Dataset Information

Parent and Adolescent Perspectives on the Impact of COVID on the Care of Seriously Ill Children.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Few studies have explored the impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) on the care of seriously ill children which may be especially affected due to the child's vulnerability, complexity of care, and high reliance on hospital-based care.

Objective

To explore parental and adolescent perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on care of seriously children.

Methods

We recruited a convenience sample of families of seriously ill children between September and December 2020. The study involved a semi-structured interview through Zoom followed by an online sociodemographic survey. Interviews were transcribed and coded using the constant comparison method. The sample intended to represent diversity in child age and diagnoses, and family sociodemographic characteristics.

Results

Sixty-four families were approached; 29 enrolled (response rate 45%), including 30 parents and three AYAs. Most parents and AYAs identified as white (62%). Some families reported new financial hardships, with 17.2% having difficulty paying bills after March 2020 compared to 6.9% before. Emerging themes from interviews included additional roles parents managed due to cancelled services or shifting to telehealth, increased isolation, high emotional distress due increased in-home demands, uncertainty, and visitor restrictions in medical facilities, and benefits and challenges to telehealth. One positive outcome was the use of a hybrid care model whereby families choose telehealth appointments and in-person services, when necessary.

Conclusion

Families caring for seriously ill children during COVID-19 face increased challenges. Health systems should consider long-term telehealth/in-person hybrid care models that have potential to improve access to and satisfaction with care.

SUBMITTER: Beight LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Understanding caregivers' experiences of care can identify barriers to timely and good quality care, and support the improvement of services. We aimed to explore caregivers' experiences and perceptions of pathways to care, from first access through various levels of health service, for seriously ill and injured children in Cape Town, South Africa, in order to identify areas for improvement.Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with primary caregivers of children who were admitted to paediatric intensive care or died in the health system prior to intensive care admission. Interviews explored caregivers' experiences from when their child first became ill, through each level of health care to paediatric intensive care or death. A maximum variation sample of transcripts was purposively sampled from a larger cohort study based on demographic characteristics, child diagnosis, and outcome at 30 days; and analysed using the method of constant comparison.Of the 282 caregivers who were interviewed in the larger cohort study, 45 interviews were included in this qualitative analysis. Some caregivers employed 'tactics' to gain quicker access to care, including bypassing lower levels of care, and negotiating or demanding to see a healthcare professional ahead of other patients. It was sometimes unclear how to access emergency care within facilities; and non-medical personnel informally judged illness severity and helped or hindered quicker access. Caregivers commonly misconceived ambulances to be slow to arrive, and were concerned when ambulance transfers were seemingly not prioritised by illness severity. Communication was often good, but some caregivers experienced language difficulties and/or criticism.Interventions to improve child health care could be based on: reorganising the reception of seriously ill children and making the emergency route within healthcare facilities clear; promoting caregivers' use of ambulances and prioritising transfers according to illness severity; addressing language barriers, and emphasising the importance of effective communication to healthcare providers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A variety of in-service emergency care training courses are currently being promoted as a strategy to improve the quality of care provided to seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries. Most courses have been developed in high-income countries. However, whether these courses improve the ability of health professionals to provide appropriate care in low-income countries remains unclear. This is the first update of the original review. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effects of in-service emergency care training on health professionals' treatment of seriously ill newborns and children in low-income countries. SEARCH METHODS:For this update, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com); MEDLINE, Ovid SP; EMBASE, Ovid SP; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge/Science and eight other databases. We performed database searches in February 2015. We also searched clinical trial registries, websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. We applied no date, language or publication status restrictions when conducting the searches. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted-time-series studies that compared the effects of in-service emergency care training versus usual care were eligible for inclusion. We included only hospital-based studies and excluded community-based studies. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias and confidence in effect estimates (certainty of evidence) for each outcome using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We described results and presented them in GRADE tables. MAIN RESULTS:We identified no new studies in this update. Two randomised trials (which were included in the original review) met the review eligibility criteria. In the first trial, newborn resuscitation training compared with usual care improved provider performance of appropriate resuscitation (trained 66% vs usual care 27%, risk ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75 to 3.42; moderate certainty evidence) and reduced inappropriate resuscitation (trained mean 0.53 vs usual care 0.92, mean difference 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.66; moderate certainty evidence). Effect on neonatal mortality was inconclusive (trained 28% vs usual care 25%, risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.48; N = 27 deaths; low certainty evidence). Findings from the second trial suggest that essential newborn care training compared with usual care probably slightly improves delivery room newborn care practices (assessment of breathing, preparedness for resuscitation) (moderate certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:In-service neonatal emergency care courses probably improve health professionals' treatment of seriously ill babies in the short term. Further multi-centre randomised trials evaluating the effects of in-service emergency care training on long-term outcomes (health professional practice and patient outcomes) are needed.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the perceived ethical, personal and health service benefits of advance care planning (ACP), the extent to which older and seriously ill Australian inpatients have considered future health decisions remains uncertain. This study aimed to determine in a sample of older and seriously ill inpatients, the proportion who had: 1) engaged in four advance care planning (ACP) activities; 2) not engaged in ACP activities but wanted to; and 3) reasons why they had not engaged.MethodsCross-sectional face-to-face standardised interview survey with inpatients in a tertiary referral centre who were either: aged 80+ years; aged 55+ years with progressive chronic disease(s); or judged by treating clinicians as having a life expectancy of less than 12?months. Patients indicated whether they had engaged in four ACP activities: (1) appointed medical substitute-decision-maker(s), (2) recorded end-of-life wishes in an advance directive or care plan; and talked about their end-of-life wishes with their: (3) support persons and/or (4) doctors. Patients who had not engaged in activities were asked whether they wished this to occur and reasons why.ResultsOne hundred eighty-six inpatients consented to the study (80% of approached). Of these, 9% (n?=?16) had engaged in four ACP activities; 27% (n?=?50) had not engaged in any. Half (n?=?94, 52%) had appointed a medical substitute-decision-maker, 27% (n?=?50) had recorded wishes in an advance directive or care plan, 51% (n?=?90) had talked about their end-of-life wishes with support persons and 27% (n?=?48) had talked with their doctor. Patients who wanted to, but had not, engaged in the four ACP activities were unaware they could record wishes or appoint decision-makers, or indicated providers had not initiated conversations.ConclusionRelatively few inpatients had engaged in all four ACP activities. More inpatients had discussed end of life issues with family and appointed substitute decision makers, than completed written documents or talked with doctors. Community education and a more active role for community and hospital-based providers in supporting patients and families to collaboratively resolve end-of-life decisions may increase the probability wishes are known and followed.

