Search

Background: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. Aim: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. Design: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. Setting: European. Participants: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. Results: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. Conclusions: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND Resilience is an increasingly used term in medicine and subject to various definitions, often not easy to grasp. There are established core concepts for patients receiving palliative care, for example, meaning in life, that have already been researched a lot. Resilience, relative to these concepts, is a new object of research in palliative care, where it has so far been used predominantly with regard to the well-being of teams. AIM To explore how experts in palliative care define the concept of resilience and its suitability for patients, significant others, and professionals. DESIGN Qualitative study using summarizing content analysis according to Mayring. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Twenty-one health and social care professionals with expertise caring for persons with life-threatening/limiting illnesses and their relatives were interviewed in three individual interviews and four focus groups. All conversations were recorded, transcribed, coded via MAXQDA, and validated by another researcher. RESULTS Resilience has been described as something procedural, dynamic, individual, and flexible. In connection with well-known concepts such as posttraumatic growth or terms from the field of mindfulness, social environment or personal factors have also been linked to resilience. Resources such as spirituality can contribute to resilience, and resilience itself can function as a resource, for example, by contributing to quality of life. An active use of the term in practical work with patients or relatives is rare, but it is used in education or team measures. Limited lifespan can pose a challenge to an active use of the concept of resilience. CONCLUSION Resilience as a very individual approach provides added value to other core concepts of palliative care. Within the palliative context, the normative dimension of resilience must be well reflected. A broader definition of resilience is recommended, leaving room for everyone to find their own form of resilience. The concep

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

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. 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. 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. Palliative sedation is considered in the general law of medical practice, in laws regarding the patient's autonomy, and through professional guidelines. [Abstract copyright: © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.]

In 2009, the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) developed a framework on palliative sedation, acknowledging this practice as an important and ethically acceptable intervention of last resort for terminally ill patients experiencing refractory symptoms. Before and after that, other guidelines on palliative sedation have been developed in Europe with variations in terminology and concepts. As part of the Palliative Sedation project (Horizon 2020 Funding No. 825700), a revision of the EAPC framework is planned. The aim of this article is to analyze the most frequently used palliative sedation guidelines as reported by experts from eight European countries to inform the discussion of the new framework. The three most reported documents per country were identified through an online survey among 124 clinical experts in December 2019. Those meeting guideline criteria were selected. Their content was assessed against the EAPC framework on palliative sedation. The quality of their methodology was evaluated with the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Nine guidelines were included. All recognize palliative sedation as a last-resort treatment for refractory symptoms, but the criterion of refractoriness remains a matter of debate. Most guidelines recognize psychological or existential distress as (part of) an indication and some make specific recommendations for such cases. All agree that the assessment should be multiprofessional, but they diverge on the expertise required by the attending physician/team. Regarding decisions on hydration and nutrition, it is proposed that these should be independent of those for palliative sedation, but there is no clear consensus on the decision-making process. Several weaknesses were highlighted, particularly in areas of rigor of development and applicability. The identified points of debate and methodological weaknesses should be considered in any update or revision of the guidelines analyzed to i

Due to demographic change, the number of patients in palliative care (PC) is increasing. General Practitioners (GPs) are important PC providers who often have known their patients for a long time. PC can be demanding for GPs. However, there are few studies on the job stress factors of GPs performing PC and the potential influence of their PC training. To get more insights, a postal survey was performed with GPs in North Rhine, Germany. The questionnaire was based on a literature search, qualitative pre-studies, and the Hospital Consultants' Job Stress & Satisfaction Questionnaire (HCJSSQ). Participants state that a high level of responsibility, conflicting demands, and bureaucracy are the most important stressors they experienced in PC. The influence of PC qualification level on their perceived job stress factors is low. Only advanced but not specialist qualification shows a correlation with renumeration-related stress. Gender and work experience are more dominant influences. In our study, female GPs and physicians with more work experience tend to be more stressed. In conclusion, organisational barriers, such as administration, should be reduced and renumeration should be increased to facilitate the daily work of GPs.

