Background Few studies haveexamined parent and family adaptation in the early period following the end of childhood cancer treatment. We examined parent adjustment at the end of their child's treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Methods Parents of childhood cancer survivors (CCS), who were 3 months post‐ALL treatment, and parents of typically developing children completed measures of psychological and family functioning. Parents of CCS also completed distress and posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) questionnaires related to their child's cancer experience. Results One hundred twenty‐nine parents were recruited: 77 parents of CCS and 52 comparison parents. Overall mean psychological symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress, and family functioning were within normal limits for both groups. Parents of CCS endorsed higher scores for stress, depression, and family problems; however, mean scores for emotional distress were low for both groups, in particular the comparison group. Parents of CCS endorsed low rates of PTSS. Fifty‐one percent of parents of CCS scored above the distress thermometer (DT‐P) clinical cutoff (>4), with items elevated across all six DT‐P domains. However, most parents did not indicate a wish to speak to a health professional about their symptoms. Conclusion Specialist psychosocial intervention may be indicated for only a subset of parents at the end of treatment. As per psychosocial standards of care, effective screening at this timepoint is warranted. Further examination of appropriate timing of psychosocial information and support services that are tailored to parents’ circumstances is needed. eHealth approaches may be appropriate.

Background:We examined parents' perceptions of their child's oncology care during a period of significant COVID-19 restrictions in Australia.Methods: Parents of children, 0-18 years, receiving hospital-based cancer treatment, completed a survey examining their COVID-19 exposure and impact, information and knowledge, and perception of their child's medical care. Recruitment occurred between October and November 2020.Results: Eighty-four parents (95% mothers) completed the survey. Sixty-seven percent of patients were diagnosed pre-COVID-19. The majority of parents (76%) reported negative impacts of COVID-19 on family life, including parenting and emotional wellbeing despite exposure to COVID-19 cases being very low (4%). Family functioning and parent birthplace were associated with COVID-19 impact and distress. Parents perceived the hospital as a safe place during the pandemic. Very few parents reported delaying presentation to the emergency department (12%). The majority identified no change (69%) or delay (71%) in their child's treatment delivery. Over 90% of parents were confident that COVID-19 did not impact medical decision-making. They felt confident in their COVID-19 knowledge and sought information from trusted sources.Parents reported a positive relationship with their child's care team (93%); however, access to some support services was reduced. Conclusion:Understanding patient and family experiences of pediatric oncology care across international contexts during the pandemic is important to inform present and future health care responses. In the Australian context of low infection rates and strict community restrictions, parents perceived their child's oncology care to be relatively unaffected. However, findings indicate that family well-being was impacted, which warrants further investigation.

Objective: This qualitative study examined ethical challenges reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in a large Australian pediatric oncology center during a period of strict COVID-19 restrictions. Methods:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 HCPs who provided pediatric cancer care during the pandemic in 2020, during strict lockdown periods.Interviews examined the difficulties they faced, as well as their own ethical evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 policies on oncology care. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis and thematic analysis.Results: HCPs faced several challenges, primarily originating from hospital restrictions, which led to changes in usual clinical practices. These challenges included delivering care with personal protective equipment (PPE), the impact of a one-parent visitation policy, changes in psychosocial and allied health services, and COVID-19 swabbing policies. Overall, there was consensus from participants that hospital restrictions were justified and, while difficult, HCPs simply had to provide the best care possible given the circumstances. However, participants described decreased capacity to deliver holistic patient care and, in some instances, a tendency to avoid ethical reflection. Lastly, there was a consistent theme of shame and sense of responsibility underlying some participants' anxiety around inadvertently transmitting COVID-19 to immunocompromised patients. Conclusion:Our findings show that many staff felt unease at the disruptions in patient care due to COVID-19 restrictions. Some HCPs indicated a degree of moral distress, with a possibility of moral injury among some HCPs. A focus on ethical recovery could assist in preventing any ongoing difficulties among HCPs because of their experiences.

Purpose To compare the reported and observed management of UK children with blunt liver or spleen injury (BLSI) to the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) 2019 BLSI guidance. Methods UK Paediatric Major Trauma Centres (pMTCs) undertook 1 year of prospective data collection on children admitted to or discussed with those centres with BLSI and an online questionnaire was distributed to all consultants who care for children with BLSI in those centres. Results All 21/21 (100%) pMTCs participated; 131 patients were included and 100/152 (65%) consultants responded to the survey. ICU care was reported and observed to be primarily determined using haemodynamic status or concomitant injuries rather than injury grade, in accordance with APSA guidance. Bed rest was reported to be determined by grade of injury by 63% of survey respondents and observed in a similar proportion of patients. Contrary to APSA guidance, follow-up radiological assessment of the injured spleen or liver was undertaken in 44% of patients before discharge and 32% after discharge, the majority of whom were asymptomatic. Conclusions UK management of BLSI differs from many aspects of APSA guidance. A shift towards using clinical features to determine ICU admission and readiness for discharge is demonstrated, in line with a strong evidence base. However, routine bed rest and re-imaging after BLSI is common, contrary to APSA guidance. This disparity may exist due to concern that evidence around the incidence, presentation and natural history of complications after conservatively managed BLSI, particularly bleeding from pseudoaneurysms, is weak.