Physicians' perceptions of palliative sedation for existential suffering: a systematic review

Report on palliative sedation medication usage: a survey of palliative care experts in Eight European countries

BACKGROUND

The practice of palliative sedation continues to raise ethical questions among people, which in turn leads to its varied acceptance and practice across regions. As part of the Palliative Sedation European Union (EU) project, the aim of the present study was to determine the perceptions of palliative care experts regarding the practice of palliative sedation in eight European countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Romania).

METHODS

A specifically designed survey, including questions on the most frequently used medications for palliative sedation, their availability per countries and settings, and the barriers and facilitators to the appropriate practice of palliative sedation was sent to expert clinicians involved and knowledgeable in palliative care in the indicated countries. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select at least 18 participating clinicians per consortium country. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the survey data.

RESULTS

Of the 208 expert clinicians invited to participate, 124 participants completed the survey. Midazolam was perceived to be the most frequently used benzodiazepine in all eight countries. 86% and 89% of expert clinicians in Germany and Italy, respectively, perceived midazolam was used "almost always", while in Hungary and Romania only about 50% or less of the respondents perceived this. Levomepromazine was the neuroleptic most frequently perceived to be used for palliative sedation in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Between 38- 86% of all eight countries´ expert clinicians believed that opioid medications were "almost always" used during palliative sedation. The perceived use of IV hydration and artificial nutrition "almost always" was generally low, while the country where both IV hydration and artificial nutrition were considered to be "very often" given by a third of the expert clinicians, was in Hungary, with 36% and 27%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides insight about the differences in the perceived practice of medication during palliative sedation between eight European countries. In countries where palliative care services have been established longer perceptions regarding medication use during palliative sedation were more in line with the recommended European guidelines than in Central and Eastern European countries like Romania and Hungary.

Palliative care physicians' decision-making about palliative sedation for existential suffering: A Belgian nationwide qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the content and process of decision-making about palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) as perceived by Belgian palliative care physicians.

METHODS

This Belgian nationwide qualitative study follows a grounded theory approach. We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 palliative care physicians working in 19 Belgian hospital-based palliative care units and 4 stand-alone hospices. We analyzed the data using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven, and we followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Guidelines (COREQ).

RESULTS

Analysis of the data identified several criteria that physicians apply in their decision-making about PS-ES, namely, the importance of the patient's demand, PS-ES as a last resort option after all alternatives have been applied, the condition of unbearable suffering combined with other kinds of suffering, and the condition of being in a terminal stage. Regarding the process of decision-making itself, physicians refer to the need for multidisciplinary perspectives supported by an interpretative dialogue with the patient and all other stakeholders. The decision-making process involves a specific temporality and physicians' inner conviction about the need of PS-ES.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Belgian palliative care physicians are not sure about the criteria regarding decision-making in PS-ES. To deal with complex existential suffering in end-of-life situations, they stress the importance of participation by all stakeholders (patient, relatives, palliative care team, other physicians, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chaplains, etc.) in the decision-making process to prevent inadequate decisions being made.

Palliative sedation: ethics in clinical practice guidelines - systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study was to determine whether, and to what degree, the ethical dimension was present in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on palliative sedation, and to identify the ethical issues with respect to the different forms of this practice. The purpose was purely to be descriptive; our aim was not to make any kind of normative judgements on these ethical issues or to develop our own ethical recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of CPGs on the palliative sedation of adults, focusing our analysis on the ethical dimension of these texts and the ethical issues of this practice. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO.

RESULTS

In total, 36 current CPGs from four continents (and 14 countries) were included in our analysis. Generally, ethics was rarely referred to or absent from the CPGs. Only six texts contained a specific section explicitly related to ethics. Ethical issues were named, conceptualised and presented in heterogeneous, often confusing ways. It was impossible to identify the ethical issues of each form of palliative sedation. Ethics expertise was not involved in the development of most of the CPGs and, if it was, this did not always correlate with the ethical dimension of the document.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective cooperation between palliative care clinicians and ethicists should be encouraged, in order to integrate in particular the crucial ethical issues of continuous deep sedation until death when developing or updating CPGs on palliative sedation.

Continuous palliative sedation in terminally ill patients with cancer: a retrospective observational cohort study from a Chinese palliative care unit

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe a 4-year practice of continuous palliative sedation (CPS) in a palliative medicine ward of an academic hospital in China. To compare the survival time of patients with cancer with and without CPS during end-of-life care, we used the propensity score matching method and explored potential patient-related factors.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

The palliative ward at a tertiary teaching hospital between January 2018 and 10 May 2022, in Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

PARTICIPANTS

The palliative care unit had 1445 deaths. We excluded 283 patients who were sedated on admission due to mechanical ventilation or non-invasive ventilators, 122 patients who were sedated due to epilepsy and sleep disorders, 69 patients without cancer, 26 patients who were younger than 18 years, 435 patients with end-of-life intervention when the patients' vital signs were unstable and 5 patients with unavailable medical records. Finally, we included 505 patients with cancer who met our requirements.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The survival time and analysis of sedation potential factors between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The total prevalence of CPS was 39.7%. Patients who were sedated more commonly experienced delirium, dyspnoea, refractory existential or psychological distress, and pain. After propensity score matching, the median survival was 10 (IQR: 5-17.75) and 9 days (IQR: 4-16) with and without CPS, respectively. After matching, the two survival curves of the sedated and non-sedated groups were no different (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; log-rank p=0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Developing countries also practise palliative sedation. Median survival was not different between patients who were and were not sedated.

