21 Introducing Home-Based Palliative Care and Hospice
The majority of children who die in the United States do not die at home. Nearly three-fourths of pediatric deaths occur in the hospital, mostly in intensive care units (ICUs) where aggressive, life-sustaining medical therapy is typically provided.1 Home-based palliative care and hospice programs serve less than a third of the children who die, and the majority of those hospice agencies do not have specially trained pediatric teams. Even when this specialized service is available in the community, it is often underused.
The number of children who die at home as a result of complex chronic conditions has been steadily increasing during the last twenty years. The growing number of these children has been cited as a justification to expand the capacity for home-based hospice and home-nursing care in order to meet the increasing palliative care needs of these complicated pediatric patients.2
In 2008, the availability of home-based hospice care was demonstrated to have an indirect positive effect on the quality of end-of-life experience and bereavement. The study showed that families of children with severe life-limiting illnesses who have home care available are five times more likely to participate in the planning of their child’s location of death. The opportunity to plan was associated with better experiences at the end of life and less prolonged grief afterward.3
Recognizing the Barriers to Palliative Care
Constraints within our medical culture include limited financial resources for specialized pediatric palliative care, limited access in rural regions, lack of research and evidence-based guidelines, and lack of provider training and expertise. These barriers are best addressed at the level of resource allocation, policy, local and governmental advocacy, and curriculum development.4 There has been a gratifying, if small, increase in the awareness of these issues in the last decade but clearly the gains accomplished so far have only advanced the frequency of referrals by a small amount.
The barriers to palliative care and hospice referral that are related to clinical practice are more subtle. In 2008, Davies and colleagues identified 26 barriers to palliative care referral within a large pediatric teaching hospital. The five most frequently cited barriers from the providers’ perspective were uncertainty of prognosis, families not being ready to acknowledge the incurable condition, language barriers, time constraints, and families’ preferences for life-sustaining care.1
Uncertainty of prognosis is much more common in pediatric patients than in adults. In most pediatric palliative care programs, cancer represents less than half of all diagnostic groups. Children with chronic and complex life-limiting conditions now represent a wide variety of illnesses, including those caused by prematurity, congenital disorders of every organ system, neurodegenerative abnormalities, and malignancies. All of these disorders are relatively rare and often do not lend themselves to accurate predictions about either the response to treatment or the likelihood of survival. This uncertainty can lead to confusion that undermines the goals of care and leads to a “dichotomous cure vs. palliative care” approach.1 In this framework neither parents nor medical teams are willing to pursue palliative care or hospice until all are sure that no curative option exists. Thus referral occurs inevitably late when the opportunity to plan and arrange for quality care at the end of life may no longer be possible. Uncertainty also has the ability to undermine the medical team’s credibility with families who expect expert medical personnel to be able to predict the natural history of their child’s disease. Uncertainty over prognosis in this situation can erode the family’s trust, it can impede the development of consensus for care, and delay spiritual and psychosocial support, all of which may contribute to increased suffering.
The death of a child is never within the natural order of things and is therefore “always out of season.”5 It is not surprising then that the second- and fifth-most common barriers to referral are the families’ lack of readiness to acknowledge an incurable condition and families’ preference for life-sustaining treatment. There is considerable overlap among these barriers. Families are often confronted with unexpected reversals, idiosyncratic responses to therapy and plateaus of relative stability that inspire them to hope for a positive resolution of their child’s disease. Their best hopes for recovery are often supported by the promises of the latest treatment and the newest technology or by the recounting of miraculous recoveries promoted by the media and the hospital’s own marketing department. At times, some members of the clinical care team are unable to stop aggressive medical treatment, even while they are discussing end-of-life options, because they cannot know with absolute certainty that a child will die. This mixed message adds to the family’s uncertainty. The medical team often recognizes a terminal prognosis before families do.6 Bridging the gap between the team’s and the family’s understanding of the child’s terminal diagnosis is difficult. If done too abruptly it can create tension between the staff and family; if it is delayed and aggressive curative care is continued beyond the limits of perceived benefit, then both the staff and the family can suffer acute moral distress.7 There is growing evidence that the introduction of skilled communicators at this point may facilitate clearer understanding of the prognosis and promote a unified approach to goals of care.