The Pediatric Palliative Improvement Network: A national Healthcare Learning Collaborative.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES: Although multiple national organizations have created consensus guidelines and metrics for pediatric palliative care (PPC), standardized implementation and measurement has been challenging. In 2016, 6 PPC physician-experts in program development and quality improvement (QI) formed a healthcare learning collaborative network entitled the Pediatric Palliative Improvement Network (PPIN). METHODS: The primary drivers identified were 1) Feasibility of a national learning network demonstrated through the completion of one small QI project, 2) Standard education in QI methodology and 3) Salient pediatric palliative care operational, clinical and satisfaction metrics clearly defined. RESULTS: PPIN now includes146 members representing 51 organizations. In 2019 the group completed a national collaborative QI project focused on pain assessment at the time of initial consult, demonstrating a national increase in pain assessment from 75.8% to >90% over 12 months. PPIN has hosted two national QI workshops training more than 50 PPC clinicians in QI, with a 2-hour webinar provided in 2020 due to COVID. Monthly calls since 2017 provide QI methods "refreshers", share local works in progress, and provide infrastructure for future collaborative projects. CONCLUSIONS: PPIN has become a sustainable organization which improves the quality of PPC through focus on national QI methods training, successful collaborative projects, and the creation of a learning and peer support community with regular calls. With the advent of the Palliative Care Quality Collaborative in 2020, PPIN provides critical educational and organizational infrastructure to inform ongoing quality efforts in PPC, now and in the future.

Pediatric Palliative Care Programs in US Hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is integral to the care of children living with serious illnesses. Despite the growth in the number of established palliative care programs over the past decade, little is known about the current operational features of PPC programs across the country. METHODS: The National Palliative Care Registry collects annualized data on palliative care programs' structures, processes, and staffing. Using data from the 2018 registry survey, we report on the operational features of inpatient PPC programs across the United States. RESULTS: Fifty-four inpatient PPC programs submitted data about their operations. Programs reported a median of 3.8 full-time equivalent staff per 10 000 hospital admissions (range 0.7-12.1) across the core interdisciplinary team, yet few (37%) met the minimum standards of practice for staffing. Programs provided more annual consults if they were longer-standing, had more interdisciplinary full-time equivalent staff, offered 24/7 availability for patients and families, or were at larger hospitals. The majority of programs reported concern for burnout (63%) and an inability to meet clinical demand with available staffing (60%). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in PPC program operations and structure in hospitals. This study affirms the need for updated program standards and guidelines, as well as research that describes how different care delivery models impact outcomes for patients, families, staff, and health care systems. Future studies that further define the clinical demand, workload, and sustainability challenges of PPC programs are necessary to foster the provision of high-quality PPC and maintain a vital clinical workforce.

Association of a pediatric palliative oncology clinic on palliative care access, timing and location of care for children with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most pediatric palliative care (PPC) services are inpatient consultation services and do not reach patients and families in the outpatient and home settings, where a vast majority of oncology care occurs. We explored whether an embedded pediatric palliative oncology (PPO) clinic is associated with receipt and timing of PPC and hospital days in the last 90 days of life. METHODS: Oncology patients (ages 0-25) with a high-risk event (death, relapse/progression, and/or phase I/II clinical trial enrollment) between 07/01/2015 and 06/30/2018 were included. PPO clinic started July 2017. Two cohorts were defined: pre-PPO (high-risk event(s) occurring 07/01/2015-06/30/2017) and post-PPO (high-risk event(s) occurring 07/01/2017-06/30/2018). Descriptive statistics were performed; demographic, disease course, and outcomes variables across cohorts were compared. RESULTS: A total of 426 patients were included (pre-PPO n = 235; post-PPO n = 191). Forty-seven patients with events in both pre- and post-PPO cohorts were included in the post-PPO cohort. Mean age at diagnosis was 8 years. Diagnoses were evenly distributed among solid tumors, brain tumors, and leukemia/lymphoma. Post-PPO cohort patients received PPC more often (45.6% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.0001), for a longer time before death than the pre-PPO cohort (median 88 vs. 32 days, p = 0.027), and spent fewer days hospitalized in the last 90 days of life (median 3 vs. 8 days, p = 0.0084). CONCLUSION: A limited-day, embedded PPO clinic was associated with receipt of PPC and spending more time at home in patients with cancer who had high-risk events. Continued improvements to these outcomes would be expected with additional oncology provider education and PPO personnel.

Lessons Learned: Identifying Items Felt To Be Critical to Leading a Pediatric Palliative Care Program in the Current Era of Program Development.

