Practice and documentation of palliative sedation: a quality improvement initiative

Documentation of Sedation in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review of Requirements, Recommendations, and Templates

Objective: To identify and describe requirements, recommendations, and templates for the documentation of sedation in adult palliative care. Introduction: International literature shows inconsistency in clinical practice regarding sedation in palliative care accompanied by legal, ethical, and medical uncertainties. Documentation in general serves as proof for previous treatments. In the context of intentional sedation to relieve suffering at the end of life, documentation provides a clear demarcation against practices of euthanasia. Inclusion Criteria: Articles with full-text version published in English or German since 2000, covering documentation requirements, recommendations, monitoring parameters or templates for sedation in adult palliative care were included. Methods: Scoping review following the JBI methodology. Search in online databases, websites of professional associations in palliative care, reference lists of relevant publications, the archive of the German "Journal of Palliative Medicine" and databases for unpublished literature were used. Search terms included "palliative care,' "sedation," and "documentation." The search was conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 with an initial hand search in November 2021. Data were screened and charted by one reviewer after conducting a pilot test of the criteria. Results: From the initial 390 articles (database search), 22 articles were included. In addition, 15 articles were integrated from the hand search. The results can be clustered in two sets of items, regarding either the documentation before or during sedation. The documentation requirements referred both to inpatient and homecare settings but in many cases, a clear assignment was missing. Conclusions: The guidelines analyzed in this study rarely cover setting-specific differences in documentation and often treat documentation as minor topic. Further research is needed addressing legal and ethical concerns of health care teams and, therefore, help to improve treatment of patients suffering from otherwise intractable burden at the end of life.

Bicentre, randomized, parallel-arm, sham-controlled trial of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of palliative care patients with refractory cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom in palliative care cancer patients and is often insufficiently relieved. In recent years, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex has been shown to be effective to treat chronic pain, essentially neuropathic pain. We propose to test the efficacy of tDCS in patients experiencing cancer pain in the palliative care setting.

METHOD/DESIGN

This article describes the protocol of a bicentre, randomized, parallel-arm, sham-controlled clinical trial evaluating tDCS in the treatment of palliative care patients with refractory cancer pain. Seventy patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years experiencing refractory pain with a pain score of 4/10 on a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10 will be enrolled in this trial. The main exclusion criteria are patients unable to fill in the various rating scales and life expectancy less than 3 weeks. Treatment consists of 5 consecutive tDCS sessions targeting the motor cortex (one daily session for 5 days) on the contralateral side to the pain. After randomization (1:1 ratio), 35 patients will receive active stimulation and 35 patients will receive sham stimulation. The primary endpoint is the NRS score and the primary objective is a significant improvement of this score between the baseline score recorded between D-3 and D-1 and the score recorded 4 days after stopping treatment (D8). The secondary objectives are to evaluate whether this improvement is maintained 16 days after stopping treatment (D21) and whether the following scores are improved on D14 and D21: Brief Pain Inventory, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Medication Quantification Scale.

DISCUSSION

Positive results of this trial would indicate that tDCS can improve pain and quality of life of cancer patients in the palliative care setting. Reduction of analgesic consumption and improvement of activities of daily living should allow many patients to return home with a decreased workload for caregivers.

Use of Phenobarbitone for Palliative Sedation in Dyspneic Crises Due to COVID-19 Pneumonia - A Case Series

Patients who suffer from dyspnea while dying from COVID-19 are treated with opioids and benzodiazepines. In some instances, patients may experience refractory dyspnea at the end of life. Palliative sedation can be prescribed to alleviate such patients' suffering. We describe two patients being treated for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary hospital. Both developed intractable dyspneic crises despite high-dose opioids and benzodiazepines. This led to their requirement of palliative sedation in the general ward using subcutaneous phenobarbitone (phenobarbital). We outline clinical considerations for the use of palliative sedation in COVID-19 related dyspnea. In particular, we discuss the evidence for, benefits and limitations of using phenobarbitone for palliative sedation in COVID-19 patients.

Refractory hyperactive delirium in the dying: pharmacological management

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a prevalent clinical presentation in advanced illness. The hyperactive phase can cause severe symptoms at the end of life. There is no published study of the pharmacological management of this symptom in Australian palliative medicine practice.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the pharmacological management of hyperactive delirium at the end of life in an Australian inpatient palliative care setting.

METHODS

Retrospective audit of deaths from October 2019 where a medication of interest (MOI) was used following admission to the palliative care unit (PCU) of Eastern Health. The clinical notes of those included were reviewed to further describe the clinical details surrounding the use of the MOI.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included. Midazolam was the most common medication used (57.5%). The most common dual agent combination was midazolam plus levomepromazine.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit is the first description of pharmacological management of severe hyperactive delirium at the end of life requiring sedation in an Australian PCU.

Changing Practices in the Use of Continuous Sedation at the End of Life: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT

The use of continuous sedation until death (CSD) has been highly debated for many years. It is unknown how the use of CSD evolves over time. Reports suggest that there is an international increase in the use of CSD for terminally ill patients.

