Dataset Information

Development levels of pediatric palliative care teams and the extent of palliative care understanding and implementation among pediatric oncologists in China.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is an interdisciplinary collaboration that focuses on the prevention and relief of patient suffering. PPC has emerged as a critical field of medical expertise and practice. However, no information is available regarding the progress of PPC in the Chinese mainland.

Objective

This study investigated the geographic distribution, team structure, and services of PPC teams in the Chinese mainland. It also investigated the level of understanding and implementation among pediatric oncologists regarding PPC.

Methods

The PPC subspecialty group of the Pediatrics Society of the Chinese Medical Association included 45 PPC teams. The team structure and services were investigated using questionnaires mailed to the team leader of each PPC team. In addition, we sent questionnaires regarding the level of PPC understanding and implementation of PPC practices to 170 pediatric oncologists in 11 hospitals.

Results

The geographical distribution of PPC teams is uneven in China. Most PPC teams are concentrated in the eastern provincial capital of China. Most PPC teams had limited staff and services. The level of PPC understanding was considerably limited across all demographics; most pediatric oncologists reported "some understanding" (n = 71, 41.8%) or "poor understanding" (n = 50, 29.4%). Only 62.9% of pediatric oncologists had experience providing advice to family members regarding PPC matters.

Interpretation

China is currently experiencing a critical shortage of PPC resources. Most pediatric oncologists had a limited understanding of PPC and reported limited practical implementation of PPC, which leads to underutilization of PPC resources.

SUBMITTER: Cai S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8666946 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.BackgroundDespite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.MethodsA qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.FindingsA total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, many patients with cancer, are infrequently referred to palliative care or are referred late. Oncologists and haematologists may act as gatekeepers, and their views may facilitate or hinder referrals to palliative care. This review aimed to identify, explore and synthesise their views on referrals systematically.MethodsDatabases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for articles from 01/01/1990 to 31/12/2019. All studies were scored for their methodological rigour using Hawker's tool. Findings were synthesised using Popay's narrative synthesis method and interpreted using a critical realist lens and social exchange theory.ResultsOut of 9336 initial database citations, 23 studies were included for synthesis. Five themes were developed during synthesis. 1. Presuppositions of oncologists and haematologists about palliative care referral: Role conflict, abandonment, rupture of therapeutic alliance and loss of hope were some of the presuppositions that hindered palliative care referral. Negative emotions and perception of self-efficacy to manage palliative care need also hindered referral. 2. Power relationships and trust issues: Oncologists and haematologists preferred to gatekeep the referral process and wished to control and coordinate the care process. They had diminished trust in the competency of palliative care providers. 3. Making a palliative care referral: A daunting task: The stigma associated with palliative care, navigating illness and treatment associated factors, addressing patient and family attitudes, and overcoming organisational challenges made referral a daunting task. Lack of referral criteria and limited palliative care resources made the referral process challenging. 4. Cost-benefit of palliative care referral: Pain and symptom management and psychosocial support were the perceived benefits, whereas inconsistencies in communication and curtailment of care were some of the costs associated with palliative care referral. 5. Strategies to facilitate palliative care referral: Developing an integrated model of care, renaming and augmenting palliative care resources were some of the strategies that could facilitate a referral.ConclusionPresuppositions, power relationships, trust issues and the challenges associated with the task of referrals hindered palliative care referral. Oncologists and haematologists appraised the cost-benefit of making a palliative care referral. They felt that an integrated model of care, changing the name of palliative care and augmenting palliative care resources might facilitate a referral.