Search

Objective: This study aimed to survey the practice of palliative sedation in Portugal, where data on this subject were lacking. Methods: This was a prospective multicentric study that included all patients admitted to each team that agreed to participate. Patients were followed until death, discharge, or after 3 months of follow-up. Results: The study included 8 teams: 4 as palliative care units (PCU), 1 as a hospital palliative care team (HPCT), 2 as home care (HC), and 1 as HPCT and HC. Of the 361 patients enrolled, 52% were male, the median age was 76 years, and 285 (79%) had cancer. Continuous sedation was undergone by 49 (14%) patients: 26 (53%) were male, and the median age was 76. Most patients, 46 (94%), had an oncological diagnosis. Only in a minority of cases, the family, 16 (33%), or the patient, 5 (10%), participated in the decision to sedate. Delirium was the most frequent symptom leading to sedation. The medication most used was midazolam (65%). In the multivariable analysis, only age and the combined score were independently associated with sedation; patients <76 years and those with higher levels of suffering had a higher probability of being sedated. Conclusions: The practice of continuous palliative sedation in Portugal is within the range reported in other studies. One particularly relevant point was the low participation of patients and their families in the decision-making process. Each team must have a deep discussion on this aspect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation involves the intentional proportional lowering of the level of consciousness in patients with life-limiting disease who are experiencing refractory suffering. The efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be monitored to ensure patient comfort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy using discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels. Methods: In this prospective observational study, adult patients with advanced malignancies were recruited from hospice units, palliative care units, and hospital wards in five European countries. Health care professionals used proxy observations of discomfort levels (Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type, range 0–27) and sedation/agitation levels (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale modified for palliative care inpatients), range − 5 to + 4) to evaluate the efficacy of palliative sedation. Results: In 78 participants, discomfort levels were monitored during palliative sedation. The mean discomfort score before start was 9.4 points (95% CI 8.3–10.5), which showed a significant decrease of 6.0 points (95% CI 4.8–7.1) after start of sedation for the total sedation period. In the multivariable analysis, no significant factors influencing baseline discomfort levels were identified. The discomfort and depth of sedation scores were found to be positively correlated, with an r of 0.72 (95% CI 0.61–0.82). The internal consistency of the discomfort scale was good (0.83), but the “Noisy breathing” item was less informative of the total discomfort score. Conclusions: The efficacy of palliative sedation can be evaluated by measuring discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels. The measurement of discomfort levels might provide a more specific and detailed evaluation of adequate sedation. Trial registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation refers to the proportional use of titrated medication which reduces consciousness with the aim of relieving refractory suffering related to physical and psychological symptoms and/or existential distress near the end of life. Palliative sedation is intended to be an end of life option that enables healthcare professionals to provide good patient care but there remains controversy on how it is used. Little is known about decision-making processes regarding this procedure. The aim of this study was to explore decision-making processes in palliative sedation based on the experiences and perceptions of relatives and healthcare professionals. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study with dyads (a bereaved relative and a healthcare professional) linked to 33 deceased patient with cancer who had palliative sedation, in seven in-patient palliative care settings in five countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain). A framework analysis approach was used to analyse the data. Results: Two main themes are defined: 1) Decision-making about palliative sedation is a complex iterative process, 2) Decision-making is a shared process between the patient, healthcare professionals, and relatives. Decision-making about palliative sedation appears to follow an iterative process of shared information, deliberation, and decision-making. The patient and healthcare professionals are the main stakeholders, but relatives are involved and may advocate for, or delay, the decision-making process. Starting palliative sedation is reported to be an emotionally difficult decision for all parties. Conclusions: As decision-making about palliative sedation is a complex and iterative process, patients, relatives and healthcare professionals need time for regular discussions. This requires a high level of engagement by healthcare professionals, that takes into account patients' wishes and needs, and helps to facilitate decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative Sedation (PS) at the end of life is practiced and perceived differently by health professionals depending on the geographical location in which they provide their health care. Taking into account this heterogeneity, it is necessary to expand knowledge and provide data on this clinical practice in different contexts and countries. On the other hand, the identification of factors associated with PS could help healthcare professionals, at an early stage, to identify patients more likely to require sedation. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and characteristics related to PS in a specialised Palliative Care setting, as well as to analyse factors that could be associated with this procedure. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study including n = 533 patients who died during the study period in a Palliative Care Unit. Clinical and functional (Barthel and Palliative Performance Scale) variables and the level of complexity were collected. For each patient we assessed whether PS had been performed and, if so, we described the type of sedation, continuity and depth, refractory symptoms, medication used, informed consent and place of death. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyse the relationship between several independent variables and PS. Results: The prevalence of PS was 16.7% (n = 82). Most frequent refractory symptoms were delirium (36.1%), pain (31.9%) and dyspnoea (25%). Factors associated with having a higher odds of PS were having already started treatment with strong opioids (OR = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.16–3.90) and a lower dependency for activities of daily living (OR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.23–0.70) on admission at PC. Informed consent for sedation was given mainly by representation and only in 19% of cases by the patient himself. Conclusions: Early opioid use and functional status act as factors associated with PS, becoming as clinical evaluations of particular interest during the disease trajectory, which could help to improve individualised care plans for patients at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, the concept of expanded terminal sedation emerged to describe using sedation at the end of life in cases beyond the usual use. Using this sedation could be a stressful ethical encounter for healthcare providers. Case: In this paper, we describe a case of a Muslim palliative care nurse who cared for a patient with cancer who requested expanded terminal sedation. The palliative care nurse described that his initial response to the expanded terminal sedation order was refusing to start the sedation because he believed the patient was not terminally ill and was concerned about killing him, which is prohibited according to his religious beliefs. Further, the nurse perceived the patient's psychological distress and his verbalization of wishing to die peacefully as a concealed request for euthanasia, especially since he was not imminently dying. Finally, the nurse reported being frustrated and uncertain about the care, especially since he did not receive appropriate psychological counseling from professional personnel. Conclusions: any case beyond the usual conditions for terminal sedation should be carefully examined, especially when nurses' religious beliefs or moral values contradict it. If sedation should be administered, adequate preparation of healthcare providers should be arranged, including discussing with them the goals of