4.4 Article

Parent and Clinician Preferences for Location of End-of-Life Care: Home, Hospital or Freestanding Hospice?

Journal

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages 859-864

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.24872

Keywords

palliative care; end of life care; paediatric oncology; quality of life

Funding

  1. Paediatric Oncology Group of Ontario

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundCurrent options for location of end-of-life (EOL) care for children with cancer include home, hospital, and freestanding pediatric hospice (FSPH). However, access to these options varies greatly depending on geographical location. We aimed to determine bereaved parent and clinician preferences for location to EOL care and death. ProcedureWe administered questionnaires to 75 bereaved parents (response rate 54%) and 48 pediatric oncology clinicians (response rate 91%) at a large teaching hospital. Main outcome measure was parent and clinician ranking for preferred location of EOL care and death if given the options of home, hospital or FSPH. ResultsMajority of parents and clinicians ranked home as their first choice for EOL care (70.2% and 87%, respectively) and death (70.8% and 89.1%, respectively). Compared to clinicians, parents gave a higher ranking to hospital (P<0.01) and lower ranking to FSPH (P<0.01) as the preferred location for EOL care and death. Congruence between actual and preferred location of EOL care was more likely when a palliative care team was involved (P<0.01) and less likely for children with haematologic malignancies (P=0.03). ConclusionsParents and clinicians prefer home as the location for EOL care and death for children with cancer. Hospital based palliative care is a preferred alternative if home is not desired. FSPH is a relatively recent phenomena and further research needs to be directed towards understanding its cost benefit in comparison to home and hospital-based EOL care. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2014;61:859-864. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available