E illness course (Snowdon et al., 2006), parents struggled to understand and integrate the illness and treatment options (Boss et al., 2008; Chaplin et al., 2005; Grobman et al., 2010; Partridge et al., 2005; Snowdon et al., 2006). Thus knowing the types of information PNPP site parentsInt J Nurs Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.AllenPageneeded and how to effectively communicate this relevant information may aid parents in decision-making.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptInformation about the illness and treatments was vital to parents. When parents were making decisions to initiate life-sustaining treatment, they needed to know the severity and extent of the illness, specifically the presence of chromosomal abnormalities or structural defects (e.g., hypoplastic left heart syndrome) (Ahmed et al., 2008; Balkan et al., 2010; Chaplin et al., 2005; Lam et al., 2009; Rempel et al., 2004; Zyblewski et al., 2009). Parents also wanted information about how treatments would impact their child’s illness course regarding how the spectrum of the severity of the illness and intensity of the treatments could impact the child’s quality of life including the level of pain and suffering the child may endure (Culbert and Davis, 2005; Sharman et al., 2005; Snowdon et al., 2006). Parents needed to know the benefits and adverse effects of treatments (11-Deoxojervine site Einarsdottir, 2009) with ample time to ask questions (Kavanaugh et al., 2010). Parents sought and/or relied on the HCPs’ knowledge and opinion about which treatment options were best for the child (Bluebond-Langner et al., 2007; Partridge et al., 2005; Rempel et al., 2004; Sharman et al., 2005) and what scientific evidence supported the efficacy of the treatment (Ellinger and Rempel, 2010; Rempel et al., 2004). In cases when the child’s illness did not respond to initial treatments, parents searched for additional treatment options (e.g., Internet, HCPs) and second opinions (Einarsdottir, 2009). If the child deteriorated to the point where withdrawing or withholding support was discussed parents want individualized and unique details of the illness, treatments, and prognosis from HCPs, even if a consensus about the prognosis was not reached (Einarsdottir, 2009; McHaffie et al., 2001). Having this information available in written or electronic form from organizations about the child’s illness and treatment options were also viewed as helpful (Chaplin et al., 2005; Grobman et al., 2010; Redlinger-Grosse et al., 2002). Parents reported that the way the information was delivered also affected their decisionmaking. Providers needed to present multiple times in a clear, honest manner with limited jargon to be helpful to parents making initial decisions about life-sustaining treatments (Grobman et al., 2010). Parents needed to feel that HCPs were compassionate and hopeful as these behaviors demonstrated the HCPs respected their child as an individual, instead of a `protocol’, specifically during making decisions about initializing treatment or withdrawal/ withholding treatment (Boss et al., 2008; Brinchmann et al., 2002; Redlinger-Grosse et al., 2002). Initially objective and neutral communication from HCPs left parents feeling that HCPs had little hope of a positive outcome (Payot et al., 2007; Rempel et al., 2004). The lack of hopeful communication led to a strained relationship between the parents and HCPs because parents were still hoping for their child t.E illness course (Snowdon et al., 2006), parents struggled to understand and integrate the illness and treatment options (Boss et al., 2008; Chaplin et al., 2005; Grobman et al., 2010; Partridge et al., 2005; Snowdon et al., 2006). Thus knowing the types of information parentsInt J Nurs Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 September 01.AllenPageneeded and how to effectively communicate this relevant information may aid parents in decision-making.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptInformation about the illness and treatments was vital to parents. When parents were making decisions to initiate life-sustaining treatment, they needed to know the severity and extent of the illness, specifically the presence of chromosomal abnormalities or structural defects (e.g., hypoplastic left heart syndrome) (Ahmed et al., 2008; Balkan et al., 2010; Chaplin et al., 2005; Lam et al., 2009; Rempel et al., 2004; Zyblewski et al., 2009). Parents also wanted information about how treatments would impact their child’s illness course regarding how the spectrum of the severity of the illness and intensity of the treatments could impact the child’s quality of life including the level of pain and suffering the child may endure (Culbert and Davis, 2005; Sharman et al., 2005; Snowdon et al., 2006). Parents needed to know the benefits and adverse effects of treatments (Einarsdottir, 2009) with ample time to ask questions (Kavanaugh et al., 2010). Parents sought and/or relied on the HCPs’ knowledge and opinion about which treatment options were best for the child (Bluebond-Langner et al., 2007; Partridge et al., 2005; Rempel et al., 2004; Sharman et al., 2005) and what scientific evidence supported the efficacy of the treatment (Ellinger and Rempel, 2010; Rempel et al., 2004). In cases when the child’s illness did not respond to initial treatments, parents searched for additional treatment options (e.g., Internet, HCPs) and second opinions (Einarsdottir, 2009). If the child deteriorated to the point where withdrawing or withholding support was discussed parents want individualized and unique details of the illness, treatments, and prognosis from HCPs, even if a consensus about the prognosis was not reached (Einarsdottir, 2009; McHaffie et al., 2001). Having this information available in written or electronic form from organizations about the child’s illness and treatment options were also viewed as helpful (Chaplin et al., 2005; Grobman et al., 2010; Redlinger-Grosse et al., 2002). Parents reported that the way the information was delivered also affected their decisionmaking. Providers needed to present multiple times in a clear, honest manner with limited jargon to be helpful to parents making initial decisions about life-sustaining treatments (Grobman et al., 2010). Parents needed to feel that HCPs were compassionate and hopeful as these behaviors demonstrated the HCPs respected their child as an individual, instead of a `protocol’, specifically during making decisions about initializing treatment or withdrawal/ withholding treatment (Boss et al., 2008; Brinchmann et al., 2002; Redlinger-Grosse et al., 2002). Initially objective and neutral communication from HCPs left parents feeling that HCPs had little hope of a positive outcome (Payot et al., 2007; Rempel et al., 2004). The lack of hopeful communication led to a strained relationship between the parents and HCPs because parents were still hoping for their child t.
