The ethical validity and clinical experience of palliative sedation

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.

The Principles of Revised Clinical Guidelines about Palliative Sedation Therapy of the Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine

Background: When the suffering of a terminally ill patient is intolerable and refractory, sedatives are sometimes used for symptom relief. Objective: To describe the main principles of revised Japanese clinical guidelines about palliative sedation therapy. Design: Consensus methods using the Delphi technique were used. Results: The main principles of the guidelines that were newly defined or developed are as follows: (1) palliative sedation was defined as "administration of sedatives for the purpose of alleviating refractory suffering" (excluding the aim of reducing patient consciousness); (2) palliative sedation was classified according to the method of administration of sedatives: respite sedation versus continuous sedation (including (continuous) proportional sedation and continuous deep sedation); (3) a description of state-of-the-art recommended treatments for difficult symptoms such as delirium, dyspnea, and pain before the symptom was determined as refractory was included; (4) the principle of proportionality was newly defined from an ethical point of view; and (5) families' consent was regarded as being desirable (mandatory in the previous version). Conclusions: We described the main principles of revised Japanese clinical guidelines about palliative sedation therapy. Further consensus building is necessary.

The role of end-of-life palliative sedation: medical and ethical aspects – Review

Background and objective

Palliative sedation is a medical procedure that has been used for more than 25 years to relieve refractory symptoms not responsive to any previous treatment in patients with no possibility of cure and near the end of life. Many uncertainties persist on the theme regarding definition, indications, decision making, most appropriate place to perform the procedure, most used drugs, need for monitoring, fluids and nutritional support, and possible ethical dilemmas. The objective of this review was to seek a probable consensus among the authors regarding these topics not yet fully defined.

Method

An exploratory search was made in secondary sources, from 1990 to 2016, regarding palliative sedation and its clinical and bioethical implications.

Conclusions

Palliative sedation is an alternative to alleviate end-of-life patient suffering due to refractory symptoms, particularly dyspnea and delirium, after all other treatment options have been exhausted. Decision making involves prior explanations, discussions and agreement of the team, patient, and/or family members. It can be performed in general hospital units, hospices and even at home. Midazolam is the most indicated drug, and neuroleptics may also be required in the presence of delirium. These patients’ monitoring is limited to comfort observation, relief of symptoms, and presence of adverse effects. There is no consensus on whether or not to suspend fluid and nutritional support, and the decision must be made with family members. From the bioethical standpoint, the great majority of authors are based on intention and proportionality to distinguish between palliative sedation, euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

The last low whispers of our dead: when is it ethically justifiable to render a patient unconscious until death?

A number of practices at the end of life can causally contribute to diminished consciousness in dying patients. Despite overlapping meanings and a confusing plethora of names in the published literature, this article distinguishes three types of clinically and ethically distinct practices: (1) double-effect sedation, (2) parsimonious direct sedation, and (3) sedation to unconsciousness and death. After exploring the concept of suffering, the value of consciousness, the philosophy of therapy, the ethical importance of intention, and the rule of double effect, these three practices are defined clearly and evaluated ethically. It is concluded that, if one is opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide, double-effect sedation can frequently be ethically justified, that parsimonious direct sedation can be ethically justified only in extremely rare circumstances in which symptoms have already completely consumed the patient's consciousness, and that sedation to unconsciousness and death is never justifiable. The special case of sedation for existential suffering is also considered and rejected.

[The role of end-of-life palliative sedation: medical and ethical aspects - Review]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Palliative sedation is a medical procedure that has been used for more than 25 years to relieve refractory symptoms not responsive to any previous treatment in patients with no possibility of cure and near the end of life. Many uncertainties persist on the theme regarding definition, indications, decision making, most appropriate place to perform the procedure, most used drugs, need for monitoring, fluids and nutritional support, and possible ethical dilemmas. The objective of this review was to seek a probable consensus among the authors regarding these topics not yet fully defined.

METHOD

An exploratory search was made in secondary sources, from 1990 to 2016, regarding palliative sedation and its clinical and bioethical implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative sedation is an alternative to alleviate end-of-life patient suffering due to refractory symptoms, particularly dyspnea and delirium, after all other treatment options have been exhausted. Decision making involves prior explanations, discussions and agreement of the team, patient, and/or family members. It can be performed in general hospital units, hospices and even at home. Midazolam is the most indicated drug, and neuroleptics may also be required in the presence of delirium. These patients' monitoring is limited to comfort observation, relief of symptoms, and presence of adverse effects. There is no consensus on whether or not to suspend fluid and nutritional support, and the decision must be made with family members. From the bioethical standpoint, the great majority of authors are based on intention and proportionality to distinguish between palliative sedation, euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

Qualitative Study on the Perceptions of Terminally Ill Cancer Patients and Their Family Members Regarding End-of-Life Experiences Focusing on Palliative Sedation

CONTEXT

Patients with terminal cancer experience refractory symptoms in the last days of life. Although palliative sedation (PS) is recommended for patients suffering unbearable symptoms with imminent death, it requires clear communication between physicians and patients/caregivers. Understanding the demands and perceptions of patients and caregivers in the end-of-life phase are needed for effective communication.

