Palliative Sedation and Sleeping Before Death: A Need for Clinical Guidelines?

The Ethics of Palliative Sedation as a Therapy of Last Resort

Many patients nearing the end of life reach a point at which the goals of care change from an emphasis on prolonging life and optimizing function to maximizing the quality of remaining life, and palliative care becomes a priority. For some patients, however, even high-quality aggressive palliative care fails to provide relief. For patients suffering from severe pain, dyspnea, vomiting, or other symptoms that prove refractory to treatment, there is a consensus that palliative sedation is an appropriate intervention of last resort. In this report, the National Ethics Committee, Veterans Health Administration examines what is meant by palliative sedation, explores ethical concerns about the practice, reviews the emerging professional consensus regarding the use of palliative sedation for managing severe, refractory symptoms at the end of life, and offers specific recommendations for institutional policy.

Pediatrician Ambiguity in Understanding Palliative Sedation at the End of Life

CONTEXT

Palliative sedation is a means of relieving intractable symptoms at the end of life, however, guidelines about its use lack consistency. In addition, ethical concerns persist around the practice. There are reports of palliative sedation in the pediatric literature, which highlight various institutional perspectives.

OBJECTIVES

This survey of 4786 pediatric providers sought to describe their knowledge of and current practices around pediatric palliative sedation.

METHODS

Our survey was administered to pediatricians who care for children at the end of life. The survey assessed agreement with a definition of palliative sedation, as well as thoughts about its alignment with aggressive symptom management. Bivariate analyses using χ² and analysis of variance were calculated to determine the relationship between responses to closed-ended questions. Open-ended responses were thematically coded by the investigators and reviewed for agreement.

RESULTS

Nearly half (48.6%) of the respondents indicated that the stated definition of palliative sedation "completely" reflected their own views. Respondents were split when asked if they viewed any difference between palliative sedation and aggressive symptom management: Yes (46%) versus No (54%). Open-ended responses revealed specifics about the nature of variation in interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Responses point to ambiguity surrounding the concept of palliative sedation. Pediatricians were concerned with a decreased level of consciousness as the goal of palliative sedation. Respondents were split on whether they view palliative sedation as a distinct entity or as one broad continuum of care, equivalent to aggressive symptom management. Institutional-based policies are essential to clarify acceptable practice, enable open communication, and promote further research.

In-service documentation tools and statements on palliative sedation in Germany--do they meet the EAPC framework recommendations? A qualitative document analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous (inter-)national guidelines and frameworks have been developed to provide recommendations for the application of palliative sedation (PS). However, they are still not widely known, and large variations in PS clinical practice can be found.

AIM

This study aims to collect and describe contents from documents used in clinical practice and to compare to what extent they match the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) framework recommendations.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In a national survey on PS in Germany 2012, participants were asked to upload their in-service templates, assessment tools, specific protocols, and in-service statements for the application and documentation of PS. These documents are analyzed by using systematic structured content analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred seven content units of 52 provided documents were coded. The analyzed templates are very heterogeneous and also contain items not mentioned in the EAPC framework. Among 11 scales for the evaluation of sedation level, the Ramsey Sedation Score (n = 5) and the Richmond-Agitation-Sedation-Scale (n = 2) were found most often. For symptom assessment, three different scales were provided one time respectively. In all six PS statements, the common core elements were possible indications for PS, instructions on dose titration, patient monitoring, and care. Wide congruency exists for physical and psychological indications. Most documents coincide on midazolam as a preferred drug and basic monitoring in regular intervals. Aspects such as pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation, informational needs of relatives, and care for the medical professionals are mentioned rarely.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyzed templates do neglect some points of the EAPC recommendations. However, they expand the ten-point scheme of the framework in some details. The findings may facilitate the development of standardized consensus documentation and monitoring draft as an operational statement.

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life of children in Flanders, Belgium

CONTEXT

Few guidelines have yet been put forth for continuous deep sedation in pediatrics, and empirical data on the use of this practice in minors are rare.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the incidence of continuous deep sedation in minor patients (aged 1-17) and describe the characteristics of, and the decision-making process before, continuous deep sedation.

METHODS

An anonymous population-based postmortem survey was mailed to all physicians signing the death certificates of all patients aged 1-17 years who died between June 2007 and November 2008 in Flanders, Belgium. The questionnaire concerned whether or not continuous deep sedation was used at the end of life and measured characteristics of sedation and the decision-making process preceding it.

