Continuous deep sedation at the end of life: a qualitative interview-study among health care providers on an evolving practice.

BACKGROUND: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients' homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. RESULTS: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19-435/C).

Dynamic consent, communication and return of results in large-scale health data reuse: Survey of public preferences.

Dynamic consent forms a comprehensive, tailored approach for interacting with research participants. We conducted a survey study to inquire how research participants evaluate the elements of consent, information provision, communication and return of results within dynamic consent in a hypothetical health data reuse scenario. We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patient panel members. Data were analysed using descriptive and nonparametric inferential statistics. Respondents favoured the potential to manage changing consent preferences over time. There was much agreement between people favouring closer and more specific control over data reuse approval and those in favour of broader approval, facilitated by an opt-out system or an independent data reuse committee. People want to receive more information about reuse, outcomes and return of results. Respondents supported an interactive model of research participation, welcoming regular, diverse and interactive forms of communication, like a digital communication platform. Approval for reuse and providing meaningful information, including meaningful return of results, are intricately related to facilitating better communication. Respondents favoured return of actionable research results. These findings emphasize the potential of dynamic consent for enabling participants to maintain control over how their data are being used for which purposes by whom. Allowing different options to shape a dynamic consent interface in health data reuse in a personalized manner is pivotal to accommodate plurality in a flexible though robust manner. Interaction via dynamic consent enables participants to tailor the elements of participation they deem relevant to their own preferences, engaging diverse perspectives, interests and preferences.

Symptom evolution in the dying.

OBJECTIVE: Provide insight in the prevalence of symptoms in patients who are in the last days of life. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive analysis of data on patients who died between 2012 and 2019 at the age of 18 or older in 1 of 20 Dutch healthcare facilities, including hospitals, inpatient hospices and long-term care facilities. We analysed data from 4 hourly registrations in the Care Programme for the Dying Person, to assess for how many patients symptom-related goals of care were not achieved. We looked at the first 4 hours episode after the start of the Care Programme and the last 4 hours episode prior to death. RESULTS: We analysed records of 2786 patients. In the first 4 hours episode, at least one symptom-related care goal was not achieved for 28.5%-42.8% of patients, depending on the care setting. In the last 4 hours episode, these percentages were 17.5%-26.9%. Care goals concerning pain and restlessness were most often not achieved: percentages varied from 7.3% to 20.9% for pain and from 9.3% to 21.9% for restlessness. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom control at the end of life is not optimal in a substantial minority of patients. Systematic assessment and attention as well as further research on symptom management are of the essence.

Requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide of people without (severe) illness.

BACKGROUND: Some people request euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) even though they are not (severely) ill. In the Netherlands the presence of sufficient medical ground for the suffering is a strict prerequisite for EAS. The desirability of this 'medical ground'-boundary is currently questioned. Legislation has been proposed to facilitate EAS for older persons with "completed life" or "tiredness of life" in the absence of (severe) illness. OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and motivations of persons whose requests for EAS in the absence of (severe) illness did not result in EAS and the decision-making process of medical professionals in these types of requests. METHODS: Analysis of 237 applicant records of the Dutch Euthanasia Expertise Center. We studied both the perspectives of applicants and medical professionals. FINDINGS: The majority of the applicants were women (73%) aged 75 years and older (79%). Applicants most often indicated physical suffering as element of suffering and reason for the request. Medical professionals indicated in 40% of the cases no or insufficient medical ground for the suffering. CONCLUSIONS: Physical suffering plays an important role in requests for EAS even for persons who are not (severely) ill. From the presence of physical suffering it does not necessarily follow that for medical professionals there is sufficient medical ground to comply with the 'medical ground'-boundary.

Treatment restrictions in patients with severe stroke are associated with an increased risk of death.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment restrictions in the first 2 days after intracerebral haemorrhage have been independently associated with an increased risk of early death. It is unknown whether these restrictions also affect mortality if these are installed several days after stroke onset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with severe functional dependence at day 4 after ischaemic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage were included in this prospective two-centre cohort study. The presence of treatment restrictions was assessed at the day of inclusion. Information about mortality, functional outcome (modified Rankin scale) score and quality of life (visual analogue scale) was recorded 6 months after stroke onset. Poor outcome was defined as modified Rankin scale >3. Satisfactory quality of life was defined as visual analogue scale ≥ 60. RESULTS: At 6 months, 30 patients had died, 19 survivors had a poor functional outcome and 9 patients had a poor quality of life. Treatment restrictions were independently associated with mortality at 6 months (adjusted relative risk, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.59; p = 0.01), but not with functional outcome. DISCUSSION: Our findings were observed in 60 selected patients with severe stroke. CONCLUSION: The instalment of treatment restrictions by itself may increase the risk of death after stroke, even if the first 4 days have passed. In future stroke studies, this potential confounder should be taken into account. Quality of life was satisfactory in the majority of the survivors, despite considerable disability.

A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research.

BACKGROUND: When healthcare professionals or other involved parties prevent eligible patients from entering a trial as a research subject, they are gatekeeping. This phenomenon is a persistent problem in palliative care research and thought to be responsible for the failure of many studies. AIM: To identify potential gatekeepers and explore their reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. DESIGN: A 'Review of Reasons' based on the systematic Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach and a thematic synthesis. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 20 2015 were searched. Studies in children (aged <18 years) and patients with dementia were excluded. RESULTS: Thirty papers on gatekeeping in palliative care research were included. Five groups of potential gatekeepers were identified: healthcare professionals, research ethics committees, management, relatives and researchers. The fear of burdening vulnerable patients was the most reported reason for gatekeeping. Other reasons included 'difficulty with disclosure of health status', 'fear of burdening the patient's relatives', 'doubts about the importance or quality of the study', 'reticent attitude towards research and (research) expertise' and 'logistics'. In hospice and homecare settings, the pursuit of comfort care may trigger a protective attitude. Gatekeeping is also rooted in a (perceived) lack of skills to recruit patients with advanced illness. CONCLUSION: Gatekeeping is motivated by the general assumption of vulnerability of patients, coupled with an emphasis on the duty to protect patients. Research is easily perceived as a threat to patient well-being, and the benefits appear to be overlooked. The patients' perspective concerning study participation is needed to gain a full understanding and to address gatekeeping in palliative care research.