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient experiences regarding end-of-life status and PS.

METHODS

The study was performed between October and December, 2013 with eligible terminal cancer patients and their families in a non-religious, tertiary healthcare facility in Korea. Eligibility criteria were a hospitalized cancer patient with a life expectancy of less than three months and who had never experienced PS. Data were collected via face-to-face in-depth interviews and analyzed using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Saturation was achieved after conducting interviews with 13 patients or care-giving family members.

RESULTS

Enrolled patients raised the following issues: 1) simultaneously harboring the hope of prolonging life and wishing for a peaceful death, 2) experiencing difficulties in having honest conversations with caregivers regarding death, 3) possessing insufficient knowledge and information regarding PS, and 4) hoping for the decision on PS to be made before suffering becomes too great.

CONCLUSION

Terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers expressed conflicting desires in hoping to prolong life and simultaneously wishing to experience a peaceful death. Improvements in the communications that occur among physicians, patients, and caregivers on the issues of prognosis and PS are needed.

Palliative sedation challenging the professional competency of health care providers and staff: a qualitative focus group and personal written narrative study

Background

Despite recent advances in palliative medicine, sedating a terminally ill patient is regarded as an indispensable treatment to manage unbearable suffering. With the prospect of widespread use of palliative sedation, the feelings and representations of health care providers and staff (carers) regarding sedation must be carefully explored if we are to gain a better understanding of its impact and potential pitfalls. The objective of the study was to provide a comprehensive description of the opinions of carers about the use of sedation practices in palliative care units (PCU), which have become a focus of public attention following changes in legislation.

Methods

Data were collected using a qualitative study involving multi-professional focus groups with health care providers and staff as well as personal narratives written by physicians and paramedical staff. A total of 35 medical and paramedical providers volunteered to participate in focus group discussions in three Palliative Care Units in two French hospitals and to write personal narratives.

Results

Health care provider and staff opinions had to do with their professional stance and competencies when using midazolam and practicing sedation in palliative care. They expressed uncertainty regarding three aspects of the comprehensive care: biomedical rigour of diagnosis and therapeutics, quality of the patient/provider relationship and care to be provided. Focusing on the sedative effect of midazolam and continuous sedation until death, the interviewed health care providers examined the basics of their professional competency as well as the key role played by the health care team in terms of providing support and minimizing workplace suffering. Nurses were subject to the greatest misgivings about their work when they were called upon to sedate patients.

Conclusions

The uncertainty experienced by the carers with regard to the medical, psychosocial and ethical justification for sedation is a source of psychological burden and moral distress, and it has proved to be a major source of suffering in the workplace. Lastly, the study shows the uncertainty can have the positive effect of prompting the care team to devise ways to deal with it.

Continuous Deep Sedation: A Proposal for Performing More Rigorous Empirical Research

Continuous deep sedation until death (CDS) is a type of palliative sedation therapy, and it has recently become a focus of intense debate. Marked inconsistencies in intervention procedures (i.e., what is CDS?) and unstandardized descriptions of patient backgrounds lead to difficulty in comparing the results in the literature. The primary aim of this article was to propose a conceptual framework to perform empirical studies on CDS. We propose the definition of CDS using the intervention protocol. As there are two types of CDS proposed in world-wide literature, we recommend to prepare two types of intervention protocol for CDS: "continuous deep sedation as a result of proportional sedation" (gradual CDS) and "continuous deep sedation to rapidly induce unconsciousness" (rapid CDS). In addition, we recommend that researchers characterize study patients' general condition using a validated prognostic tool, Prognosis in Palliative Care Study predictor model-A. Using this conceptual framework, we can compare the outcomes following the same exposures among homogenous patients throughout the world. This article proposes a provisional definition of two types of CDS. Defining CDS using the intervention protocol and describing patient backgrounds using validated prognostic tools enable comparisons and interpretations of empirical research about CDS. More empirical studies are urgently needed.

