When there are no good choices: illuminating the borderland between proportionate palliative sedation and palliative sedation to unconsciousness

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.

Defining “Continuous Deep Sedation” Using Treatment Protocol: A Proposal Article

Context: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is regarded as a far-reaching form of sedative use for symptom control, but there are no established uniform definitions.

Objectives: To propose types of sedative use related to CDS using treatment protocols with three parameters: documented treatment goals, rapidity of dose titration, and planned duration of treatment.

Methods: Opinion article.

Results: We propose four types of sedative use potentially related to CDS: (1) proportional sedation (treatment goal is symptom relief with regular monitoring to maximize patient communication, not a decrease in consciousness; with gradual use of sedatives; there is a chance to cease sedatives), (2) rapid proportional sedation (treatment goal is symptom relief with a rapid loading phase, followed by regular monitoring to maximize patient communication; there is a chance to cease sedatives), (3) deep sedation with a chance of cessation (deep sedation intended initially, followed by regular assessments of appropriateness of treatment goal; there is a chance to cease sedatives), and (4) continuous deep sedation until death (deep sedation indicated from initiation and maintained until death).

Conclusion: This article proposes an idea that the use of treatment protocols that visualize treatment goals, rapidity of dose titration, and planned duration of treatment may help understand the existing variations in sedative use over the world. The use of treatment protocols in the same way when defining a medical treatment in other specialty fields might clear up the current confusion about the use of sedatives.

British laypeople's attitudes towards gradual sedation, sedation to unconsciousness and euthanasia at the end of life

BACKGROUND

Many patients at the end of life require analgesia to relieve pain. Additionally, up to 1/5 of patients in the UK receive sedation for refractory symptoms at the end of life. The use of sedation in end-of-life care (EOLC) remains controversial. While gradual sedation to alleviate intractable suffering is generally accepted, there is more opposition towards deliberate and rapid sedation to unconsciousness (so-called "terminal anaesthesia", TA). However, the general public's views about sedation in EOLC are not known. We sought to investigate the general public's views to inform policy and practice in the UK.

METHODS

We performed two anonymous online surveys of members of the UK public, sampled to be representative for key demographic characteristics (n = 509). Participants were given a scenario of a hypothetical terminally ill patient with one week of life left. We sought views on the acceptability of providing titrated analgesia, gradual sedation, terminal anaesthesia, and euthanasia. We asked participants about the intentions of doctors, what risks of sedation would be acceptable, and the equivalence of terminal anaesthesia and euthanasia.

FINDINGS

Of the 509 total participants, 84% and 72% indicated that it is permissible to offer titrated analgesia and gradual sedation (respectively); 75% believed it is ethical to offer TA. Eighty-eight percent of participants indicated that they would like to have the option of TA available in their EOLC (compared with 79% for euthanasia); 64% indicated that they would potentially wish for TA at the end of life (52% for euthanasia). Two-thirds indicated that doctors should be allowed to make a dying patient completely unconscious. More than 50% of participants believed that TA and euthanasia were non-equivalent; a third believed they were.

INTERPRETATION

These novel findings demonstrate substantial support from the UK general public for the use of sedation and TA in EOLC. More discussion is needed about the range of options that should be offered for dying patients.

The Use of Palliative Sedation to Treat Existential Suffering: A Scoping Review on Practices, Ethical Considerations, and Guidelines

Context:

Though palliative sedation has been recognized as an acceptable practice in Canada for many years now, there is a lack of clinical research and guidelines pertaining to its use as a treatment of existential refractory symptoms in the terminally ill.

Objectives:

This scoping review aimed to survey the literature surrounding palliative sedation and existential suffering and to inform research, policy, and practice.

Methods:

To address the main research question: Is palliative sedation an acceptable intervention to treat existential refractory symptoms in adults aged 65 and older? a scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework was performed, spanning electronic databases of the peer reviewed and grey literature. Articles were screened for inclusion, and a thematic content analysis allowed for a summary of key findings.

