1 Divisions of Palliative Care and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital and Medical Center , Omaha, Nebraska.
2 Center for Clinical and Translational Research and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute , Seattle, Washington.
J Palliat Med. 2018 Apr;21(4):452-462. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2017.0405. Epub 2017 Nov 27.
Little is known about the composition, availability, integration, communication, perceived barriers, and work load of pediatric palliative care (PPC) providers serving children and adolescents with cancer.
To summarize the structure and services of programs to better understand successes and gaps in implementing palliative care as a standard of care.
Cross-sectional online survey about the palliative care domains determined by the Psychosocial Care of Children with Cancer and Their Families Workgroup.
A total of 142 surveys were completed with representation from 18 countries and 39 states.
Three-fourths of sites reported having a PPC program available for the pediatric cancer population at their center. Over one-fourth (28%) have been in existence less than five years. Fewer than half of sites (44%) offered 24/7 access to palliative care consultations. Neither hospital-based nor local community hospice services were available for pediatric patients at 24% of responding sites. A specific inpatient PPC unit was available at 8% of sites. Criteria for automatic palliative referrals ("trigger" diagnoses) were reported by 44% respondents. The presence of such "triggers" increased the likelihood of palliative principle introduction 3.41 times (p < 0.003). Six percent of respondents perceived pediatric oncology patients and their families "always" were introduced to palliative care concepts and 17% reported children and families "always" received communication about palliative principles. The most prevalent barriers to palliative care were at the provider level.
Children and adolescents with cancer do not yet receive concurrent palliative care as a universal standard.
对于服务于癌症儿童和青少年的儿科姑息治疗(PPC)提供者的组成、可用性、整合、沟通、感知障碍和工作量,我们知之甚少。
总结计划的结构和服务,以更好地了解在将姑息治疗作为标准护理实施方面的成功和差距。
对癌症儿童及其家庭心理社会护理工作组确定的姑息治疗领域进行横断面在线调查。
共有 142 份调查完成,代表来自 18 个国家和 39 个州的情况。
四分之三的站点报告称,其中心有针对儿科癌症患者的 PPC 计划。超过四分之一(28%)的计划存在不到五年。不到一半的站点(44%)提供 24/7 姑息治疗咨询服务。在 24%的应答站点,医院或当地社区临终关怀服务均不可用于儿科患者。8%的站点提供特定的住院 PPC 病房。44%的受访者报告了自动姑息转介的标准(“触发”诊断)。存在这些“触发”因素使引入姑息原则的可能性增加了 3.41 倍(p < 0.003)。6%的受访者认为儿科肿瘤患者及其家属“总是”接受姑息治疗理念,17%的受访者报告称,儿童和家庭“总是”收到姑息原则的沟通。姑息治疗最普遍的障碍是在提供者层面。
癌症儿童和青少年尚未普遍接受姑息治疗作为标准治疗。