The Ethics of Palliative Sedation as a Therapy of Last Resort

Many patients nearing the end of life reach a point at which the goals of care change from an emphasis on prolonging life and optimizing function to maximizing the quality of remaining life, and palliative care becomes a priority. For some patients, however, even high-quality aggressive palliative care fails to provide relief. For patients suffering from severe pain, dyspnea, vomiting, or other symptoms that prove refractory to treatment, there is a consensus that palliative sedation is an appropriate intervention of last resort. In this report, the National Ethics Committee, Veterans Health Administration examines what is meant by palliative sedation, explores ethical concerns about the practice, reviews the emerging professional consensus regarding the use of palliative sedation for managing severe, refractory symptoms at the end of life, and offers specific recommendations for institutional policy.

End-of-life delirium: issues regarding recognition, optimal management, and the role of sedation in the dying phase

CONTEXT

In end-of-life care, delirium is often not recognized and poses unique management challenges, especially in the case of refractory delirium in the terminal phase.

OBJECTIVES

To review delirium in the terminal phase context, specifically in relation to recognition issues; the decision-making processes and management strategies regarding its reversibility; the potential refractoriness of delirium to symptomatic treatment; and the role of sedation in refractory delirium.

METHODS

We combined multidisciplinary input from delirium researchers and knowledge users at an international delirium study planning meeting and relevant electronic database literature searches (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) to inform this narrative review.

RESULTS

The overall management strategy for delirium at the end of life is directed by the patient's prognosis in association with the patient's goals of care. As symptoms of delirium are often refractory in the terminal phase, especially in the case of agitated delirium, the judicious use of palliative sedation is frequently required. However, there remains a lack of high-level evidence for the management of delirium in the terminal phase, including the role of antipsychotics and optimal sedation strategies. For the family and health-care staff, clear communication, education, and emotional support are vital components to assist with decision making and direct the treatment care plan.

CONCLUSION

Further research on the effectiveness of delirium management strategies in the terminal phase for patients and their families is required. Further validation of assessment tools for diagnostic screening and severity measurement is needed in this patient population.

Effectiveness of multidisciplinary team conference on decision-making surrounding the application of continuous deep sedation for terminally ill cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Continuous deep sedation (CDS) is a way to reduce conscious experience of symptoms of severe suffering in terminally ill cancer patients. However, there is wide variation in the frequency of its reported. So we conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the prevalence and features of CDS in our palliative care unit (PCU).

METHODS

We performed a systemic retrospective analysis of the medical and nursing records of all 1581 cancer patients who died at the PCU at Higashi Sapporo Hospital between April 2005 and August 2011. Continuous deep sedation can only be administered safely and appropriately when a multidisciplinary team is involved in the decision-making process. Prior to administration of CDS, a multidisciplinary team conference (MDTC) was held with respect to all the patients considered for CDS by an attending physician. The main outcome measures were the frequency and characteristics of CDS (patient background, all target symptoms, medications used for sedation, duration, family's satisfaction, and distress). We mailed anonymous questionnaires to bereaved families in August 2011.

RESULTS

Of 1581 deceased patients, 22 (1.39%) had received CDS. Physical exhaustion 8 (36.4%), dyspnea 7 (31.8%), and pain 5 (22.7%) were the most frequently mentioned indications. Continuous deep sedation had a duration of less than 1 week in 17 (77.3%). Six patients (0.38%) did not meet the appropriate criteria for CDS according to the MDTC and so did not receive it. Although bereaved families were generally comfortable with the practice of CDS, some expressed a high level of emotional distress.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Our results indicate that the prevalence of CDS will be decreased when it is carried out solely for appropriate indications. Continuity of teamwork, good coordination, exchange of information, and communication between the various care providers are essential. A lack of any of these may lead to inadequate assessment, information discrepancies, and unrest.

From sedation to continuous sedation until death: how has the conceptual basis of sedation in end-of-life care changed over time?

CONTEXT

Numerous attempts have been made to describe and define sedation in end-of-life care over time. However, confusion and inconsistency in the use of terms and definitions persevere in the literature, making interpretation, comparison, and extrapolation of many studies and case analyses problematic.

OBJECTIVES

This evidence review aims to address and account for the conceptual debate over the terminology and definitions ascribed to sedation at the end of life over time.

METHODS

Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) and two high-impact journals (New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal) were searched for indexed materials published between 1945 and 2011. This search resulted in bibliographic data of 328 published outputs. Terms and definitions were manually scanned, coded, and linguistically analyzed by means of term description criteria and discourse analysis.

