Attitudes of palliative home care physicians towards palliative sedation at home in Italy

Practice of Palliative Sedation in Patients Followed by a Palliative Home Care Team

CONTEXT

Information about the use of palliative sedation (PS) at home is limited.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the frequency, indications, and modalities of PS in patients with incurable disease, including cancer and non cancer patients, followed at home.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of patients who were admitted to home palliative care was prospectively assessed. From the entire sample, patients who underwent PS were selected. Data regarding indications for PS, drugs and their maximum doses, intent (proportional and deep PS), and duration of PS were collected. The level of satisfaction of doctors and caregivers, evaluated one week after death, was classified in four catagories: satisfied, satisfied, not very satisfied, unsatisfied.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven of patients of 176 patients (32%) received PS in the last days of life. The mean duration of PS was 34 h (SD 32). Indications for PS were in a rank order: agitated delirium (n.43, 75.4%), dyspnea (n.9, 15.8%), psychoexistential distress (n.4, 7%), pain (n.1, 1.8%). Proportional and deep sedation were used in 38 (66.6%) and 19 (33,4%) cases, respectively. The most frequent drug used for PS was chlorpromazine at mean doses of 128 mg/day. The mean interval between proposal of PS and effective start of PS was 31(SD 84) hours. In six cases there there was a delay in starting PS, due to resistance on behalf of caregivers. Patients with a cancer diagnosis and a lower Karnofsky status at home care admission were more likely to be sedated (P = 0.009 and P = 0.002, respectively). Physicians were highly satisfied, satisfied, and not very satisfied in 38 (66.7%), 16 (28.1%), and 3 (5.3%) cases, respectively. Similar figures were provided by caregivers, who were highly satisfied, satisfied, and not very satisfied in 36 (63.2%), 14 (24.6%) and 7 (12.3%) of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PS was feasible at home by using an individual treatment. Timing may depend on various factors, including agreement with caregivers, logistics or drug supply. Further research is necessary to compare attitudes regarding PS in countries with different sociocultural profiles and organization models.

Palliative Sedation at Home: A Scoping Review

Palliative Sedation (PS) is an effective measure for the relief of refractory symptoms in end-of-life patients. This intervention can be performed at home, respecting the patients' and their families' decisions. A scoping review was performed to map the available evidence in the literature on the performance of PS at home. This review included 23 studies. Most were conducted in European countries with adult cancer patients. Patients, family members and healthcare providers participated in the decision making regarding the use of PS at home. PS was used primarily to manage refractory symptoms (pain, delirium, dyspnea, and others), and in 1 of the studies PS was mentioned as a possible intervention for shortening life. The most commonly used medication was midazolam and the average duration ranged from 4 h to 7 days. There are few reports on adverse events related to PS. This intervention seems to be a feasible possibility for the management of refractory symptoms in patients at the end of life, despite the fact that it can represent specific challenges for healthcare providers, patients and families. However, the literature is limited regarding PS in children and in people with diseases other than cancer, as well as on the evaluation of possible adverse effects related to this intervention. Furthermore, it is essential to have a broad ethical, clinical and legal debate on whether to consider the use of PS for the purpose of shortening life in specific cases.

"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.

Measuring Palliative Care-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, and Confidence in Home Health Care Clinicians, Patients, and Caregivers: A Systematic Review

Background: Integrating palliative care services in the home health care (HHC) setting is an important strategy to provide care for seriously ill adults and improve symptom burden, quality of life, and caregiver burden. Routine palliative care in HHC is only possible if clinicians who provide this care are prepared and patients and caregivers are well equipped with the knowledge to receive this care. A key first step in integrating palliative care services within HHC is to measure preparedness of clinicians and readiness of patients and caregivers to receive it. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to review existing literature related to the measurement of palliative care-related knowledge, attitudes, and confidence among HHC clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane for relevant articles between 2000 and 2021. Articles were included in the final analysis if they (1) reported specifically on palliative care knowledge, attitudes, or confidence, (2) presented measurement tools, instruments, scales, or questionnaires, (3) were conducted in the HHC setting, (4) and included HHC clinicians, patients, or caregivers. Results: Seventeen articles were included. While knowledge, attitudes, and confidence have been studied in HHC clinicians, patients, and caregivers, results varied significantly across countries and health care systems. No study captured knowledge, attitudes, and confidence of the full HHC workforce; notably, home health aides were not included in the studies. Conclusion: Existing instruments did not comprehensively contain elements of the eight domains of palliative care outlined by the National Consensus Project (NCP) for Quality Palliative Care. A comprehensive psychometrically tested instrument to measure palliative care-related knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in the HHC setting is needed.

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.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a new tool for measuring the attitudes of patients with progressive neurological diseases to ethical aspects of end-of-life care

BACKGROUND

Knowing the opinions of patients with Progressive Neurological Diseases (PNDs) and their family members on end-of-life care can help initiate communication and the drawing up of a care plan. The aim of this paper is to describe the creation and psychometric properties of the newly developed APND-EoLC questionnaire (the Attitudes of Patients with Progressive Neurological Disease to End of Life Care questionnaire).

