Search

Abstract Background The practice of continuous palliative sedation until death is the subject of much medical and ethical debate, which is reflected in the inconsistency that persists in the literature regarding the definition and indications of palliative sedation. Aim This study aims to gain a better understanding of palliative care clinicians’ experiences with continuous palliative sedation. Design We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group discussions. Setting/participants We conducted six focus groups with a total of 28 palliative care clinicians (i.e., 15 nurses, 12 physicians, and 1 end-of-life doula) from diverse care settings across Canada, where assisted dying has recently been legalized. Results An interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to consolidate the data into six key themes: responding to suffering; grappling with uncertainty; adapting care to ensure ongoing quality; grounding clinical practice in ethics; combining medical expertise, relational tact, and reflexivity; and offering an alternative to assisted death. Conclusions Interaction with the patient’s family, uncertainty about the patient’s prognosis, the concurrent practice of assisted dying, and the treatment of existential suffering influence the quality of sedation and indicate a lack of clear palliative care guidelines. Nevertheless, clinicians exhibit a reflective and adaptive capacity that can facilitate good practice.

Background: The practice of continuous palliative sedation until death is the subject of much medical and ethical debate, which is reflected in the inconsistency that persists in the literature regarding the definition and indications of palliative sedation. Aim: This study aims to gain a better understanding of palliative care clinicians' experiences with continuous palliative sedation. Design: We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group discussions. Setting/participants: We conducted six focus groups with a total of 28 palliative care clinicians (i.e., 15 nurses, 12 physicians, and 1 end-of-life doula) from diverse care settings across Canada, where assisted dying has recently been legalized. Results: An interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to consolidate the data into six key themes: responding to suffering; grappling with uncertainty; adapting care to ensure ongoing quality; grounding clinical practice in ethics; combining medical expertise, relational tact, and reflexivity; and offering an alternative to assisted death. Conclusions: Interaction with the patient's family, uncertainty about the patient's prognosis, the concurrent practice of assisted dying, and the treatment of existential suffering influence the quality of sedation and indicate a lack of clear palliative care guidelines. Nevertheless, clinicians exhibit a reflective and adaptive capacity that can facilitate good practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Palliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center. Methods We retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481–15). Results During the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n = 203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p