Project description:Importance:Although advance care planning is known to increase patient and caregiver satisfaction, its association with health care utilization is not well understood. Objective:To examine the association between billed advance care planning encounters and subsequent health care utilization among seriously ill patients. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study conducted from October 1, 2015, to May 31, 2018, used a national commercial insurance claims database to retrieve data from 18 484 Medicare Advantage members 65 years or older who had a claim that contained a serious illness diagnosis. Exposure:A claim that contained an advance care planning billing code between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Receipt of intensive therapies, hospitalization, emergency department use, hospice use, costs, and death during the 6-month follow-up period. Results:The final study sample included 18 484 seriously ill patients (mean [SD] age, 79.7 [7.9] years; 10 033 [54.3%] female), 864 (4.7%) of whom had a billed advanced care planning encounter between October 1, 2016, and November 30, 2017. In analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and a propensity score for advance care planning, the presence of a billed advance care planning encounter was associated with a higher likelihood of hospice enrollment (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.52; 95% CI, 2.22-2.86) and mortality (hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.79-2.88) compared with no billed advance care planning encounter. Although patients with billed advance care planning encounters were also more likely to be hospitalized (IRR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49), including in the intensive care unit (IRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.08-1.45), they were less likely to receive any intensive therapies (IRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92), such as chemotherapy (IRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78). Similar results were observed in a propensity score-matched analysis (99% matched) and in a decedent analysis of patients who died during the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusions and Relevance:Patients with billed advance care planning encounters were more likely than those without these encounters to receive hospice services and less likely to receive any intensive therapies, such as chemotherapy. However, they were also hospitalized more frequently than patients without billed advance care planning encounters. Although these findings were robust to multiple analytic methods, the results may be attributable to residual confounding because of a higher unmeasured severity of illness in the advance care planning group. Additional evidence appears to be needed to understand the effect of advance care planning on these outcomes.