Background: Integration of palliative care into cancer care is recognized as best practice by international oncology and pediatrics organizations. However, optimal strategies for integration of pediatric palliative care (PPC) within cancer care remain understudied. While the majority of PPC provision for cancer patients occurs through subspeciality consultation, growing evidence suggests that models embedding PPC within cancer care have the potential to improve quality of care. Embedded models rely on partnerships with multidisciplinary clinicians, whose perspectives regarding this model are not well known. Methods: We conducted 25 focus groups with 175 clinicians in an academic pediatric cancer center, with groups stratified by discipline (physicians, advance practice providers (APPs), nurses, psychosocial providers) and by care team (hematologic malignancy, bone marrow transplant, solid tumor, brain tumor). Focus groups were led by trained research facilitators and audio-recorded for subsequent targeted content analysis to identify clinician perspectives regarding embedded PPC models. Results: Across 4 physician, 5 APP, 12 nurse, and 4 psychosocial focus groups, 25 physicians, 30 APPs, 71 nurses, and 49 psychosocial providers participated, respectively. When asked to describe features of an “ideal” PPC model, physicians, APPs, and nurses predominantly discussed care delivery and identified early integration of PPC into cancer care as a core feature of an ideal model. Physicians, nurses, and psychosocial providers also emphasized the importance of having a formalized, structured care model. The need for collaboration was the dominant theme for psychosocial providers. Clinicians in all disciplines identified potential benefits from an embedded model, including access to PPC across care settings, normalization of PPC integration, and emphasis on collaboration, teamwork, communication, and earlier PPC involvement. Physicians, APPs, and nurses anticipated similar challenges with an embedded model, including possible reticence of oncology providers and inadequate PPC staffing. Nurses, APPs, and psychosocial providers also voiced concern about potential lack of clarity in delegation of roles and responsibilities between PPC and oncology providers. Conclusions: Pediatric oncology multidisciplinary providers recognize the potential value of an embedded model for integration of PPC in the care of children with cancer. Though providers at times identified similar themes with respect to ideal PPC provision and the benefits and challenges to an embedded model, some identified priorities varied by discipline. These findings highlight the importance of integrating varied interdisciplinary perspectives when developing an embedded care model to align with priorities of diverse pediatric cancer stakeholders.