RESULTS

The review shows that terminology has evolved from simple to complex terms with definitions varying in length, comprising different aspects of sedation such as indications for use, pharmacology, patient symptomatology, target population, time of initiation, and ethical considerations, in combinations of a minimum of two or more of these aspects.

CONCLUSION

There is a pressing need to resolve the conceptual confusion that currently exists in the literature to bring clarity to the dialogue and build a base of commonality on which to design research and enhance the practice of sedation in end-of-life care.

Flemish palliative-care nurses’ attitudes to palliative sedation

Palliative sedation is an option of last resort to control refractory suffering. In order to better understand palliative-care nurses’ attitudes to palliative sedation, an anonymous questionnaire was sent to all nurses (589) employed in palliative care in Flanders (Belgium). In all, 70.5% of the nurses ( n = 415) responded. A large majority did not agree that euthanasia is preferable to palliative sedation, were against non-voluntary euthanasia in the case of a deeply and continuously sedated patient and considered it generally better not to administer artificial floods or fluids to such a patient. Two clusters were found: 58.5% belonged to the cluster of advocates of deep and continuous sedation and 41.5% belonged to the cluster of nurses restricting the application of deep and continuous sedation. These differences notwithstanding, overall the attitudes of the nurses are in accordance with the practice and policy of palliative sedation in Flemish palliative-care units.

Ethical issues in palliative care

Ethical problems in medicine are common, especially when caring for patients at the end of life. However, many of these issues are not adequately identified in the outpatient setting. Primary care providers are in a unique and privileged position to identify ethical issues, prevent future conflicts, and help patients make medical decisions that are consistent with their individual values and preferences. This article describes some of the more common ethical issues faced by primary care physicians caring for patients with life-limiting illness.

Palliative sedation, not slow euthanasia: a prospective, longitudinal study of sedation in Flemish palliative care units

CONTEXT

Palliative sedation remains a much debated and controversial issue. The limited literature on the topic often fails to answer ethical questions concerning this practice.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients who are being sedated for refractory symptoms in palliative care units (PCUs) from the time of admission until the day of death.

METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal, descriptive design was used to assess data in eight PCUs. The total sample consisted of 266 patients. Information on demographics, medication, food and fluid intake, decision making, level of consciousness, and symptom experience were gathered by nurses and researchers three times a week. If patients received palliative sedation, extra information was gathered.

RESULTS

Of all included patients (n=266), 7.5% received palliative sedation. Sedation started, on average, 2.5 days before death and for half of these patients, the form of sedation changed over time. At the start of sedation, patients were in the end stage of their illness and needed total care. Patients were fully conscious and had very limited oral food or fluid intake. Only three patients received artificial fluids at the start of sedation. Patients reported, on average, two refractory symptoms, the most important ones being pain, fatigue, depression, drowsiness, and loss of feeling of well-being. In all cases, the patient gave consent to start palliative sedation because of increased suffering.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that palliative sedation is only administered in exceptional cases where refractory suffering is evident and for those patients who are close to the ends of their lives. Moreover, this study supports the argument that palliative sedation has no life-shortening effect.

Ethical decision making with end-of-life care: palliative sedation and withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments

Palliative sedation (PS) is the use of medications to induce decreased or absent awareness in order to relieve otherwise intractable suffering at the end of life. Although uncommon, some patients undergoing aggressive symptom control measures still have severe suffering from underlying disease or therapy-related adverse effects. In these circumstances, use of PS is considered. Although the goal is to provide relief in an ethically acceptable way to the patient, family, and health care team, health care professionals often voice concerns whether such treatment is necessary or whether such treatment equates to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. In this review, we frame clinical scenarios in which PS may be considered, summarize the ethical underpinnings of the practice, and further differentiate PS from other forms of end-of-life care, including withholding and/or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Palliative sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Palliative care is a discipline that provides satisfactory symptom relief to most patients with advanced life-threatening disease. There remain circumstances, however, in which patients experience distressing symptoms and unbearable suffering that cannot be adequately relieved. In these situations palliative sedation may be valuable as a last resort. Palliative sedation is a controversial issue and research in this area is complex for ethical and practical reasons. A review of some critical aspects, giving special attention to those areas that require further research, is therefore timely.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a dearth of evidence regarding sedation in the setting of palliative care. The literature contains many expert opinions and retrospective reports, but only a few prospective studies have been published. Terminology regarding sedation is confusing, indications and outcomes do not tend to be clearly reported, and no comparative studies to test drug effectiveness have been conducted. Consensus and innovative methodologies to enhance scientific knowledge are urgently needed in this area.

