While caring for seriously ill children is a rewarding experience, pediatric healthcare providers may experience sadness and emotional distress when their patient dies. These feelings, particularly when not addressed, can lead to negative health and occupational outcomes. Remembrance practices can provide a safe space for staff to process their grief. This study explored pediatric healthcare providers’ perceptions of an annual Pediatric Remembrance Ceremony (PRC) and a quarterly program, Good Grief and Chocolate at Noon (GGCN), to learn what components of the programs were considered meaningful and the personal impact on those who attended. The programs pivoted to a virtual platform during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the study also assessed providers’ perspectives of attending the programs virtually.

A 19 multiple choice survey instrument was designed, reviewed, piloted, revised, and re-piloted by an interdisciplinary bereavement committee prior to administration. The survey included 2 open-ended questions, inviting additional insights into personal impact and future directions for remembrance programs. The survey was administered on an encrypted online platform.

Components of the PRC respondents most valued included the opportunity for staff to choose a name of a patient they cared for and to light a candle for that patient as their name is read. Those who participated in GGCN found story sharing helpful, along with having a speaker address a topic around loss and grief during the second half of the session. Both programs provided reflection, solidarity, and memorialization. Most respondents prefer having both in-person and virtual options.

Healthcare providers are affected by the death of the children they care for and value opportunities provided to join colleagues in remembering their patients. The findings underscore the value of remembrance programs in supporting bereaved staff.

To determine whether engaging in advance care planning (ACP) using a formal tool, Voicing My CHOiCES (VMC), would alleviate adolescent and young adults (AYAs) anxiety surrounding ACP and increase social support and communication about end-of-life care preferences with family members and health care providers (HCPs).

A total of 149 AYAs aged 18–39 years receiving cancer-directed therapy or treatment for another chronic medical illness were enrolled at seven US sites. Baseline data included prior ACP communication with family members and HCPs and measures of generalized anxiety, ACP anxiety, and social support. Participants critically reviewed each page of VMC and then completed three pages of the document. ACP anxiety was measured again immediately after the completion of VMC pages. One month later, participants repeated anxiety and social support measures and were asked if they shared what they had completed in VMC with a family member or HCP.

At baseline, 50.3% of participants reported that they previously had a conversation about EoL preferences with a family member; 19.5% with an HCP. One month later, 65.1% had subsequently shared what they wrote in VMC with a family member; 8.9% shared with an HCP. Most (88.6%) reported they would not have had this conversation if not participating in the study. No significant changes occurred in social support. There was an immediate drop in anxiety about EoL planning after reviewing VMC which persisted at 1 month. Generalized anxiety was also significantly lower 1 month after reviewing VMC.

Having a document specifically created for AYAs to guide ACP planning can decrease anxiety and increase communication with family members but not necessarily with HCPs. Future research should examine ways ACP can be introduced more consistently to this young population to allow their preferences for care to be heard, respected, and honored, particularly by their healthcare providers.

Parents of seriously ill children worry about their vulnerable child contracting COVID-19, whether their child's palliative care providers will be able to continue to provide the same quality of care to their child, and who can be with the child to provide comfort. For providers, shifts in healthcare provision, communication formats, and support offerings for families facing distress or loss during the pandemic may promote providers’ moral distress. This study aimed to define the ways that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted end-of-life care and approach to bereavement care in pediatric palliative care (PPC).

The Palliative Assessment of Needed DEvelopments and Modifications In the Era of Coronavirus (PANDEMIC) survey was developed to learn about the PPC experience during COVID-19 in the United States. The survey was posted with permission on seven nationally focused Listservs.

A total of 207 PPC team members from 80 cities within 39 states and the District of Columbia participated. In the majority of hospitals, admitted pediatric patients were only allowed one parent as a visitor with the exception of both parents or nuclear family at end of life. Creative alternatives to grief support and traditional funeral services were described. The high incidence of respondents’ depicted moral distress was often focused on an inability to provide a desired level of care due to existing rules and policies and bearing witness to patient and family suffering enhanced by the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the provision of end-of-life care and bereavement for children, family caregivers, and PPC providers. Our results identify tangible limitations of restricted personal contact and the pain of watching families stumble through a stunted grieving process. It is imperative that we find solutions for future global challenges and to foster solidarity in PPC.

