Pediatric health care is practiced with the goal of promoting the best interests of the child. Treatment generally is rendered under a presumption in favor of sustaining life. However, in some circumstances, the balance of benefits and burdens to the child leads to an assessment that forgoing life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) is ethically supportable or advisable. Parents are given wide latitude in decision-making concerning end-of-life care for their children in most situations. Collaborative decision-making around LSMT is improved by thorough communication among all stakeholders, including medical staff, the family, and the patient, when possible, throughout the evolving course of the patient's illness. Clear communication of overall goals of care is advised to promote agreed-on plans, including resuscitation status. Perceived disagreement among the team of professionals may be stressful to families. At the same time, understanding the range of professional opinions behind treatment recommendations is critical to informing family decision-making. Input from specialists in palliative care, ethics, pastoral care, and other disciplines enhances support for families and medical staff when decisions to forgo LSMT are being considered. Understanding specific applicability of institutional, regional, state, and national regulations related to forgoing LSMT is important to practice ethically within existing legal frameworks. This guidance represents an update of the 1994 statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics on forgoing LSMT.

No abstract

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.

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.