SUMMARY

This review addresses recent literature concerning definitions of palliative sedation and intolerable/refractory suffering, indications and drug use. The current state of the art is summarized and future lines of research are proposed.

Palliative sedation in a southern Appalachian community

Of 1200 palliative care patients, 28 received palliative sedation. They were more likely than patients without palliative sedation to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 3, a cancer diagnosis, an expected survival of weeks or less, to have been monitored by the palliative care team for at least 1 week, to have delirium as the cause of decreased communication, to have dyspnea as a non-pain symptom, and to be less able to communicate symptoms. Almost 90% received palliative sedation for at least 24 hours for a median of 3 days (range, 0 to 24 days). Home patients received palliative sedation longer. Symptoms were controlled in 82% and improved in the rest. Sedation developed in 79% but was not required for symptom control in 5. Patient survival from palliative care consultation was a median of 8 days (range, 0 to 32 days).

Palliative Sedation

Concerns about suffering usually arise as patients contemplate end of life. For most, an array of available therapies will alleviate suffering. However, for others, these therapies may not be adequate, despite impeccable assessment and management. In these circumstances, palliative sedation may be an option for the relief of suffering. As patients, families, and clinicians contemplate this option, controversies and concerns about hastening death, euthanasia, and limiting life-sustaining therapies can arise. This article explores some of these concerns.

Palliative Sedation Therapy in the Last Weeks of Life: A Literature Review and Recommendations for Standards

PURPOSE

Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is a controversial issue. There is a need for internationally accepted definitions and standards.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed by an international panel of 29 palliative care experts. Draft papers were written on various topics concerning PST. This paper is a summary of the individual papers, written after two meetings and extensive e-mail discussions.

RESULTS

PST is defined as the use of specific sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness, using appropriate drugs carefully titrated to the cessation of symptoms. The initial dose of sedatives should usually be small enough to maintain the patients' ability to communicate periodically. The team looking after the patient should have enough expertise and experience to judge the symptom as refractory. Advice from palliative care specialists is strongly recommended before initiating PST. In the case of continuous and deep PST, the disease should be irreversible and advanced, with death expected within hours to days. Midazolam should be considered first-line choice. The decision whether or not to withhold or withdraw hydration should be discussed separately. Hydration should be offered only if it is considered likely that the benefit will outweigh the harm. PST is distinct from euthanasia because (1) it has the intent to provide symptom relief, (2) it is a proportionate intervention, and (3) the death of the patient is not a criterion for success. PST and its outcome should be carefully monitored and documented.

CONCLUSION

When other treatments fail to relieve suffering in the imminently dying patient, PST is a valid palliative care option.

Palliative sedation: an essential place for clinical excellence

The complexities that converge around palliative sedation invite clinicians to work together to differentiate the issues and come to recommendations and decisions that are humane, ethical, legal, and clinically sound. Whether a crisis or long-term situation exists, the work is essentially the same. It must include critical thinking, clinical expertise, multidimensional assessment, and an array of interventions to assist patients and families in situations where symptoms and suffering are sufficiently intense to warrant exploration of sedation. The many issues inherent in the discussion of sedation at end of life require not that we have the answers but rather that we work with our colleagues to raise relevant questions and integrate both expertise and compassion into end-of-life decisions and care.

Ethical validity of palliative sedation therapy: a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted on specialized palliative care units in Japan

Although palliative sedation therapy is often required in terminally ill cancer patients to achieve acceptable symptom relief, empirical data supporting the ethical validity of this approach are lacking. The primary aim of this study was to systematically investigate whether empirical evidence supports the ethical validity of sedation. This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study, which was conducted by 21 specialized palliative care units in Japan. One-hundred two consecutive adult cancer patients who received continuous deep sedation were enrolled. Continuous deep sedation was defined as the continuous use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable and refractory distress by achieving almost or complete unconsciousness until death. Prior to the study, we conceptualized the ethical validity of sedation from the viewpoints of physicians' intent, proportionality, and autonomy. Sedation was performed mainly with midazolam and phenobarbital. The initial doses of midazolam and phenobarbital were 1.5 mg/hour and 20 mg/hour, respectively. Main administration routes were continuous subcutaneous infusion and continuous intravenous infusion, and no rapid intravenous injection was reported. Of 59 patients who received artificial hydration or could intake adequate fluids/foods orally before sedation, 63% received artificial hydration therapy after sedation, and in the remaining patients, artificial hydration was withheld or withdrawn due to fluid retention symptoms and/or patient wishes. Of 66 patients who were able to verbally express themselves, 95% explicitly stated that symptoms were intolerable. The etiologies of the symptoms requiring sedation were primarily related to the progression of the underlying malignancy, such as cancer cachexia and organ failure, and standard palliative treatments had failed: steroids in 68% of patients with fatigue, opioids in 95% of patients with dyspnea, antisecretion medications in 75% of patients with bronchial secretion, antipsychotic medications in 74% of patients with delirium, and opioids in all patients with pain. On the basis of the Palliative Prognostic Index, 94% of the patients were predicted to die within 3 weeks. Before sedation, 67% of the patients expressed explicit wishes for sedation. In the remaining 34 patients, previous wishes for sedation were noted in 4 patients, and in the other 30 patients, the families were involved in the decision-making process. The chief reason for patient non-involvement in the decision making was cognitive impairment. These data indicate that palliative sedation therapy performed in specialized palliative care units in Japan generally followed the principles of double effect, proportionality, and autonomy.