Background General practitioners (GPs) are important providers of palliative home care (PHC). To deliver adequate palliative care, cooperation with specialised PHC teams is necessary. Specialised PHC is a type of care for severely ill patients by specialised providers. Little is known about the involvement of German GPs in specialised PHC. Objectives To analyse GPs' experience with realised and desired involvement in specialised PHC. Realised involvement means GPs took part in specialised PHC patients' care. Desired involvement is GPs' hoped-for cooperation with specialised PHC teams: GPs could state whether they want to stay involved, be informed, or provide medical services themselves after referral to specialised PHC. Methods Mixed methods design (focus group with 6 GPs; survey of 445 GPs in North Rhine, Germany, about their experiences in PHC/specialised PHC): Qualitative data was interpreted using content analysis. The authors developed a questionnaire and performed descriptive analysis based on qualitative results. Results GPs are mostly satisfied with specialised PHC teams' care, although they report cooperation is not always optimal. GPs describe a high satisfaction with quality of care by specialised PHC teams. However, physicians with higher PC knowledge are less satisfied with specialised PHC. Also, GPs are often less involved in specialised PHC than they wish, especially when they have a higher PC qualification. Conclusion In general, GPs are satisfied with the quality of care provided by specialised PHC teams but GPs do not always perceive cooperation as optimal. Involvement of GPs in specialised PHC needs to be improved.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic generated a significant burden on the German health care system, affecting the mental health of health care workers (HCW) in particular. Resilience may serve as an essential protective factor for individuals' well-being. Objective: Our objective was to identify demographic and work-related correlates of individual resilience and to investigate the association between pandemic-related stress, resilience and mental health using different resilience models. Methods: Our sample comprised 1034 German HCW in different medical professions who completed an online survey from 20 April to 1 July 2020. Resilience was assessed using the Resilience Scale-5 (RS-5). The pandemic-related self-reported stress burden was captured by a single item, while depression and anxiety symptoms were measured with the PHQ-2 and GAD-2, respectively. Additionally, various sociodemographic and work-related factors were assessed. Results: Overall, we found high levels of resilience in the sample compared to a German sample before the pandemic, which were significantly associated only with the older age of participants and having children in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Regarding mechanisms of resilience, moderation analysis revealed that low individual resilience and high pandemic-related stress burden independently contributed to both anxiety and depression symptoms while resilience additionally moderated the relationship between stress burden and anxiety symptoms. The link between self-reported stress burden and mental health symptoms was also partially mediated by individual resilience. Conclusion: Taken together, the findings based on the present sample during the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that resilience plays a central role in the mental health of healthcare workers and that resilience-building interventions should be expanded, especially with a focus on younger employees.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in severe detrimental effects on the mental well-being of health care workers (HCW). Consequently, there has been a need to identify health-promoting resources in order to mitigate the psychological impact of the pandemic on HCW. Objective Our objective was to investigate the association of sense of coherence (SOC), social support and religiosity with self-reported mental symptoms and increase of subjective burden during the COVID-19 pandemic in HCW. Methods Our sample comprised 4324 HCW of four professions (physicians, nurses, medical technical assistants (MTA) and pastoral workers) who completed an online survey from 20 April to 5 July 2020. Health-promoting resources were assessed using the Sense of Coherence Scale Short Form (SOC-3), the ENRICHD Social Support Inventory (ESSI) and one item on religiosity derived from the Scale of Transpersonal Trust (TPV). Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured with the PHQ-2 and GAD-2. The increase of subjective burden due to the pandemic was assessed as the retrospective difference between burden during the pandemic and before the pandemic. Results In multiple regressions, higher SOC was strongly associated with fewer anxiety and depression symptoms. Higher social support was also related to less severe mental symptoms, but with a smaller effect size, while religiosity showed minimal to no correlation with anxiety or depression. In professional group analysis, SOC was negatively associated with mental symptoms in all groups, while social support only correlated significantly with mental health outcomes in physicians and MTA. In the total sample and among subgroups, an increase of subjective burden was meaningfully associated only with a weaker SOC. Conclusion Perceived social support and especially higher SOC appeared to be beneficial for mental health of HCW during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the different importance of the resources in the respective occupations requires