Background: The experience of starting and growing a pediatric palliative care program (PPCP) has changed over the last 10 years as rapid increases of patient volume have amplified challenges related to staffing, funding, standards of practice, team resilience, moral injury, and burnout. These challenges have stretched new directors' leadership skills, yet, guidance in the literature on identifying and managing these challenges is limited. Methods: A convenience sample of 15 PPCP directors who assumed their duties within the last 10 years were first asked the following open-ended question: What do you wish you had known before starting or taking over leadership of a PPCP? Responses were grouped into themes based on similarity of content. Participants then ranked these themes based on importance, and an online discussion further elucidated the top ten themes. Results: Thirteen directors responded (86.7%; 69% female). The median age of their current-state PPCP was 5.1 years (range: 0.3-9.3), and the median number of covered pediatric-specific hospital beds was 283 (range: 170-630). Their responses generated 51 distinct items, grouped into 17 themes. Themes ranked as most important included "Learn how to manage, not just lead," "Negotiate everything before you sign anything," and "Balance patient volume with scope of practice." Conclusion: These themes regarding challenges and opportunities PPCP directors encountered in the current era of program growth can be used as a guide for program development, a self-assessment tool for program directors, a needs-assessment for program leadership, and a blueprint for educational offerings for PPCP directors.

Simulation-Based Palliative Care Communication for Pediatric Critical Care Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric palliative care (PPC) education is lacking in pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowships, despite the desire of many program directors and fellows to expand difficult conversation training. Simulation-based training is an experiential method for practicing challenging communication skills such as breaking bad news, disclosing medical errors, navigating goals of care, and supporting medical decision-making. METHODS: We describe a simulation-based PPC communication series for PCCM fellows, including presimulation session, simulation session, debriefing, and evaluation methods. From 2011 to 2017, 28 PCCM fellows participated in a biannual half-day simulation session. Each session included 3 scenarios (allowing for participation in up to 18 scenarios over 3 years). Standardized patients portrayed the child's mother. PCCM and interprofessional PPC faculty cofacilitated, evaluated, and debriefed the fellows after each scenario. Fellows were evaluated in 4 communication categories (general skills, breaking bad news, goals of care, and resuscitation) using a 3-point scale. A retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen evaluations were completed for 18 PCCM fellows. Median scores for general communication items, breaking bad news, and goals of care ranged from 2.0 to 3.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-1) with scores for resuscitation lower at 1.0 (IQR: 1.5-2). DISCUSSION: This experiential simulation-based PPC communication curriculum taught PCCM fellows valuable palliative communication techniques although revealed growth opportunities within more complex communication tasks. The preparation, methods, and lessons learned for an effective palliative simulation curriculum can be expanded upon by other pediatric training programs, and a more rigorous research program should be added to educational series.

Palliative Care Competencies and Readiness for Independent Practice: A Report on the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Review of the U.S. Medical Licensing Step Examinations.

CONTEXT: It is unknown whether the palliative care (PC) content tested in the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step examinations reflects the consensus-developed PC competencies. OBJECTIVES: To review the USMLE step examinations to determine whether they test the PC knowledge necessary for graduating medical students and residents applying for licensure. METHODS: Eight PC physicians reviewed three complete examination forms and a focused 509-item bundle of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) identified by the USMLE content outline as potentially assessing PC content. Reviewers determined MCQs to be PC items if the patient was seriously ill and PC knowledge was required to answer correctly. PC items' competency domains were determined using reference domains from PC subspecialty consensus competencies. RESULTS: Reviewers analyzed 1090 MCQs and identified 242 (22%) as PC items. PC items were identified in each step examination. Patients in PC items were mostly males (62.8%), older than 65 years (62%), and diagnosed with cancer (43.6%). Only 6.6% and 6.2%, respectively, had end-stage heart disease or multimorbid illness. Fifty-one percent of PC items addressed ethics (31%) or communication (19.8%), focusing on patient autonomy, surrogate decision makers, or conflict between decision makers. Pain and symptom management was assessed in 28.5% of PC items, and one-third of those addressed addiction or substance use disorder. CONCLUSION: We identified PC content in each step examination. However, heart disease and multimorbidity were under-represented in PC items relative to their prevalence. In addition, there was heavy overlap with ethics, a focus on conflict in assessing communication skills, and emphasis on addiction when testing pain management. Our findings highlight opportunities to enhance testing of clinical PC skills essential for all licensed physicians practicing medicine.

Evaluating Hospice and Palliative Medicine Education in Pediatric Training Programs.

BACKGROUND: Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) competencies are of growing importance in training general pediatricians and pediatric sub-specialists. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) emphasized pediatric trainees should understand the "impact of chronic disease, terminal conditions and death on patients and their families." Currently, very little is known regarding pediatric trainee education in HPM. METHODS: We surveyed all 486 ACGME-accredited pediatric training program directors (PDs) - 200 in general pediatrics (GP), 57 in cardiology (CARD), 64 in critical care medicine (CCM), 69 in hematology-oncology (ONC) and 96 in neonatology (NICU). We collected training program's demographics, PD's attitudes and educational practices regarding HPM. RESULTS: The complete response rate was 30% (148/486). Overall, 45% offer formal HPM curriculum and 39% offer a rotation in HPM for trainees. HPM teaching modalities commonly reported included conferences, consultations and bedside teaching. Eighty-one percent of all respondents felt that HPM curriculum would improve trainees' ability to care for patients. While most groups felt that a HPM rotation would enhance trainees' education [GP (96%), CARD (77%), CCM (82%) and ONC (95%)], NICU PDs were more divided (55%; p < 0.05 for all comparisons vs. NICU). CONCLUSION: While most programs report perceived benefit from HPM training, there remains a paucity of opportunities for pediatric trainees. Passive teaching methods are frequently utilized in HPM curricula with minimal diversity in methods utilized to teach HPM. Opportunities to further emphasize HPM in general pediatric and pediatric sub-specialty training remains.

