Search

Abstract Background In paediatric palliative care, children with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions, their families, and their health care professionals often face difficult decisions about treatment, goals of care, and delivery of care. Advance care planning and shared decision-making are strategies that can improve quality of care by discussing goals and preferences on future care. In this paper, we provide recommendations that aim to optimise advance care planning and shared decision-making in paediatric palliative care in the Netherlands. Methods A multidisciplinary guideline panel of 20 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents was established to develop recommendations on advance care planning and shared decision-making. We performed systematic literature searches to identify quantitative and qualitative evidence and used the GRADE (CERQual) methodology for appraisal of evidence. Recommendations were formulated based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, clinical expertise, and patient and family experiences. Results We identified 4 RCTs that reported on the effect of advance care planning interventions in paediatric palliative care and 33 qualitative studies on barriers and facilitators to advance care planning and shared decision-making. We formulated 28 strong recommendations in close collaboration with a multidisciplinary guideline panel that provide guidance to offer advance care planning and shared decision-making, involve children and their family, and communicate information about care and treatment. Conclusion The identified evidence and recommendations support the use of advance care planning and shared decision-making in paediatric palliative care. However, we found several knowledge gaps that should be addressed. As advance care planning and shared decision-making require specific skills and can be time-consuming, we emphasise the importance of education, adequate staffing and sufficient funding to improve integration in clinical practice. We do believe that our recommendations can be used as a starting point to develop recommendations in other countries. However, country-specific factors should be very carefully considered before applying any recommendations in other countries.

Background: The Individual Care Plan (ICP) for pediatric palliative care translates the general guideline recommendations into a personalized plan for the child. Various documents exist in pediatrics globally, aimed at facilitating anticipatory care or coordinating end-of-life care. The ICP aims both, but user experiences have not been studied post-development. Objective: The overall aim is to enhance knowledge and understanding of the content of the ICP from the perspectives of parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Design and method: We conducted a mixed-method study using a convergent parallel design consisting of questionnaires and individual and focus group interviews among parents and HCPs having user experience with the ICP. The questionnaire and interview data were analyzed separately. Quantitative data were descriptively analyzed using mean, ±SD, and median. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed. A narrative approach and joint display were used to describe the results. Results: In total, 27 parents and 161 HCPs participated. Overall, the content of the ICP was seen as important and complete, but changes and additions were called for on language, structure, and content. The chapter on the needs and wishes of child and parents was considered most important. HCPs would like to see this chapter expanded to incorporate more advance care planning outcomes, and parents wished for this chapter to reflect better who their child is. HCPs mentioned missing a chapter for palliative sedation, mainly to guide other HCPs. The ICP was appraised as not user-friendly and might possibly improve by making the ICP available in a secure digital environment. Conclusion: To meet the needs of parents and HCPs considering importance and completeness of the content of the ICP and its user-friendliness, changes are necessary in the content of the ICP, and preferably the ICP should be made digitally available. Although various documents exist globally to facilitate anticipatory care or coordinating end-of-life care, it appears that the combination of describing the values and preferences of the child and parents, along with medical decisions and life-sustaining treatments, makes the ICP a unique and comprehensive care plan.