RESULTS

Response rate was 70.5% (n=165). Of all children, 21.8% had been continuously and deeply sedated at the end of life. Duration of sedation was one week or less in 72.4% of cases, and artificial nutrition and hydration were administered until death in 54.3% of cases. Benzodiazepines were used as the sole drug for sedation in 19.4% of cases, benzodiazepines combined with morphine in 50%, and morphine as the sole drug in 25%. In 23.5% of cases, physicians had the explicit intention, or the concurrent intention, to hasten death. Only 3.0% of patients requested sedation and 6.1% consented. Parents consented in 77.8% of cases and requested sedation in 16.7%.

CONCLUSION

Minor patients were commonly kept in continuous deep sedation or coma until death in Flanders, Belgium. Given the high incidence of the practice and indications that it is often used without involving the patient--and sometimes with a life-shortening intention--the development of specific guidelines for sedation in children might contribute to due care practice.

Palliative sedation: a review of the research literature

The overall aim of this paper is to systematically review the following important aspects of palliative sedation: prevalence, indications, survival, medication, food and fluid intake, decision making, attitudes of physicians, family experiences, and efficacy and safety. A thorough search of different databases was conducted for pertinent research articles published from 1966 to June 2007. The following keywords were used: end of life, sedation, terminal sedation, palliative sedation, refractory symptoms, and palliative care. Language of the articles was limited to English, French, German, and Dutch. Papers reporting solely on the sedatives used in palliative care, without explicitly reporting the prevalence or intensity of sedation, and papers not reporting on primary research (such as reviews or theoretical articles) were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed according to the criteria of Hawker et al. (2002). The search yielded 130 articles, 33.8% of which were peer-reviewed empirical research studies. Thirty-three research papers and one thesis were included in this systematic review. This review reveals that there still are many inconsistencies with regard to the prevalence, the effect of sedation, food and fluid intake, the possible life-shortening effect, and the decision-making process. Further research to clarify all of this should be based on multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, and international studies that use a uniform definition of palliative sedation, and valid and reliable instruments. Only through such research will it be possible to resolve some of the important ethical issues related to palliative sedation.

Attitudes towards terminal sedation: an empirical survey among experts in the field of medical ethics

Background

"Terminal sedation" regarded as the use of sedation in (pre-)terminal patients with treatment-refractory symptoms is controversially discussed not only within palliative medicine. While supporters consider terminal sedation as an indispensable palliative medical treatment option, opponents disapprove of it as "slow euthanasia". Against this background, we interviewed medical ethics experts by questionnaire on the term and the moral acceptance of terminal sedation in order to find out how they think about this topic. We were especially interested in whether experts with a professional medical and nursing background think differently about the topic than experts without this background.

Methods

The survey was carried out by questionnaire; beside the provided answering options free text comments were possible. As test persons we chose the 477 members of the German Academy for Ethics in Medicine, an interdisciplinary society for medical ethics.

Results

281 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate = 59%). The majority of persons without medical background regarded "terminal sedation" as an intentional elimination of consciousness until the patient's death occurs; persons with a medical background generally had a broader understanding of the term, including light or intermittent forms of sedation. 98% of the respondents regarded terminal sedation in dying patients with treatment-refractory physical symptoms as acceptable. Situations in which the dying process has not yet started, in which untreatable mental symptoms are the indication for terminal sedation or in which life-sustaining measures are withdrawn during sedation were evaluated as morally difficult.

Conclusion

The survey reveals a great need for research and discussion on the medical indication as well as on the moral evaluation of terminal sedation. Prerequisite for this is a more precise terminology which describes the circumstances of the sedation.

Sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms in the imminently dying: A fine intentional line

There is a continuum of the goals of comfort and function in palliative care that begins with comfort and function being equal priorities and sedation being unacceptable. As disease progresses, the goals and preferences of the patient turn to coping with the loss of function caused by the disease and acceptance of unintentional sedation from the disease, its therapies, or symptom relief interventions. As patients approach the end of life, they may need intentional sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms. Such sedation can be divided into three categories: routine, infrequent, and extraordinary with respect to the frequency, difficulty, and risks involved with the drugs and routes of administration required to induce and maintain a level of sedation that relieves the patient's physical and existential symptoms. Extraordinary sedation with continuous infusions of midazolam, thiopental, and propofol can relieve refractory symptoms in most patients in their final days of life. Palliative care clinicians should become comfortable with the ethical justification and technical expertise needed to provide this essential, extraordinary care to the small but deserving number of patients in whom routine and infrequent sedation does not adequately relieve their suffering.