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., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. The authors (apart from HB and SMS) participated in the Delphi process. However, the two researchers coordinating the consensus process and the evaluation (HB and SMS) did not participate, thus preventing any bias in the evaluation.

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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 improve the quality of their content and the applicability of their recommendations.

Context: Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed., Objectives: To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies., Methods: Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed., Results: Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort., Conclusion: Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed., Aim: To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured., Design: Integrative review of most recent empirical research., Data Sources: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010-2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness., Results: Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement., Conclusions: There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.

Objective: Due to aging Western societies, older patients suffering from incurable cancer will present themselves more often to health care professionals. To be of service to these severely ill elderly patients, more knowledge is needed on which life values are guiding them through their last phases of life. This review aims to describe which life values play an important part in the lives of elderly people suffering from incurable cancer., Methods: We conducted a literature review with a structured search to identify empirical studies (January 1950-February 2016) using six databases., Results: The analysis of thirty articles resulted in the extensive description of eight life values: comfort, continuity, humility, dignity, honesty, optimism, hope and preparedness., Conclusion: Elderly patients suffering from incurable cancer use the abovementioned life values to give meaning to a life interrupted by disease. Furthermore, these values will play a role in communication and decision-making., Practice Implications: Knowledge about life values can help professionals discuss and clarify personal preferences with elderly patients suffering from incurable cancer, contributing to more personalized care and treatment. Communication should focus on to what extent patient empowerment, life-prolonging treatment and the involvement of the patient's supporting systems suit the wishes of these patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This paper is concerned with the moral justification for palliative sedation until death. Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness for the relief of untreatable symptoms. The paper focuses on the moral problems surrounding the intentional lowering of consciousness until death itself, rather than possible adjacent life-shortening effects. Starting from a Kantian perspective on virtue, it is shown that continuous deep sedation until death (CDS) does not conflict with the perfect duty of moral self-preservation because CDS does not destroy capacities for agency. In addition, it is argued that CDS can frustrate the imperfect duty of self-cultivation by reducing consciousness permanently. Nevertheless, there are cases where CDS is morally acceptable, namely, cases where the agent has already permanently lost the possibility for free action in advance of sedation--for example, due to excruciating and ongoing pain. Because the latter can be difficult to diagnose properly, safeguards may be needed in order to prevent the application of CDS for the wrong reasons.