care and the rationale for sedation before and after initiating it. Generating a policy for conscientious objections, allowing nurses to express their own emotions and concerns in a supportive environment are suggested approaches to preserve their wellness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Schmerz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Context: Propofol is a general anesthetic used in multiple clinical scenarios. Despite growing evidence supporting its use in palliative care, propofol is rarely used in palliative sedation. Reluctance toward the adoption of propofol as a sedative agent is often associated with fear of adverse events such as respiratory arrest. Objectives: We aimed to describe efficacy and safety of palliative sedation in refractory sedation with propofol using a protocol based on low, incremental dosing. Methods: A retrospective observational study featuring inpatients receiving sedative treatment with propofol in our palliative care unit in Madrid (Spain) between March 1, 2018 and February 28, 2023, following a newly developed protocol. Results: During the study period, 22 patients underwent sedation with propofol. Propofol was used successfully to control different refractory symptoms, mainly psychoexistential suffering and delirium. All patients had undergone previous failed attempts at sedation with other medications (midazolam or lemovepromazine) and presented risk factors for complicated sedation. All patients achieved satisfactory (profound) levels of sedation measured with the Ramsay Sedation Scale, but total doses varied greatly between patients. Most patients (17, 77%) received combined therapy with propofol and other sedative medications to harness synergies. The median time between start of sedation with propofol and death was 26.0 hours. No cases of apnea or death during induction were recorded. Conclusion: A protocol for palliative sedation with propofol based on low, incremental dosing, with the option of administering an initial induction bolus, shows excellent results regarding adequate levels of sedation, without observing apnea or respiratory depression. Our results promote the use of propofol to achieve palliative sedation in patients with refractory symptoms and risk factors for complicated sedation at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Palliative sedation (PS) consists of the use of drugs to alleviate the suffering of patients with refractory symptoms, through a reduction in consciousness. The aim of this study is to describe the incidence of and indications for PS in patients treated by pediatric palliative care teams (PPCT), and the relationship between PS, the place of death, and the characteristics of the care teams. Methods Ambispective study with the participation of 14 PPCT working in Spain. Results From January to December 2019, a total of 164 patients attended by these PPCT died. Of these, 83 (50.6%) received PS during their last 24 hours. The most frequent refractory symptoms were terminal suffering (n  = 40, 48.2%), dyspnea (n  = 9, 10.8%), pain (n  = 8, 9.6%), and convulsive state (n  = 7, 8.4%). Sedation in the last 24 hours of life was more likely if the patient died in hospital, rather than at home (62.9% vs. 33.3%, p  < 0.01); if the parents had not expressed their preference regarding the place of death (69.2% vs. 45.2%, p  = 0.009); and if the PPCT had less than 5 years' experience (66.7% vs. 45.5%, p  = 0.018). Significance of results PS is a real possibility in pediatric end-of-life care and relates to care planning and team expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Palliative sedation (PS) is an intrusive measure to relieve patients at the end of their life from otherwise untreatable symptoms. Intensive discussion of the advantages and limitations of palliative care with the patients and their relatives should precede the initiation of PS since PS is terminated by the patient's death in most cases. Drugs for PS are usually administered intravenously. Midazolam is widely used, either alone or in combination with other substances. PS can be conducted in both inpatient and outpatient settings; however, a quality analysis comparing both modalities was missing so far.Patients and Methods: This prospective observational study collected data from patients undergoing PS inpatient at the palliative care unit (PCU, n = 26) or outpatient at a hospice (n = 2) or at home (specialized outpatient palliative care [SAPV], n = 31) between July 2017 and June 2018. Demographical data, indications for PS, and drug protocols were analyzed. The depth of sedation according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and the degree of satisfaction of staff members and patient's relatives were included as parameters for quality assessment.Results: Patients undergoing PS at the PCU were slightly younger compared to outpatients (hospice and SAPV combined). Most patients suffered from malignant diseases, and midazolam was the backbone of sedation for inpatients and outpatients. The median depth of sedation was between +1 and -3 according to the RASS with a trend to deeper sedation prior to death. The median degree of satisfaction was "good," scored by staff members and by patient's relatives. Significant differences between inpatients and outpatients were not seen in protocols, depth of sedation, and degree of satisfaction.Conclusion: The data support the thesis that PS is possible for inpatients and outpatients with comparable results. For choosing the best place for PS, other aspects such as patient's and relative's wishes, stress, and medical reasons should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the global acceptance of palliative sedation, China's engagement in this field remains comparatively restricted. There exists a scarcity of information regarding the attitudes and experiences of hospice nurses concerning palliative sedation. Objectives: This survey aimed at investigating the attitudes of Chinese hospice nurses toward palliative sedation, as well as their practices in palliative sedation. Design: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Setting/Subjects: In 2023, the survey on palliative sedation was introduced during the opening ceremony of the largest National Symposium on New Advances in Hospice Nursing in China. Subsequently, the study questionnaire was disseminated through email to a cohort of 806 hospice nurses attending the conference. Measurements/Results: The statistical analysis was based on 641 valid responses. Among them, 508 had no experience with palliative sedation, while only 133 had such experience. Around 92.5% of hospice nurses with experience in palliative sedation agreed with the physician's instructions to begin palliative sedation. Nurses were present at the start of sedation in nearly all cases (97.0%), and most doctors (79.7%) and family members (82.0%) were also present. However, 8.3% of them perceived that there was no difference between palliative sedation and euthanasia. Furthermore, 13.5% of participants believed that the purpose of palliative sedation was to hasten death. Conclusions: Hospice nurses play a crucial role in the process of palliative sedation, yet they also face significant challenges. It suggests that there is an urgent need in China for the development of consensus or guidelines for palliative sedation to clarify the roles of team members, including hospice nurses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The practice of palliative sedation continues to raise ethical questions among people, which in turn leads to its varied acceptance and practice across regions. As part of the Palliative Sedation European Union (EU) project, the aim of the present study was to determine the perceptions of palliative care experts regarding the practice of palliative sedation in eight European countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Romania). Methods: A specifically designed survey, including questions on the most frequently used medications for palliative sedation, their availability per countries and settings, and the barriers and facilitators to the appropriate practice of palliative sedation was sent to expert clinicians involved and knowledgeable in palliative care in the indicated countries. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select at least 18 participating clinicians per consortium country. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the survey data. Results: Of the 208 expert clinicians invited to participate, 124 participants completed the survey. Midazolam was perceived to be the most frequently used benzodiazepine in all eight countries. 