Report on palliative sedation medication usage: a survey of palliative care experts in Eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: The practice of palliative sedation continues to raise ethical questions among people, which in turn leads to its varied acceptance and practice across regions. As part of the Palliative Sedation European Union (EU) project, the aim of the present study was to determine the perceptions of palliative care experts regarding the practice of palliative sedation in eight European countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Romania). METHODS: A specifically designed survey, including questions on the most frequently used medications for palliative sedation, their availability per countries and settings, and the barriers and facilitators to the appropriate practice of palliative sedation was sent to expert clinicians involved and knowledgeable in palliative care in the indicated countries. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select at least 18 participating clinicians per consortium country. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the survey data. RESULTS: Of the 208 expert clinicians invited to participate, 124 participants completed the survey. Midazolam was perceived to be the most frequently used benzodiazepine in all eight countries. 86% and 89% of expert clinicians in Germany and Italy, respectively, perceived midazolam was used "almost always", while in Hungary and Romania only about 50% or less of the respondents perceived this. Levomepromazine was the neuroleptic most frequently perceived to be used for palliative sedation in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Between 38- 86% of all eight countries´ expert clinicians believed that opioid medications were "almost always" used during palliative sedation. The perceived use of IV hydration and artificial nutrition "almost always" was generally low, while the country where both IV hydration and artificial nutrition were considered to be "very often" given by a third of the expert clinicians, was in Hungary, with 36% and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insight about the differences in the perceived practice of medication during palliative sedation between eight European countries. In countries where palliative care services have been established longer perceptions regarding medication use during palliative sedation were more in line with the recommended European guidelines than in Central and Eastern European countries like Romania and Hungary.

Continuous Sedation in Palliative Care in Portugal: A Prospective Multicentric Study.

Objective: This study aimed to survey the practice of palliative sedation in Portugal, where data on this subject were lacking. Methods: This was a prospective multicentric study that included all patients admitted to each team that agreed to participate. Patients were followed until death, discharge, or after 3 months of follow-up. Results: The study included 8 teams: 4 as palliative care units (PCU), 1 as a hospital palliative care team (HPCT), 2 as home care (HC), and 1 as HPCT and HC. Of the 361 patients enrolled, 52% were male, the median age was 76 years, and 285 (79%) had cancer. Continuous sedation was undergone by 49 (14%) patients: 26 (53%) were male, and the median age was 76. Most patients, 46 (94%), had an oncological diagnosis. Only in a minority of cases, the family, 16 (33%), or the patient, 5 (10%), participated in the decision to sedate. Delirium was the most frequent symptom leading to sedation. The medication most used was midazolam (65%). In the multivariable analysis, only age and the combined score were independently associated with sedation; patients <76 years and those with higher levels of suffering had a higher probability of being sedated. Conclusions: The practice of continuous palliative sedation in Portugal is within the range reported in other studies. One particularly relevant point was the low participation of patients and their families in the decision-making process. Each team must have a deep discussion on this aspect.

Continuous palliative sedation until death: a qualitative study of palliative care clinicians' experiences.

BACKGROUND: The practice of continuous palliative sedation until death is the subject of much medical and ethical debate, which is reflected in the inconsistency that persists in the literature regarding the definition and indications of palliative sedation. AIM: This study aims to gain a better understanding of palliative care clinicians' experiences with continuous palliative sedation. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group discussions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted six focus groups with a total of 28 palliative care clinicians (i.e., 15 nurses, 12 physicians, and 1 end-of-life doula) from diverse care settings across Canada, where assisted dying has recently been legalized. RESULTS: An interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to consolidate the data into six key themes: responding to suffering; grappling with uncertainty; adapting care to ensure ongoing quality; grounding clinical practice in ethics; combining medical expertise, relational tact, and reflexivity; and offering an alternative to assisted death. CONCLUSIONS: Interaction with the patient's family, uncertainty about the patient's prognosis, the concurrent practice of assisted dying, and the treatment of existential suffering influence the quality of sedation and indicate a lack of clear palliative care guidelines. Nevertheless, clinicians exhibit a reflective and adaptive capacity that can facilitate good practice.

