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

[Pain management in German specialized outpatient palliative care : A cross-sectional study to present the current pain management of palliative patients in the home environment]

BACKGROUND

With the help of specialized outpatient palliative care teams (German abbreviation: SAPV), seriously ill and dying patients in Germany can be adequately cared for in their home environment until the end of their lives; however, there are no uniform standards or guidelines for well-executed pain management right now.

OBJECTIVE

This approach serves as basic research in the field of public health research. This is intended to present which methods (use of different professional groups, use of pain medications, alternative medical treatment etc.) the individual SAPV teams use for pain management. From this it can be deduced which procedures can be considered particularly effective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in May 2021. All German SAPV teams (n = 307) listed on the homepage of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) were contacted by post and invited to participate. A total of 175 teams (57%) responded to the request and were included in the evaluation. A descriptive data analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Pain management in the German outpatient care of palliative patients is based on several components. All common pain medications are used, but primarily metamizole (99.4%) as a non-opioid analgesic, morphine (98.3%) from the opiate series and pregabalin (96.6%) as a co-analgesic are mainly prescribed. If pain therapy fails, 22.5% of the SAPV teams perform palliative sedation for symptom control on a regular basis.

CONCLUSION

This cross-sectional study is the first of its kind to provide a general overview of the treatment options for pain management in German outpatient palliative care. In comparison with international studies, the question arises as to whether uniform therapy schemes and a reduction in the medication available in the individual SAPV teams could lead to an improvement in patient 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.

Pain management in German hospices: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pain management is a necessary component of palliative care as most patients suffer from pain during the final phase of life. Due to the complex causation of pain in the last phase of life, it is important to utilize methods other than pharmacotherapeutic options in order to achieve adequate pain control. As little is known about treatment of pain in German hospices, a nationwide survey was conducted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All German hospices (259) were contacted by post in June 2020 and asked to participate in an anonymous cross-sectional survey.

RESULTS

A total of 148 (57%) German hospices took part in the survey. A broad variety of medication is used in the hospice setting. Metamizole is the most commonly used non-opiod analgesic , hydromorphone the most commonly used opioid, and pregabalin is the most commonly prescribed co-analgesic drug. The pain medication is usually prescribed as an oral slow-release substance. Standardized treatment schemes are rare among the responding hospices. Most of the respondents also use complementary treatment options, such as aroma (oil) therapy or music therapy, in the treatment of pain. Palliative sedation is used by nearly all responding hospices if all other treatment options fail.

CONCLUSION

This survey provides an overview of the treatment options for pain management in German hospices. A broad variety of pain medication is used. Compared to international literature, it is debatable whether such a large variety of different types of pain medication is necessary, or whether a reduction in the type of medication available and the use of standardized treatment schemes could benefit everyone involved.

Survival Outcomes in Palliative Sedation Based on Referring Versus On-Call Physician Prescription

This study sought to determine the survival duration of patients who underwent palliative sedation, comparing those who received prescriptions from referring physicians versus on-call physicians. It included all patients over 18 years old who died in the Palliative Care, Internal Medicine, and Oncology units at the Hospital Universitario of Jerez de la Frontera between 1 January 2019, and 31 December 2019. Various factors were analyzed, including age, gender, oncological or non-oncological disease, type of primary tumor and refractory symptoms. Statistical analysis was employed to compare survival times between patients who received palliative sedation from referring physicians and those prescribed by on-call physicians, while accounting for other potential confounding variables. This study revealed that the median survival time after the initiation of palliative sedation was 25 h, with an interquartile range of 8 to 48 h. Notably, if the sedation was prescribed by referring physicians, the median survival time was 30 h, while it decreased to 17 h when prescribed by on-call physicians (RR 0.357; 95% CI 0.146-0.873; p = 0.024). Furthermore, dyspnea as a refractory symptom was associated with a shorter survival time (RR 0.307; 95% CI 0.095-0.985; p = 0.047). The findings suggest that the on-call physician often administered palliative sedation to rapidly deteriorating patients, particularly those experiencing dyspnea, which likely contributed to the shorter survival time following sedation initiation. This study underscores the importance of careful patient selection and prompt initiation of palliative sedation to alleviate suffering.

Sedation in Palliative Care—a Clinically Oriented Overview of Guidelines and Treatment Recommendations

BACKGROUND

The appropriate provision of sedation as a last resort for the relief of suffering in palliative care is dealt with variably in actual practice. This article is intended as an overview of practically relevant information found in treatment recommendations and guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, and a manual search was carried out online. Recommendations that were not available in either German or English, or that were specific to pediatric practice, were excluded. Publication quality was assessed with the AGREE II instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II). The recommendations in the documents were qualitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

29 publications (11 journal articles, 18 other) of varying quality according to AGREE II were included. All recommendations and guidelines were essentially based on expert consensus. The common indications for sedation are otherwise intractable delirium, dyspnea, and pain, in patients with a life expectancy of no more than two weeks. Existential distress is a controversial indication. The drug of first choice is midazolam. As the sedating effect of opioids is hard to predict, they should not be used as sedatives. The risks of sedation include respiratory and circulatory depression, as well as the loss of communicative ability, control, and autonomy. It is generally recommended that the patient's symptom burden and depth of sedation should be monitored; clinical and technically supported monitoring are recommended in some publications as well, depending on the situation.

CONCLUSION

There is a broad consensus in favor of sedation to relieve suffering in the last days and hours of life. Recommendations vary for patients with a longer life expectancy and for those with existential distress, and with respect to monitoring.

"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.

What do you mean by "palliative sedation"? : Pre-explicative analyses as preliminary steps towards better definitions

BACKGROUND

Sedation in palliative care is frequently but controversially discussed. Heterogeneous definitions and conceptual confusion have been cited as contributing to different problems 1) relevant to empirical research, for example, inconsistent data about practice, the 'data problem', and 2) relevant for an ethically legitimate characterisation of the practice, the 'problem of ethical pre-emption'. However, little is known about how exactly definitions differ, how they cause confusion and how this can be overcome.

METHOD

Pre-explicative analyses: (A) systematic literature search for guidelines on sedation in palliative care and systematic decomposition of the definitions of the practice in these guidelines; (B) logical distinction of different ways through which the two problems reported might be caused by definitions; and (C) analysis of how content of the definitions contributes to the problems reported in these different ways.

RESULTS

29 guidelines from 14 countries were identified. Definitions differ significantly in both structure and content. We identified three ways in which definitions can cause the 'data problem' - 1) different definitions, 2) deviating implicit concepts, 3) disagreement about facts. We identified two ways to cause the problem of ethical pre-emption: 1) explicit or 2) implicit normativity. Decomposition of definitions linked to the distinguished ways of causing the conceptual problems shows how exactly single parts of definitions can cause the problems identified.

CONCLUSION

Current challenges concerning empirical research on sedation in palliative care can be remediated partly by improved definitions in the future, if content and structure of the used definitions is chosen systematically. In addition, future research should bear in mind that there are distinct purposes of definitions. Regarding the 'data problem', improving definitions is possible in terms of supplementary information, checking for implicit understanding, systematic choice of definitional elements. 'Ethical pre-emption', in contrast, is a pseudo problem if definitions and the relationship of definitions and norms of good practice are understood correctly.