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight in developments in the use of CSD in various countries and subpopulations.

METHODS

We performed a search of the literature published between January 2000 and April 2020, in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library by using the Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols guidelines. The search contained the following terms: continuous sedation, terminal sedation, palliative sedation, deep sedation, end-of-life sedation, sedation practice, and sedation until death.

RESULTS

We found 23 articles on 16 nationwide studies and 38 articles on 37 subpopulation studies. In nationwide studies on frequencies of CSD in deceased persons varied from 3% in Denmark in 2001 to 18% in The Netherlands in 2015. Nationwide studies indicate an increase in the use of CSD. Frequencies of CSD in the different subpopulations varied too widely to observe time trends. Over the years, more studies reported on the use of CSD for nonphysical symptoms including fear, anxiety, and psycho-existential distress. In some studies, there was an increase in requests for sedation of patients from their families.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of CSD seems to increase over time, possibly partly because of an extension of indications for sedation, from mainly physical symptoms to also nonphysical symptoms.

Midazolam sedation in palliative medicine: retrospective study in a French center for cancer control

BACKGROUND

French legislation about sedation in palliative medicine evolved in 2016 with the introduction of a right to deep and continuous sedation, maintained until death. The objective was to describe midazolam sedation at the COL (Centre Oscar Lambret [Oscar Lambret Center], French regional center for cancer control), in order to establish a current overview before the final legislative changes.

METHODS

Descriptive, retrospective and single-center study, concerning major patients in palliative care hospitalized from 01/01/2014 to 12/31/2015, who had been sedated by midazolam. The proven sedations (explicitly named) and the probable sedations were distinguished.

RESULTS

A total of 54 sedations were identified (48 proven, 6 probable). Refractory symptoms accounted for 48.1% of indications, complications with immediate risk of death 46.3%, existential suffering 5.6%. Titration was performed in 44.4% of cases. Sedation was continuous until death for 98.1% of the cases. Probable sedation had a higher failure rate than proven sedation. Significant differences existed for the palliative care unit compared to other units regarding information to the patient, their consent, anticipation, mention by correspondence and carrying out titrations. When patients had already been treated with midazolam, the induction doses, initial maintenance doses, and doses at the time of death were significantly higher. For those receiving opioids, the maintenance dose at the time of death was higher. No comparison found a difference in overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

After a sufficient follow-up has enabled teams to familiarize with this new legislation, reflection on sedation should be conducted to adapt to final recommendations.

Description of Continuous Palliative Sedation Practices in a Large Health Region and Comparison with Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background: Published reports of continuous palliative sedation therapy (CPST) suggest heterogeneity in practice. There is a paucity of reports that compare practice with clinical guidelines. Objectives: To assess adherence of continuous palliative sedation practices with criteria set forth in local clinical guidelines, and to describe other features including prevalence, medication dosing, duration, multidisciplinary team involvement, and concurrent therapies. Design: Retrospective chart review. Settings/Subjects: We included cases in which a midazolam infusion was ordered at the end of life. Study sites included four adult hospitals in the Calgary health region, two hospices, and a tertiary palliative care unit. Measurements: Descriptive data, including proportion of deaths involving palliative sedation therapy, number of criteria documented, midazolam dose/duration, concurrent symptom management therapies, and referrals to spiritual care, psychology, or social work. Results: CPST occurred in 602 out of 14,360 deaths (4.2%). Full adherence to criteria occurred in 7% of cases. The most commonly missed criteria were: a "C2" goals-of-care designation order (comfort care focus in the imminently dying) (84%) and documentation of imminent death in the chart (55%). Concurrent medical therapies included opioids in 98% of cases and intravenous hydration in 85% of cases. Few referrals were made to multidisciplinary care teams. Conclusions: We found low adherence to palliative sedation guidelines. This may reflect the perception that some criteria are redundant or clinically unimportant. Future work could include a study of barriers to guideline uptake, and guideline modification to provide direction on concurrent therapies and multidisciplinary team involvement.

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.

Evaluation of Subcutaneous Phenobarbital Administration in Hospice Patients

Phenobarbital is used in hospice and palliative care to treat refractory symptoms. In end-of-life care, Food and Drug Administration approved routes of administration may be unreasonable based on patients’ status. In these cases, phenobarbital may be administered subcutaneously for symptom management. However, according to the American Hospital Formulary Service, subcutaneous administration of commercially available injectable phenobarbital is cautioned due to possible skin reactions. This study evaluates the tolerability of phenobarbital administered subcutaneously. Of 69 patients and 774 distinct subcutaneous phenobarbital injections, 2 site reactions were recorded (2.9% of patients; 0.3% of injections). Both were mild, grade 1 reactions. Each patient continued to receive subcutaneous phenobarbital via newly placed ports with no additional reactions. Based on these findings, phenobarbital appears to be well tolerated when administered subcutaneously.

Palliative sedation-still a complex clinical issue!

It is my anecdotal impression that, in reviewing the recent contents of palliative care journals, it is hard not to find an article on palliative sedation [...]