Search

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]

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.)

Abstract 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.

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]

This paper summarized the hospice care practice of a patient with terminal phase of breast cancer, and discussed the care of pain control, nausea and vomiting, palliation and sedation for terminal cancer patients with cancer-related pain. This paper focused on psychological support and spiritual comfort for terminal cancer patients, so as to provide reference for future studies on hospice care in clinical practice. (本文回顾1例乳腺癌终末期患者的安宁疗护实践, 探讨癌症终末期难治性癌痛患者疼痛控制、恶心呕吐、姑息镇静的护理, 聚焦癌症终末期患者心理支持及精神抚慰, 为今后安宁疗护临床实践提供参考。)

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]

In 2009, Quill and colleagues stipulated that there are three types of sedation practices at the end of life: ordinary sedation, proportionate palliative sedation (PPS), and palliative sedation to unconsciousness (PSU). Of the three, PPS and PSU are described as "last-resort options" to relieve refractory symptoms, and PSU as the most ethically controversial type that "should be quite rare." Unfortunately, little is known about actual sedation practices at the end of life in the United States. This may be due in part to a lack of conceptual clarity about sedation in end-of-life care. We argue that, until more is known about what sedation practices occur at the end of life, and how practices can be improved by research and more specific guidelines, "palliative sedation" will remain more misunderstood and controversial than it might otherwise be. In our view, overcoming the challenges posed by sedation in end-of-life care requires: 1) greater specificity regarding clinical situations and approaches to sedation, 2) research tailored to focused clinical questions, and 3) improved training and safeguards in sedation practices. Terms like PPS and PSU are relatively simple to understand in the abstract, but their application comprises various clinical situations and approaches to sedation. An obvious barrier to empirical research on sedation practices in end-of-life care is the challenge of determining these elements, especially if not clearly communicated. Additionally, we argue that training for palliative care specialists and others should include monitoring and rescue techniques as required competencies. [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]

Background: Palliative sedation (PS) is a therapeutic intervention employed to manage severe and refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients at end of life. Inconsistencies in PS practice guidelines coupled with clinician ambiguity have resulted in confusion about how PS is best integrated into practice. Understanding the perspectives, experiences, and practices relating to this modality will provide insight into its clinical application and challenges within the palliative care landscape. Objective: The aim is to explore the perspectives of palliative care physicians administering PS, including how practitioners define PS, factors influencing decision making about the use of PS, and possible reasons for changes in practice patterns over time. Methods: A survey (n?=?37) and semistructured interviews (n?=?23) were conducted with palliative care physicians throughout Ontario. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by two independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated through reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five key themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization, (2) differing definitions, (3) logistical challenges, (4) perceived ?back-up? to Medical Assistance in Dying, and (5) tool of the most responsible physician. Conclusion: There was significant variability in how participants defined PS and in frequency of use of PS. Physicians described greater ease implementing PS when practicing in palliative care units, with significant barriers faced by individuals providing home-based palliative care or working as consultants on inpatient units. Educational efforts are required about the intent and practice of PS, particularly among inpatient interprofessional teams.

Abstract 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.

With the transformation of medical philosophy, palliative care has become a fundamental component of end-of-life care for patients with life-threatening illnesses, meanwhile ethical issues involved in palliative care are becoming more prominent. This article, through a comprehensive review of both domestic and international ethical research, articulates five crucial ethical issues inherent to palliative care: truth-telling, advance care planning, the use of life-sustaining interventions, palliative sedation, and the relationship between euthanasia, assisted dying, and palliative care. The objective is to offer an ethical perspective for palliative care, help professionals in palliative care to address the critical ethical issues in practice, improve the quality of care for patients and their families, and to inform the development of related legal, regulatory, and policy frameworks.

Objective This study aimed to investigate Chinese anesthesiologists' comprehension of palliative care and their experiences with palliative sedation for patients in the end-stage of life. Methods From October to December 2021, a national cross-sectional survey was conducted among anesthesiologists in China distributed by the Chinese Society of Anesthesiology, Chinese Medical Association with convenient sampling. The survey questionnaire encompassed general information, professional experience, familiarity with palliative care, emotional responses to end-stage cases, experience with sedation for critically ill or end-stage patients, and preferences for sedation medication. Results A total of 2536 anesthesiologists from 29 provinces in China completed valid questionnaires. Among them, 572 anesthesiologists(22.6%, 572/2536) reported familiarity with palliative medicine. Male anesthesiologists, as well as those with prior experience in caring for critically ill or end-stage patients, involved in pain management and practicing in hospitals with established institutional palliative care teams, demonstrated greater familiarity with palliative care concepts(all P

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]

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 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]

