Intentional Sedation as a Means to Ease Suffering: A Systematically Constructed Terminology for Sedation in Palliative Care

Terminological Confusion About Sedation in Palliative Care: Results of an International Online Vignette Survey

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.

Palliative sedation - revised recommendations

Palliative sedation is defined as the monitored use of medications intended to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) to relieve the burden of otherwise intractable suffering in a manner ethically acceptable to the patient, their family, and healthcare providers. In Switzerland, the prevalence of continuous deep sedation until death increased from 4.7% in 2001 to 17.5% of all deceased in 2013, depending on the research method used and on regional variations. Yet, these numbers may be overestimated due to a lack of understanding of the term "continuous deep sedation" by for example respondents of the questionnaire-based study. Inadequately trained and inexperienced healthcare professionals may incorrectly or inappropriately perform palliative sedation due to uncertainties regarding its definitions and practice. Therefore, the expert members of the Bigorio group and the authors of this manuscript believe that national recommendations should be published and made available to healthcare professionals to provide practical, terminological, and ethical guidance. The Bigorio group is the working group of the Swiss Palliative Care Society whose task is to publish clinical recommendations at a national level in Switzerland. These recommendations aim to provide guidance on the most critical questions and issues related to palliative sedation. The Swiss Society of Palliative Care (palliative.ch) mandated a writing board comprising four clinical experts (three physicians and one ethicist) and two national academic experts to revise the 2005 Bigorio guidelines. A first draft was created based on a narrative literature review, which was internally reviewed by five academic institutions (Lausanne, Geneva, Bern, Zürich, and Basel) and the heads of all working groups of the Swiss Society of Palliative Care before finalising the guidelines. The following themes are discussed regarding palliative sedation: (a) definitions and clinical aspects, (b) the decision-making process, (c) communication with patients and families, (d) patient monitoring, (e) pharmacological approaches, and (f) ethical and controversial issues. Palliative sedation must be practised with clinical and ethical accuracy and competence to avoid harm and ethically questionable use. Specialist palliative care teams should be consulted before initiating palliative sedation to avoid overlooking other potential treatment options for the patient's symptoms and suffering.

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).

"It's pretty much flying blind in the home care setting": A qualitative study on the influence of home care specific circumstances on sedation in specialist palliative home care

BACKGROUND

Existing data on sedation at the end of life indicate challenges in the home care setting, leading to deviations from guidelines or non-provision of sedation.

AIM

As part of the "SedPall" study, we aimed to explore circumstances in specialist palliative home care, which influence the practice of sedation.

DESIGN

Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 59) and two focus groups (n = 4, n = 5). Recruitment took place via contact persons. We thematically analyzed the transcripts with the Framework Approach, using MAXQDA 2018.2.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Physicians, nurses, and other members of the multiprofessional team from 10 palliative care units and seven home care teams.

RESULTS

Participants reported home care specific circumstances that can be categorized into three interrelated topics. (1) Lack of 24/7 on-site availability, (2) active involvement of the family, (3) challenges regarding teamwork and multidisciplinarity. Participants drew different conclusions from the reported circumstances regarding the feasibility of different types of sedation at home: While some reported to generally use all types of sedation, others stated that some types of sedation are not feasible in home care, for example deep sedation until death. Most participants questioned the applicability of existing sedation guidelines in the home care setting.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that sedation practices might currently follow the healthcare professional's attitude or service policy rather than the patient's need. To avoid hospital admission in manageable cases and ensure that home care specific best practice standards are met, existing guideline recommendations have to be adapted and supplemented by additional supporting measures specific for the home care setting.

Sedatives and Sedation at the End of Life in the Hospital

BACKGROUND

Data on sedation at the end of life (eol) in different medical disciplines are scarce and mostly based on subjective reports. We aimed to assess the use of sedatives with continuous effect in the last week of life and associated factors in different hospital departments, with the aid of objectifiable criteria.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on the medical records of patients who died in one of five clinical departments of German hospitals between January 2015 and December 2017 (hematology/oncology [two different departments], neurology, geriatrics, and gynecology). The use of sedatives that are recommended in guidelines for palliative sedation was analyzed, irrespective of indication and treatment intent, with the aid of published definitions of continuous effect and of at least moderately sedating doses. The analysis consisted of descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

260/517 (50%) of the patients who died were given sedatives with continuous effect in the last week of life, 53/517 (10%) in at least moderately sedating doses. For 76/260 (29%) patients, no indication was noted. The term "sedation" was used in the medical records of 20/260 (8%) patients. The use of sedatives with continuous effect was significantly associated with the department in which the patient was treated (hematology/oncology II: OR 0.32, 95% CI [0.16: 0.63]; geriatrics: OR 0.23, 95% CI [0.10:0.50]; reference, hematology/oncology I).

CONCLUSION

It was not possible to draw a clear distinction between the use of sedatives for symptom control, without sedating effect or intent to sedate, and intentional sedation to relieve suffering. The observed differences between hospital departments and deviations from recommended practice, e.g. lack of documentation of the indication, warrant further exploration. Moreover, context-specific supportive measures for the use of sedatives and sedation at the end of life should be developed.

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.

Sédation profonde et continue jusqu’au décès : qu’en vivent les soignants ?

Objectif : La récente loi Claeys-Leonetti de 2016 reconnaît le droit du patient à une sédation profonde et continue jusqu’au décès (SPCJD) si ce dernier en fait la demande. Au quotidien, comment les équipes soignantes s’approprient cette nouvelle possibilité et s’adaptent à ces situations de fin de vie spécifiques ?

Méthode : Nous avons mené des entretiens semi-directifs avec six soignants volontaires de chaque corps de métier (deux médecins, deux infirmier.ère.s et deux aides-soignantes) dans un service d’oncologie médicale et de radiothérapie. Les entretiens ont été analysés selon une méthode d’analyse de contenu thématique, afin de rendre compte du vécu des professionnels de soins face aux protocoles de SPCJD et aux conséquences sur les accompagnements de fin de vie dans ces circonstances.

Résultats : Cette enquête exploratoire met en évidence des disparités interprofessionnelles quant au vécu des accompagnements de patients sous SPCJD. L’hétérogénéité des représentations semble liée à une méconnaissance de la loi, à des acceptions variables, mais aussi à des intentions différentes en fonction des fonctions exercées. La continuité dans la prise en charge des patients est affectée : le seul point commun observé chez tous les professionnels concerne les difficultés décrites dans l’accompagnement des familles.

Conclusion : La loi Claeys-Leonetti, ayant pour objectif de donner davantage de droits aux patients, pose des enjeux éthiques et des difficultés aux soignants encore trop peu investigués à ce jour. Il semble fondamental de tenir compte de l’effet de cette procédure sur le vécu des professionnels, afin que la mise en place des protocoles soit accompagnée et pensée au mieux, dans le but de limiter les potentielles difficultés et souffrances relatives à la SPCJD.