completed on 8 forms, however, only 3 records referred to children. Documented relationships with children included parent, grandparent and great-grandparent. Two families raised concerns about talking to children with staff. In one case there was no evidence that concerns were addressed, in the second the issues were managed by a consultant in palliative medicine and followed up during the hospice admission. There was no documented evidence that members of staff offered to speak with children. A children’s bereavement charity was reported as supporting one family, whilst another family’s children received support at school and from a counselling service. Conclusion Important conversations with children are not being included as part of routine clinical care. The results of this survey and the literature about the impact of timely information for children when an important adult is receiving palliative care, will be shared across our service. These discussions will inform an action plan to facilitate familyfocused conversations. P-9 UNDERSTANDING THE EXPERIENCE OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE A PARENT WITH MOTOR NEURON DISEASE: A THEMATIC ANALYSIS Valerie Mok, Deokhee Yi, Richard Harding, Steve Marshall. King’s College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine; King’s College London Cicely Saunders Institute 10.1136/spcare-2022-SCPSC.30 Background/Aims Children who have a parent with Motor Neuron Disease (MND) often have carer responsibilities and require extra support from others. MND is also a life-limiting disease and the children require support. Asking the children about their experiences will help healthcare professionals better understand their unique needs and may help facilitate better pre-bereavement support. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three children aged 6 to 12 who have a parent with MND. The children were asked about their understanding of MND, what support they receive or would like, and their interactions with peers and healthcare professionals. A thematic analysis of the interviews was performed. Results Four themes were identified: (1) perception of MND, (2) learning about MND, (3) emotional wellbeing and support, and (4) the role of a carer. The children had a limited understanding of MND, and the children felt excluded from discussions with healthcare professionals around their parent’s illness and treatment. Despite its negative aspects, the children acknowledged that MND allowed the family to spend more time together. Even though the children did not self-identify as carers, they had significant carer responsibilities. They found that this negatively affected their schooling, such as completing homework. Although they felt that MND was poorly understood by their classmates, the children found young carer groups beneficial and were able to meet other young carers and relax. Conclusion Thematic analysis of interviews with MND patients’ children provided invaluable insight into the children’s experiences and what support would be beneficial. Guidelines should be established around communication between healthcare professionals and children, and actively involving children in the care of their parent would facilitate A12 the family dynamic. Greater advertising of resources for young carers would allow more children to meet other young carers. Children must have an active voice in discussions around their support. P-10 HOW DO THE PROGNOSTIC PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS, AND ITS CONCORDANCE WITH THOSE OF HCPS, INFLUENCE DECISIONS ABOUT GOALS OF CARE IN CHILDREN WITH LIFE-LIMITING ILLNESSES? Yasmin Tahsin, Sandra Varey, Amy Gadoud. Lancaster Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University; Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University 10.1136/spcare-2022-SCPSC.31 Background The prevalence of children with life-limiting conditions is set to increase, resulting in an increased number of parents being involved in their child’s treatment decisions. These decisions are influenced by the medical information conveyed and their own evaluations of this knowledge. The aim of this review was to explore the alignment between parental and Healthcare professional (HCP) prognostic perceptions and treatment preferences, whilst presenting possible explanations for any differing opinions. Methods A literature search, using the databases: Medline, Trip, PubMed, PsychINFO and EMBASE was conducted. The inclusion criterion applied was – published since 2000, written in English, focused on children of 0–18 years. Peer reviewed data on the prognostic perceptions of parents and HCPs, and their goals of treatment for children with life limiting condition were selected. Results Overall, in the eleven papers included there was a lack of parental prognostic understanding with a poor alignment to the prognostic views of HCPs. Parents promoted more aggressive treatment options relative to HCPs more palliative approach. This is hypothesised to result from particularly fathers remaining hopeful for a cure. Studies showed discrepancies remained after prognostic conversations were held between parent’s and HCPs, with others indicating parents’ insight of there being no cure resulted before being openly disclosed by a HCP. Conclusions This study postulates poor prognostic insight may arise from a lack of open communication, resulting in parents advocating for more aggressive treatment with hope of finding a cure. However, given the cross-sectional nature of the studies, this review is only able to suggest these correlations. Future studies are recommended to explore the trajectory of parental prognostic understanding and how it is influenced by communication with HCPs. Posters 11–35 | COVID-19 P-11 HAVING VISION: THE ROLE OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN SUSTAINING RATES OF CORNEAL DONATION THROUGH THE COVID PANDEMIC Elizabeth Sharkey, Siwan Seaman. Marie Curie Hospice, Cardiff and the Vale 10.1136/spcare-2022-SCPSC.32 Introduction Normalising the discussion and practice of Corneal Donation amongst hospice inpatients has been the focus BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2022;12(Suppl 2):A1–A62 BMJ Support Palliat Care: first published as 10.1136/spcare-2022-SCPSC.31 on 20 March 2022. Downloaded from http://spcare.bmj.com/ on April 15, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright. Abstracts