86% and 89% of expert clinicians in Germany and Italy, respectively, perceived midazolam was used "almost always", while in Hungary and Romania only about 50% or less of the respondents perceived this. Levomepromazine was the neuroleptic most frequently perceived to be used for palliative sedation in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Between 38- 86% of all eight countries´ expert clinicians believed that opioid medications were "almost always" used during palliative sedation. The perceived use of IV hydration and artificial nutrition "almost always" was generally low, while the country where both IV hydration and artificial nutrition were considered to be "very often" given by a third of the expert clinicians, was in Hungary, with 36% and 27%, respectively. Conclusions: Our study provides insight about the differences in the perceived practice of medication during palliative sedation between eight European countries. In countries where palliative care services have been established longer perceptions regarding medication use during palliative sedation were more in line with the recommended European guidelines than in Central and Eastern European countries like Romania and Hungary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and purpose: Palliative care is designed to ensure proper comfort in living and dying, primarily by alleviating suffering in patients for whom medical interventions have proved ineffective. In situations where suffering is unbearable, palliative care offers "last resort" treatment, namely palliative sedation. This involves the intentional administration of sedative drugs to the patient to reduce the level of consciousness, even inducing sleep, in order to control suffering caused by conditions that are resistant to other treatments. The aim of this article is to present various perspectives on palliative sedation. Description of the state knowledge: Topics discussed include: cessation of hydration and nutrition, loss of patient control over decision-making in treatment progression after the induction of pharmacological coma, the principle of double effect, complications arising from the use of indiscriminate polypharmacy, and views on life shortening through palliative sedation or its comparison to euthanasia. The distinction between palliative sedation and euthanasia is explored, with arguments on both sides contributing to ongoing debates. The paper concludes by advocating for comprehensive guidelines and interdisciplinary assessments to ensure ethical and patient-centered decision-making in the application of palliative sedation in terminally ill patients. Summary: A discussion is necessary on the creation of acceptable and appropriate procedures that would not arouse the controversies currently associated with the use of palliative sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existential suffering is among the main symptoms refractory to treatment in people at the end of life. There is evidence in the literature on the use of palliative sedation, the controlled administration of sedative medication with the purpose of inducing a state of reduced consciousness or unconsciousness to relieve unbearable suffering experienced by people with terminal illnesses, to control existential suffering. This article presents the protocol for an integrative review which aims to analyze the evidence available in the literature on the use of palliative sedation to manage existential suffering in people with serious end-of-life illnesses. This is an integrative review protocol based on the steps described by Whittemore and Knalf, and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). A comprehensive search strategy including carefully selected terms corresponding to the domains of interest (palliative sedation and existential suffering) will be used to search for the relevant literature in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. The Endnote and Rayyan softwares will be used for data management. This integrative review aims to identify existing gaps and contribute to the presentation of information that may contribute to settling the controversy regarding the use of palliative sedation to manage refractory existential suffering at the end of life. Open Science Framework (). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comfort evaluation is one of the major challenges in the palliative care setting, particularly when it comes to non-communicative patients. For this specific population, validated tools for comfort evaluation are scarce and healthcare professionals have to rely on their clinical sense and experience. Objectives: To provide arguments for the use of Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI) monitoring in order to improve clinical comfort evaluation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-communicative patients at the end of their lives whose comfort was evaluated clinically and with ANI. We focused on the coherence or discordance of clinical and ANI evaluations and on pharmacological interventions driven by them. Results: 58 evaluations from 33 patients were analyzed. Clinical and demographic characteristics were highly variable. Simultaneous clinical and ANI evaluations were concordant in 45 measurements (77.58%), leading mostly to no treatment modification when indicating comfort and to increasing anxiolytic or pain-relief treatments when indicating discomfort. Thirteen (22.41%) evaluations were discordant, leading mostly to treatment incrementation. Conclusion: We suggest that the ANI monitor is a reliable tool in the palliative setting and may help provide patients with the best symptom relief and the most appropriate therapeutics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the content and process of decision-making about palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) as perceived by Belgian palliative care physicians. Methods: This Belgian nationwide qualitative study follows a grounded theory approach. We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 palliative care physicians working in 19 Belgian hospital-based palliative care units and 4 stand-alone hospices. We analyzed the data using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven , and we followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Guidelines (COREQ). Results: Analysis of the data identified several criteria that physicians apply in their decision-making about PS-ES, namely, the importance of the patient's demand, PS-ES as a last resort option after all alternatives have been applied, the condition of unbearable suffering combined with other kinds of suffering, and the condition of being in a terminal stage. Regarding the process of decision-making itself, physicians refer to the need for multidisciplinary perspectives supported by an interpretative dialogue with the patient and all other stakeholders. The decision-making process involves a specific temporality and physicians' inner conviction about the need of PS-ES. Significance of results: Belgian palliative care physicians are not sure about the criteria regarding decision-making in PS-ES. To deal with complex existential suffering in end-of-life situations, they stress the importance of participation by all stakeholders (patient, relatives, palliative care team, other physicians, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chaplains, etc.) in the decision-making process to prevent inadequate decisions being made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. Objective: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. Methods: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. Results: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end‐of‐life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. Conclusion: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision‐making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. Patient or Public Contribution: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives: Pain management is a necessary component of palliative care as most patients suffer from pain during the final phase of life. Due to the complex causation of pain in the last phase of life, it is important to utilize methods other than pharmacotherapeutic options in order to achieve adequate pain control. As little is known about treatment of pain in German hospices, a nationwide survey was conducted. Materials and methods: All German hospices (259) were contacted by post in June 2020 and asked to participate in an anonymous cross-sectional survey. Results: A total of 148 (57%) German hospices took part in the survey. A broad variety of medication is used in the hospice setting. Metamizole is the most commonly used non-opiod analgesic , hydromorphone the most commonly used opioid, and pregabalin is the most commonly prescribed co-analgesic drug. The pain medication is usually prescribed as an oral slow-release substance. Standardized treatment schemes are rare among the responding hospices. Most of the respondents also use complementary treatment options, such as aroma (oil) therapy or music therapy, in the treatment of pain. Palliative sedation is used by nearly