METHODS

Following focus group discussion, four main areas of interest were identified: patients' and family members' attitudes towards end-of-life care, factors influencing decisions about treatment to prolong patients' life, concerns and fears regarding dying, and opinions on the system of care. The created questions were divided into domains based on factor analysis and psychometric properties were evaluated by sample of 209 patients with PND and 118 their family members.

RESULTS

The final version of the scale contains a total of 28 questions divided into six domains (end-of-life control, keeping patients alive, trust in doctors/treatment, trust in social support, sense of suffering, and dependence/loss of control) and five individual questions determining views of the care system with specified response options. Construct validity was verified by confirmatory factor analysis for each evaluated area individually. Appropriate psychometric properties were identified in the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The APND-EoLC questionnaire can be recommended for use in both research and clinical practice.

Identification and evaluation of observational measures for the assessment and/or monitoring of level of consciousness in adult palliative care patients: A systematic review for I-CAN-CARE

BACKGROUND

The use of observational measures to assess palliative care patients' level of consciousness may improve patient care and comfort. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the validity and reliability of these measures in palliative care settings.

AIM

To identify and evaluate the psychometric performance of observational level of consciousness measures used in palliative care.

DESIGN

Systematic review; PROSPERO registration: CRD42017073080.

DATA SOURCES

We searched six databases until November 2018, using search terms combining subject headings and free-text terms. Psychometric performance for each identified tool was appraised independently by two reviewers following established criteria for developing and evaluating health outcome measures.

RESULTS

We found 35 different levels of consciousness tools used in 65 studies. Only seven studies reported information about psychometric performance of just eight tools. All other studies used either ad hoc measures for which no formal validation had been undertaken (n = 21) or established tools mainly developed and validated in non-palliative care settings (n = 37). The Consciousness Scale for Palliative Care and a modified version of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale received the highest ratings in our appraisal, but, since psychometric evidence was limited, no tool could be assessed for all psychometric properties.

CONCLUSION

An increasing number of studies in palliative care are using observational measures of level of consciousness. However, only a few of these tools have been tested for their psychometric performance in that context. Future research in this area should validate and/or refine the existing measures, rather than developing new tools.

Opioid, antipsychotic and hypnotic use in end of life in long-term care facilities in six European countries: results of PACE

Background

Opioids, antipsychotics and hypnotics are recommended for comfort care in dying. We studied their prescription during the last 3 days in residents deceased in the long-term care facility (LTCF).

Methods

In a retrospective, cross-sectional survey in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, LTCFs, selected by proportional stratified random sampling, reported all deaths over the previous 3 months. The nurse most involved in the residents’ care reviewed the chart for opioid, antipsychotic and hypnotic prescription, cause of death and comorbidities. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for resident characteristics.

Results

Response rate was 81.6%. We included 1079 deceased residents in 322 LCTFs. Opioid prescription ranged from 18.5% (95% CI: 13.0–25.8) of residents in Poland to 77.9% (95% CI: 69.5–84.5) in the Netherlands, antipsychotic prescription from 4.8% (95% CI: 2.4–9.1) in Finland to 22.4% (95% CI: 14.7–32.4) in Italy, hypnotic prescription from 7.8% (95% CI: 4.6–12.8) in Finland to 47.9% (95% CI: 38.5–57.3) in the Netherlands. Differences in opioid, antipsychotic and hypnotic prescription between countries remained significant (P < 0.001) when controlling for age, gender, length of stay, cognitive status, cause of death in multilevel, multivariable analyses. Dying from cancer showed higher odds for receiving opioids (OR 3.51; P < 0.001) and hypnotics (OR 2.10; P = 0.010).

Conclusions

Opioid, antipsychotic and hypnotic prescription in the dying phase differed significantly between six European countries. Further research should determine the appropriateness of their prescription and refine guidelines especially for LTCF residents dying of non-cancer diseases.

Palliative Sedation for the Terminally Ill Patient

Palliative sedation (PS) is performed in the terminally ill patient to manage one or more refractory symptoms. Proportional PS, which means that drugs can be titrated to the minimum effective dose, is the form most widely used. From a quarter to a third of all terminally ill patients undergo PS, with a quarter of these requiring continuous deep sedation. The prevalence of PS varies according to the care setting and case mix. The most frequent refractory physical symptoms are delirium and dyspnea, but PS is also considered for existential suffering or psychological distress, which is an extremely difficult and delicate issue to deal with. Active consensus from the patient and advanced care planning is recommended for PS. The decision-making process concerning the continuation or withdrawal of other treatments is not the same as that used for PS. The practice differs totally from euthanasia in its intentions, procedures, and results. The most widely used drugs are midazolam and haloperidol for refractory delirium, but chlorpromazine and other neuroleptics are also effective. In conclusion, some patients experience refractory symptoms during the last hours or days of life and PS is a medical intervention aimed at managing this unbearable suffering. It does not have a detrimental effect on survival.