Clinicians and parents are encouraged to have open and honest communication about end of life with children with cancer, yet there remains limited research in this area. We examined family communication and preferred forms of support among bereaved caregivers of children with cancer.

Bereaved caregivers were recruited through a closed social media group to complete an online survey providing retrospective reports of end of life communication with their child and preferences for communication support from health-care providers. The sample of 131 participants was mostly female (77.9%; n = 102) with an average age of 49.15 (SD = 8.03) years. Deceased children were of an average age of 12.42 years (SD = 6.01) and nearly 90% of children died within 5 years of diagnosis.

Most caregivers spoke with their child about their prognosis (61.8%; n = 131) and death (66.7%; n = 99). Half of children (48%; n = 125) asked about death, particularly older children (51.9% ≥12 years; p = 0.03). Asking about dying was related to having conversations about prognosis (p ≤ 0.001) and death (p ≤ 0.001). Most caregivers (71.8%; n = 94) wanted support to talk to their children. Fewer wanted providers to speak to children directly (12.2%; n = 16) or to be present while caregivers spoke to the child (19.8%; n = 26). Several themes emerged from a content analysis of open-ended responses regarding preferences for provider support.

Most caregivers discussed issues pertaining to end of life irrespective of demographic or medical factors. Qualitative themes provide insight into support desired by families to help with these difficult conversations.

To determine the preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and effects of Meaning-Centered Grief Therapy (MCGT) for parents who lost a child to cancer.

Parents who lost a child to cancer and who were between six months and six years after loss and reporting elevated levels of prolonged grief were enrolled in open trials of MCGT, a manualized, one-on-one cognitive-behavioral-existential intervention that used psychoeducation, experiential exercises, and structured discussion to explore themes related to meaning, identity, purpose, and legacy. Parents completed 16 weekly sessions, 60–90 minutes in length, either in person or through videoconferencing. Parents were administered measures of prolonged grief disorder symptoms, meaning in life, and other assessments of psychological adjustment preintervention, mid-intervention, postintervention, and at three months postintervention. Descriptive data from both the in-person and videoconferencing open trial were pooled.

Eight of 11 (72%) enrolled parents started the MCGT intervention, and six of eight (75%) participants completed all 16 sessions. Participants provided positive feedback about MCGT. Results showed postintervention longitudinal improvements in prolonged grief (d = 1.70), sense of meaning (d = 2.11), depression (d = 0.84), hopelessness (d = 1.01), continuing bonds with their child (d = 1.26), posttraumatic growth (ds = 0.29–1.33), positive affect (d = 0.99), and various health-related quality of life domains (d = 0.46–0.71). Most treatment gains were either maintained or increased at the three-month follow-up assessment.

Overall, preliminary data suggest that this 16-session, manualized cognitive-behavioral-existential intervention is feasible, acceptable, and associated with transdiagnostic improvements in psychological functioning among parents who have lost a child to cancer. Future research should examine MCGT with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.

The death of a child has been associated with adverse parental outcomes, including a heightened risk for psychological distress, poor physical health, loss of employment income, and diminished psychosocial well-being. Psychosocial standards of care for centers serving pediatric cancer patients recommend maintaining at least one meaningful contact between the healthcare team and bereaved parents to identify families at risk for negative psychosocial sequelae and to provide resources for bereavement support. This study assessed how this standard is being implemented in current healthcare and palliative care practices, as well as barriers to its implementation.

Experts in the field of pediatric palliative care and oncology created a survey that was posted with review and permission on four listservs. The survey inquired about pediatric palliative and bereavement program characteristics, as well as challenges and barriers to implementation of the published standards of care.

The majority of participants (N = 100) self-reported as palliative care physicians (51%), followed by oncologists (19%). Although 59% of staff reported that their center often or always deliver bereavement care after a child's death, approximately two-thirds reported having no policy for the oncology team to routinely assess bereavement needs. Inconsistent types of bereavement services and varying duration of care was common. Twenty-eight percent of participants indicated that their center has no systematic contact with bereaved families after the child's death. Among centers where contacts are made, the person who calls the bereaved parent is unknown to the family in 30% of cases. Few centers (5%) use a bereavement screening or assessment tool.

Lack of routine assessment of bereavement needs, inconsistent duration of bereavement care, and tremendous variability in bereavement services suggest more work is needed to promote standardized, policy-driven bereavement care. The data shed light on multiple areas and opportunities for improvement.