Sedation indicated?-rethinking existential suffering: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The indication "existential suffering (ES)" for palliative sedation therapy is included in most frameworks for palliative sedation and has been controversially discussed for decades. The appellative character of ES demands rapid relief and sedation often appears to be the best or only solution. ES is still poorly understood and so often neglected by health care professionals due to a lack of consensus regarding assessment, definition and treatment in the international medical literature. Based on a selective review of the literature on ES we propose a different view on the underlying processes of ES and the resulting consequences on medical treatment. METHODS: A narrative review was performed after PubMed search using key terms related to ES and sedation, covering the period from 1950 to April 2023, additionally a selective search in specialist literature on Existential Analysis. Reverse and forward snowballing followed. The language of analyzed publications was restricted to English and German. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: ES is a multidimensional experience that tends to turn into despair and ultimately into a wish to die due to perceived hopelessness and meaninglessness. Pharmacological treatment or sedation do not meet the holistic needs of existential sufferers. The risk of harmful effects by continuous deep sedation seems to be significantly increased for existentially suffering patients. Professional caregivers are burdened by the appellative character of ES, limited treatment options and perceived empathic distress. Without a holistic understanding of the human condition in palliative care, ES cannot be fundamentally alleviated, and existential sufferers have no opportunity to transform and thus mitigate their condition. The recognition of underlying causes of suffering-moods is facilitated by the comprehensive approach of Existential Analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The presented concept of Existential Analysis and the triad of ES are useful instruments for health care professionals to recognize and support underlying moods of existentially suffering patients. Further studies are required. Comprehensive training for professional caregivers on ES is essential to enable them to reflect on their own existential concerns and finiteness as well as those of patients. Continuous deep sedation for ES must remain the exception, equivalent to a last resort option.

Expanding the Use of Continuous Sedation Until Death and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

The controversy over the equivalence of continuous sedation until death (CSD) and physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) provides an opportunity to focus on a significant extended use of CSD. This extension, suggested by the equivalence of PAS/E and CSD, is designed to promote additional patient autonomy at the end-of-life. Samuel LiPuma, in his article, "Continuous Sedation Until Death as Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Conceptual Analysis" claims equivalence between CSD and death; his paper is seminal in the equivalency debate. Critics contend that sedation follows proportionality protocols for which LiPuma's thesis does not adequately account. Furthermore, sedation may not eliminate consciousness, and as such LiPuma's contention that CSD is equivalent to neocortical death is suspect. We not only defend the equivalence thesis, but also expand it to include additional moral considerations. First, we explain the equivalence thesis. This is followed by a defense of the thesis against five criticisms. The third section critiques the current use of CSD. Finally, we offer two proposals that, if adopted, would broaden the use of PAS/E and CSD and thereby expand options at the end-of-life.

Practices of and Perspectives on Palliative Sedation Among Palliative Care Physicians in Ontario, Canada: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Background: Palliative sedation (PS) is a therapeutic intervention employed to manage severe and refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients at end of life. Inconsistencies in PS practice guidelines coupled with clinician ambiguity have resulted in confusion about how PS is best integrated into practice. Understanding the perspectives, experiences, and practices relating to this modality will provide insight into its clinical application and challenges within the palliative care landscape. Objective: The aim is to explore the perspectives of palliative care physicians administering PS, including how practitioners define PS, factors influencing decision making about the use of PS, and possible reasons for changes in practice patterns over time. Methods: A survey (n = 37) and semistructured interviews (n = 23) were conducted with palliative care physicians throughout Ontario. Codes were determined collaboratively and applied line-by-line by two independent investigators. Survey responses were analyzed alongside interview transcripts and noted to be concordant. Themes were generated through reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five key themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization, (2) differing definitions, (3) logistical challenges, (4) perceived "back-up" to Medical Assistance in Dying, and (5) tool of the most responsible physician. Conclusion: There was significant variability in how participants defined PS and in frequency of use of PS. Physicians described greater ease implementing PS when practicing in palliative care units, with significant barriers faced by individuals providing home-based palliative care or working as consultants on inpatient units. Educational efforts are required about the intent and practice of PS, particularly among inpatient interprofessional teams.

Terminological Confusion About Sedation in Palliative Care: Results of an International Online Vignette Survey.

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047.

Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. AIM: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. DESIGN: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. SETTING: European. PARTICIPANTS: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. RESULTS: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

Pain management in German hospices: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pain management is a necessary component of palliative care as most patients suffer from pain during the final phase of life. Due to the complex causation of pain in the last phase of life, it is important to utilize methods other than pharmacotherapeutic options in order to achieve adequate pain control. As little is known about treatment of pain in German hospices, a nationwide survey was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All German hospices (259) were contacted by post in June 2020 and asked to participate in an anonymous cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: A total of 148 (57%) German hospices took part in the survey. A broad variety of medication is used in the hospice setting. Metamizole is the most commonly used non-opiod analgesic , hydromorphone the most commonly used opioid, and pregabalin is the most commonly prescribed co-analgesic drug. The pain medication is usually prescribed as an oral slow-release substance. Standardized treatment schemes are rare among the responding hospices. Most of the respondents also use complementary treatment options, such as aroma (oil) therapy or music therapy, in the treatment of pain. Palliative sedation is used by nearly all responding hospices if all other treatment options fail. CONCLUSION: This survey provides an overview of the treatment options for pain management in German hospices. A broad variety of pain medication is used. Compared to international literature, it is debatable whether such a large variety of different types of pain medication is necessary, or whether a reduction in the type of medication available and the use of standardized treatment schemes could benefit everyone involved.

Addressing Challenges With Sedation in End-of-Life Care.

In 2009, Quill and colleagues stipulated that there are three types of sedation practices at the end of life: ordinary sedation, proportionate palliative sedation (PPS), and palliative sedation to unconsciousness (PSU). Of the three, PPS and PSU are described as "last-resort options" to relieve refractory symptoms, and PSU as the most ethically controversial type that "should be quite rare." Unfortunately, little is known about actual sedation practices at the end of life in the United States. This may be due in part to a lack of conceptual clarity about sedation in end-of-life care. We argue that, until more is known about what sedation practices occur at the end of life, and how practices can be improved by research and more specific guidelines, "palliative sedation" will remain more misunderstood and controversial than it might otherwise be. In our view, overcoming the challenges posed by sedation in end-of-life care requires: 1) greater specificity regarding clinical situations and approaches to sedation, 2) research tailored to focused clinical questions, and 3) improved training and safeguards in sedation practices. Terms like PPS and PSU are relatively simple to understand in the abstract, but their application comprises various clinical situations and approaches to sedation. An obvious barrier to empirical research on sedation practices in end-of-life care is the challenge of determining these elements, especially if not clearly communicated. Additionally, we argue that training for palliative care specialists and others should include monitoring and rescue techniques as required competencies.

Characterization in end-of-life care of older people attended by geriatricians / Caracterización de la atención al final de la vida de personas mayores atendidas por geriatría

Background and objective Symptom control at the end of life is essential, and palliative sedation is a viable intervention option for the care of terminally ill patients. This study aims to characterize the elderly population receiving end-of-life care plans and their management with palliative sedation in a geriatric unit at a high complexity hospital. Materials and methods A cross-sectional study was conducted, and a descriptive analysis was performed. Medical records of 163 patients admitted to a high complexity hospital in Bogota, Colombia between January 2016 and December 2019 were reviewed. Results From 163, 141 patients received an end-of-life care plan, and 22 were managed with palliative sedation. The mean age was 84 years, the most frequent cause of death was respiratory infections and 44% of patients had a history of cancer. Prior to admission, functional decline and the presence of moderate to severe dementia were frequently found. About one in ten persons required palliative sedation, which lasted an average of 2.22±5 days. The most common refractory symptom was dyspnea (45.45%), followed by pain (36.36%). Conclusions Palliative sedation is prevalent in the elderly population and characterizing this population can provide increased knowledge to improve end-of-life care (AU)

