Palliative sedation as part of a continuum of palliative care

Continuous deep sedation and homicide: an unsolved problem in law and professional morality

When a severely suffering dying patient is deeply sedated, and this sedated condition is meant to continue until his death, the doctor involved often decides to abstain from artificially administering fluids. For this dual procedure almost all guidelines require that the patient should not have a life expectancy beyond a stipulated maximum of days (4-14). The reason obviously is that in case of a longer life-expectancy the patient may die from dehydration rather than from his lethal illness. But no guideline tells us how we should describe the dual procedure in case of a longer life-expectancy. Many arguments have been advanced why we should not consider it to be a form of homicide, that is, ending the life of the patient (with or without his request). I argue that none of these arguments, taken separately or jointly, is persuasive. When a commission, even one that is not itself life-shortening, foreseeably renders a person unable to undo the life-shortening effects of another, simultaneous omission, the commission and the omission together should be acknowledged to kill her. I discuss the legal and ethical implications of this conclusion.

Patient-Related Determinants of the Administration of Continuous Palliative Sedation in Hospices and Palliative Care Units: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

CONTEXT

Knowledge of determinants that are associated with the administration of continuous palliative sedation (CPS) helps physicians identify patients who are at risk of developing refractory symptoms, thereby enabling proactive care planning.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore which patient-related factors at admission are associated with receiving CPS later in the terminal phase of life.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter observational study was performed in six Dutch hospices and three nursing home-based palliative care units. The association between patient-related variables at admission (age, gender, diagnosis, use of opioids or psycholeptics, number of medications, Karnofsky Performance Status scale score, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System distress score, and Glasgow Coma Scale score) and the administration of CPS at the end of life was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 467 patients died during the study period, of whom 130 received CPS. In univariate analysis, statistically significant differences were noted between the sedated and nonsedated patients with respect to younger age (P = 0.009), malignancy as a diagnosis (P = 0.05), higher Karnofsky Performance Status score (P = 0.03), the use of opioids (P < 0.001), the use of psycholeptics (P = 0.003), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System distress score (P = 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only the use of opioids at admission (odds ratio 1.90; 95% confidence interval 1.18-3.05) was significantly associated with the administration of CPS.

CONCLUSION

Physicians should be aware that patients who use opioids at admission have an increased risk for the administration of CPS at the end of life. In this group of patients, a comprehensive personalized care plan starting at admission is mandatory to try to prevent the development of refractory symptoms. Further research is recommended, to identify other determinants of the administration of CPS and to investigate which early interventions will be effective to prevent the need for CPS in patients at high risk.

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.

Quality of care in palliative sedation: audit and compliance monitoring of a clinical protocol

CONTEXT

The European Association for Palliative Care and the U.S. National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization have published statements that recommend an audit of palliative sedation practices.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to assess the feasibility of a quality care project in palliative sedation.

METHODS

We carried out an audit of adherence to a guideline regarding palliative sedation, undertaken as a yearly assessment during two years, of a sample of patient charts. With an audit tool, the charts were evaluated as to the presence of the ethical sedation checklist, information that justified palliative sedation, patient and/or family agreement, and the appropriateness of treatment in concordance with the clinical protocol. An educational program and result feedback meetings were used as the implementation strategy.

RESULTS

Roughly 25% of the medical charts of patients who died in the palliative care unit were evaluated, 94 in 2007 and 110 in 2008. In 2007 and 2008, 63% and 57% of the patients, respectively, whose median age was 65 years, were sedated, with a median length of two days. The main reason for sedation was agitation concomitant with respiratory failure in roughly 60% and 75% of the cases in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Agreement of the patient/family about sedation was collected from 100% of the cases. The concordance of procedures with the sedation guideline was 100% in both years.

CONCLUSION

Our quality-of-care strategy was shown to obtain a higher level of compliance with the palliative sedation guideline for at least two years.

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.

Palliative sedation

The focus of palliative care is to relieve human suffering; however, about 90% of patients with advanced cancer will experience severe pain. Intolerable human suffering may be defined in the healthcare setting as symptoms that cannot be tolerated or endured for any length of time. If the patient is unable to communicate, the family or identified decision maker for the patient may decide when symptoms cannot be endured any longer. All dimensions (i.e., physical, psychological, social, emotional, and spiritual) of the symptom causing suffering must be evaluated.

Is the doctrine of double effect irrelevant in end-of-life decision making?

In this paper, we consider three arguments for the irrelevance of the doctrine of double effect in end-of-life decision making. The third argument is our own and, to that extent, we seek to defend it. The first argument is that end-of-life decisions do not in fact shorten lives and that therefore there is no need for the doctrine in justification of these decisions. We reject this argument; some end-of-life decisions clearly shorten lives. The second is that the doctrine of double effect is not recognized in UK law (and similar jurisdictions); therefore, clinicians cannot use it as the basis for justification of their decisions. Against this we suggest that while the doctrine might have dubious legal grounds, it could be of relevance in some ways, e.g. in marking the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable practice in relation to the clinician's duty to relieve pain and suffering. The third is that the doctrine is irrelevant because it requires there to be a bad effect that needs justification. This is not the case in end-of-life care for patients diagnosed as dying. Here, bringing about a satisfactory dying process for a patient is a good effect, not a bad one. What matters is that patients die without pain and suffering. This marks a crucial departure from the double-effect doctrine; if the patient's death is not a bad effect then the doctrine is clearly irrelevant. A diagnosis of dying allows clinicians to focus on good dying and not to worry about whether their intervention affects the time of death. For a patient diagnosed as dying, time of death is rarely important. In our conclusion we suggest that acceptance of our argument might be problematic for opponents of physician-assisted death. We suggest one way in which these opponents might argue for a distinction between such practice and palliative care; this relies on the double-effect doctrine's distinction between foresight and intention.

Pain management within the palliative and end-of-life care experience in the ICU

In the ICU where critically ill patients receive aggressive life-sustaining interventions, suffering is common and death can be expected in up to 20% of patients. High-quality pain management is a part of optimal therapy and requires knowledge and skill in pharmacologic, behavioral, social, and communication strategies grounded in the holistic palliative care approach. This contemporary review article focuses on pain management within comprehensive palliative and end-of-life care. These key points emerge from the transdisciplinary review: (1) all ICU patients experience opportunities for discomfort and suffering regardless of prognosis or goals, thus palliative therapy is a requisite approach for every patient, of which pain management is a principal component; (2) for those dying in the ICU, an explicit shift in management to comfort-oriented care is often warranted and may be the most beneficial treatment the health-care team can offer; (3) communication and cultural sensitivity with the patient-family unit is a principal approach for optimizing palliative and pain management as part of comprehensive ICU care; (4) ethical and legal misconceptions about the escalation of opiates and other palliative therapies should not be barriers to appropriate care, provided the intention of treatment is alleviation of pain and suffering; (5) standardized instruments, performance measurement, and care delivery aids are effective strategies for decreasing variability and improving palliative care in the complex ICU setting; and (6) comprehensive palliative care should addresses family and caregiver stress associated with caring for critically ill patients and anticipated suffering and loss.