Existential suffering as a motive for assisted suicide: Difficulties, acceptability, management and roles from the perspectives of Swiss professionals

BACKGROUND

Existential suffering is often a part of the requests for assisted suicide (AS). Its definitions have gained in clarity recently and refer to a distress arising from an inner realization that life has lost its meaning. There is however a lack of consensus on how to manage existential suffering, especially in a country where AS is legal and little is known about the difficulties faced by professionals confronted with these situations.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the perspectives of Swiss professionals involved in end-of-life care and AS on the management of existential suffering when it is part of AS requests, taking into account the question of roles, as well as on the difficulties they encounter along the way and their views on the acceptability of existential suffering as a motive for AS.

METHODS

A qualitative study based on face-to-face interviews was performed among twenty-five participants from the fields of palliative and primary care as well as from EXIT right-to-die organization. A semi-structured interview guide exploring four themes was used. Elements from the grounded theory approach were applied.

RESULTS

Almost all participants reported experiencing difficulties when facing existential suffering. Opinions regarding the acceptability of existential suffering in accessing AS were divided. Concerning its management, participants referred to the notion of being present, showing respect, seeking to understand the causes of suffering, helping give meaning, working together, psychological support, spiritual support, relieving physical symptoms and palliative sedation.

CONCLUSION

This study offers a unique opportunity to reflect on what are desirable responses to existential suffering when it is part of AS requests. Existential suffering is plural and implies a multiplicity of responses as well. These situations remain however difficult and controversial according to Swiss professionals. Clinicians' education should further address these issues and give professionals the tools to better take care of these people.

Review of European Guidelines on Palliative Sedation: A Foundation for the Updating of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework

In 2009, the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) developed a framework on palliative sedation, acknowledging this practice as an important and ethically acceptable intervention of last resort for terminally ill patients experiencing refractory symptoms. Before and after that, other guidelines on palliative sedation have been developed in Europe with variations in terminology and concepts. As part of the Palliative Sedation project (Horizon 2020 Funding No. 825700), a revision of the EAPC framework is planned. The aim of this article is to analyze the most frequently used palliative sedation guidelines as reported by experts from eight European countries to inform the discussion of the new framework. The three most reported documents per country were identified through an online survey among 124 clinical experts in December 2019. Those meeting guideline criteria were selected. Their content was assessed against the EAPC framework on palliative sedation. The quality of their methodology was evaluated with the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Nine guidelines were included. All recognize palliative sedation as a last-resort treatment for refractory symptoms, but the criterion of refractoriness remains a matter of debate. Most guidelines recognize psychological or existential distress as (part of) an indication and some make specific recommendations for such cases. All agree that the assessment should be multiprofessional, but they diverge on the expertise required by the attending physician/team. Regarding decisions on hydration and nutrition, it is proposed that these should be independent of those for palliative sedation, but there is no clear consensus on the decision-making process. Several weaknesses were highlighted, particularly in areas of rigor of development and applicability. The identified points of debate and methodological weaknesses should be considered in any update or revision of the guidelines analyzed to improve the quality of their content and the applicability of their recommendations.

Intercountry and intracountry variations in opinions of palliative care specialist physicians in Germany, Italy, Japan and UK about continuous use of sedatives: an international cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS.

SETTINGS

Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study.

PARTICIPANTS

Palliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS.

RESULTS

There were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS.

CONCLUSION

Variations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.

Ethics of sedation for existential suffering: palliative medicine physician perceptions - qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) is considered a controversial practice to control refractory suffering at the end of life. This study aims to explore Belgian palliative care physicians' perceptions regarding the ethics of PS-ES.

METHODS

This nationwide qualitative study follows a Grounded Theory approach. We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 palliative care physicians working in 23 Belgian hospitals and hospices (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia). We analysed the data using the Qualitative Analysis Guide Of Leuven and we followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines.

RESULTS

The data revealed that Belgian palliative care physicians have difficulty characterising ES and distinguishing it from other types of suffering. They express mixed attitudes towards PS-ES and employ a wide range of ethical arguments in favour and against it, which are mainly linked to the four principles of biomedical ethics.

CONCLUSION

Since there is a lack of consensus among Belgian palliative care physicians about PS-ES, further research is needed to clarify their attitudes. A better understanding of physicians' underlying presuppositions can provide more insight into their perceptions of ES and PS-ES and provide further insight for establishing good practices in ES management at the end of life.

Palliative sedation in patients with advanced cancer in a specialized unit in a middle-income country: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the 5-year practice on palliative sedation in a specialized palliative care unit in a deprived region in Brazil, and to compare survival of patients with advanced cancer who were and were not sedated during their end-of-life care.

METHOD

Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital. We described the practice of palliative sedation and compared the survival time between patients who were and were not sedated in their last days of life.

RESULTS

We included 906 patients who were admitted to the palliative care unit during the study period, of whom, 92 (10.2%) received palliative sedation. Patients who were sedated were younger, presented with higher rates of delirium, and reported more pain, suffering, and dyspnea than those who were not sedated. Median hospital survival of patients who received palliative sedation was 9.30 (CI 95%, 7.51-11.81) days and of patients who were not sedated was 8.2 (CI 95%, 7.3-9.0) days (P = 0.31). Adjusted for age and sex, palliative sedation was not significantly associated with hospital survival (hazard ratio = 0.93; CI 95%, 0.74-1.15).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Palliative sedation can be accomplished even in a deprived area. Delirium, dyspnea, and pain were more common in patients who were sedated. Median survival was not reduced in patients who were sedated.