Antecedentes y objetivos El control de síntomas al final de la vida es fundamental, y la sedación paliativa resulta una opción de intervención en el cuidado de pacientes con enfermedades terminales. El objetivo es caracterizar una población de personas mayores que recibieron un plan de atención del final de la vida, incluyendo sedación paliativa en una unidad de geriatría de un hospital de alta complejidad. Materiales y métodos Estudio de corte transversal, se realizaron análisis descriptivos y se utilizaron métodos de acuerdo con el tipo de variable. Se revisaron las historias clínicas de 163 pacientes entre enero de 2016 y diciembre de 2019 de un hospital de alta complejidad en Bogotá, Colombia. Resultados Sobre 163 pacientes, 141 recibieron plan de atención de final de vida y 22 fueron manejados con sedación paliativa. La edad promedio fue de 84 años y el 58% eran mujeres. La causa de muerte más frecuente fue respiratoria infecciosa; el 44% tenían antecedente oncológico. La declinación funcional previa al ingreso y la presencia de demencia moderada o severa fueron condiciones que frecuentemente se encontraron en quienes se reorientó el esfuerzo terapéutico. Una de cada 10 personas requirió sedación paliativa, cuya duración fue de 2,22±5 días, el síntoma refractario más frecuente fue la disnea (45,45%), seguido de dolor (36,36%). Conclusiones La sedación paliativa resulta frecuente en la población mayor con enfermedades no oncológicas. La caracterización de estas personas promueve el aumento del conocimiento y la preparación para mejorar el manejo del final de la vida (AU)

Implementation of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (palliative version) on an inpatient palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND: The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale - Palliative version (RASS-PAL) tool is a brief observational tool to quantify a patient's level of agitation or sedation. The objective of this study was to implement the RASS-PAL tool on an inpatient palliative care unit and evaluate the implementation process. METHODS: Quality improvement implementation project using a short online RASS-PAL self-learning module and point-of-care tool. Participants were staff working on a 31-bed inpatient palliative care unit who completed the RASS-PAL self-learning module and online evaluation survey. RESULTS: The self-learning module was completed by 49/50 (98%) of regular palliative care unit staff (nurses, physicians, allied health, and other palliative care unit staff). The completion rate of the self-learning module by both regular and casual palliative care unit staff was 63/77 (82%). The follow-up online evaluation survey was completed by 23/50 (46%) of respondents who regularly worked on the palliative care unit. Respondents agreed (14/26; 54%) or strongly agreed (10/26; 38%) that the self-learning module was implemented successfully, with 100% agreement that it was effective for their educational needs. CONCLUSION: Using an online self-learning module is an effective method to engage and educate interprofessional staff on the RASS-PAL tool as part of an implementation strategy.

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).

Experiences and perceptions of continuous deep sedation: An interview study among Dutch patients and relatives.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end-of-life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death. CONCLUSION: The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision-making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome.

Characterization in end-of-life care of older people attended by geriatricians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Symptom control at the end of life is essential, and palliative sedation is a viable intervention option for the care of terminally ill patients. This study aims to characterize the elderly population receiving end-of-life care plans and their management with palliative sedation in a geriatric unit at a high complexity hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted, and a descriptive analysis was performed. Medical records of 163 patients admitted to a high complexity hospital in Bogota, Colombia between January 2016 and December 2019 were reviewed. RESULTS: From 163, 141 patients received an end-of-life care plan, and 22 were managed with palliative sedation. The mean age was 84 years, the most frequent cause of death was respiratory infections and 44% of patients had a history of cancer. Prior to admission, functional decline and the presence of moderate to severe dementia were frequently found. About one in ten persons required palliative sedation, which lasted an average of 2.22±5 days. The most common refractory symptom was dyspnea (45.45%), followed by pain (36.36%). CONCLUSIONS: Palliative sedation is prevalent in the elderly population and characterizing this population can provide increased knowledge to improve end-of-life care.

Should we all die asleep? The problem of the normalization of palliative sedation.

Palliative sedation is a medical intervention to manage distress in dying patients, by reducing consciousness when symptom-directed therapies fail. Continuous deep sedation is ethically sensitive because it may shorten life and completely prevents communication. But sedation short of this is also common. There has been a steady increase in the use of sedation over recent decades. Sedation may have become a means to die while sleeping, rather than a method of last resort to alleviate suffering. Sedation may be requested or expected by patients, families or staff. The need for sedation may be being interpreted more loosely. The acceptance of a 'tolerable amount of discomfort' may have lost ground to a desire to get the final phase over with quickly. Sedation is not always a bad thing. Medical care is otherwise unable to completely control all distressing symptoms in every patient. Sedation may result from other necessary symptom control drugs. Dying when sedated can be seen by as 'peaceful'. We feel it is necessary, however, to highlight three caveats: the need to manage expectations, the cost in terms of loss of communication, and the grey area between continuous deep sedation and euthanasia. We conclude that there may be good grounds for sedation in palliative care, and in some cases, continuous deep sedation may be used as a last resort. But the criteria of necessary and proportionate drug treatment should remain. The normalisation of sedation into dying while sleeping should be resisted.

