Palliative sedation: an essential place for clinical excellence

Sedation practices in palliative care services across France: a nationwide point-prevalence analysis

OBJECTIVES

Terminally ill patients may require sedation to relieve refractory suffering. The prevalence and modalities of this practice in palliative care services remain unclear. This study estimated the prevalence of all sedation leading to a deep unconsciousness, whether transitory, with an undetermined duration, or maintained until death, for terminally ill patients referred to a home-based or hospital-based palliative care service.

METHODS

We conducted a national, multicentre, observational, prospective, cross-sectional study. In total, 331 centres participated, including academic/non-academic and public/private institutions. The participating institutions provided hospital-based or home-based palliative care for 5714 terminally ill patients during the study.

RESULTS

In total, 156 patients received sedation (prevalence of 2.7%; 95% CI, 2.3 to 3.2); these patients were equally distributed between 'transitory', 'undetermined duration' and 'maintained until death' sedation types. The prevalence was 0.7% at home and 8.0% in palliative care units. The median age of the patients was 70 years (Q1-Q3: 61-83 years); 51% were women and 78.8% had cancers. Almost all sedation events occurred at a hospital (90.4%), mostly in specialised beds (74.4%). In total, 39.1% of patients were unable to provide consent; only two had written advance directives. A collegial procedure was implemented in 80.4% of sedations intended to be maintained until death. Midazolam was widely used (85.9%), regardless of the sedation type.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study provides insight into sedation practices in palliative care institutions. We found a low prevalence for all practices, with the highest prevalence among most reinforced palliative care providers, and an equal frequency of all practices.

Ethical considerations in the relief of cancer pain

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.

Palliative sedation in Germany: factors and treatment practices associated with different sedation rate estimates in palliative and hospice care services

Background

Clinical practice of Palliative Sedation (PS) varies between institutions worldwide and sometimes includes problematic practices. Little available research points at different definitions and frameworks which may contribute to uncertainty of healthcare professionals in the application of PS. This analysis investigates what demographic factors and characteristics of treatment practices differ between institutions with high versus low sedation rates estimates in Palliative and Hospice Care in Germany.

Methods

Data sets from 221 organisations from a prior online survey were separated into two sub-groups divided by their estimated sedation rate A) lower/equal to 16% (n = 187; 90.8%) and B) higher than 16% (n = 19; 9.2%) for secondary analysis. Demographic factors and characteristics of PS treatment practices between the two groups were compared using T-Tests and Chi²/ Fisher Exact Tests and considered significant (*) at two-sided p < .05.

Results

Organisations in group B report that they discuss PS for a higher proportion of patients (38.5%/10.2%, p < 0.000**), rate agitation more often as an indications for PS (78.9%/ 53.5%, p = 0.050*), and are more likely to use Lorazepam (63.2%/ 37.4%, p = 0.047*), Promethazin (26.3%/ 9.6%, p = 0.044*), and (Es-)Ketamin (31.6%/ 12.8%, p = 0.039*) than representatives in group A. Both groups differ significantly in their allocation of three case scenarios to different types of PS.

Conclusions

Both definitions and patterns of clinical practice between palliative and hospice care representatives show divergence, which may be influenced one by another. A comprehensive framework considering conceptual, clinical, ethical, and legal aspects of different definitions of PS could help to better distinguish between different types and nuances of PS.

Palliative sedation challenging the professional competency of health care providers and staff: a qualitative focus group and personal written narrative study

Background

Despite recent advances in palliative medicine, sedating a terminally ill patient is regarded as an indispensable treatment to manage unbearable suffering. With the prospect of widespread use of palliative sedation, the feelings and representations of health care providers and staff (carers) regarding sedation must be carefully explored if we are to gain a better understanding of its impact and potential pitfalls. The objective of the study was to provide a comprehensive description of the opinions of carers about the use of sedation practices in palliative care units (PCU), which have become a focus of public attention following changes in legislation.

Methods

Data were collected using a qualitative study involving multi-professional focus groups with health care providers and staff as well as personal narratives written by physicians and paramedical staff. A total of 35 medical and paramedical providers volunteered to participate in focus group discussions in three Palliative Care Units in two French hospitals and to write personal narratives.