all responding hospices if all other treatment options fail. Conclusion: This survey provides an overview of the treatment options for pain management in German hospices. A broad variety of pain medication is used. Compared to international literature, it is debatable whether such a large variety of different types of pain medication is necessary, or whether a reduction in the type of medication available and the use of standardized treatment schemes could benefit everyone involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Palliative Medicine / Medycyna Paliatywna is the property of Termedia Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale – Palliative version (RASS-PAL) tool is a brief observational tool to quantify a patient's level of agitation or sedation. The objective of this study was to implement the RASS-PAL tool on an inpatient palliative care unit and evaluate the implementation process. Methods: Quality improvement implementation project using a short online RASS-PAL self-learning module and point-of-care tool. Participants were staff working on a 31-bed inpatient palliative care unit who completed the RASS-PAL self-learning module and online evaluation survey. Results: The self-learning module was completed by 49/50 (98%) of regular palliative care unit staff (nurses, physicians, allied health, and other palliative care unit staff). The completion rate of the self-learning module by both regular and casual palliative care unit staff was 63/77 (82%). The follow-up online evaluation survey was completed by 23/50 (46%) of respondents who regularly worked on the palliative care unit. Respondents agreed (14/26; 54%) or strongly agreed (10/26; 38%) that the self-learning module was implemented successfully, with 100% agreement that it was effective for their educational needs. Conclusion: Using an online self-learning module is an effective method to engage and educate interprofessional staff on the RASS-PAL tool as part of an implementation strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients' homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. Results: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. Conclusions: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. Trial registration: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19–435/C). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous and deep sedation until death is a much highly debated end-of-life practice. France is unique in having a regulatory framework for it. However, there are no data on its practice in intensive care units (ICUs). Aim: The aim is to describe continuous and deep sedation in relation to the framework in the specific context of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in ICUs, that is, its decision-making process and its practice compared to other end-of-life practices in this setting. Design and setting: French multicenter observational study. Consecutive ICU patients who died after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies. Results: A total of 343 patients in 57 ICUs, 208 (60%) with continuous and deep sedation. A formalized procedure for continuous and deep sedation was available in 32% of the ICUs. Continuous and deep sedation was not the result of a collegial decision-making process in 17% of cases, and did not involve consultation with an external physician in 29% of cases. The most commonly used sedative medicines were midazolam (10 [5–18] mg h−1) and propofol (200 [120–250] mg h −1). The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was −5 in 60% of cases. Analgesia was associated with sedation in 94% of cases. Compared with other end-of-life sedative practices (n = 98), medicines doses were higher with no difference in the depth of sedation. Conclusions: This study shows a poor compliance with the framework for continuous and deep sedation. It highlights the need to formalize it to improve the decision-making process and the match between the intent, the practice and the actual effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Palliative sedation (PS) and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) are options for end-of-life (EOL) care in Canada, since the latter was legalized in 2016. Little research to date has explored the potential impact of MAiD on PS practices. This study investigated physicians' perceptions of their practices surrounding PS and how they may have changed since 2016. Methods: A survey (n =37) and semi-structured interviews (n =23) were conducted with palliative care providers throughout Ontario. Questions focused on PS practices and explored potential changes following the implementation of MAiD. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by 2 independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated via reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Thematic analysis yielded the following themes: (1) Increased patient/family knowledge of EOL care; (2) More frequent/fulsome discussions; (3) Normalization/repositioning of PS; and (4) Conflation and differentiation of PS/MAiD. Across these themes, participants espoused increased patient, family, and provider comfort with PS, which may stem equally from the advent of MAiD and the growth of palliative care in general. Participants also emphasized that, following MAiD, PS is viewed as a less radical intervention. Significance of results: This is the first study to investigate physicians' perspectives on the impact of MAiD on PS. Participants strongly opposed treating MAiD and PS as direct equivalents, given the differences in intent and eligibility. Participants stressed that MAiD requests/inquiries should prompt individualized assessments exploring all avenues of symptom management – the results of which may or may not include PS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of pain for patients with cancer and cancer survivors is a critical clinical task that involves a multitude of ethical issues at almost every phase of the cancer experience. This review is divided into three sections: In the first, we address rights and duties in the relief of pain from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health care institutions and organizations, and public policy. This section includes a detailed description of issues and duties in relation to opioid misuse and addiction. In the second section, we discuss the ethical consideration of therapeutic planning. The final section addresses ethical considerations in the management of pain at the end of life including a detailed discussion regarding ethical issues relating to the use of palliative sedation as a clinical intervention of last resort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical experts experienced challenges in the practice of palliative sedation (PS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid deterioration in patients' situation was observed while the indications for starting PS seemed to differ compared to other terminal patients. It is unclear to which extent clinical trajectories of PS differ for these COVID patients compared to regular clinical practice of PS. Objectives: To describe the clinical practice of PS in patients with COVID versus non-COVID patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from a Dutch tertiary medical centre was performed. Charts of adult patients who died with PS during hospitalisation between March '20 and January '21 were included. Results: During the study period, 73 patients received PS and of those 25 (34%) had a COVID infection. Refractory dyspnoea was reported as primary indication for starting PS in 84% of patients with COVID compared to 33% in the other group (p < 0.001). Median duration of PS was significantly shorter in the COVID group (5.8 vs. 17.1 h, p < 0.01). No differences were found for starting dosages, but median hourly dose of midazolam was higher in the COVID group (4.2 mg/hr vs. 2.4 mg/hr, p < 0.001). Time interval between start PS and first medication adjustments seemed to be shorter in COVID patients (1.5 vs. 2.9 h, p = 0.08). Conclusion: PS in COVID patients is characterized by rapid clinical deterioration in all phases of the trajectory. What is manifested by earlier dose adjustments and higher hourly doses of midazolam. Timely evaluation of efficacy is recommended in those patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Universitas Médica is the property of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Clinical experts experienced challenges in the practice of palliative sedation (PS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid deterioration in patients' situation was observed while the indications for starting PS seemed to differ compared to other terminal patients. It is unclear to which extent clinical trajectories of PS differ for these COVID patients compared to regular clinical practice of PS. Objectives: To describe the clinical practice of PS