Abstract Background Children with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions can experience high levels of suffering due to multiple distressing symptoms that result in poor quality of life and increase risk of long-term distress in their family members. High quality symptom treatment is needed for all these children and their families, even more so at the end-of-life. In this paper, we provide evidence-based recommendations for symptom treatment in paediatric palliative patients to optimize care. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of 56 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents was established to develop recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care including anxiety and depression, delirium, dyspnoea, haematological symptoms, coughing, skin complaints, nausea and vomiting, neurological symptoms, pain, death rattle, fatigue, paediatric palliative sedation and forgoing hydration and nutrition. Recommendations were based on evidence from a systematic literature search, additional literature sources (such as guidelines), clinical expertise, and patient and family values. We used the GRADE methodology for appraisal of evidence. Parents were included in the guideline panel to ensure the representation of patient and family values. Results We included a total of 18 studies that reported on the effects of specific (non) pharmacological interventions to treat symptoms in paediatric palliative care. A few of these interventions showed significant improvement in symptom relief. This evidence could only (partly) answer eight out of 27 clinical questions. We included 29 guidelines and two textbooks as additional literature to deal with lack of evidence. In total, we formulated 221 recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care based on evidence, additional literature, clinical expertise, and patient and family values. Conclusion Even though available evidence on symptom-related paediatric palliative care interventions has increased, there still is a paucity of evidence in paediatric palliative care. We urge for international multidisciplinary multi-institutional collaboration to perform high-quality research and contribute to the optimization of symptom relief in palliative care for all children worldwide.

Introduction Early recognition of clinical deterioration and timely intervention are important to improve morbidity and mortality in paediatric care. The Paediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS) is a scoring system aiming to identify hospitalised children at risk for deterioration. Currently, there is a large heterogeneity of PEWS systems in the Netherlands, with a considerable number remaining unvalidated or self-designed. Therefore, a consensus-based Dutch PEWS has been developed in a national study using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. The Dutch PEWS is a uniform system that integrates a core set of vital parameters together with pre-existing risk factors and uses risk stratification to proactively follow-up on patients at risk (so-called ‘watcher patients’). This study aims to validate the Dutch PEWS and to determine its impact on improving patient safety in various hospital settings.Methods and analysis This national study will be a large multicentre evaluation study, in which the Dutch PEWS will be implemented and evaluated in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. In this study, a mixed methods methodology will be used and evaluated on predefined outcome measures. To examine the validity of the Dutch PEWS, statistical analyses will be undertaken on quantitative data retrieved from electronic health records. Surveys among physicians and nurses; semistructured interviews with healthcare providers and parents; and daily evaluation forms are being conducted to determine the impact of the Dutch PEWS. The study is being conducted from December 2020 to June 2024.

Abstract Background Provision of paediatric palliative care for children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions and their families is often complex. Guidelines can support professionals to deliver high quality care. Stakeholders expressed the need to update the first Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline with new scientific literature and new topics. This paper provides an overview of the methodology that is used for the revision of the Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline and a brief presentation of the identified evidence. Methods The revised paediatric palliative care guideline was developed with a multidisciplinary guideline panel of 72 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents of children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions. The guideline covered multiple topics related to (refractory) symptom treatment, advance care planning and shared-decision making, organisation of care, psychosocial care, and loss and bereavement. We established six main working groups that formulated 38 clinical questions for which we identified evidence by updating two existing systematic literature searches. The GRADE (CERQual) methodology was used for appraisal of evidence. Furthermore, we searched for additional literature such as existing guidelines and textbooks to deal with lack of evidence. Results The two systematic literature searches yielded a total of 29 RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs on paediatric palliative care interventions and 22 qualitative studies on barriers and facilitators of advance care planning and shared decision-making. We identified evidence for 14 out of 38 clinical questions. Furthermore, we were able to select additional literature (29 guidelines, two textbooks, and 10 systematic reviews) to deal with lack of evidence. Conclusions The revised Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline addresses many topics. However, there is limited evidence to base recommendations upon. Our methodology will combine the existing evidence in scientific literature, additional literature, expert knowledge, and perspectives of patients and their families to provide recommendations.

