SOP – Palliative Sedierung

Expert-approved best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care (SedPall)

BACKGROUND

The use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in end-of-life care is associated with clinical, ethical and legal challenges. In view of these and of the issue's great importance to patients undergoing intolerable suffering, we conducted a project titled SedPall ("From anxiolysis to deep continuous sedation - Development of recommendations for sedation in palliative care") with the purpose of developing best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and obtaining feedback and approval from experts in this area.

DESIGN

Our stepwise approach entailed drafting the recommendations, obtaining expert feedback, conducting a single-round Delphi study, and convening a consensus conference. As an interdisciplinary group, we created a set of best practice recommendations based on previously published guidance and empirical and normative analysis, and drawing on feedback from experts, including patient representatives and of public involvement participants. We set the required agreement rate for approval at the single-round Delphi and the consensus conference at ≥80%.

RESULTS

Ten experts commented on the recommendations' first draft. The Delphi panel comprised 50 experts and patient and public involvement participants, while 46 participants attended the consensus conference. In total, the participants in these stages of the process approved 66 recommendations, covering the topics "indications", "intent/purpose [of sedation]", "decision-making", "information and consent", "medication and type of sedation", "monitoring", "management of fluids and nutrition", "continuing other measures", "support for relatives", and "team support". The recommendations include suggestions on terminology and comments on legal issues.

CONCLUSION

Further research will be required for evaluating the feasibility of the recommendations' implementation and their effectiveness. The recommendations and the suggested terminology may serve as a resource for healthcare professionals in Germany on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and may contribute to discussion on the topic at an international level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00015047 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Documentation of Sedation in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review of Requirements, Recommendations, and Templates

Objective: To identify and describe requirements, recommendations, and templates for the documentation of sedation in adult palliative care. Introduction: International literature shows inconsistency in clinical practice regarding sedation in palliative care accompanied by legal, ethical, and medical uncertainties. Documentation in general serves as proof for previous treatments. In the context of intentional sedation to relieve suffering at the end of life, documentation provides a clear demarcation against practices of euthanasia. Inclusion Criteria: Articles with full-text version published in English or German since 2000, covering documentation requirements, recommendations, monitoring parameters or templates for sedation in adult palliative care were included. Methods: Scoping review following the JBI methodology. Search in online databases, websites of professional associations in palliative care, reference lists of relevant publications, the archive of the German "Journal of Palliative Medicine" and databases for unpublished literature were used. Search terms included "palliative care,' "sedation," and "documentation." The search was conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 with an initial hand search in November 2021. Data were screened and charted by one reviewer after conducting a pilot test of the criteria. Results: From the initial 390 articles (database search), 22 articles were included. In addition, 15 articles were integrated from the hand search. The results can be clustered in two sets of items, regarding either the documentation before or during sedation. The documentation requirements referred both to inpatient and homecare settings but in many cases, a clear assignment was missing. Conclusions: The guidelines analyzed in this study rarely cover setting-specific differences in documentation and often treat documentation as minor topic. Further research is needed addressing legal and ethical concerns of health care teams and, therefore, help to improve treatment of patients suffering from otherwise intractable burden at the end of life.

Sedation in Palliative Care—a Clinically Oriented Overview of Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations

BACKGROUND

The appropriate provision of sedation as a last resort for the relief of suffering in palliative care is dealt with variably in actual practice. This article is intended as an overview of practically relevant information found in treatment recommendations and guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, and a manual search was carried out online. Recommendations that were not available in either German or English, or that were specific to pediatric practice, were excluded. Publication quality was assessed with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II). The recommendations in the documents were qualitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

29 publications (11 journal articles, 18 other) of varying quality according to AGREE II were included. All recommendations and guidelines were essentially based on expert consensus. The common indications for sedation are otherwise intractable delirium, dyspnea, and pain, in patients with a life expectancy of no more than two weeks. Existential distress is a controversial indication. The drug of first choice is midazolam. As the sedating effect of opioids is hard to predict, they should not be used as sedatives. The risks of sedation include respiratory and circulatory depression, as well as the loss of communicative ability, control, and autonomy. It is generally recommended that the patient's symptom burden and depth of sedation should be monitored; clinical and technically supported monitoring are recommended in some publications as well, depending on the situation.

CONCLUSION

There is a broad consensus in favor of sedation to relieve suffering in the last days and hours of life. Recommendations vary for patients with a longer life expectancy and for those with existential distress, and with respect to monitoring.

Palliative sedation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: results of a nationwide survey among neurologists and palliative care practitioners in Germany

Background

Palliative sedation has become widely accepted as a method to alleviate refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients. Controversies regarding this topic especially concern the use of palliative sedation for psychological symptoms, the use in patients who are not imminently dying and the simultaneous withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is characterized by symptoms including muscle weakness, dysphagia, dysarthria, muscle spasms and progressive respiratory insufficiency. Due to these characteristic symptoms, palliative sedation might be considered to be necessary to alleviate refractory suffering in ALS patients. However, palliative sedation in ALS is only rarely discussed in current medical literature and guidelines.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted among neurologists and palliative care practitioners in Germany. The participants were asked to evaluate the use of palliative sedation in different situations.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-six completed questionnaires were analyzed. The results suggest high levels of support for the use of palliative sedation in ALS patients. 42% of the participants stated that they had already used palliative sedation in the treatment of ALS patients. Acceptance of palliative sedation was higher in case of physical symptoms than in case of psychological symptoms. Refusal of artificial nutrition did not lead to a lower acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care had already used palliative sedation in ALS patients more often and they were more likely to accept palliative sedation in different situations than the participants without a background in palliative care.

