A portable survivorship care plan: a tool that helps educate and improve knowledge in childhood cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: There is a growing population of survivors of childhood cancer at risk for late effects that can affect their overall quality of life. There is evidence that they have inadequate knowledge about their diagnosis, treatment, and subsequent late effects. A randomized study was conducted to determine if a portable credit card-sized plastic card, the "Survivor Healthcare Passport," improved the survivor's knowledge of diagnosis, treatment, risks, and follow-up care. The study included 126 patients 2 years post-end of cancer treatment and took place at the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Survivorship Clinic. METHODS: Patients attending the UCSF Survivorship clinic were randomized to receive or not receive a passport at their first survivorship clinic visit. Each groups' knowledge of diagnosis, treatment history, and follow-up needs was assessed at three time points with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients who received the passport distributed immediately after their visit demonstrated improved and sustained knowledge compared with survivors who did not receive the passport until more than 4 months later. CONCLUSION: Enhancing a survivor's knowledge is an important endeavor and a continual challenge for practitioners in survivorship clinics. This portable educational tool helps improve patient knowledge of their cancer, therapy, and follow-up needs. By providing a tangible card that is quick and easy to access, survivors have access to their treatment late effects and follow-up needs that can also be shared with other healthcare providers.

Unrealistic parental expectations for cure in poor-prognosis childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many parents of children with advanced cancer pursue curative goals when cure is no longer possible. To the authors' knowledge, no pediatric studies to date have prospectively evaluated prognosis communication or influences on decision making in poor-prognosis childhood cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective cohort study at 9 pediatric cancer centers that enrolled 95 parents of children with recurrent or refractory, high-risk neuroblastoma (63% of those who were approached), a condition for which cure rarely is achieved. Parents were surveyed regarding the child's likelihood of cure; their primary goal of care; the child's symptoms, suffering, and quality of life; and regret concerning the last treatment decision. Medical records identified care and treatment decisions. RESULTS: Only 26% of parents recognized that the chance of cure was <25%. When asked to choose a single most important goal of care, approximately 72% chose cure, 10% chose longer life, and 18% chose quality of life. Parents were more likely to prioritize quality of life when they recognized the child's poor prognosis (P = .002). Approximately 41% of parents expressed regret about the most recent treatment decision. Parents were more likely to experience regret if the child had received higher intensity medical care (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% CI, 1.31-7.51), experienced suffering with limited benefit from the most recent treatment (OR, 4.78; 95% CI, 1.16-19.72), or experienced suffering from symptoms (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.18-7.16). CONCLUSIONS: Parents of children with poor-prognosis cancer frequently make decisions based on unrealistic expectations. New strategies for effective prognosis communication are needed.

Barriers to Pediatric Palliative Care: Trainee and Faculty Perspectives Across Two Academic Centers.

Objective: Barriers to palliative care for children with serious illness include system constraints and vastly different training and attitudes toward palliative care. This study aimed to explore trainee and faculty physician perceptions of barriers to palliative care across two pediatric centers to (1) examine differences between trainees and faculty and (2) compare these data with previous studies. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted in fall 2021 among pediatric trainees and faculty physicians at three pediatric hospitals in two pediatric centers in the western United States. Surveys were distributed through hospital listservs and analyzed descriptively and through inductive thematic analysis. Results: There were a total of 268 participants: 50 trainees and 218 faculty physicians. Of the trainees, 46% (23) were fellows and 54% (27) were pediatric residents. Trainees and faculty reported the same four most common barriers, which were consistent with previous studies: family not ready to acknowledge an incurable condition (64% trainees and 45% faculty); family preference for more life-sustaining therapies than staff (52% and 39%); uncertain prognosis (48% and 38%); and parent discomfort with possibility of hastening death (44% and 30%). Other barriers commonly reported included time constraints, staff shortages, and conflict among family about treatment goals. Language barriers and cultural differences were also cited. Conclusions: This study examining palliative care across two pediatric centers suggests that providers' perceptions of family preferences and understanding of illness persist as barriers to the delivery of pediatric palliative care services. Future research should examine family-centered and culturally mindful interventions to better elucidate family perspectives on their child's illness to align care.

A Reversed Trend: Care for Limited English Proficiency Patients in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies in pediatric emergency departments (EDs) showed patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) had gaps in care compared with English-speaking patients. In 2010, the Joint Commission released patient-centered communication standards addressing these gaps. We evaluate the current care of LEP patients in the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (CHOA) EDs. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients <18 years that presented to our EDs in 2016. Length of stay (LOS), change in triage status, return-visit rates, and hospital disposition were compared between patients who requested an interpreter and those who did not. RESULTS: The population included 152,945 patients from 232,787 ED encounters in 2016. Interpreters were requested for 12.1% of encounters. For ED LOS, a model-adjusted difference of 0.77% was found between interpreter groups. For change in triage status, adjusted odds were 7% higher in the interpreter requested cohort. For ED readmission within 7 days, adjusted odds were 3% higher in the interpreter requested cohort. These effect sizes are small (ES < 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed low ES of the differences in ED metrics between LEP and English-speaking patients, suggesting little clinical difference between the two groups. The impact of this improvement should be further studied.