Development of a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy using the Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Although palliative sedation therapy is often used in palliative care settings, no clinical guideline is available.

OBJECTIVE

To construct a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy.

DESIGN

The consensus methods using the Delphi technique on the basis of a systematic literature review was used.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

A national multidisciplinary committee (five palliative care physicians, four nurses, two oncologists, two psychiatrists, two anesthesiologists, two bioethicists, a medical social worker, and a lawyer).

MEASUREMENTS

Validity scoring based on the Delphi method and feasibility.

RESULTS

After three sequential sessions of discussion by the Delphi method, an external review by specialists, end-users, and bereaved family members, and a field test, a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy was constructed. This guideline includes definitions of palliative sedation therapy, description of the ethical basis of palliative sedation therapy, recommendations about clinical practices in continuous-deep sedation, and diagrams illustrating the clinical application of continuous-deep sedation.

CONCLUSION

We constructed a clinical guideline for palliative sedation therapy using the Delphi technique. The clinical efficacy of this guideline should be tested in the future.

Terminal restlessness: perspectives of an interdisciplinary palliative care team

AIM

To explore an interdisciplinary team's perceptions of families' needs and experiences surrounding terminal restlessness.

DESIGN

A qualitative exploratory design using two focus groups.

SAMPLE

Participants were members of an interdisciplinary palliative care team working in a palliative care unit in a university teaching hospital in Israel.

RESULTS

The palliative care team confronted several challenging and stressful issues surrounding the management of terminal restlessness that influenced their treatment decisions and relationships with families. Four themes reflected the participants' perceptions and experiences: suffering, maintaining control, feelings of ambivalence and valuing communication to reduce conflict.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest the need for comprehensive treatment plans to meet the special supportive and information needs of these families, specific supportive strategies for the professional caregivers and further studies to develop ethical criteria and evidence-based guidelines for the use of sedation in the management of terminal restlessness.

Implementing Institutional Change: An Institutional Case Study of Palliative Sedation

Palliative sedation is used in the rare patient who has intractable distress at the end of life. Implementation of palliative sedation, however, may meet resistance from various clinicians and other hospital staff. To ensure that our patients had access to this important treatment modality, we found it necessary to engage in a process of institutional change that resulted in acceptance of the use of palliative sedation in the non-ICU setting.* In this paper, we will review the processes we found to be successful in hopes that they will also be efficacious for others wishing to produce similar change within their institutions. We first will review the theoretical foundations described in organizational development and change management literature. Next we describe our implementation strategies (including education, multidisciplinary alliances, and the development and approval of a practice guideline). Finally, we discuss in detail the role of interpersonal interactions. Three clinical cases are used to demonstrate the change in attitudes, processes, and outcomes.

Sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms in the imminently dying: A fine intentional line

There is a continuum of the goals of comfort and function in palliative care that begins with comfort and function being equal priorities and sedation being unacceptable. As disease progresses, the goals and preferences of the patient turn to coping with the loss of function caused by the disease and acceptance of unintentional sedation from the disease, its therapies, or symptom relief interventions. As patients approach the end of life, they may need intentional sedation for the relief of refractory symptoms. Such sedation can be divided into three categories: routine, infrequent, and extraordinary with respect to the frequency, difficulty, and risks involved with the drugs and routes of administration required to induce and maintain a level of sedation that relieves the patient's physical and existential symptoms. Extraordinary sedation with continuous infusions of midazolam, thiopental, and propofol can relieve refractory symptoms in most patients in their final days of life. Palliative care clinicians should become comfortable with the ethical justification and technical expertise needed to provide this essential, extraordinary care to the small but deserving number of patients in whom routine and infrequent sedation does not adequately relieve their suffering.