Conclusion

Our survey showed that palliative sedation in ALS is widely accepted by the attending doctors. In case of psychological symptoms, palliative sedation is looked at with more concern than in case of physical symptoms. The refusal of artificial nutrition does not result in a decreased acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care are more likely to approve of palliative sedation in ALS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02681-7.

What do you mean by "palliative sedation"? : Pre-explicative analyses as preliminary steps towards better definitions

BACKGROUND

Sedation in palliative care is frequently but controversially discussed. Heterogeneous definitions and conceptual confusion have been cited as contributing to different problems 1) relevant to empirical research, for example, inconsistent data about practice, the 'data problem', and 2) relevant for an ethically legitimate characterisation of the practice, the 'problem of ethical pre-emption'. However, little is known about how exactly definitions differ, how they cause confusion and how this can be overcome.

METHOD

Pre-explicative analyses: (A) systematic literature search for guidelines on sedation in palliative care and systematic decomposition of the definitions of the practice in these guidelines; (B) logical distinction of different ways through which the two problems reported might be caused by definitions; and (C) analysis of how content of the definitions contributes to the problems reported in these different ways.

RESULTS

29 guidelines from 14 countries were identified. Definitions differ significantly in both structure and content. We identified three ways in which definitions can cause the 'data problem' - 1) different definitions, 2) deviating implicit concepts, 3) disagreement about facts. We identified two ways to cause the problem of ethical pre-emption: 1) explicit or 2) implicit normativity. Decomposition of definitions linked to the distinguished ways of causing the conceptual problems shows how exactly single parts of definitions can cause the problems identified.

CONCLUSION

Current challenges concerning empirical research on sedation in palliative care can be remediated partly by improved definitions in the future, if content and structure of the used definitions is chosen systematically. In addition, future research should bear in mind that there are distinct purposes of definitions. Regarding the 'data problem', improving definitions is possible in terms of supplementary information, checking for implicit understanding, systematic choice of definitional elements. 'Ethical pre-emption', in contrast, is a pseudo problem if definitions and the relationship of definitions and norms of good practice are understood correctly.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Palliative Care in German Comprehensive Cancer Centers - an evaluation of the implementation status

BACKGROUND

The working group for palliative medicine within the Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) network funded by the German Cancer Aid in Germany has developed and published 14 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for palliative care in CCCs. This study analyzed to what extent these SOPs have been implemented in the clinical routine in the CCC network one year after their publication.

METHODS

An online-based survey on the implementation status, limitations in daily practice and further themes was conducted between April and July 2018. In total, 125 health professionals in specialized palliative care from all 16 CCC locations were invited to participate. The data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS.

RESULTS

The response rate was 52.8%. More than half of the respondents (57.6%) knew about the free availability of SOPs on the CCC network website. The extent to which each SOP was being used actively in practice by the survey respondents ranged from a low of 22.7% (for the "Fatigue" SOP) to a highest of 48.5% (for the "Palliative Sedation" and "Respiratory Distress" SOPs). The respondents became aware of the SOP through recommendations from colleagues, team meetings or from the head of the department. The SOPs "Respiratory distress of an adult palliative patient" and "Palliative sedation" were perceived as the most practically oriented and understandable. Barriers to use SOPs were mainly limited time resources and lack of knowledge of existence and availability.

CONCLUSIONS

In practice, better knowledge about the SOPs and at the same time increased use can be achieved through systematic training or discussion of SOPs in regular team meetings. There is a need to take measures to optimize the implementation in clinical practice.

Implementation of Best Practice Recommendations for Palliative Care in German Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Background

From 2014 to 2017, the Palliative Medicine Working Group developed and published best practice recommendations for the integration of palliative care in Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) in Germany. To evaluate the implementation level of these recommendations in the CCCs an online survey was performed. Based on the results of this study, strategic tandem partnerships between CCCs should be built in order to foster further local development.

Materials and Methods

Directors of all CCCs were contacted by e‐mail between December 2017 and February 2018. At the time of the survey, 15 CCCs were funded by the German Cancer Aid. The level of implementation of the recommendations in individual CCCs was established using a transtheoretical model.

Results

Between December 2017 and February 2018, all 15 contacted directors or their representatives of the CCCs took part in the survey. More than two thirds of the CCCs have a palliative service as well as a day clinic and palliative outpatient clinic. Regional networking and the provision of a palliative care unit were approved by all CCCs.

Conclusion

The publication of best practice recommendations was a milestone for the integration of palliative care in the CCCs. The majority of the German CCCs already fulfill essential organizational and structural requirements. There is a particular need for optimization in the provision of a basic qualification for general palliative care and emergency admission personnel.

Implications for Practice

In 2017, the Palliative Medicine Working Group in the network of the German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) published the best practice recommendations it had developed for the integration of palliative medicine in CCCs in Germany. In order to evaluate the level of implementation of the recommendations, an online survey of the CCC directors was established. The majority of German CCCs fulfil elementary organizational and structural requirements. However, there is still room for improvement in the provision of a basic qualification for general palliative care and emergency admission personnel.

This article evaluates the implementation of best practice recommendations for the integration of palliative care in Comprehensive Cancer Centers in Germany and calls for strategic partnerships between cancer centers to foster local development. NOTE: authors indicated financial conflicts but they are of a non‐commercial nature and thus do not need to be disclosed per journal policy.