Sedation in pediatric palliative care: The role of pediatric palliative care teams.

OBJECTIVES: Palliative sedation (PS) consists of the use of drugs to alleviate the suffering of patients with refractory symptoms, through a reduction in consciousness. The aim of this study is to describe the incidence of and indications for PS in patients treated by pediatric palliative care teams (PPCT), and the relationship between PS, the place of death, and the characteristics of the care teams. METHODS: Ambispective study with the participation of 14 PPCT working in Spain. RESULTS: From January to December 2019, a total of 164 patients attended by these PPCT died. Of these, 83 (50.6%) received PS during their last 24 hours. The most frequent refractory symptoms were terminal suffering (n = 40, 48.2%), dyspnea (n = 9, 10.8%), pain (n = 8, 9.6%), and convulsive state (n = 7, 8.4%). Sedation in the last 24 hours of life was more likely if the patient died in hospital, rather than at home (62.9% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.01); if the parents had not expressed their preference regarding the place of death (69.2% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.009); and if the PPCT had less than 5 years' experience (66.7% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.018). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: PS is a real possibility in pediatric end-of-life care and relates to care planning and team expertise.

Palliative Care in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disease of the motor neurons. Given the evolutive characteristics of this disease, palliative care principles should be a foundation of ALS care. A multidisciplinary medical intervention is of paramount importance in the different phases of disease. The involvement of the palliative care team improves quality of life and symptoms, and prognosis. Early initiation is of paramount importance to ensuring patient-centered care, when the patient has still the capability to communicate effectively and participate in his medical care. Advance care planning supports patients and family members in understanding and sharing their preferences according to their personal values and life goals regarding future medical treatment. The principal problems which require intensive supportive care include cognitive disturbances, psychological distress, pain, sialorrhrea, nutrition, and ventilatory support. Communication skills of health-care professionals are mandatory to manage the inevitability of death. Palliative sedation has peculiar aspects in this population, particularly with the decision of withdrawing ventilatory support.

Continuous and deep sedation until death after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies in intensive care units: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Continuous and deep sedation until death is a much highly debated end-of-life practice. France is unique in having a regulatory framework for it. However, there are no data on its practice in intensive care units (ICUs). AIM: The aim is to describe continuous and deep sedation in relation to the framework in the specific context of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in ICUs, that is, its decision-making process and its practice compared to other end-of-life practices in this setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: French multicenter observational study. Consecutive ICU patients who died after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining therapies. RESULTS: A total of 343 patients in 57 ICUs, 208 (60%) with continuous and deep sedation. A formalized procedure for continuous and deep sedation was available in 32% of the ICUs. Continuous and deep sedation was not the result of a collegial decision-making process in 17% of cases, and did not involve consultation with an external physician in 29% of cases. The most commonly used sedative medicines were midazolam (10 [5-18] mg h-1) and propofol (200 [120-250] mg h -1). The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was -5 in 60% of cases. Analgesia was associated with sedation in 94% of cases. Compared with other end-of-life sedative practices (n = 98), medicines doses were higher with no difference in the depth of sedation. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a poor compliance with the framework for continuous and deep sedation. It highlights the need to formalize it to improve the decision-making process and the match between the intent, the practice and the actual effect.

Ethical considerations in the relief of cancer pain.

The management of pain for patients with cancer and cancer survivors is a critical clinical task that involves a multitude of ethical issues at almost every phase of the cancer experience. This review is divided into three sections: In the first, we address rights and duties in the relief of pain from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health care institutions and organizations, and public policy. This section includes a detailed description of issues and duties in relation to opioid misuse and addiction. In the second section, we discuss the ethical consideration of therapeutic planning. The final section addresses ethical considerations in the management of pain at the end of life including a detailed discussion regarding ethical issues relating to the use of palliative sedation as a clinical intervention of last resort.