Search

Background Palliative sedation is a commonly accepted medical practice. This study aims to clarify how palliative sedation is regulated in various countries and whether this may impact its practice. Methods An online survey requesting regulations on palliative sedation was conducted in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Romania and the UK. Purposive sampling strategy was used to identify clinicians from different medical fields and legal experts for each country. Regulations were analyzed using the principles of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework on palliative sedation. Country reports describing how palliative sedation is regulated were elaborated. Results One hundred and thirty-nine out of 223 (62%) participants identified 31 laws and other regulations affecting palliative sedation. In Spain, 12 regional laws recognize palliative sedation as a right of the patient at the end of life when there are refractory symptoms. In Italy, the law of informed consent and advance directives specifically recognizes the doctor can use deep sedation when there are refractory symptoms. There are also general medical laws that, while not explicitly referring to palliative sedation, regulate sedation-related principles: the obligation of doctors to honour advance directives, informed consent, the decision-making process and the obligation to document the whole process. In Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, palliative sedation is also regulated through professional guidelines that are binding as good practice with legal significance. Conclusions Palliative sedation is considered in the general law of medical practice, in laws regarding the patient's autonomy, and through professional guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Hypothesis It is argued that availability of diagnostic models will facilitate a more rapid identification of individuals who are at a higher risk of first episode psychosis (FEP). Therefore, we developed, evaluated, and validated a diagnostic risk estimation model to classify individual with FEP and controls across six countries. Study Design We used data from a large multi-center study encompassing 2627 phenotypically well-defined participants (aged 18–64 years) recruited from six countries spanning 17 research sites, as part of the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions study. To build the diagnostic model and identify which of important factors for estimating an individual risk of FEP, we applied a binary logistic model with regularization by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. The model was validated employing the internal-external cross-validation approach. The model performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration, sensitivity, and specificity. Study Results Having included preselected 22 predictor variables, the model was able to discriminate adults with FEP and controls with high accuracy across all six countries (rangesAUROC = 0.84–0.86). Specificity (range = 73.9–78.0%) and sensitivity (range = 75.6–79.3%) were equally good, cumulatively indicating an excellent model accuracy; though, calibration slope for the diagnostic model showed a presence of some overfitting when applied specifically to participants from France, the UK, and The Netherlands. Conclusions The new FEP model achieved a good discrimination and good calibration across six countries with different ethnic contributions supporting its robustness and good generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To stop the spread of the new coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), many countries had completely locked down. This lockdown restricted the everyday life of the affected residents and changed their mobility pattern, but its effects on sleep pattern were largely unknown. Methods Here, utilizing one of the largest crowdsourced database (Sleep as Android), we analyzed the sleep pattern of 25 217 users with 1 352 513 sleep records between 1 January and 29 April 2020 in the US and 16 European countries (Germany, UK, Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Czech, Sweden, Austria, Poland and Switzerland) with more than 100 records in all days of 2020. Results During the COVID-19 pandemic, the sleeping pattern before and after the country-level lockdown largely differed. The subjects increased their sleep duration by an average of 11.3 to 18.6 min on weekday nights, except Denmark (4.9 min) and Finland (7.1 min). In addition, subjects form all 16 European countries delayed their sleep onset from 10.7 min (Sweden) to 29.6 min (Austria). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, residents in the US and 16 European countries delayed their bedtime and slept longer than usual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective linkage to specialist care following screening is crucial for secondary prevention of chronic viral hepatitis-related consequences. Methods: To explore the frequency of referral of patients to secondary care from the health services involved in screening and to gather information on the services responsible for the provision of post-test counselling and contact tracing, four online surveys were conducted among general practitioners (GP), and experts working in sexual health services (SHS), antenatal care (ANC) and specialist secondary care in Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Results: Overall, 60% of GPs report referring all patients to specialist care. Although 67% of specialists commonly receive patients referred by GPs, specialists in Germany rarely or never receive patients from ANC or from centres testing injecting drug users; and specialists in the Netherlands, Hungary and Germany rarely receive patients from SHS. Gastroenterologists/hepatologists are the professionals mainly responsible for the provision of counselling following a positive diagnosis of viral hepatitis according to two-thirds of specialists, 14% of SHS providers and 11% of ANC providers. Almost half of ANC providers (45%) stated that gynaecologists are the professionals responsible for the provision of counselling to positive pregnant women; among SHS providers, only 14% identified SHS as the services responsible. Conclusion: Our findings suggest the existence of complex/ineffective referral practices or that opportunities to screen risk groups are missed. Recommendations clarifying the services responsible at each step of the referral pathway are needed in order to increase the success of screening programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]