in patients with COVID versus non-COVID patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from a Dutch tertiary medical centre was performed. Charts of adult patients who died with PS during hospitalisation between March '20 and January '21 were included. Results: During the study period, 73 patients received PS and of those 25 (34%) had a COVID infection. Refractory dyspnoea was reported as primary indication for starting PS in 84% of patients with COVID compared to 33% in the other group (p < 0.001). Median duration of PS was significantly shorter in the COVID group (5.8 vs. 17.1 h, p < 0.01). No differences were found for starting dosages, but median hourly dose of midazolam was higher in the COVID group (4.2 mg/hr vs. 2.4 mg/hr, p < 0.001). Time interval between start PS and first medication adjustments seemed to be shorter in COVID patients (1.5 vs. 2.9 h, p = 0.08). Conclusion: PS in COVID patients is characterized by rapid clinical deterioration in all phases of the trajectory. What is manifested by earlier dose adjustments and higher hourly doses of midazolam. Timely evaluation of efficacy is recommended in those patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dyspnoea affects a considerable percentage of patients with terminal-stage cancer, and clinical guidelines recommend palliative sedation for patients with refractory dyspnoea. Midazolam is currently the most commonly used sedative; however, it can cause serious adverse reactions, such as respiratory/circulatory depression. Hence, there is a need for an alternative sedative. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a promising alternative as its "awake sedation" effect; however, little is known regarding its use in patients with end-stage dyspnoea. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the safety and usefulness of DEX for palliative sedation of patients with refractory dyspnoea. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with terminal-stage cancer who received DEX for palliative sedation owing to refractory dyspnoea in the hospice ward from January 2018 to October 2022. We analysed their general data, dyspnoea conditions, sedation details, sedative treatment effect, dyspnoea relief, and changes in vital signs before and after sedation, via paired t-tests. Results: We included 17 patients with terminal-stage cancer who received DEX palliative sedation at a dose of 0.2– 0.9 μg/kg·h for refractory dyspnoea, among whom 6 (35%) received a loading dose of 1 μg/kg in 10 min. After 1 h of sedation and at the maximum sedation dose, the Respiratory Distress Observation Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores decreased significantly compared with those before sedation (all P< 0.001), as did the respiratory rate (P=0.024 and P=0.008, respectively). The heart rate and blood oxygen saturation did not significantly change, whereas the systolic and diastolic blood pressure after 1 h of sedation were significantly lower than those before sedation (both P=0.015). Conclusion: DEX is a promising palliative sedative for patients with terminal-stage cancer, as it safely relieved the symptoms of refractory dyspnoea without inducing serious adverse reactions. Therefore, DEX may greatly enhance the quality of life for patients with terminal-stage cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative Sedation (PS) is an effective measure for the relief of refractory symptoms in end-of-life patients. This intervention can be performed at home, respecting the patients' and their families' decisions. A scoping review was performed to map the available evidence in the literature on the performance of PS at home. This review included 23 studies. Most were conducted in European countries with adult cancer patients. Patients, family members and healthcare providers participated in the decision making regarding the use of PS at home. PS was used primarily to manage refractory symptoms (pain, delirium, dyspnea, and others), and in 1 of the studies PS was mentioned as a possible intervention for shortening life. The most commonly used medication was midazolam and the average duration ranged from 4 h to 7 days. There are few reports on adverse events related to PS. This intervention seems to be a feasible possibility for the management of refractory symptoms in patients at the end of life, despite the fact that it can represent specific challenges for healthcare providers, patients and families. However, the literature is limited regarding PS in children and in people with diseases other than cancer, as well as on the evaluation of possible adverse effects related to this intervention. Furthermore, it is essential to have a broad ethical, clinical and legal debate on whether to consider the use of PS for the purpose of shortening life in specific cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness at the end of life. It can be initiated to relieve a patient's burden caused by refractory symptoms at the end of life. The impact of palliative sedation needs to be clinically monitored to adjust the proper dose and regimen of sedative medication to ensure that patients are at ease and comfortable at the end of their lives. Although there is consensus among health care professionals and within guidelines that efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be closely monitored, there is no agreement about how, when, and by whom, this monitoring should be performed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of palliative sedation by measuring the discomfort levels and sedation/agitation levels of the patients at regular timepoints. In addition, the clinical trajectories of those patients receiving palliative sedation will be monitored and recorded. Methods: The study is an international prospective non-experimental observational multicentre study. Patients are recruited from in-patient palliative care settings in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Adult patients with advanced cancer are monitored by using proxy observations of discomfort (DS-DAT) and depth of sedation/agitation levels (RASS-PAL) during palliative sedation. After the palliative sedation period, the care for the specific participant case is evaluated by one of the attending health care professionals and one relative via a questionnaire. Discussion: This study will be the first international prospective multicenter study evaluating the clinical practice of palliative sedation including observations of discomfort levels and levels of sedation. It will provide valuable information about the practice of palliative sedation in European countries in terminally ill cancer patients. Results from this study will facilitate the formulation of recommendations for clinical practice on how to improve monitoring and comfort in patients receiving palliative sedation. Trial registration: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National clinical guidelines have been developed internationally to reduce variations in clinical practices and promote the quality of palliative care. In The Netherlands, there is considerable variability in the organisation and care processes of inpatient palliative care, with three types of hospices – Volunteer-Driven Hospices (VDH), Stand-Alone Hospices (SAH), and nursing home Hospice Units (HU). Aim: This study aims to examine clinical practices in palliative care through different hospice types and identify variations in care. Methods: Retrospective cohort study utilising clinical documentation review, including patients who received inpatient palliative care at 51 different hospices and died in 2017 or 2018. Care provision for each patient for the management of pain, delirium and palliative sedation were analysed according to the Dutch national guidelines. Results: 412 patients were included: 112 patients who received treatment for pain, 53 for delirium, and 116 patients underwent palliative sedation therapy. Care was provided in accordance with guidelines for pain in 32%, 61% and 47% (P =.047), delirium in 29%, 78% and 79% (P =.0016), and palliative sedation in 35%, 63% and 42% (P =.067) of patients who received care in VDHs, SAHs and HUs respectively. When all clinical practices were considered, patient care was conducted according to the guidelines for 33% of patients in VDHs, 65% in SAHs, and 50% in HUs (P <.001). Conclusions: The data demonstrate that care practices are not standardised throughout Dutch hospices and exhibit significant variations between type of hospice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients at the end-of-life may experience refractory symptoms of which pain, delirium, vomiting and dyspnea are the most frequent. Palliative sedation can be considered a last resort option to alleviate one or more refractory symptoms. There are only a limited number of (qualitative) studies exploring the experiences of relatives of sedated patients and their health care