Developing competencies for pediatric hospice and palliative medicine.

In 2006, hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) became an officially recognized subspecialty. This designation helped initiate the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Outcomes Project in HPM. As part of this process, a group of expert clinician-educators in HPM defined the initial competency-based outcomes for HPM fellows (General HPM Competencies). Concurrently, these experts recognized and acknowledged that additional expertise in pediatric HPM would ensure that the competencies for pediatric HPM were optimally represented. To fill this gap, a group of pediatric HPM experts used a product development method to define specific Pediatric HPM Competencies. This article describes the development process. With the ongoing evolution of HPM, these competencies will evolve. As part of the Next Accreditation System, the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education uses milestones as a framework to better define competency-based, measurable outcomes for trainees. Currently, there are no milestones specific to HPM, although the field is designing curricular milestones with multispecialty involvement, including pediatrics. These competencies are the conceptual framework for the pediatric content in the HPM milestones. They are specific to the pediatric HPM subspecialist and should be integrated into the training of pediatric HPM subspecialists. They will serve a foundational role in HPM and should inform a wide range of emerging innovations, including the next evolution of HPM Competencies, development of HPM curricular milestones, and training of adult HPM and other pediatric subspecialists. They may also inform pediatric HPM outcome measures, as well as standards of practice and performance for pediatric HPM interdisciplinary teams.

Best practices for pediatric palliative cancer care: a primer for clinical providers.

Cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in children and adolescents. Pediatric patients with cancer suffer greatly at the end of life. However, palliative care interventions can reduce suffering and significantly improve the care of these patients and their families. A large percentage of pediatric deaths occur outside of the hospital setting where pediatric palliative resources may not be readily available. Patients in the home setting may be cared for by community hospice programs, which are typically staffed for adult populations. Increasingly, nonpediatric providers are asked to provide palliative care for children and adolescents at the end of life, yet they receive little formal training in this area. This review focuses on the principles of best practice in the provision of palliative care for children and adolescents with cancer. Our intent is to aid clinical providers in delivering optimal care to this patient population. Topics unique to pediatric palliative care that are addressed include: providing pain and symptom management in the broad pediatric range from neonate to adolescent; caring for and interacting with developmentally distinct groups; engaging in shared decision making with parents and adolescents; providing accommodations for prognoses that are often more uncertain than in adult patients; and delivering concurrent disease-directed therapy with palliative care.

Pediatric palliative care.

Palliative care has always been a part of the care of children. It includes any intervention that focuses on relieving suffering, slowing the progression of disease, and improving quality of life at any stage of disease. In addition, for even the child with the most unpredictable disease, there are predictable times in this child's life when the child, family, and care team will be suffering in ways that can be mitigated by specific interventions. Rather than defining pediatric palliative care in terms of a patient base, severity of disease, or even a general philosophy of care, palliative care can best be understood as a specific set of tasks directed at mitigating suffering. By understanding these tasks; learning to identify predictable times and settings of suffering; and learning to collaborate with multidisciplinary specialists, use communication skills, and identify clinical resources, the pediatrician can more effectively support children with life-threatening illnesses and their families. In this article, we define palliative care as a focus of care integrated in all phases of life and as a set of interventions aimed at easing suffering associated with life-threatening conditions. We detail an approach to these interventions and discuss how they can be implemented by the pediatrician with the support of specialists in hospice and palliative medicine. We discuss common and predictable times of suffering when these interventions become effective ways to treat suffering and improve quality of life. Finally, we discuss those situations that pediatricians most commonly and intensely interface with palliative care-the care of the child with complex, chronic conditions and severe neurologic impairment (SNI).

Providing care in chronic disease: the ever-changing balance of integrating palliative and restorative medicine.

Caring for children who have a chronic life-limiting illness can be emotionally and physically challenging. Just as families may struggle with whether they are making the right decisions, care providers struggle with whether they are giving the right advice, predicting the medical course correctly, and making the correct medical decisions. Uncertainty is a constant for the family and the care provider. The willingness of the care provider to develop a relationship with the family that involves continuing communication and re-evaluation of the child's condition and the family's perspective can relieve some of the emotional and physical suffering associated with a chronic disease and support the family in times of hope and grief.