Background/Objective: The Individual Care Plan (ICP) for pediatric palliative care was developed to provide person-centered care for the individual child and family. Currently, a lack of clarity remains regarding the use and function of the ICP in daily practice. To further implement the ICP, it is important to identify how parents and healthcare professionals use the ICP and which obstacles or benefits are experienced. Methods: This mixed-method study used qualitative interviews and quantitative questionnaires in (bereaved) parents and healthcare professionals with experience with the ICP. Results: Parents and healthcare professionals used the ICP to establish a joint plan for care and treatment of the child to coordinate care and to achieve child- and family-centered care. This includes both obstacles that complicate achieving care goals and benefits that make it easier. Furthermore, responsibilities for the ICP remained unclear, and there was no set point in the illness trajectory for drawing up the ICP. Conclusions: Parents and healthcare professionals use the ICP as intended. However, uncertainties regarding timing, roles and responsibilities prevent optimal use of the ICP. Agreements on timing and responsibilities are needed for further ICP implementation in daily pediatric palliative care practice.

Abstract Background For the early recognition of deteriorating patients several Pediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS) systems have been developed with the assumption that early detection can prevent further deterioration. Although PEWS are widely being used in hospitals in the Netherlands, there is no national consensus on which score to use and how to embed the score into a PEWS system. This resulted in a substantial heterogeneity of PEWS systems, of which many are unvalidated or self-designed. The primary objective of this study was to develop a pragmatic consensus-based PEWS system that can be utilized in all Dutch hospitals (University Medical Centers, teaching hospitals, and general hospitals). Methods This study is an iterative mixed-methods study. The methods from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative were used and consisted of two Delphi rounds, two inventories set out to all Dutch hospitals and a focus group session with parents. The study was guided by five expert meetings with different stakeholders and a final consensus meeting that resulted in a core PEWS set. Results The first Delphi round was completed by 292 healthcare professionals, consisting of pediatric nurses and physicians. In the second Delphi round 217 healthcare professionals participated. Eventually, the core PEWS set was been developed comprising of the parameters work of breathing, respiratory rate, oxygen therapy, heart rate and capillary refill time, and AVPU (Alert, Verbal, Pain, and Unresponsive). In addition, risk stratification was added to the core set with standardized risk factors consisting of [1] worried signs from healthcare professionals and parents and [2] high-risk treatment, with the option to add applicable local defined risk factors. Lastly, the three categories of risk stratification were defined (standard, medium, and high risk) in combination with standardized actions of the professionals for each category. Conclusion This study demonstrates a way to end a country’s struggle with PEWS heterogeneity by co-designing a national Dutch PEWS system. Currently, the power of the system is being investigated in a large multi-center study in the Netherlands.

Introduction Integrated care is seen as an enabling strategy in organising healthcare to improve quality, finances, personnel and sustainability. Developments in the organisation of maternity care follow this trend. The way care is organised should support the general aims and outcomes of healthcare systems. Organisation itself consists of a variety of smaller ‘elements of organisation’. Various elements of organisation are implemented in different organisations and networks. We will examine which elements of integrated maternity care are associated with maternal and neonatal health outcomes, experiences of women and professionals, healthcare spending and care processes.Methods and analysis We will conduct this review using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the reporting guideline PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews). We will undertake a systematic search in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and PsycINFO. A machine learning tool, ASReview, will be used to select relevant papers. These papers will be analysed and classified thematically using the framework of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC). The Population Concept Context framework for scoping reviews will be used in which ‘Population’ is defined as elements of the organisation of integrated maternity care, ‘Context’ as high-income countries and ‘Concepts’ as outcomes stated in the objective of this review. We will include papers from 2012 onwards, in Dutch or English language, which describe both ‘how the care is organised’ (elements) and ‘outcomes’.Ethics and dissemination Since this is a scoping review of previously published summary data, ethical approval for this study is not needed. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed international journal, discussed in a webinar and presented at (inter)national conferences and meetings of professional associations.The findings of this scoping review will give insight into the nature and effectiveness of elements of integrated care and will generate hypotheses for further research.

