No abstract

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 preand 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.

PURPOSE: Most pediatric palliative care (PPC) education is trainee-directed, didactic, or simulation-based and therefore limited in scope, realism, and audience. We explored whether an embedded pediatric palliative oncology (PPO) clinic is associated with improved pediatric oncology provider palliative care comfort, knowledge, and attitudes toward PPC and if the model is feasible for both clinical care and education of providers of all levels. METHODS: Oncology providers (oncologists, advanced practice providers, and fellows) were enrolled in this study. Based on interaction with the PPO clinic, two cohorts were defined: PPO providers (n = 11, 37.9%) and non-PPO providers (n = 18, 62.1%). Providers in both groups responded to qualitative and quantitative questionnaires about the feasibility and acceptability of PPO clinic, their attitudes toward PPC, and knowledge and comfort in PPC concepts at baseline and 1 year. Descriptive statistics were performed; demographic and outcome variables across cohorts by PPO grouping and experience were compared. RESULTS: All 29 pediatric oncology providers reported acceptability of a PPO clinic and favorable attitudes about PPC. The most feasible clinic model was oncology followed by PPO visits. Non-PPO group and less experienced (≤ 10 years) providers had greater improvement in knowledge and comfort with PPC skills than PPO group or more experienced providers. Providers lacked comfort in non-pain symptom management skills. CONCLUSION: This embedded PPO clinic model was feasible, acceptable, and highly rated by responding oncology clinicians, but was insufficient as a sole method of educating multidisciplinary oncology providers. Methods of combining clinical and formal education are needed to impart sustained educational change.

No abstract

No abstract