Family experience with palliative sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients

Symptomatic sedation is often required in terminally ill cancer patients, and could cause significant distress to their family. The aims of this study were to clarify the family experience during palliative sedation therapy, including their satisfaction and distress levels, and the determinants of family dissatisfaction and high-level distress. A multicenter questionnaire survey assessed 280 bereaved families of cancer patients who received sedation in 7 palliative care units in Japan. A total of 185 responses were analyzed(response rate, 73%). The families reported that 69% of the patients were considerably or very distressed before sedation. Fifty-five percent of the patients expressed an explicit wish for sedation, and 89% of families were clearly informed. Overall, 78% of the families were satisfied with the treatment, whereas 25% expressed a high level of emotional distress. The independent determinants of low levels of family satisfaction were: poor symptom palliation after sedation, insufficient information-giving, concerns that sedation might shorten the patient's life, and feelings that there might be other ways to achieve symptom relief The independent determinants of high levels of family distress were: poor symptom palliation after sedation, feeling the burden of responsibility for the decision, feeling unprepared for changes in the patient's condition, feeling that the physicians and nurses were not sufficiently compassionate, and shorter interval to patient death. Palliative sedation therapy was principally performed to relieve severe suffering based on family and patient consent. Although the majority of families were comfortable with this practice, clinicians should minimize family distress by regular monitoring of patient distress and timely modification of sedation protocols, providing sufficient information, sharing the responsibility of the decision, facilitating grief and providing emotional support.

Concerns of family members of patients receiving palliative sedation therapy

PURPOSE

Symptomatic sedation is often required in terminally ill cancer patients and could cause significant distress to their families. The aim of this study was to gather vivid family descriptions about their experiences in palliative sedation therapy.

METHODS

This report is an additional analysis of a multicenter questionnaire survey. We performed content analysis on 48 statements described by 185 bereaved family members of patients who received palliative sedation therapy.

RESULTS

Family members reported guilt, helplessness, and physical and emotional exhaustion when patients received palliative sedation therapy. They were concerned about whether sedated patients experienced distress, wished to know that the maximum efforts had been made, wished to prepare for patient death, wished to tell important things to patients before sedation, wished to understand patients' suffering, and wanted medical professionals to treat patients with dignity.

CONCLUSIONS

To alleviate family distress, clinicians should understand families' emotional distress, ensure that unconscious patients feel no distress, reassure family members that the symptoms are truly refractory despite maximum efforts for symptom relief, give information and coordinate the situation to enable families to prepare for patient death and to tell important things to patients before sedation, help families to share patients' suffering, and treat patients the same as when they remained conscious.

Emotional burden of nurses in palliative sedation therapy

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation therapy is often required in terminally ill cancer patients, and may cause emotional burden for nurses. The primary aims of this study were 1) to clarify the levels of nurses' emotional burden related to sedation, and 2) to identify the factors contributing to the burden levels.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey of 3187 nurses, with a response rate of 82%.

RESULTS

Eighty-two percent of the nurses (n = 2607) had clinical experience in continuous-deep sedation. Thirty per cent reported that they wanted to leave their current work situation due to sedation-related burden (answering occasionally, often, or always). Also, 12% of the nurses stated that being involved in sedation was a burden, 12% that they felt helpless when patients received sedation, 11% that they would avoid a situation in which they had to perform sedation if possible, and 4% that they felt what they had done was of no value when they performed sedation. The higher nurse-perceived burden was significantly associated with shorter clinical experience, nurse-perceived insufficient time in caring for patients, lack of common understanding of sedation between physicians and nurses, team conference unavailability, frequent experience of conflicting wishes for sedation between patient and family, nurse-perceived inadequate interpersonal skills, belief that it was difficult to diagnose refractory symptoms, belief that sedation would hasten death, belief that sedation was ethically indistinguishable from euthanasia, nurse-perceived inadequate coping with their own grief, and nurses' personal values contradictory to sedation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of nurses felt serious emotional burden related to sedation. To relieve nurses' emotional burden, we encourage 1) management efforts to reduce work overload, 2) a team approach to resolving conflicting opinions, especially between physicians and nurses, 3) co-ordination of early patient-family meetings to clarify their preferred end-of-life care, 4) education and training about sedation specifically focused on interpersonal skills, systematic approaches to diagnosing refractory symptoms, minimum life-threatening potency in sedation, and ethical principals differentiating sedation from euthanasia, and 5) exploring nurses' personal values through the patient-centered principle.