Background: Person-centred care is becoming increasingly recognised as an important element of palliative care. The current review syntheses evidence in relation to transitions in advanced cancer patients with palliative care needs. The review focuses on specific elements which will inform the Pal-Cycles programme, for patients with advanced cancer transitioning from hospital care to community care. Elements of transitional models for cancer patients may include, identification of palliative care needs, compassionate communication with the patient and family members, collaborative effort to establish a multi-dimensional treatment plan, review and evaluation of the treatment plan and identification of the end of life phase. Methods: A scoping review of four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies published from January 2013 to October, 2022. A further hand-search of references to locate additional relevant studies was also undertaken. Inclusion criteria involved cancer patients transitions of care with a minimum of two of components from those listed above. Studies were excluded if they were literature reviews, if transition of care was related to cancer survivors, involved non-cancer patients, had paediatric population, if the transition implied a change of therapy and or a lack of physical transit to a non-hospital place of care. This review was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework and narrative synthesis was used. Results: Out of 5695 records found, 14 records were selected. Transition models identified: increases in palliative care consultations, hospice referrals, reduction in readmission rates and the ability to provide end of life care at home. Transition models highlight emotional and spiritual support for patients and families. No uniform model of transition was apparent, this depends on the healthcare system where it is implemented. Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of collaboration, coordination and communication as central mechanisms for transitional model for patients with advanced cancer. This may require careful planning and will need to be tailored to the contexts of each healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In ageing Western societies, many older persons live with and die from cancer. Despite that present-day healthcare aims to be patient-centered, scientific literature has little knowledge to offer about how cancer and its treatment impact older persons' various outlooks on life and underlying life values. Therefore, the aims of this paper are to: 1) describe outlooks on life and life values of older people (≥ 70) living with incurable cancer; 2) elicit how healthcare professionals react and respond to these. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 12 older persons with advanced cancer and two group interviews with healthcare professionals were held and followed by an analysis with a grounded theory approach. Results: Several themes and subthemes emerged from the patient interview study: a) handling incurable cancer (the anticipatory outlook on "a reduced life", hope and, coping with an unpredictable disease) b) being supported by others ("being there", leaving a legacy, and having reliable healthcare professionals) and; c) making end-of-life choices (anticipatory fears, and place of death). The group interviews explained how healthcare professionals respond to the abovementioned themes in palliative care practice. Some barriers for (open) communication were expressed too by the latter, e.g., lack of continuity of care and advance care planning, and patients' humble attitudes. Conclusions: Older adults living with incurable cancer showed particular outlooks on life and life values regarding advanced cancer and the accompanying last phase of life. This paper could support healthcare professionals and patients in jointly exploring and formulating these outlooks and values in the light of treatment plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Knowledge of determinants that are associated with the administration of continuous palliative sedation (CPS) helps physicians identify patients who are at risk of developing refractory symptoms, thereby enabling proactive care planning.Objectives: This study aims to explore which patient-related factors at admission are associated with receiving CPS later in the terminal phase of life.Methods: A prospective multicenter observational study was performed in six Dutch hospices and three nursing home-based palliative care units. The association between patient-related variables at admission (age, gender, diagnosis, use of opioids or psycholeptics, number of medications, Karnofsky Performance Status scale score, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System distress score, and Glasgow Coma Scale score) and the administration of CPS at the end of life was analyzed.Results: A total of 467 patients died during the study period, of whom 130 received CPS. In univariate analysis, statistically significant differences were noted between the sedated and nonsedated patients with respect to younger age (P = 0.009), malignancy as a diagnosis (P = 0.05), higher Karnofsky Performance Status score (P = 0.03), the use of opioids (P < 0.001), the use of psycholeptics (P = 0.003), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System distress score (P = 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only the use of opioids at admission (odds ratio 1.90; 95% confidence interval 1.18-3.05) was significantly associated with the administration of CPS.Conclusion: Physicians should be aware that patients who use opioids at admission have an increased risk for the administration of CPS at the end of life. In this group of patients, a comprehensive personalized care plan starting at admission is mandatory to try to prevent the development of refractory symptoms. Further research is recommended, to identify other determinants of the administration of CPS and to investigate which early interventions will be effective to prevent the need for CPS in patients at high risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized, but little is known how the decision making on palliative sedation is conducted and who are involved in. The aim of this study is to understand how decisions about palliative sedation are taken. The results may help to understand the reality of this decision-making considering when and by whom the decision-making process is initiated, patient involvement, family involvement and healthcare involvement. This may contribute to identifying aspects that should be improved. Background. The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized. In the context of palliative sedation, it is unclear how these decisions are made and who are involved in. The aim of the study is to understand how this decision-making is taken. Method. Information from a systematic review on clinical aspects of palliative sedation prospective studies were included. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014–December 2019). Data extraction and analysis regarded: (a) When and by whom the decision-making process is initiated; (b) patient involvement; (c) family involvement and (d) healthcare involvement. Results. Data about decision making were reported in 8/10 included articles. Palliative sedation was reported in 1137 patients (only 16 of them were non-cancer). Palliative sedation was introduced by the palliative care team during the disease process, at admission, or when patients experienced refractory symptoms. Only two studies explicitly mentioned the involvement of patients in decision making. Co-decision between families and the regular health care professionals was usual, and the health care professionals involved had been working in palliative care services. Conclusion. Patient participation in decision making appeared to be compromised by limited physical or cognitive capacity and family participation is described. The possibility of palliative sedation should be discussed earlier in the disease process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: By measuring the quality of the organisation of palliative care with process and structure quality indicators (QIs), patients, caregivers and policy makers are able to monitor to what extent recommendations are met, like those of the council of the WHO on palliative care and guidelines. This will support the implementation of public programmes, and will enable comparisons between organisations or countries. Methods: As no European set of indicators for the organisation of palliative care existed, such a set of QIs was developed. An update of a previous systematic review was made and extended with more databases and grey literature. In two project meetings with practitioners and experts in palliative care the development process of a QI set was finalised and the QIs were categorized in a framework, covering the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Results: The searches resulted in 151 structure and process indicators, which were discussed in steering group meetings. Of those QIs, 110 were eligible for the final framework. Conclusions: We developed the first set of QIs for the organisation of palliative care. This article is the first step in a multi step project to identify, validate and pilot QIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients' needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict. Methods: In the first part, patients' values and preferences and medical oncologists' views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12–18 months before implementation) post-test (12–18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients' values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured. Discussion: This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and recording that consultation, we are able to link decisional conflict to the decision making process, e.g. the communication during consultation. The study faces challenges such as timely including patients within the short period between referral and first consultation. Furthermore, with new treatments being developed rapidly, molecular stratification may affect the patient populations included in the pre-test and post-test periods. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR7551 (prospective; July 17, 2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented about the End-of-Life Practices in European Intensive Care Units study.