Allowing Relationships to Unfold: Consult Reason and Topics Discussed in Initial and Subsequent Palliative Care Visits Among Children Who Died From Relapsed/Refractory Cancer.

Background: Children with relapsed/refractory cancer have a myriad of palliative care needs. While pediatric oncology clinicians meet many of these needs, studies suggest that these children often have distressing symptoms and that families feel unprepared for their child's end-of-life (EOL). Oncology clinicians cite barriers to pediatric palliative care (PPC) consultation, including concerns that PPC teams will upset families with EOL discussions. This study evaluated topics addressed by PPC teams over the course of their relationship with children who died from cancer. Methods: Retrospective chart review of children who were diagnosed with relapsed/refractory cancer, received PPC consultation at an academic children's hospital, and died between January 2008 and January 2017. Information was extracted regarding the child's treatment, EOL care, and the content of PPC consultation over the course of the team's relationship with the child/family. Results: Fifty-six children were included in the analysis. The most frequent reasons for the initial consult were pain (n = 31, 55%) and non-pain symptom management (n = 18, 32%). At the initial consult, the PPC team most often discussed symptom management and psychosocial support. Prognosis was not discussed in any initial consult. Over subsequent visits, the PPC team expanded their scope of discussion to include goals of care, advance care planning, and hospice. Discussion: Concerns from oncology clinicians that PPC teams will extend beyond the reasons for initial consult into prognostic/EOL discussions at the first visit may be unfounded. Greater familiarity with PPC team practices may facilitate more timely consultation of PPC and its complementary set of services.

Development and Implementation of a Clinician-Facing Prognostic Communication Tool for Patients With COVID-19 and Critical Illness.

Effective prognostication for a novel disease presents significant challenges, especially given the stress induced during a pandemic. We developed a point-of-care tool to summarize outcome data for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and help guide clinicians through a thoughtful prognostication process. Two authors reviewed studies of outcomes of patients with critical illness due to COVID-19 and created a visual infographic tool based on available data. Survival data were supplemented by descriptions of best- and worst-case clinical scenarios. The tool also included prompts for clinician reflection designed to enhance awareness of cognitive biases that may affect prognostic accuracy. This online, open-source COVID-19 Prognostication Tool has been made available to all clinicians at our institution and is updated weekly to reflect evolving data. Our COVID-19 Prognostication Tool may provide a useful approach to promoting consistent and high-quality prognostic communication across a health care system.

Insurance impacts survival for children, adolescents, and young adults with bone and soft tissue sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: While racial/ethnic survival disparities have been described in pediatric oncology, the impact of income has not been extensively explored. We analyzed how public insurance influences 5-year overall survival (OS) in young patients with sarcomas. METHODS: The University of California San Francisco Cancer Registry was used to identify patients aged 0-39 diagnosed with bone or soft tissue sarcomas between 2000 and 2015. Low-income patients were defined as those with no insurance or Medicaid, a means-tested form of public insurance. Survival curves were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests and Cox models. Causal mediation was used to assess whether the association between public insurance and mortality is mediated by metastatic disease. RESULTS: Of 1106 patients, 39% patients were classified as low-income. Low-income patients were more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities and to present with metastatic disease (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.35-2.86). Low-income patients had significantly worse OS (61% vs 71%). Age at diagnosis and extent of disease at diagnosis were also independent predictors of OS. When stratified by extent of disease, low-income patients consistently had significantly worse OS (localized: 78% vs 84%, regional: 64% vs 73%, metastatic: 23% vs 30%, respectively). Mediation analysis indicated that metastatic disease at diagnosis mediated 15% of the effect of public insurance on OS. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income patients with bone and soft tissue sarcomas had decreased OS regardless of disease stage at presentation. The mechanism by which insurance status impacts survival requires additional investigation, but may be through reduced access to care.