Context: Limited information is available regarding the detailed clinical patterns of palliative sedation (PS), that is, the symptom control rate, salvage medication, and the effectiveness of intermittent PS (IPS) versus continuous PS (CPS).Objectives: The primary aim was to investigate clinical outcomes of PS in a real clinical setting.Methods: Clinical information was prospectively collected for patients who were treated according to a prescribed protocol and assessment tools in a hospice unit affiliated with a tertiary cancer center between September 2015 and March 2017. Data were analyzed retrospectively. Midazolam was used as the first medication for PS, and propofol and phenobarbital were subsequently used as salvage medications. Indications of PS, the depth of sedation, the quality of sleep, and the level of consciousness were assessed.Results: A total of 306 patients were enrolled, 89 of whom (29.1%) received PS. No difference in survival time was found between patients with and without PS (median survival, 34.0 vs 25.0 days, P = 0.109). Delirium was the most common indication of PS. The symptoms of 73 (82.0%) of 89 patients with PS were relieved with midazolam. Twelve (75.0%) of 16 midazolam-failure patients responded to propofol, five of whom (31%) exhibited respiratory depression. Of the 89 patients receiving PS, 61 (68.5%) received IPS and 28 patients (31.5%) received CPS. The median survival times from PS initiation to death were six days in the IPS group and one day in the CPS group (P < 0.001). Interestingly, consciousness levels were significantly improved after IPS in the delirium group compared with those in the other group (41.7% vs 16.7%, P = 0.002).Conclusion: The refractory symptoms of end-of-life patients with cancer can ultimately be relieved with various medications for PS. IPS may improve the consciousness level of patients with delirium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To explore the consistency in international expert opinions about palliative sedation.Methods: A modified electronic-Delphi procedure was carried out in two rounds. On hundred nine eligible experts were identified from their publications in MEDLINE related with terminal delirium, dyspnea and palliative sedation in the last 3 years. Delphi study included three vignettes of cancer patients and two non-cancer patients, with an estimated survival of days and severe suffering secondary to refractory complications. Experts were asked about whether they would perform continuous sedation and sedation level (described as Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale or defined as patient/family report of symptom relief). Consensus was considered when 70% or more of the experts agreed on a certain topic.Results: Thirty-four and 27 panellists completed the 2 Delphi rounds, respectively. Participants were from the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and Asia. One hundred per cent, 97% and 88% of the respondent agreed use of sedatives, continuously or temporary, in cases of refractory delirium, dyspnea secondary to lung cancer and GOLD IV-EPOC. There were discrepancies for cases of dementia and psycho-existential suffering. Expert selection of continuous palliative sedation was 93% for delirium, 41% for cancer dyspnea, 66% for EPOC dyspnea, 22% for agitation/pain in dementia and 19% for existential suffering. Responses about types and levels of sedation did not achieve consensus in any cases.Conclusions: The Delphi study failed to reach consensus in continuous palliative sedation and sedation levels for patients with refractory symptoms described in hypothetical clinical scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center. Methods: We retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481-15). Results: During the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n = 203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p< 0.001) and more likely to have a diagnosis of lung cancer (23% vs. 14%, p = 0.028). The most common indications for sedation were dyspnea (55%) and delirium (19.7%) and the most common drugs used were midazolam (52.7%) or midazolam and a neuroleptic (39.4%). Median initial midazolam infusion rate was 0.75 mg/h (interquartile range -- IQR - 0.6-1.5) and final rate was 1.5 mg/h (IQR 0.9-3.0). Patient survival (length of hospital stay from admission to death) of those who had PS was more than the double of those who did not (33.6 days vs 16 days, p < 0.001). The palliative care team was involved in the care of 12% (n = 25) of sedated patients. Conclusions: PS is a relatively common practice in the end-of-life of cancer patients at our hospital and it is not associated with shortening of hospital stay. Involvement of a dedicated palliative care team is strongly recommended if this procedure is being considered. Further research is needed to identify factors that may affect the frequency and outcomes associated with PS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article systematically reviews the literature on the views of clinicians in regards to palliative sedation for predominantly existential suffering in terminally ill patients. A literature search was performed in multiple databases with primary studies including interviews, surveys and focus groups identified and analyzed using a thematic synthesis approach. At the time of this study, the literature clearly indicates that most clinicians do not favour palliative sedation for mainly existential suffering. Clinicians who are willing to consider existential suffering as part of a refractory state at end-of-life require that intractable physical symptoms and a short life expectancy coexist in order to justify palliative sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Continuous palliative sedation has been the focus of extensive international debates in the field of end-of-life decision making. Although nurses may be important participants in the performance of continuous palliative sedation, research has focused primarily on the role and experience of physicians. Nurses' experiences differ from that of physicians; they more often describe that continuous palliative sedation is used with the intention of hastening death and to have experienced serious emotional burden. Therefore, it is important to understand the experience of nurses in continuous palliative sedation. Objective: To describe nurses' experiences with the decision-making and performance of continuous palliative sedation in terminally ill patients. Methods: Cross-sectional study. In 2008, a structured questionnaire was sent to 576 nurses in six professional home care organizations, ten units for palliative care in nursing homes and in-patient hospices and seven hospitals in the western region of the Netherlands. Respondents provided information about the last patient receiving continuous palliative sedation whom they had cared for. Results: Two-hundred seventy-seven questionnaires were returned and 199 (71.84%) reported a case of continuous palliative sedation. Nurses felt involved in the decision to use sedation in 84% of cases, albeit to a lesser extent in home care (68.75%, p = 0.002). They agreed with the performance of continuous palliative sedation in 95.97% of cases and they proposed the use of continuous palliative sedation in 16.16%. Nurses were present at the start of sedation in 81.40% of cases and reported physicians to be present in 45.22%. In 72.77%, arrangements had been made among caregivers about the coordination of health care regarding the sedation. Conclusion: Nurses seem to play an important role in the use of continuous sedation. This role is mainly supportive toward physicians and patients during the decision-making process, but shifts to an active performance of sedation, particularly in settings where they explicitly participate as members of a team. Nurses could develop the practice of palliative sedation by anticipating procedural obstacles in the performance of continuous palliative sedation. We recommend them to become more active participants in the decisionmaking to improve the care of patients receiving continuous palliative sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative sedation can be used for refractory symptoms during end-of-life care. However, continuous palliative sedation (CPS) for existential distress remains controversial due to difficulty determining when this distress is refractory., Objectives: The aim was to determine the opinions and practices of Canadian palliative care physicians regarding CPS for existential distress., Methods: A survey focusing on experience and views regarding CPS for existential distress was sent to 322 members of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians., Results: Eighty-one surveys returned (accessible target, 314), resulting in a response rate of 26%. One third (31%) of the respondents reported providing CPS for existential distress. On a 5-point Likert-type scale, 40% of participants disagreed, while 43% agreed that CPS could be used for existential distress alone., Conclusion: Differing opinions exist regarding this complex and potentially controversial issue, necessitating the education of health-care professionals and increased awareness within the general public.