For many years female reproductive system cancers have been a significant group among all malignant tumours in women. Among the symptoms accompanying advanced stages of cancer, particularly cervical and corpus uteri, bleeding and haemorrhages constitute a major clinical problem. In the case of patients with advanced-stage cancer, especially when progression or recurrence occurs in women who have already completed causal treatment, they can pose a significant clinical problem, often resulting in death. The following article discusses both diagnostic and treatment principles, including pharmacotherapy and surgical approaches, such as radiotherapy, interventional radiology, and surgical procedures. The principles of management in the terminal period of the disease are also presented, taking into account the support provided to both the patient and the relatives caring for her at that time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash INTRODUCTION “Because there are no laws barring palliative sedation, the dilemma facing doctors who use it is moral rather than legal.” Dr. Timothy Quill, a professor of psychiatry, bioethics, and palliative care concisely articulates an ethical intricacy in end-of-life care. In a Washington Post article titled, “Assisted suicide is controversial, but palliative sedation is legal and offers peace,” the discussion revolves around the ethical challenges encountered by physicians when deciding to employ palliative sedation, particularly when faced with terminal illnesses causing unbearable physical and existential suffering. Palliative sedation is defined as the intentional lowering of awareness towards, and including, unconsciousness for patients with severe and refractory symptoms.[1] While assisted suicide remains embroiled in legal debates, palliative sedation emerges as a legally sanctioned alternative, thereby burdening medical practitioners with a moral quandary; while the boundary between assisted suicide and palliative sedation is arguably blurred, intent seems to distinguish the two choices– both aim to reduce suffering, but palliative sedation does not have death as the goal. This leads to the ethical question on the permissibility of hastening or causing unconsciousness in dying patients, rather than the issue of whether causing death is ethically justifiable. The absence of explicit laws governing palliative sedation places the ethical dilemma squarely on the shoulders of healthcare professionals, who must grapple with the responsibility of determining if palliative sedation is in the best interest of the patient. Evidently, the choice the clinician makes crucially impacts the patient’s quality of life moving forward, demonstrating the far-reaching consequences of palliative sedation in not just individual experiences in healthcare, but in shaping the future of how palliative care is handled. By integrating clinical and neuroscience knowledge, an argument can be made that the optimal clinical decision is reached by considering the subjective value of consciousness for each individual patient, with candor and transparency being the basis of all counseling approaches to prioritize patient advocacy. ANALYSIS Drawing on the precedent of assisted suicide, a major concern physicians have when debating the use of palliative sedation is the clause to “do no harm”, a principle fundamental to their profession in healthcare. A paradoxical dilemma arises when reducing the pain of a patient may come at the cost of their consciousness– which is more harmful? Having strict guidelines on when palliative seduction is even an option alleviates some responsibility on the physician to make this choice; the choice of the patient, or informed consent, is preliminary for this therapy.[2] By having the patient aware of the risks, and having that patient decide what state they value more, a physician can base their decision on what “harm” means in relation to the patient’s definition. Of course, there are additional considerations that must be contended with before this assumption can be reliably used, such as the state of mind of the patient when this decision is made, as well as the general consensus that exists among the patient, family, and staff about the therapy’s appropriateness. Another concern then seems to be the actual practice of palliative sedation– what are the side effects and unintended consequences of this therapy? So far, the academic literature seems promising in the accuracy of the therapy; according to a review of 1,807 patients, there is no direct evidence from randomized clinical trials that palliative sedation, when appropriately indicated and correctly used to relieve unbearable suffering, has detrimental effect on the survival of patients with terminal cancer, and can be considered as part of a continuum of palliative care.[3] A more cynical viewpoint should also be considered, however, for the integration of different perspectives, possibilities, and predictions that allow for a comprehensive overview of palliative sedation. One possibility, a prospect unfortunately commonly considered in healthcare, is that palliative sedation can lead to death prematurely. This is where the clinician’s knowledge comes into play, particularly their expertise in the field of neuroscience and the operational definitions of consciousness. Various medications used in palliative care may influence the brain's neurochemistry, impacting consciousness and contributing to the relief of suffering. For instance, benzodiazepines such as midazolam and lorazepam, commonly employed in palliative sedation, act as central nervous system depressants. They enhance the inhibitory effects of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), leading to sedation, anxiolysis, and amnesia.[4] The neurological effects of these medications involve modulation of neurotransmitter activity, resulting in a calming effect on the brain. Midazolam, in particular, has a rapid onset of action and a short duration, making it suitable for managing acute distress in terminally ill patients.[5] As these medications induce sedation, they may contribute to the lowering of consciousness levels, while also relieving chronic suffering. Ultimately, it is up to the clinician to use their expertise to not only weigh the possible outcomes of the medications, but to also clearly communicate the potential consequences to the patients in a thoughtful manner. The doctrine of double effect (DDE) may also help to ameliorate the ethical conundrum of whether practicing palliative sedation is ethically justifiable. In the context of palliative sedation, the application of the doctrine of double effect becomes particularly salient. According to the criteria set by the DDE, the action of administering sedative medications, such as morphine, is deemed morally permissible if certain conditions are met.[6] Firstly, the action itself, providing relief from severe and refractory symptoms through sedation, is not inherently bad—it is morally neutral or, in some cases, considered good due to its intent to alleviate suffering. The primary intention must be the relief of suffering, with the secondary and potentially adverse effect of unconsciousness or hastening death not being the desired outcome but rather an unintended consequence. The DDE thus allows healthcare professionals to navigate the ethical intricacies of palliative sedation by placing a strong emphasis on the intention behind the action. In cases where consciousness is significantly diminished, as is often the case with palliative sedation, the doctrine provides a framework for evaluating the ethical justifiability of the intervention. The principle that the good effect (relief from suffering) must outweigh the potentially adverse effect (unconsciousness or hastening death) ensures a careful and considered approach to decision-making. The deliberation to use palliative sedation can be framed in the area of the ethics of neuroscience, as the choice to go through with palliative sedation involves the use of clinical decision-making, neuroscience, and ethical considerations related to consciousness.[7] The scientific diagnoses and definitions on how consciousness is perceived and how medications affect consciousness highlights a neuroscientific aspect; the optimal clinical decision-making process involves contemplating this variable value of consciousness. This brings in the ethical dimension, as clinicians must navigate the complexities of respecting individual perspectives and values related to consciousness, which can be influenced by neuroscientific factors such as cognitive functioning, brain health, and subjective experiences. CONCLUSION In summary, the ethical considerations surrounding palliative sedation compel clinicians to navigate the nuances of moral responsibility, patient advocacy, and clinical judgment. In the absence of clear legal guidelines, clinicians bear the weight of deciding the appropriateness of palliative sedation, influencing both individual patient experiences and broader palliative care practices. The doctrine of double effect provides a valuable ethical framework, emphasizing intentionality and the delicate balance between relieving suffering and unintended consequences. Ultimately, a patient-centered approach is essential to make the best decisions possible while upholding the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, ensuring that end-of-life care aligns with the values of each individual patient. - [1] American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 2014. “Palliative Sedation | AAHPM.” Directed by AAHPM. 2023. https://aahpm.org/positions/palliative-sedation. [2] Young et al. 2021. “The Neuroethics of Disorders of Consciousness: A Brief History of Evolving Ideas.” Brain 144 (11): 3291–3310. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab290. [3] Maltoni et al. 2012. “Palliative Sedation in End-of-Life Care and Survival: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Clinical Oncology 30 (12): 1378–83. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.37.3795. [4] Griffin, CE, 3rd et al. 2013. “Benzodiazepine Pharmacology and Central Nervous System-Mediated Effects.” PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23789008. [5] Prommer, Eric. 2020. “Midazolam: An Essential Palliative Care Drug.” Palliative Care and Social Practice 14 (January): 263235241989552. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632352419895527. [6] Takla et al. 2020. “A Conscious Choice: Is It Ethical to Aim for Unconsciousness at the End of Life?” Bioethics 35 (3): 284–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12838. [7] Roskies, Adina. 2002. “Neuroethics for the New Millenium.” Neuron 35 (1): 21–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00763-8.

