Palliative sedation: beliefs and decision-making among Spanish palliative care physicians.

PURPOSE: To describe physician attitudes to deep palliative sedation. METHODS: A nationwide e-survey of Spanish palliative care specialists was performed using vignettes which described patients close to death with intractable symptoms. Sedation levels were defined according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess the explanatory factors involved in decision-making. RESULTS: Responses of 292 palliative care specialists were analyzed (response rate 40%). Ninety-four percent, 87%, and 81% of the respondents supported the use of palliative sedation in cases of irreversible refractory symptoms as hyperactive delirium and dyspnea at rest secondary to lung cancer and GOLD stage IV COPD; 60% agreed with the use of palliative sedation in cases of existential suffering. Logistic regression analysis found as the explanatory factor in not performing palliative sedation the physicians' belief that sedation therapy constitutes undercover euthanasia (OR = 12, p < 0.01). Around 80% of physicians who decided on palliative sedation chose deep/complete sedation for every vignette; there were no common explanatory factors for decision-making for every vignette. The belief that sedation therapy equates to undercover euthanasia justifies not performing deep sedation in cases of irreversible refractory agitated delirium (OR = 7) and irreversible intractable dyspnea (OR = 6). Physician background in palliative care and sedation were associated with the selection of deep/complete sedation in cases of refractory delirium and cancer-associated dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Spanish palliative physicians generally agree with the use of deep sedation as a proportionate treatment in dying patients with refractory symptoms. Decision-making is associated with physician beliefs regarding euthanasia and with the physician's background in palliative care and sedation.

Quality of care in palliative sedation: audit and compliance monitoring of a clinical protocol.

CONTEXT: The European Association for Palliative Care and the U.S. National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization have published statements that recommend an audit of palliative sedation practices. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to assess the feasibility of a quality care project in palliative sedation. METHODS: We carried out an audit of adherence to a guideline regarding palliative sedation, undertaken as a yearly assessment during two years, of a sample of patient charts. With an audit tool, the charts were evaluated as to the presence of the ethical sedation checklist, information that justified palliative sedation, patient and/or family agreement, and the appropriateness of treatment in concordance with the clinical protocol. An educational program and result feedback meetings were used as the implementation strategy. RESULTS: Roughly 25% of the medical charts of patients who died in the palliative care unit were evaluated, 94 in 2007 and 110 in 2008. In 2007 and 2008, 63% and 57% of the patients, respectively, whose median age was 65 years, were sedated, with a median length of two days. The main reason for sedation was agitation concomitant with respiratory failure in roughly 60% and 75% of the cases in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Agreement of the patient/family about sedation was collected from 100% of the cases. The concordance of procedures with the sedation guideline was 100% in both years. CONCLUSION: Our quality-of-care strategy was shown to obtain a higher level of compliance with the palliative sedation guideline for at least two years.