Background: Although international guidelines recommend discussions about goals of care and treatment options for children with severe and life-limiting conditions, there are still few structured models of paediatric advance care planning. Aim: The study aimed at identifying key components of paediatric advance care planning through direct discussions with all involved parties. Design: The study had a qualitative design with a participatory approach. Participants constituted an advisory board and took part in two transdisciplinary workshops. Data were collected in discussion and dialogue groups and analysed using content analysis. Setting/participants: We included bereaved parents, health care providers and stakeholders of care networks. Results: Key elements were discussions, documentation, implementation, timing and participation of children and adolescents. Parents engage in discussions with facilitators and persons of trust to reach a decision. Documentation constitutes the focus of professionals, who endorse brief recommendations for procedures in case of emergencies, supplemented by larger advance directives. Implementation hindrances include emotional barriers of stakeholders, disagreements between parents and professionals and difficulties with emergency services. Discussion timing should take into account parental readiness. The intervention should be repeated at regular intervals, considering emerging needs and increasing awareness of families over time. Involving children and adolescents in advance care planning remains a challenge. Conclusion: A paediatric advance care planning intervention should take into account potential pitfalls and barriers including issues related to timing, potential conflicts between parents and professionals, ambiguity towards written advance directives, the role of non-medical carers for paediatric advance care planning implementation, the need to involve the child and the necessity of an iterative process.

Background: A prenatal diagnosis of a life-limiting disease raises complex ethical, emotional, and medical issues. Studies suggest that 40%–85% of parents decide to continue the pregnancy if given the option of Perinatal Palliative Care. However, structured Perinatal Palliative Care programs are missing in many European countries. In Germany, parents have the right to free psychosocial support from pregnancy counseling services after the prenatal diagnosis of a life-limiting disease. Aim: We aimed to investigate whether German professional pregnancy counselors perceive the need for structured Perinatal Palliative Care and if so, how it should be conceived. Design: This is a qualitative interview study with purposeful sampling. The interviews were analyzed with the coding method of Saldaña. Setting/participants: A total of 10 professionals from three different pregnancy counseling services participated in the study. Results: The main topics raised by the professionals were as follows: (1) counseling and parental support during the decision-making process; (2) fragmented or missing support infrastructure for parents; and (3) challenges, hesitations, and barriers, particularly from the different stakeholders, regarding a Perinatal Palliative Care framework. They highlighted the importance of the integration of Perinatal Palliative Care in existing structures, a multi-professional approach, continuous coordination of care and education for all healthcare providers involved. Conclusion: A structured Perinatal Palliative Care program is considered as necessary by the pregnancy counselors. Future research should focus on (1) needs reported by concerned parents; (2) attitude and role of all healthcare providers involved; (3) strategies to include stakeholders in the development of Perinatal Palliative Care networks; and (4) outcome parameters for evaluation of Perinatal Palliative Care frameworks.

In view of the globally evolving coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, German hospitals rapidly expanded their intensive care capacities. However, it is possible that even with an optimal use of the increased resources, these will not suffice for all patients in need. Therefore, recommendations for the allocation of intensive care resources in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic have been developed by a multidisciplinary group of authors with the support of eight scientific medical societies. The recommendations for procedures and criteria for prioritisations in case of resource scarcity are based on scientific evidence, ethicolegal considerations and practical experience. Medical decisions must always be based on the need and the treatment preferences of the individual patient. In addition to this patient-centred approach, prioritisations in case of resource scarcity require a supraindividual perspective. In such situations, prioritisations should be based on the criterion of clinical prospect of success in order to minimize the number of preventable deaths due to resource scarcity and to avoid discrimination based on age, disabilities or social factors. The assessment of the clinical prospect of success should take into account the severity of the current illness, severe comorbidities and the patient’s general health status prior to the current illness.

ZusammenfassungUngeachtet der sozialgesetzlichen Vorgaben existieren im deutschen Gesundheitssystem in der Patientenversorgung nebeneinander Unter‑, Fehl- und Überversorgung. Überversorgung bezeichnet diagnostische und therapeutische Maßnahmen, die nicht angemessen sind, da sie die Lebensdauer oder Lebensqualität der Patienten nicht verbessern, mehr Schaden als Nutzen verursachen und/oder von den Patienten nicht gewollt werden. Daraus können hohe Belastungen für die Patienten, deren Familien, die Behandlungsteams und die Gesellschaft resultieren. Dieses Positionspapier erläutert Ursachen von Überversorgung in der Intensivmedizin und gibt differenzierte Empfehlungen zu ihrer Erkennung und Vermeidung. Zur Erkennung und Vermeidung von Überversorgung in der Intensivmedizin erfordert es Maßnahmen auf der Mikro‑, Meso- und Makroebene, insbesondere die folgenden: 1) regelmäßige Evaluierung des Therapieziels im Behandlungsteam unter Berücksichtigung des Patientenwillens und unter Begleitung von Patienten und Angehörigen; 2) Förderung einer patientenzentrierten Unternehmenskultur im Krankenhaus mit Vorrang einer qualitativ hochwertigen Patientenversorgung; 3) Minimierung von Fehlanreizen im Krankenhausfinanzierungssystem gestützt auf die notwendige Reformierung des fallpauschalbasierten Vergütungssystems; 4) Stärkung der interdisziplinären/interprofessionellen Zusammenarbeit in Aus‑, Fort- und Weiterbildung; 5) Initiierung und Begleitung eines gesellschaftlichen Diskurses zur Überversorgung.

Klinisch-ethische Empfehlungen der DIVI, der DGINA, der DGAI, der DGIIN, der DGNI, der DGP, der DGP und der AEM Zusatzmaterial online Die Onlineversion dieses Beitrags (