Results

Health care provider and staff opinions had to do with their professional stance and competencies when using midazolam and practicing sedation in palliative care. They expressed uncertainty regarding three aspects of the comprehensive care: biomedical rigour of diagnosis and therapeutics, quality of the patient/provider relationship and care to be provided. Focusing on the sedative effect of midazolam and continuous sedation until death, the interviewed health care providers examined the basics of their professional competency as well as the key role played by the health care team in terms of providing support and minimizing workplace suffering. Nurses were subject to the greatest misgivings about their work when they were called upon to sedate patients.

Conclusions

The uncertainty experienced by the carers with regard to the medical, psychosocial and ethical justification for sedation is a source of psychological burden and moral distress, and it has proved to be a major source of suffering in the workplace. Lastly, the study shows the uncertainty can have the positive effect of prompting the care team to devise ways to deal with it.

Opinions about the new law on end-of-life issues in a sample of french patients receiving palliative care

BACKGROUND

In February 2nd 2016, the French government enacted the Claeys-Leonetti law that forbade euthanasia and established the right to deep and continuous sedation for end-of-life patients. Moreover, the law also obliges clinicians to abide by any advance directives regarding treatment and investigation, except in cases where they are "obviously inappropriate" in a given medical situation, or in cases of emergency, in order to allow medical staff to take time to assess the patient's situation. Artificial feeding and hydration are considered as treatment. The aim of this report is to investigate individuals receiving palliative care about their opinion about euthanasia, about advance directives, about the right to deep and continuous sedation, and the right to stopping artificial feeding and hydration.

METHODS

The study was an opinion survey conducted among patients treated in two different palliative care institutions: a palliative care unit at the University Hospital (Timone, Marseille, France) and a non-profit association palliative care home ("La Maison", Gardanne, France). Face-to-face interviews were performed by two investigators. The survey included sociodemographics, clinical data, and opinions about euthanasia, deep and continuous sedation, stopping artificial feeding and hydration, and advance directives.

RESULTS

Forty patients were interviewed. The mean age was 59.8 years (standard deviation 12). Fifty three percent reported opposition to legalized euthanasia. Eighty three percent were in favour of the right to deep and continuous sedation in patients with refractory pain, 75% when it concerns a patient unable to express their wishes, and 68% when the patient decides to stop vital treatment. Fifty eight percent reported that artificial nutrition and hydration should be considered as care. Fifty eight percent of the patients interviewed would like to see doctors follow the express wishes contained in advance care directives and 53% that advance directives should be subject to a validity period.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates the feasibility of discussing sensitive issues such as euthanasia, continuous and deep sedation and cessation of care with patients receiving palliative care. These preliminary results point to the need to perform a larger study in order to find determinant factors in this specific situation and to incorporate them into thinking about end-of-life laws.

[New Act concerning end of life: Impact for medical practice?]

New French 2016' Act recognizes 3 new rights for patients at the end of their life: right to dead without futilities, right to have their wishes respected and right to be comfortable in all circumstances. Medical acts must not be continued in an unreasonable way. Futility is defined by useless, disproportionate or without another aim that an artificial life sustaining acts. For patients who cannot tell their wishes, a withdrawing or withholding decision of life sustaining treatments can be taken with a collegiate process. Doctors must always care about patient comfort with palliative care. Artificial hydration and nutrition can be considered as futile. Patients can write advanced directives or design confidence person to attest their wishes if they should be unable to do it. Doctors must respect advanced directives, except in emergency cases or if there are inappropriate. In such cases, the decision not to respect advanced directives must be taken collegially. Sedation is a therapeutic solution to alleviate refractory suffering for patients at the end of life, even if there is a risk to shorten their life, if the aim is to make patient comfortable and if it is the only way to achieve this goal. A specific right to deep and continuous sedation until death is created, only for patients with a short life prognosis (forhours to days). It is an exceptional practice with very strict conditions including a collegiate deliberation including non-medical team members. If they wish, patients at the end of life should be cared at home with comfort treatments if needed. Referent doctor must inform patients about their rights. An initial and continuous formation on this field is required. For every decision, it is important to keep a record in the patient chart. If not, it will be a fault.

From sedation to continuous sedation until death: how has the conceptual basis of sedation in end-of-life care changed over time?