Introduction In children, open inguinal hernia repair has been the gold standard for treatment, but with recent technical advancements in laparoscopy, laparoscopic hernia repair is gaining popularity. Despite available results from comparative studies, there is still no consensus regarding the superiority of open versus laparoscopic treatment strategy. An important reason for lack of consensus is the large heterogeneity in the trials’ reported outcomes and outcome definitions, which limits comparisons between studies and precludes conclusions regarding the superiority of treatment strategies. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) is a solution for this heterogeneity in the selection, measurement and reporting of trial outcome measures across studies. Currently, there is no COS for the treatment of paediatric inguinal hernia.Methods and analysis The aim of this project is to reach international consensus on a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials investigating inguinal hernia repair in children. The development process comprises three phases. First, we identify outcome domains associated with paediatric inguinal hernia repair from a patient perspective and through a systematic review of the literature using EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Second, we conduct a three-step Delphi study to identify and prioritise ‘core’ outcomes for the eventual minimal set. In the third phase, an expert meeting is held to establish the final COS and develop implementation strategies with participants from all stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals, parents and patients’ representatives. The final COS will be reported in accordance with the COS-Standards for Reporting statement.Ethics and dissemination The medical research ethics committee of the Amsterdam UMC confirmed that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and that full approval by the committee is not required. Electronic informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed academic journals and at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021281422.

Introduction Paediatric palliative care (PPC) is care for children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions, and can involve complex high-tech care, which can last for months or years. In 2015, the National Individual Care Plan (ICP) for PPC was developed and has shown to be successful. The ICP can be seen as an instrument to facilitate coordination, quality and continuity of PPC. However, in practice, an ICP is often completed too late and for too few children. We aim to improve the coordination, quality and continuity of care for every child with a life-threatening or life-limiting condition and his/her family by further developing and implementing the ICP in the Netherlands.Methods and analysis To evaluate the original ICP, ICP 1.0, interviews and questionnaires will be held among parents of children who have or have had an ICP 1.0 and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who used ICP 1.0. Based on the results, ICP 1.0 will be further developed. An implementation strategy will be written and the renewed ICP, ICP 2.0, will be nationally tested in an implementation period of approximately 7 months. During the implementation period, ICP 2.0 will be used for all children who are registered with Children’s Palliative Care teams. After the implementation period, ICP 2.0 will be evaluated using interviews and questionnaires among parents of children who received ICP 2.0 and HPCs who worked with ICP 2.0. Based on these results, ICP 2.0 will be further optimised into the final version: ICP 3.0.Ethics and dissemination This study received ethical approval. The ICP 3.0 will be disseminated through the Dutch Centre of Expertise in Children’s Palliative Care, to ensure wide availability for the general public and HCPs within PPC. Additionally, we aim to publish study results in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and to present results at national and international scientific meetings.

Background Children’s views of health were explored in order to develop a health dialogue tool for children.Methods A qualitative research design was used as part of a codesign process. Based on semi-structured interviews with both healthy children and children with a chronic condition (aged 8–18). Two approaches were applied. The first was an open exploration of children’s views on health, which was then thematically analysed. Subsequently, a framework was used, based on the six-dimensional My Positive Health (MPH) dialogue tool for adults, to guide the second part of the interviews, focusing on reviewing the children’s view on health within the context of the framework. For the final draft of the dialogue tool, a framework analysis was conducted and then validated by members of the ‘children’s council’ of the Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital.Results We interviewed 65 children, 45 of whom had a chronic condition and 20 were healthy. The children described a broad concept of health with the central themes of ‘feeling good about yourself’ and ‘being able to participate’. Based on the subsequent framework analysis, the wording of two of the six dimensions of the MPH dialogue tool was adjusted and the related aspects were adapted for better alignment with the children’s concept of health. After these modifications, the tool fully matched the children’s concept of health.Conclusion The MPH dialogue tool for children was developed for children with and without a chronic condition, to help them open up about what they consider important for their health and well-being, and to improve directorship over decisions and actions that would affect their health. The MPH dialogue tool aims to support healthcare professionals in providing the type of care and treatment that is in line with the needs of their young patients/clients.