Abstract 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 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 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.

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.

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]

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disease of the motor neurons. Given the evolutive characteristics of this disease, palliative care principles should be a foundation of ALS care. A multidisciplinary medical intervention is of paramount importance in the different phases of disease. The involvement of the palliative care team improves quality of life and symptoms, and prognosis. Early initiation is of paramount importance to ensuring patient-centered care, when the patient has still the capability to communicate effectively and participate in his medical care. Advance care planning supports patients and family members in understanding and sharing their preferences according to their personal values and life goals regarding future medical treatment. The principal problems which require intensive supportive care include cognitive disturbances, psychological distress, pain, sialorrhrea, nutrition, and ventilatory support. Communication skills of health-care professionals are mandatory to manage the inevitability of death. Palliative sedation has peculiar aspects in this population, particularly with the decision of withdrawing ventilatory support. [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]

Abstract 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

Na Li, Meng Cui, Yumei Wang Department of Hospice Care, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Meng Cui; Yumei Wang, Department of Hospice Care, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 39 Huaxiang Road, Tiexi District, Shenyang, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 18940254587 ; +86 18940251490, Email meng_cui@hotmail.com; m18940251490@163.comBackground: 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.Keywords: palliative sedation, dexmedetomidine, dyspnoea, palliative care, terminal-stage cancer

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]

Abstract 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 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 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 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.

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]

Ethical dilemmas in nursing are most pronounced in palliative and end-of-life care, where we meet the most demanding and complex needs of nursing care. The research discusses the importance of ethics, religion and spirituality in palliative care, from the perspective of three monotheistic religions and the emphasis on end-of-life ethical dilemmas and how religious beliefs can affect end-of-life medical care and nursing. The importance of ethics, religion and spirituality is presented in the research within three basic ethical principles, such as withholding and withdrawal of treatment, unjustified treatment and treatment with palliative sedation, and tried to justify its assessment in light of Jewish, Catholic and Islamic perspectives.

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]