professionals (HCPs). The aims of this study protocol are: 1) to elicit the experiences of bereaved relatives and health care professionals of patients treated with palliative sedation and 2) to explore the understanding of the decision-making process to start palliative sedation across care settings in 5 European countries. Methods: This study protocol is part of the larger HORIZON 2020 Palliative Sedation project. Organisational case study methodology will be used to guide the study design. In total, 50 cases will be conducted in five European countries (10 per country). A case involves a semi-structured interview with a relative and an HCP closely involved in the care of a deceased patient who received some type of palliative sedation at the end-of-life. Relatives and health care professionals of deceased patients participating in a linked observational cohort study of sedated patients cared for in hospital wards, palliative care units and hospices will be recruited. The data will be analyzed using a framework analysis approach. The first full case will be analyzed by all researchers after being translated into English using a pre-prepared code book. Afterwards, bimonthly meetings will be organized to coordinate the data analysis. Discussion: The study aims to have a better understanding of the experiences of relatives and professional caregivers regarding palliative sedation and this within different settings and countries. Some limitations are: 1) the sensitivity of the topic may deter some relatives from participation, 2) since the data collection and analysis will be performed by at least 5 different researchers in 5 countries, some differences may occur which possibly makes it difficult to compare cases, but using a rigorous methodology will minimize this risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients at the end-of-life may experience refractory symptoms of which pain, delirium, vomiting and dyspnea are the most frequent. Palliative sedation can be considered a last resort option to alleviate one or more refractory symptoms. There are only a limited number of (qualitative) studies exploring the experiences of relatives of sedated patients and their health care professionals (HCPs). The aims of this study protocol are: 1) to elicit the experiences of bereaved relatives and health care professionals of patients treated with palliative sedation and 2) to explore the understanding of the decision-making process to start palliative sedation across care settings in 5 European countries. Methods: This study protocol is part of the larger HORIZON 2020 Palliative Sedation project. Organisational case study methodology will be used to guide the study design. In total, 50 cases will be conducted in five European countries (10 per country). A case involves a semi-structured interview with a relative and an HCP closely involved in the care of a deceased patient who received some type of palliative sedation at the end-of-life. Relatives and health care professionals of deceased patients participating in a linked observational cohort study of sedated patients cared for in hospital wards, palliative care units and hospices will be recruited. The data will be analyzed using a framework analysis approach. The first full case will be analyzed by all researchers after being translated into English using a pre-prepared code book. Afterwards, bimonthly meetings will be organized to coordinate the data analysis. Discussion: The study aims to have a better understanding of the experiences of relatives and professional caregivers regarding palliative sedation and this within different settings and countries. Some limitations are: 1) the sensitivity of the topic may deter some relatives from participation, 2) since the data collection and analysis will be performed by at least 5 different researchers in 5 countries, some differences may occur which possibly makes it difficult to compare cases, but using a rigorous methodology will minimize this risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients who suffer from dyspnea while dying from COVID-19 are treated with opioids and benzodiazepines. In some instances, patients may experience refractory dyspnea at the end of life. Palliative sedation can be prescribed to alleviate such patients' suffering. We describe two patients being treated for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary hospital. Both developed intractable dyspneic crises despite high-dose opioids and benzodiazepines. This led to their requirement of palliative sedation in the general ward using subcutaneous phenobarbitone (phenobarbital). We outline clinical considerations for the use of palliative sedation in COVID-19 related dyspnea. In particular, we discuss the evidence for, benefits and limitations of using phenobarbitone for palliative sedation in COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physicians who practice in a hospice are responsible for working with patients and nursing staff to develop a medication plan, monitor symptoms and pain, and adjust medication if necessary. In inpatient hospices in Germany, physicians are part of a multi-professional approach, but not part of the hospice team itself. However, there is no, or hardly any, literature on medical practice in a hospice setting. Therefore, we wanted to know how physicians reflect upon their role in hospice within a multi-professional setting, how they communicate with patients, relatives, nursing staff and other physicians, and what the limitations of these communication processes are. Methods: By means of two qualitative studies we explored how physicians classify their activities as part of the hospice organization. The study design followed Grounded Theory procedures. Results: The physicians named an appropriate interpretation of the patient's wishes as the challenge of everyday practice which can lead to differences of perspective with those involved: with nursing staff, who would prefer an alternative form of medication, with relatives, who do not accept that the patient refuses nutrition, with other physicians, who have a different opinion about appropriate treatment. For physicians, this is all the more challenging as communication with the patient becomes increasingly uncertain due to the patient's illness. Again and again, medical measures have to be negotiated on several levels. Conclusion: Multi-professional organizations that have to deal with differences in perspective handle them by clearly distinguishing areas of responsibility, an aspect that physicians also claim for themselves. For physicians the question arises repeatedly whether they have correctly interpreted the wishes of the patient. They must continuously reassure themselves of the patient's wishes and this presents them with communication challenges not only with the patient, but also with the nursing staff and relatives and, more recently, with their colleagues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In Switzerland, palliative sedation consists of using sedatives to relieve terminally ill patients. It is divided into several steps, with one of them consisting of informing patients and relatives about the procedure. In the current recommendations, there is a lack of orientation about how and when this discussion should take place. Hence, we aim to explore perceptions and experiences of palliative care professionals regarding these questions. Methods: Qualitative semi‐structured interviews with five physicians and five nurses working in specialised palliative care were conducted. They were then analysed with thematic analysis. Results: Results showed a uniformity around definition, goals and indications of palliative sedation. However, there was a lack of consistency regarding the process of delivering this information to patients and relatives. Finally, some participants strongly opposed the idea of systematically informing patients in specialised palliative care, while others were more divided on this question. Conclusion: Despite a common understanding of the concept of palliative sedation, there is no standard practice when informing patients on palliative sedation among palliative care professionals. Therefore, this study demonstrates the need for further guidelines on this question and calls for a better understanding and knowledge of palliative sedation among health professionals outside palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative sedation is a medical intervention to manage distress in dying patients, by reducing consciousness when symptom-directed therapies fail. Continuous deep sedation is ethically sensitive because it may shorten life and completely prevents communication. But sedation short of this is also common. There has been a steady increase in the use of sedation over recent decades. Sedation may have become a means to die while sleeping, rather than a method of last resort to