Similarity and difference among standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and euthanasia: a multidimensional scaling analysis on physicians' and the general population's opinions

There is a strong controversy about the differences among standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and euthanasia in recent medical literature. To investigate the similarities and differences among these medical treatments, a secondary analysis of two previous surveys was performed. In those surveys, Japanese physicians and the general population were asked to identify their treatment recommendations or preferences for intolerable and refractory distress in the terminal stage. The options were standard medical care without intentional sedation, mild sedation, intermittent deep sedation, continuous deep sedation, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)/euthanasia. Multidimensional scaling analysis mapped their responses. The physician responses were clustered into 3 groups: 1) standard medical care, 2) palliative sedation therapy including mild, intermittent deep, continuous deep sedation, and 3) PAS/euthanasia. The general population's responses were classified into 3 subgroups: 1) standard medical care, 2) mild and intermittent deep sedation, and 3) a group including continuous deep sedation and PAS/euthanasia. Physicians placed continuous deep sedation closer to mild and intermittent sedation, while the general population mapped it closer to PAS/euthanasia. In conclusion, physicians and general population can generally differentiate the three approaches--standard medical care, palliative sedation therapy, and PAS/euthanasia. We recommend that mild and intermittent deep sedation should be differentiated from standard medical care, and that continuous deep sedation should be dealt with separately from other types of sedation. Clear definitions of palliative sedation therapy will contribute to quality discussion.

Correlation of the dose of midazolam for symptom control with administration periods: the possibility of tolerance

Although tolerance to midazolam is sometimes described in the palliative care literature, no studies have systemically examined the possibility. To explore the association between midazolam dose for symptom palliation and the administration period, a retrospective study was performed on 62 terminally ill cancer patients who required parenteral midazolam in the final three days of life. The mean maximum dose and administration period of midazolam were 38 +/- 45 mg/day (median = 24) and 10 +/- 19 days (median = 2.5), respectively. Thirteen patients (21%) received midazolam at a dose of 60 mg/day or more, and 13 patients (21%) received it for 14 days or longer. The maximum doses were significantly correlated with patient age (rho = -0.32, P = 0.012) and the administration period (rho = 0.47, P < 0.01); and were significantly higher in patients who received midazolam for 14 days or longer (74 +/- 63 mg/day vs. 28 +/- 34 mg/day, P < 0.01). Multivariate analyses revealed that younger age (< or =70) and longer administration periods (> or =14 days) were independent determinants for a midazolam requirement of 60 mg/day or more (odds ratios [95% C.I.] = 0.091 [0.009 - 0.92], P = 0.042; 11 [2.3 - 54], P < 0.01; respectively). The significant correlation of midazolam doses with administration period suggests that the longer use of midazolam can result in the development of tolerance. This finding suggests that midazolam should be reserved for patients with limited prognoses.

Ethical analysis

Critical care nurses care for patients at the end of their lives on a daily basis. Ethical dilemmas are often encountered while caring for these patients and their families. This article reviews a case scenario along with a framework for ethical analysis.

Definition of sedation for symptom relief: a systematic literature review and a proposal of operational criteria

Although sedation for symptom relief in terminally ill patients has been the focus of recent medical studies, the interpretation of research findings is difficult due to the confusing terminology. To clarify the agreements and inconsistencies in the definitions of sedation, a systematic review was performed. We searched the literature through MEDLINE from 1990 to July 2001. A total of 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies included the use of sedative medications or the intention to reduce patient consciousness as an essential element of sedation. All but one study explicitly described that the primary aim of sedation was symptom palliation. Three definitions stated that target symptoms were severe, and 4 articles reported the refractory nature of the distress. On the other hand, there were marked inconsistencies in the definition of the degree of sedation, duration, pharmacological properties of medications used, target symptoms, and target populations. This review suggests that sedation includes two core factors: the presence of severe suffering refractory to standard palliative management, and the use of sedative medications with the primary aim to relieve distress. Thus, "palliative sedation therapy" can be defined as "the use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable and refractory distress by the reduction in patient consciousness." The marked inconsistencies in the definition of sedation should be considered to be subcategories of palliative sedation therapy, and we recommend that researchers define the degree of sedation, duration, pharmacological properties of medications, target symptoms, and target populations in future studies. This clarification of terminology will contribute to improving the accuracy and depth of sedation research.

Sedation for comfort at end of life

Treatment for patients who are dying from cancer and are suffering with physiologic and existential symptoms is an important and valuable skill for health care providers. However, the treatment for suffering at the end of life and the use of sedation for comfort often are misunderstood. The following is a discussion of the clinical skills and ethical considerations that health care providers should have when treating terminal patients with cancer.