatriate |
| Diagnostic group | Non-cancer | Non-cancer | Non-cancer | Cancer | Cancer |
| Location of death | Home | Home | Hospital | Home | Hospital |
| Specialist palliative care received | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Informal caregivers | |||||
| Age ( | |||||
| Relationship to child/religion | Mother/Christian | Mother/Buddhist | Mother/Christian | Mother/Muslim | Mother/Christian |
| Father/Christian | Father/Christian | Father/Muslim | |||
| Professional caregivers | |||||
| Age ( | |||||
| Gender (F or M)/appointment | F/specialist doctor | F/palliative nurse | F/specialist doctor | F/specialist doctor | M/specialist doctor |
| F/palliative doctor | F/specialist doctor | F/specialist doctor | F/allied health specialist | F/hospital social worker | |
| F/palliative nurse | F/palliative social worker | F/hospital nurse | |||
| F/palliative nurse | |||||
Thematic categories contributory to perceptions of a good death.
| Antecedents | Determinants | Attributes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Common themes | Letting go | Suffering | Comfort |
| Acknowledging the child | Control | Dying not prolonged | |
| Closure | System and processes | ||
| Contingent themes | Doing everything possible | Being home | |
| Miracle hope | Palliative care | ||
| Different levels of awareness |
Framework matrix – antecedents.
| Antecedents | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Letting go | Acknowledging the child | Closure | |
| Case 1 | A new state of being reached, as a consequence of ‘increasing awareness’. This allows the family to run ‘the last mile’ and achieve what they perceive as a good death. | To make the child feel treasured and loved, performing hands-on care, spending time and realising wishes. | Whole family come together to give blessings for child to go in peace. |
| Case 2 | Same. A new state of being reached, after different ‘conflicts’ are resolved or overcome, and realisation of short prognosis. This leads to ‘actions’ that facilitate a good death. | Giving autonomy to the teenager to make choices, from treatment options, living life normally, to details around end-of-life care (like refusing injections). | Open conversations between child and family about her imminent death, her fears and wishes. |
| Case 3 | Same. A state of being that arises as ‘emerging reality’, with time and when definite signs indicate that the child is dying. New goals are then set, in preparation for the child’s demise. | Playing the child’s favourite programmes (cartoons) for him throughout. Requesting for extra time just to say goodbye. | Family and friends coming together one last time to say goodbye. |
| Case 4 | Same. State of being (‘acceptance’ level here) after seeing little hopes of recovery and worsening physical condition (losses). Bridge between doing everything possible to doing everything right. Impacts sense of suffering by reducing it. Compare similar in cases 1, 2, 5. | Affirmation of the child’s virtues and bringing the right attitude during interactions and advocacy for the child’s own needs throughout. It ultimately supports the child in coping with the adversities of illness. | Being able to speak openly about the child’s imminent passing, drawing the family even closer together in spite of the grief. |
| Case 5 | Same. A new state of being when all treatments fail, obvious suffering manifest, and signs noticed. Goals of care shifts from curing to healing. Oncologist himself ‘switched gears’. | Invoking the child in interpreting events and meaning making. | Memory-making activities like outings and photo taking, processing the loss with counsellor before child’s death, and being able to say goodbye. |
Framework matrix – determinants.
| Determinants | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | System and processes | Suffering | |
| Case 1 | Management of conflicts between personal wishes for child and those of peers; care of other siblings at home; sense of ownership in terms of child’s care in the home setting (including admission of visitors). | Palliative care support at home: advance care planning (ACP) that opens alternatives for family, affirming family’s goals and plans for care when unsure, dedicated care 24/7. | Reduced quality of life with disease progression, and frequent hospital admissions that add burden to the child and family. |
| Case 2 | Management of conflicts relating to choosing treatment options (between mother/patient and between doctors); putting final decisions ultimately to the sick child. | Giving the child and family the autonomy to make choices and honouring them; providing palliative care support at home, including end-of-life care. | To be subjected to aggressive treatments in hospital, whether to manage disease progression or prolong life. Not being able to live normally like other children, spending time with family and friends. |
| Case 3 | Need for control associated with perceived sense of helplessness and trust in the healthcare providers. Acknowledges that little that can be controlled in this situation, till late. | Infrastructure, services available, and most importantly the attitude of the healthcare staff in the hospital, all bring stability and comfort to caregivers in a chaotic situation. | |
| Case 4 | Awareness that not everything can be controlled. Hence a sense of helplessness can result, or conversely a shift in object of control is helpful. Both impact suffering, but in divergent ways. | Excellent healthcare (compared to elsewhere); palliative care at home; local burial approved. | Not having control over the situation (or making timely shifts to other objects of control) and unable to let go (come to acceptance) as stakeholders move forward along the dying trajectory. |
| Case 5 | Again, things like disease progression is beyond control, but is exercised in choosing appropriate treatment options and limiting futile interventions. At another level, there are other things that can easily be controlled, like external visitors or things at work. They can mitigate a sense of helplessness in these situations. | Chemotherapy with palliative intent (lesser side effects); parallel planning (memory making and processing anticipatory grief); nursed in single room within oncology ward till child died. | Physical distress that is not managed and being able to live ‘normally’ as a young child (to develop / play etc and be loved by everyone around him). |
Framework matrix – attributes.
| Attributes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comfort | Dying not prolonged | |
| Case 1 | To be cared for by family caregivers who know the child well, at home (where child is most at ease), and hence not subject to advance technology that exists in hospital. Dying not prolonged unnecessarily. | Especially after family is prepared. Prevent further suffering as other signs of a weakening body manifest. |
| Case 2 | Staying home and being surrounded by family; managed with healthcare interventions only when required; dying not prolonged. | To minimise further suffering that also impacts the caregivers. |
| Case 3 | Caring and supportive environment for the family, including the siblings. No unnecessary prolongation of the dying process for the child. | |
| Case 4 | Physical issues managed as a priority; trust and respect in a relationship always; dying not prolonged. | A prolonged battle adds to the suffering of everyone involved. |
| Case 5 | Control of pain and other symptoms and creating an environment in the ward that is healing (moving away from watching ‘numbers’ to enjoying life’s daily moments) rather than focusing on curing. | Prevent prolongation of the process of dying that adds to the suffering through a prior Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. |
Figure 1.Good Death – a composite perspective from family and professional caregivers.