alleviate suffering. Sedation may be requested or expected by patients, families or staff. The need for sedation may be being interpreted more loosely. The acceptance of a 'tolerable amount of discomfort' may have lost ground to a desire to get the final phase over with quickly. Sedation is not always a bad thing. Medical care is otherwise unable to completely control all distressing symptoms in every patient. Sedation may result from other necessary symptom control drugs. Dying when sedated can be seen by as 'peaceful'. We feel it is necessary, however, to highlight three caveats: the need to manage expectations, the cost in terms of loss of communication, and the grey area between continuous deep sedation and euthanasia. We conclude that there may be good grounds for sedation in palliative care, and in some cases, continuous deep sedation may be used as a last resort. But the criteria of necessary and proportionate drug treatment should remain. The normalisation of sedation into dying while sleeping should be resisted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, palliative care is increasingly important, with an emphasis on the process of dying with dignity. However, nurses who care for such patients experience the associated ethical dilemmas. Objective: To explore the meaning of nurses' experiences in dealing with ethical dilemmas in relation to palliative sedation. Research design: A qualitative research design was employed with a thematic analysis approach. Participants and research context: Using purposive sampling, 15 nurses, working at palliative care units for at least 1 year, were recruited as participants. Data were collected using unstructured in-depth interviews, and data collection and analysis was performed simultaneously. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was obtained from the authors' institutional review board. All participants provided informed consent. For the face-to-face interview, the South Korean standard COVID-19 quarantine guidelines, such as mandatory masking and social distancing, were followed. Results: Dilemmas raised by patients, were related to concerns about appropriate drug dose; dilemmas raised by nurses, were related to passive care, sense of guilt for failure to predict death, and colleague's disrespectful attitudes toward patients; dilemmas from patients' families were related to demands for palliative sedation and reversal of those demands. Care actions to deal with ethical dilemmas comprised evidence-based care, person-centered thinking, reflecting on the death situation, compassion, providing explanation and help to family members. Conclusion: Nurses' ethical dilemmas were pre-dominantly influenced by themselves, rather than by the patients or their families, especially if they felt they could not do their best for patients. The core concept of care actions to deal with the ethical dilemmas, was person-centered care and compassion. Then, how patients and their family members perceive person-centered care and compassion, should be further explored to improve palliative sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Palliative Medicine / Medycyna Paliatywna is the property of Termedia Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Medicalisation is a pervasive feature of contemporary end of life and dying in Western Europe and North America. In this article, we focus on the relationship between two specific aspects of the medicalisation of dying: deep continuous palliative sedation until death and assisted dying. We draw upon a qualitative interview study with 29 health professionals from three jurisdictions where assisted dying is lawful: Flanders, Belgium; Oregon, USA; and Quebec, Canada. Our findings demonstrate that the relationship between palliative sedation and assisted dying is often perceived as fluid and complex. This is inconsistent with current laws as well as with ethical and clinical guidelines according to which the two are categorically distinct. The article contributes to the literature examining health professionals' opinions and experiences. Moreover, our findings inform a discussion about emergent themes: suffering, timing, autonomy and control – which appear central in the wider discourse in which both palliative sedation and assisted dying are situated, and which in turn relate to the wider ideas about what constitutes a 'good death'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hospital a Domicilio is the property of Centro Internacional Virtual de Investigacion en Nutricion and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Keywords: Continuous sedation until death; Pain assessment; Palliative medicine; Unconsciousness; Comfort assessment; Palliative sedation; Neurophysiological monitoring; Wavelet anesthetic value; Analgesia Nociception Index EN Continuous sedation until death Pain assessment Palliative medicine Unconsciousness Comfort assessment Palliative sedation Neurophysiological monitoring Wavelet anesthetic value Analgesia Nociception Index 743 746 4 05/16/22 20220601 NES 220601 To the Editor, We would like to thank Prod'homme and colleagues for their thoughtful comments on our publication [[1]]. Continuous sedation until death, Pain assessment, Palliative medicine, Unconsciousness, Comfort assessment, Palliative sedation, Neurophysiological monitoring, Wavelet anesthetic value, Analgesia Nociception Index. [Extracted from the article]

We have several major concerns about this article [Guastella et al 2021]. Although it states that it is about palliative sedation, it is not. Rather, it is about the French Claeys Leonetti Law about Continuous Deep Sedation (CDS) at the end of life [Loi n°2016-87]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation has become widely accepted as a method to alleviate refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients. Controversies regarding this topic especially concern the use of palliative sedation for psychological symptoms, the use in patients who are not imminently dying and the simultaneous withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is characterized by symptoms including muscle weakness, dysphagia, dysarthria, muscle spasms and progressive respiratory insufficiency. Due to these characteristic symptoms, palliative sedation might be considered to be necessary to alleviate refractory suffering in ALS patients. However, palliative sedation in ALS is only rarely discussed in current medical literature and guidelines. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted among neurologists and palliative care practitioners in Germany. The participants were asked to evaluate the use of palliative sedation in different situations. Results: Two hundred and ninety-six completed questionnaires were analyzed. The results suggest high levels of support for the use of palliative sedation in ALS patients. 42% of the participants stated that they had already used palliative sedation in the treatment of ALS patients. Acceptance of palliative sedation was higher in case of physical symptoms than in case of psychological symptoms. Refusal of artificial nutrition did not lead to a lower acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care had already used palliative sedation in ALS patients more often and they were more likely to accept palliative sedation in different situations than the participants without a background in palliative care. Conclusion: Our survey showed that palliative sedation in ALS is widely accepted by the attending doctors. In case of psychological symptoms, palliative sedation is looked at with more concern than in case of physical symptoms. The refusal of artificial nutrition does not result in a decreased acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care are more likely to approve of palliative sedation in ALS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Some patients experience intense symptoms refractory to intensive palliative care, and palliative sedation is sometimes used. Palliative sedation may be classified into proportional and continuous deep sedation (CDS). The primary aim of this study was to compare family experience between families of patients who received proportional or CDS.Methods: A multicenter questionnaire survey was conducted involving bereaved families of cancer patients who received proportional or CDS based on a sedation protocol. Overall evaluation of sedation (satisfaction, family-perceived distress, appropriateness of timing, and patient distress) and 13-item family concerns, good death, satisfaction with care, depression, quality of care, unfinished business, and balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication were measured.Results: Among the 2120 patients who died, 222 patients received a continuous infusion of midazolam. A sedation protocol was used in 147 patients, and questionnaires were sent to 124 families. A total of 78 responses were finally returned (proportional, 58 vs. CDS, 20). There were no significant differences in the overall evaluation, family concerns, total score of good death, satisfaction, depression, or balance between symptom relief and maintaining communication. On the other hand, some quality of care items, i.e., relationship with medical staff (P < 0.01), physical care by nurses (P = 0.04), and coordination and consistency (P = 0.04), were significantly better in the CDS group than in the proportional sedation group. Family-reported unfinished business was also better in the CDS group, with marginal significance.Conclusions: Family experience of CDS was not less favorable than proportional sedation, and actually rated more favorably for some elements of quality of care and unfinished business. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Palliative sedation (PS) plays a critical role to give suffering relief from refractory symptoms at the end of life. Our audit aimed to assess and improve quality of PS at the Department of Oncology and Hematology of University Hospital of Modena, to verify the adherence to international guidelines, the cooperation among members of care team, focusing with attention on family's perception of this delicate situation.Methods: From December 2016 to June 2019, data of patients undergoing PS in the Department were collected by an electronic folder tool, "Sedation Tool" (ST), that recorded clinical and PS informations, D-PaP, Rudkin score, and family's perception.Results: In total, 245 patients were enrolled. Eighty-two percent had a Karnofsky Performance Status 10-20%. The most common cancer types were lung and gastro-intestinal carcinomas (27% and 21% respectively). Refractory symptoms observed were confusion and agitation (76%), dyspnea (39%), pain (15%), delirium (10%), and psychological distress (5%). Midazolam was the drug of choice for PS. Most of patients had Rudkin score 5 after 24 h and 33% had terminal event within a period of 24 h from the beginning of PS. During PS, most of patient's relatives reported peacefulness (65%), agitation/impatience in 6% of cases, and concern for suffering (16%).Conclusion: PS is used in case of worsening general conditions at the end-stage disease to relieve refractory symptoms with dignity. The ST can become a simple instrument to evaluate and improve PS quality, providing more attention on the impact of PS on relatives to then possibly develop new supportive procedures for patients and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Terminology concerning sedation in palliative care is heterogeneous, vague, and difficult to apply with negative impact on the reliability of quantitative data, practice, and ethical discourse. Design: To clarify the concept, we systematically developed definitions of core terms in an interdisciplinary research group comprising palliative care, ethics, law, and philosophy, integrating feedback from external experts. Results: We define terms stepwise, separating matters of terminology (What is the practice?) from matters of good practice (How to use it?). We start with an operational definition of "reduced level of consciousness" (score < 0 on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale modified for palliative care inpatients (RASS-PAL), followed by defining "sedating," "sedation," and "intentional sedation" as the result or process of sedating a patient as a means of achieving a previously defined treatment goal and the terms "light," "deep," "temporary," and "sedation until death." Conclusion: The terminology facilitates the precise phrasing of aims, indications, and rules for good practice. Empirical research on acceptance and feasibility is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation has become widely accepted as a method to alleviate refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients. Controversies regarding this topic especially concern the use of palliative sedation for psychological symptoms, the use in patients who are not imminently dying and the simultaneous withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is characterized by symptoms including muscle weakness, dysphagia, dysarthria, muscle spasms and progressive respiratory insufficiency. Due to these characteristic symptoms, palliative sedation might be considered to be necessary to alleviate refractory suffering in ALS patients. However, palliative sedation in ALS is only rarely discussed in current medical literature and guidelines.Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted among neurologists and palliative care practitioners in Germany. The participants were asked to evaluate the use of palliative sedation in different situations.Results: Two hundred and ninety-six completed questionnaires were analyzed. The results suggest high levels of support for the use of palliative sedation in ALS patients. 42% of the participants stated that they had already used palliative sedation in the treatment of ALS patients. Acceptance of palliative sedation was higher in case of physical symptoms than in case of psychological symptoms. Refusal of artificial nutrition did not lead to a lower acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care had already used palliative sedation in ALS patients more often and they were more likely to accept palliative sedation in different situations than the participants without a background in palliative care.Conclusion: Our survey showed that palliative sedation in ALS is widely accepted by the attending doctors. In case of psychological symptoms, palliative sedation is looked at with more concern than in case of physical symptoms. The refusal of artificial nutrition does not result in a decreased acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care are more likely to approve of palliative sedation in ALS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation is consciously reducing the patient's consciousness to alleviate the refractory symptoms. However, studies on palliative sedation for children are scarce. We aimed to survey the symptom control and risks for children with sedative therapy in end of life. Method: This study was a single center retrospective cohort study. Children who died in the Department of Palliative Medicine were divided into palliative sedation (Group A) and non-palliative sedation group (Group B). The symptoms relief, survival time, and last hospitalization time were compared between two groups. Results: From January 2012 to November 2019, 41 children died in department of palliative care. 24 children were sedated (Group A), meanwhile 17 children were not (Group B). The symptoms in Group A were more complex than Group B (p = 0.013). Overall symptom relief in Group A was higher than that in Group B (24/24, 10/15 p = 0.041). Pain relief rates (7/7, 20/21 p = 0.714), maximum/pre-death opioid dose [30(20, 77.5), 18(9, 45) p = 0.175, 30(20, 60), 18(9, 45) p = 0.208] and pain intensity difference [5(4,6.5), 4(2,6) p = 0.315] did not differ significantly in either groups. After diagnosis, the survival time of the Group A was longer than the Group B (p = 0.047). However, the length of hospitalization before death was similar in two groups (p = 0.385). Conclusion: Palliative sedation controls complicated, painful symptoms at the end of life and does not shorten the hospitalization time in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation is consciously reducing the patient's consciousness to alleviate the refractory symptoms. However, studies on palliative sedation for children are scarce. We aimed to survey the symptom control and risks for children with sedative therapy in end of life. Method: This study was a single center retrospective cohort study. Children who died in the Department of Palliative Medicine were divided into palliative sedation (Group A) and non-palliative sedation group (Group B). The symptoms relief, survival time, and last hospitalization time were compared between two groups. Results: From January 2012 to November 2019, 41 children died in department of palliative care. 24 children were sedated (Group A), meanwhile 17 children were not (Group B). The symptoms in Group A were more complex than Group B (p = 0.013). Overall symptom relief in Group A was higher than that in Group B (24/24, 10/15 p = 0.041). Pain relief rates (7/7, 20/21 p = 0.714), maximum/pre-death opioid dose [30(20, 77.5), 18(9, 45) p = 0.175, 30(20, 60), 18(9, 45) p = 0.208] and pain intensity difference [5(4,6.5), 4(2,6) p = 0.315] did not differ significantly in either groups. After diagnosis, the survival time of the Group A was longer than the Group B (p = 0.047). However, the length of hospitalization before death was similar in two groups (p = 0.385). Conclusion: Palliative sedation controls complicated, painful symptoms at the end of life and does not shorten the hospitalization time in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]