CONTEXT

Numerous attempts have been made to describe and define sedation in end-of-life care over time. However, confusion and inconsistency in the use of terms and definitions persevere in the literature, making interpretation, comparison, and extrapolation of many studies and case analyses problematic.

OBJECTIVES

This evidence review aims to address and account for the conceptual debate over the terminology and definitions ascribed to sedation at the end of life over time.

METHODS

Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) and two high-impact journals (New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal) were searched for indexed materials published between 1945 and 2011. This search resulted in bibliographic data of 328 published outputs. Terms and definitions were manually scanned, coded, and linguistically analyzed by means of term description criteria and discourse analysis.

RESULTS

The review shows that terminology has evolved from simple to complex terms with definitions varying in length, comprising different aspects of sedation such as indications for use, pharmacology, patient symptomatology, target population, time of initiation, and ethical considerations, in combinations of a minimum of two or more of these aspects.

CONCLUSION

There is a pressing need to resolve the conceptual confusion that currently exists in the literature to bring clarity to the dialogue and build a base of commonality on which to design research and enhance the practice of sedation in end-of-life care.

Review of palliative sedation and its distinction from euthanasia and lethal injection

Palliative sedation evolved from within the practice of palliative medicine and has become adopted by other areas of medicine, such as within intensive care practice. Clinician's usually come across this practice for dying patients who are foregoing or having life support terminated. A number of intolerable and intractable symptom burdens can occur during the end of life period that may require the use of palliative sedation. Furthermore, when patients receive palliative sedation, the continued use of hydration and nutrition becomes an issue of consideration and there are contentious bioethical issues involved in using or withholding these life-sustaining provisions. A general understanding of biomedical ethics helps prevent abuse in the practice of palliative sedation. Various sedative drugs can be employed in the provision of palliative sedation that can produce any desired effect, from light sedation to complete unconsciousness. Although there are some similarities in the pharmacotherapy of palliative sedation, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and lethal injection, there is a difference in how the drugs are administered with each practice. There are some published guidelines about how palliative sedation should be practiced, but currently there is not any universally accepted standard of practice.

The ethical and legal aspects of palliative sedation in severely brain-injured patients: a French perspective

To fulfill their crucial duty of relieving suffering in their patients, physicians may have to administer palliative sedation when they implement treatment-limitation decisions such as the withdrawal of life-supporting interventions in patients with poor prognosis chronic severe brain injury. The issue of palliative sedation deserves particular attention in adults with serious brain injuries and in neonates with severe and irreversible brain lesions, who are unable to express pain or to state their wishes. In France, treatment limitation decisions for these patients are left to the physicians. Treatment-limitation decisions are made collegially, based on the presence of irreversible brain lesions responsible for chronic severe disorders of consciousness. Before these decisions are implemented, they are communicated to the relatives. Because the presence and severity of pain cannot be assessed in these patients, palliative analgesia and/or sedation should be administered. However, palliative sedation is a complex strategy that requires safeguards to prevent a drift toward hastening death or performing covert euthanasia. In addition to the law on patients' rights at the end of life passed in France on April 22, 2005, a recent revision of Article 37 of the French code of medical ethics both acknowledges that treatment-limitation decisions and palliative sedation may be required in patients with severe brain injuries and provides legal and ethical safeguards against a shift towards euthanasia. This legislation may hold value as a model for other countries where euthanasia is illegal and for countries such as Belgium and Netherlands where euthanasia is legal but not allowed in patients incapable of asking for euthanasia but in whom a treatment limitation decision has been made.

European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework for the use of sedation in palliative care

The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) considers sedation to be an important and necessary therapy in the care of selected palliative care patients with otherwise refractory distress. Prudent application of this approach requires due caution and good clinical practice. Inattention to potential risks and problematic practices can lead to harmful and unethical practice which may undermine the credibility and reputation of responsible clinicians and institutions as well as the discipline of palliative medicine more generally. Procedural guidelines are helpful to educate medical providers, set standards for best practice, promote optimal care and convey the important message to staff, patients and families that palliative sedation is an accepted, ethical practice when used in appropriate situations. EAPC aims to facilitate the development of such guidelines by presenting a 10-point framework that is based on the pre-existing guidelines and literature and extensive peer review.