<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To assess the performance of previously published high-intensity neurologic impairment (NI) diagnosis codes in identification of hospitalized children with clinical NI.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Retrospective study of 500 randomly selected discharges in 2019 from a freestanding children's hospital. All charts were reviewed for 1) NI discharge diagnosis codes and 2) documentation of clinical NI (a neurologic diagnosis and indication of functional impairment like medical technology). Test statistics of clinical NI were calculated for discharges with and without an NI diagnosis code. A sensitivity analysis varied the threshold for "substantial functional impairment." Secondary analyses evaluated misclassified discharges and a more stringent definition for NI.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Diagnosis codes identified clinically documented NI with 88.1% (95% CI: 84.7, 91) specificity, and 79.4% (95% CI: 67.3, 88.5) sensitivity; NPV was 96.7% (95% CI: 94.8, 98.0), and PPV was 49% (95% CI: 42, 56.1). Including children with milder functional impairment (lower threshold) resulted in NPV of 95.7% and PPV of 77.5%. Restricting to children with more severe functional impairment (higher threshold) resulted in NPV of 98.2% and PPV of 44.1%. Misclassification was primarily due to inclusion of children without functional impairments. A more stringent NI definition including diagnosis codes for NI and feeding tubes had a specificity of 98.4% (95% CI: 96.7-99.3) and sensitivity of 28.6% (19.4-41.3).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>All scenarios evaluated demonstrated high NPV and low-to-moderate PPV of the diagnostic code list. To maximize clinical utility, NI diagnosis codes should be used with strategies to mitigate the risk of misclassification.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Many children with serious illnesses are receiving palliative and end-of-life care from pediatric palliative and hospice care teams at home (PPHC@Home). Despite the growth in PPHC@Home, no standardized measures exist to evaluate whether PPHC@Home provided in the U.S. meets the needs and priorities of children and their families.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We developed and conducted a preliminary evaluation of a family-reported measure of PPHC@Home experiences using a multi-method, multi-stakeholder approach. Our instrument development process consisted of four phases. Item identification and development (Phase 1) involved a comprehensive literature search of existing instruments, guidelines, standards of practice, and PPHC@Home outcome studies, as well as guidance from a PPHC stakeholder panel. Phase 2 involved the initial item prioiritization and reduction using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with PPHC professionals and parent advocates. Phase 3 involved a second DCE with bereaved parents and parents currently receiving care for their child to further prioritize and winnow the items to a set of the most highly-valued items. Finally, we conducted cognitive interviews with parents to provide information about the content validity and clarity of the newly-developed instrument (Phase 4).</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Items were compiled predominantly from three existing instruments. Phase 2 participants included 34 PPHC providers, researchers, and parent advocates; Phase 3 participants included 47 parents; and Phase 4 participants included 11 parents. At the completion of Phase 4, the Experiences of Palliative and Hospice Care for Children and Caregivers at Home (EXPERIENCE@Home) Measure contains 22 of the most highly-valued items for evaluating PPHC@Home. These items include "The care team treats my child's physical symptoms so that my child has as good a quality of life as possible", "I have regular access to on-call services from our care team", and "The nurses have the knowledge, skills, and experience to support my child's palliative or hospice care at home."</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>The EXPERIENCE@Home Measure is the first known to specifically measure family-reported experiences with PPHC@Home in the U.S. Future work will include formal psychometric evaluation with a larger sample of parents, as well as evaluation of the clinical utility of the instrument with PPHC@Home teams.</p>

<p><strong>CONTEXT: </strong>Children with life-shortening serious illnesses and medically complex care needs are often cared for by their families at home. Little, however, is known about what aspects of pediatric palliative and hospice care in the home setting (PPHC@Home) families value the most.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To explore how parents rate and prioritize domains of PPHC@Home as the first phase of a larger study that developed a parent-reported measure of experiences with PPHC@Home.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Twenty domains of high-value PPHC@Home, derived from the National Consensus Project's Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, the literature, and a stakeholder panel, were evaluated. Using a discrete choice experiment, parents provided their ratings of the most and least valued PPHC@Home domains. We also explored potential differences in how subgroups of parents rated the domains.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Forty-seven parents participated. Overall, highest-rated domains included Physical Aspects of Care: Symptom Management, Psychological/Emotional Support for the Child, and Care Coordination. Lowest-rated domains included Spiritual and Religious Aspects of Care and Cultural Aspects of Care. In exploratory analyses, parents who had other children rated the Psychological/Emotional Aspects of Care for the Sibling(s) domain significantly higher than parents who did not have other children (P=0.02). Furthermore, bereaved parents rated the Caregiver Supportat the End of Life domain significantly higher than parents who were currently caring for their child (P=0.04). No other significant differences in domain ratings were observed.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Knowing what parents value most about PPHC@Home provides the foundation for further exploration and conversation about priority areas for resource allocation and care improvement efforts.</p>

<p>Given the broad focus of pediatric palliative care (PPC) on the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of children with potentially life-limiting illnesses and their families, PPC research requires creative methodological approaches. This manuscript, written by experienced PPC researchers, describes issues encountered in our own areas of research and the novel methods we have identified to target them. Specifically, we discuss potential approaches to: assessing symptoms among nonverbal children, evaluating medical interventions, identifying and treating problems related to polypharmacy, addressing missing data in longitudinal studies, evaluating longer-term efficacy of PPC interventions, and monitoring for inequities in PPC service delivery.</p>