Results:

Out of 427 search results, 71 full text articles were obtained, 20 of which were included. Out of these articles, four themes were identified as key findings. These included: (1) Ethical considerations; (2) The role of the health care provider; looking specifically at the impact on nurses; (3) The need for multidisciplinary care teams; and (4) Existential suffering’s connection to religiosity and spirituality.

Conclusion:

Palliative sedation to treat existential refractory symptoms was labelled a controversial practice. A shortage of evidence-based resources limits the current literature’s ability to inform policy and clinical practice. There is a need for both qualitative and quantitative multi-center research so health care professionals and regional-level institutions have firm roots to establish proper policy and practice.

A Survey of Hospice and Palliative Care Clinicians' Experiences and Attitudes Regarding the Use of Palliative Sedation

BACKGROUND

A variety of terms and attitudes surround palliative sedation (PS) with little research devoted to hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians' perceptions and experiences with PS. These factors may contribute to the wide variability in the reported prevalence of PS.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to better identify hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinician attitudes toward, and clinical experiences with palliative sedation (PS).

METHODS

A 32-question survey was distributed to members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (n = 4678). The questions explored the language clinicians use for PS, and their experiences with PS.

RESULTS

Nine hundred thirty-six (20% response rate) responded to the survey. About 83.21% preferred the terminology of PS compared with other terms. A majority felt that PS is a bioethically appropriate treatment for refractory physical and nonphysical symptoms in dying patients. Most felt PS was not an appropriate term in clinical scenarios when sedation occurred as an unintended side effect from standard treatments. Hospice clinicians use PS more consistently and with less distress than nonhospice clinician respondents. Benzodiazepines (63.1%) and barbiturates (18.9%) are most commonly prescribed for PS.

CONCLUSION

PS is the preferred term among HPC clinicians for the proportionate use of pharmacotherapies to intentionally lower awareness for refractory symptoms in dying patients. PS is a bioethically appropriate treatment for refractory symptoms in dying patients. However, there is a lack of clear agreement about what is included in PS and how the practice of PS should be best delivered in different clinical scenarios. Future efforts to investigate PS should focus on describing the clinical scenarios in which PS is utilized and on the level of intended sedation necessary, in an effort to better unify the practice of PS.

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.

Palliative care conundrums in an Ebola treatment centre

We describe the treatment course and last days of a 33-year-old man from Western Africa who died from Ebola-related complications. Specifically, the issues around declaring a patient palliative in a low resource environment while dealing with a largely unknown entity, Ebola viral disease, make this an important discussion-stimulating case. The patient presented as a confirmed Ebola-positive case from a peripheral holding centre and then proceeded to deteriorate under our care. Significant neurological decline was noted and the prognosis was felt to be grim by certain providers. Other providers disagreed and a number of treatment algorithms were started and stopped during the patient's last days. He succumbed to Ebola complications after 17 days under our care.

Palliative sedation versus euthanasia: an ethical assessment

The aim of this article was to review the ethical debate concerning palliative sedation. Although recent guidelines articulate the differences between palliative sedation and euthanasia, the ethical controversies remain. The dominant view is that euthanasia and palliative sedation are morally distinct practices. However, ambiguous moral experiences and considerable practice variation call this view into question. When heterogeneous sedative practices are all labeled as palliative sedation, there is the risk that palliative sedation is expanded to include practices that are actually intended to bring about the patients' death. This troublesome expansion is fostered by an expansive use of the concept of intention such that this decisive ethical concept is no longer restricted to signify the aim in guiding the action. In this article, it is argued that intention should be used in a restricted way. The significance of intention is related to other ethical parameters to demarcate the practice of palliative sedation: terminality, refractory symptoms, proportionality, and separation from other end-of-life decisions. These additional parameters, although not without ethical and practical problems, together formulate a framework to ethically distinguish a more narrowly defined practice of palliative sedation from practices that are tantamount to euthanasia. Finally, the article raises the question as to what impact palliative sedation might have on the practice of palliative care itself. The increasing interest in palliative sedation may reemphasize characteristics of health care that initially encouraged the emergence of palliative care in the first place: the focus on therapy rather than care, the physical dimension rather than the whole person, the individual rather than the community, and the primacy of intervention rather than receptiveness and presence.